The following comes from a July 13 Orange County Catholic article by Bishop Robert Barron, an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.
There is, in many quarters, increasing concern about the hyper-charged political correctness that has gripped our campuses and other forums of public conversation. Even great works of literature and philosophy – from Huckleberry Finn and Heart of Darkness to, believe it or not, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason – are now regularly accompanied by “trigger warnings” that alert prospective readers to the racism, sexism, homophobia, or classism contained therein. And popping up more and more at our colleges and universities are “safe spaces” where exquisitely sensitive students can retreat in the wake of jarring confrontations with points of view with which they don’t sympathize. My favorite example of this was at Brown University where school administrators provided retreat centers with play-doh, crayons, and videos of frolicking puppies to calm the nerves of their students even before a controversial debate commenced! Apparently even the prospect of public argument sent these students to an updated version of daycare. Of course a paradoxical concomitant of this exaggerated sensitivity to giving offense is a proclivity to aggressiveness and verbal violence; for once authentic debate has been ruled out of court, the only recourse contesting parties have is to some form of censorship or bullying.
There is obviously much that can and should be mocked in all of this, but I won’t go down that road. Instead, I would like to revisit a time when people knew how to have a public argument about the most hotly-contested matters. Though it might come as a surprise to many, I’m talking about the High Middle Ages, when the university system was born. And to illustrate the medieval method of disciplined conversation there is no better candidate than St. Thomas Aquinas. The principal means of teaching in the medieval university was not the classroom lecture, which became prominent only in the 19th century German system of education; rather, it was the quaestio disputata (disputed question), which was a lively, sometimes raucous, and very public intellectual exchange. Though the written texts of Aquinas can strike us today as a tad turgid, we have to recall that they are grounded in these disciplined but decidedly energetic conversations.
If we consult Aquinas’s masterpiece, the Summa Theologiae, we find that he poses literally thousands of questions and that not even the most sacred issues are off the table, the best evidence of which is article three of question two of the first part of the Summa: “utrum Deus sit?” (whether there is a God). If a Dominican priest is permitted to ask even that question, everything is fair game; nothing is too dangerous to talk about. After stating the issue, Thomas then entertains a series of objections to the position that he will eventually take. In many cases, these represent a distillation of real counter-claims and queries that Aquinas would have heard during quaestiones disputatae. But for our purposes, the point to emphasize is that Thomas presents these objections in their most convincing form, often stating them better and more pithily than their advocates could. In proof of this, we note that during the Enlightenment, rationalist philosophes would sometimes take Thomistic objections and use them to bolster their own anti-religious positions. To give just one example, consider Aquinas’s devastatingly convincing formulation of the argument from evil against the existence of God: “if one of two contraries were infinite, the other would be destroyed…but God is called the infinite good. Therefore, if God exists, there would be no evil.” Thomas indeed provides a telling response, but, as stated, that is a darn good argument. Might I suggest that it would help our public discourse immensely if all parties would be willing to formulate their opponents positions as respectfully and convincingly as possible.
Having articulated the objections, Thomas then offers his own magisterial resolution of the matter: “Respondeo dicendum quod… (I respond that it must be said…). One of the more regrettable marks of the postmodern mind is a tendency endlessly to postpone the answer to a question. Take a look at Jacques Derrida’s work for a master class in this technique. And sadly, many today, who want so desperately to avoid offending anyone, find refuge in just this sort of permanent irresolution. But Thomas knew what Chesterton knew, namely that an open mind is like an open mouth, that is, designed to close finally on something solid and nourishing. Finally, having offered his Respondeo, Aquinas returns to the objections and, in light of his resolution, answers them. It is notable that a typical Thomas technique is to find something right in the objector’s position and to use that to correct what he deems to be errant in it.
Throughout this process, in the objections, Respondeos, and answers to objections, Thomas draws on a wide range of sources: the Bible and the Church Fathers of course, but also the classical philosophers Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero, the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides, and the Islamic masters Averroes, Avicenna, and Aviceberon. And he consistently invokes these figures with supreme respect, characterizing Aristotle, for example, as simply “the Philosopher” and referring to Maimonides as “Rabbi Moyses.” It is fair to say that, in substantial ways, Thomas Aquinas disagrees with all of these figures, and yet he is more than willing to listen to them, to engage them, to take their arguments seriously.
What this Thomistic method produces is, in its own way, a “safe space” for conversation, but it is a safe space for adults and not timorous children. Might I modestly suggest that it wouldn’t be a bad model for our present discussion of serious things.
For some people, hearing or reading the plain truth that Vatican II was a valid, authoritative ecumenical council that must be accepted in Catholic faith is a triggering event. In response they post two or three 750 character boxes of confused piety and reactionary invective. Then they need to retreat to their safe spaces in the TLM and reassure each other that the novus ordo Mass is the bane of the Church. When they’re done hyperventilating they come back for more and the cycle is repeated.
Their counterparts are those who eek and squeak like a demon being exorcised at any use or suggestion of Latin, communion on the tongue, ad orientem etc. Their response is to stretch the penumbra of VII over every theological notion or liturgical practice to have emerged since 1964, whether approved or rejected by the “official church” and retreat to banner-bedecked worship spaces surrounded by trendy theologians and newspapers claiming to be Catholic (even when denounced by their ordinaries). Cycle repeats.
Yes, we saw some of that in response to Cardinal Sarah’s mere suggestion that priests try celebrating Mass ad orientem.
No one, prior to Vatican II, would ever have dreamed that the Catholic Church would have the kind of Church, Mass, and Pope, that we have, today. No one knows the future of the Church, either! The prelates all were TOLD by Pope St. John XXIII, (and later, Bl. Paul VI) what he wanted, at the last Council, and were expected to OBEY. This Pope was advised by many, that his ideas were all a mistake– but he did not agree! The Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation of the Holy Office (later re-named the “Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith”) totally opposed his Pope, all the way, and never changed, to his dying day! That’s the way it goes!
I know what you mean Tom Byrne. I was in a department store with my daughter several years ago and was admiring a beautiful hat on display. My daughter told me that she would buy it if I would wear it. I told her I would so she bought it. I wore it to church, and a women usher said to me was, “We do not have to cover our heads any more because of our freedoms.” I was puzzled as to what “our freedoms” had anything to do with wearing a hat. Later I learned about the discussion concerning women’s head coverings.
After delivering his usual Wednesday address today, Pope Benedict XVI explained his recent decision to lift the excommunications on four bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. The Pope said he hopes the bishops will respond to his decision by accepting his authority and the teachings of Vatican II.
“I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by a prompt commitment on their part to take the further steps necessary to achieve full communion with the Church, thus showing true faithfulness to, and true recognition of, the Magisterium and authority of the Pope and of Vatican Council II,” Pope Benedict said.
Pope Benedict XVI was a man who knew how to have a public, adult argument.
Well, this quote appears to be from some time ago, regarding 2009 decree of PBXVI, so that should be noted when citing the pope in this matter.
The rest of the 3/10/09 decree is noteworthy for the many who like to plow the backs (Ps 129:3) of the SSPX, indeed, of all trad Catholics:
‘And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”
BXVI is also a man who knows how to have a public argument while unfortunately having to cater to those in positions of authority with a penchant to elevate a pastoral council to the level of super dogma.
We did indeed have star representation of just such overreach on the post about Cardinal Sarah. Pastoral isn’t doctrinal. Suggestion is not mandate.
Sadly, many prefer to take snippets out of context, just like the notion that adherence to Vatican II somehow excludes accepting the reality that that particular council was, quite emphatically, a pastoral one that sought to define no new doctrine.
So let us all learn. Not pretend that wholesale acceptance of a confusion of giving a particular council more import than what it…
…deserves in truth.
Simply wrong. Again. Vatican II may indeed be a pastoral council, but its documents contain doctrines and dogmas that had ALREADY been defined in the past. That obliterates your false point that V2 didn’t “define dogma” (well, of course it didn’t define new ones because the dogmas in V2 were already defined!) SO much of that nonsense is in your posts and many others. It’s really a smokescreen people if you think about it.
The truth is that adherence to all the documents of the Second Vatican Council–and to all the doctrines contained therein, all of which have been previously defined already–is called for among ALL CATHOLICS. Your beloved SSPX have no legal ministry in the Church because of that very reality: they refuse…
… to acknowledge all the documents of the Council.
To your point that the Council is confusing? I will respond this way. Have you actually even read any of it completely? If you haven’t, you have to ground to say that it is confusing. I have read them, they’re not confusing to me.
That is why upholding the defined dogma and doctrine that came before VII is a perfectly acceptable position, jon. You get confused about who and what I consider “beloved” because of your own dogged bias.
And sorry, in light of your posts here, any assurance that you find the documents clear is only further testimony of your obvious confusion and that inherent in VII documents.
God bless you in your pursuits, but you are sadly misguided.
You will be 100% correct if you uphold the defined dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Please do so. Obey the precepts too. Please.
Yes, Anonymous, please do!
Ann, if you don’t accept Vatican II you don’t have Catholic faith. It was an ecumenical council; it was an act of the extraordinary universal magisterium. Don’t try to hide behind the word “pastoral” to describe the council. There was a dogmatic constitution on the Church: one of the most authoritative types of documents the Church can issue. The documents received approval of the bishops and confirmation from the Holy Father. All the requirements for a universal magisterial act were met. If you don’t accept VII, you don’t accept the fullness of the Catholic magisterium. You must accept the documents as authoritative or you are not in full communion with the Church.
Sawyer, you need to look to Pope Francis. He knows full well that a certain group only accepts VII as a pastoral council as do I. Again, don’t try to hide your love of ambiguity behind a sand-bag orthodoxy.
That’s exactly why you find yourself in shocking agreement at times with jon and YFC. Again, a disturbing trend of yours. One that bespeaks of a root cause.
Look to it. For while you vociferously assert others have splinters in their eyes, you dismiss the beam in your own.
As for, “Don’t try to hide behind the word “pastoral” to describe the council.” How is it hiding to accept that a validly held council was only a pastoral council when that is what it claimed to be?
Such people abandoned the Church and her teachings long ago in their hearts, quite apparent because the fruit of the Spirit is replaced by nothing but vitriol and hatred.
But somehow their feet haven’t caught up to the truth yet.
Dave N.– Maybe some of our Cardinals and bishops, also abandoned the True Church, long ago– like McElroy, Cupich, and Marx, for example!
She’s not in communion with the Church at all, of course. She is a schismatic.
I’m getting that impression too.
That is because you overstep the authority that you “say” you uphold, Sawyer. But go ahead and agree with the ad hominems of “schismatic”. Again, says everything about your ability to reason through an actual argument.
Ann, you don’t deny the assertions. You evade direct questions when asked to respond to them, which lends credence to believing the assertions about you. Why won’t you answer direct questions about whether you accept Vatican II’s validity and authority? Do you think Pope Francis is a valid pope?
You won’t answer questions that would put what you say are incorrect conclusions about you to rest, then you scold people who believe what is increasingly a reasonable opinion about you based on your evasiveness and refusal to clearly affirm all magisterial acts in Catholic history, especially the most recent ones.
Schismatic is not necessarily an ad hominem; it could be an accurate description. Why don’t you put that to rest once and…
Sawyer, I’ve already told you that I accept VII as a pastoral council and hold to Catholic doctrine as it was previously clarified prior to that council. As that council, authoritatively, was declared to define no new doctrine, it is you who has the fixation.
As for putting to rest the charge of schismatic, I have long ago. I have with you, too. You need to read. A “schismatic” wouldn’t call Pope Francis, Pope Francis.
Again, your zeal is wonderful, but requires restraint and proper guidance if you want to be effective. Covering for that which you do not know by charging others with imagined sin is not helpful. It undermines your otherwise valid points.
My dear mother met my father, a few months prior to her seventeenth birthday, and they fell madly in love! A couple of weeks after her seventeenth birthday, the two were married– and their marriage lasted for close to seven decades– until my dad passed away!
Okay, Ann, I accept those reassurances and am willing to bury the hatchet. That was the most direct you have been.
I think you and I would agree that VII has to be interpreted in a way consistent with Tradition, not contrary to it.
Where we might disagree is about whether VII was prudent and whether its fruits have been positive or negative on the balance.
I think the fruits of VII are immature, but will eventually be quite positive for the Church, and that the Church will learn from VII that ambiguity in conciliar texts is not wise. I don’t think VII was a disaster nor regrettable, as some traditionalist Catholics do. Prudent openness to the modern world is necessary for effective evangelization. VII was a step; the Church may…
…the Church may stumble in attempting to engage the modern world effectively, but the Holy Spirit will guide her toward improving. The Church is indefectible, after all.
I also think the NO Mass was a positive idea from VII and is not going to go away, as some traditionalist Catholics hope. The initial implementation was flawed, the NO missal will need some continued improvement, and the general character of NO celebrations of Mass will need to improve, but that is an example of what I consider VII’s immature fruit that, when it matures, will yield many positive things for the Church and her engagement with the modern world.
This website is DEVIANT– they did not print my original posts, only the final one, about my folks!! Anyway- it is UNKIND of Anonymous to write such HATE SPEECH in posts to a nice, decent, devout, lifelong Catholic lady, like me, calling me “schismatic” and “not in communion with the Church!” This so-called “Catholic” website should NOT publish such HATE SPEECH, seeking to brutally HARM its own devout Catholics! I am so glad my poor, widowed, 87-year-old mother, has no computer fluency, to perhaps try writing a post, and then get savagely attacked, by these MONSTERS!!
Thank you for sharing, Linda Maria. And thank your parents for sharing with you and those around them the wonderful example of love and fidelity that too many don’t understand today. Or even think real.
My folks were married for 65 years.
Bless you, Ann Malley! LOVE all of your wonderful posts! My folks were married for 68 years!
A schismatic is someone who refuses submission to the Pope or who refuses communion with those who are in the Catholic Church, the one united with the Pope. Not the ones that call themselves Catholic but refuse submission to the Pope.. No one called you a schismatic, Linda Marie. Please calm down
“…I think the fruits of VII are immature, but will eventually be quite positive for the Church, and that the Church will learn from VII that ambiguity in conciliar texts is not wise.”
Sawyer, the fruit of ambiguous seeds, especially in consiliar texts, is ambiguity. This is why it is critical to not feign offense when Catholics rightfully review VII’s “pastoral” documents, much like we are having to review AL for clarity with regard to binding Catholic teaching.
Embracing VII is to accept what it is. And the reality that that which is ambiguous in it is not binding. Rather such phrasing is intentionally misleading. Same thing with sketchy reference to conscience and footnotes that are explained by +Schonborn as meaning…
… adultery is now not adultery somehow.
Until we look to resolving these critical deviations, we’ll continue to move off course. For the hermeneutic of continuity was officially smashed when the Oath Against Modernism was abrogated.
That’s as clear as I can get with you, Sawyer. But that’s what I’ve been saying all along. Let’s try listening to each other moving forward.
So well put. Thank you, Bishop Barron!
It seems from this that in Bishop Robert Barron we have a very thoughtful cleric. Much needed.
Bo. Barron is in charge of Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. This brings his spree of influence influence over St. John´s Seminary. If Bp. Barron would only start teaching Latin in seminary again I would be a happy man. I always thought priests have to be a cut above laymen, so if they know Latin and scholastics they will continue to teach us the Way. Remember, Latin makes the Catholic priest.
This is the same bishop that says: “we have a reasonable hope that all men are saved!”
Sawyer, You wrote that Father Matthews should “get real” on the very same day that you made a very weak excuse for another type of serious confusion. Sacred Scripture “gets real” about the many souls who are in hell, yet, you responded, “Nobody’s perfect” to Bob. Well then, no unity or consistency at Tower of Babel Masses, or catechesis, because after all, Sawyer says, “Nobody’s perfect.” = A permission slip for confusion.
Matthew 5:48 Douay-Rheims
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
“Nobody’s perfect” was in reference to Bishop Barron’s statements about the possibility of universal salvation.
Bishop Barron is a very good evangelizer and catechist, but he’s not perfect in his work. Nobody is.
Sawyer, Nobody is perfect but Sacred Scripture IS! This is God’s revealed truth as taught and upheld by the Magisterium. Sawyer, Do you realize that you are now essentially saying that as long as many people don’t realize the erring confusion that Bishop Barron causes on some very important subjects, he (Bishop Barron) then makes up for those huge pc seeking blunders by getting other specific teachings right. Please read the article below that conveys the dangerous territory you are defending. Christ died for his sheep, yet YOU want them, to settle for much less. Sorry Sawyer, but you’ve just dropped the ball.
Father Barron and the Bomb – The American Catholic – Post by Greg Mockerridge
“I placed this problem within the larger context of the problematic conduct of many prominent orthodox Catholics. This is something that has been a deep source of pain for me for many years. These people have garnered popularity for being committed to the truth.To be sure, many of these same people have done great work in that regard.
“And that is what makes their betrayal of the truth on serious matters like this all the more harmful. This problem is only compounded by the indifference of orthodox Catholics who are either their colleagues or those who look up to them.”
“In Luke 6:26, Our Lord warns “Woe to you when all men speak well of you…”. He doesn’t qualify that with, “Unless those men are in Church circles.” It is a warning we cannot fail to heed, especially in the times within which we live. If we are not willing to hold fellow Catholics to a Catholic standard, we have no business holding the world to it.”
Sawyer,neither was an apostle that hung himself.
And, thank God for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I cannot imagine the works of Aristotle or Aquinas, in the hands of unstable, immoral, irrational “leftist liberals!” Such people detest reason and morality! At a school, knowledge in courses is supposed to be based on objective, fact-based reasoning, not on crazy, irrational, emotional hype and prejudice! The pathway to knowledge, is scholarly, tedious, exacting, and disciplined. No one likes the subject matter, in plays like “Oedipus Rex,” or reading the life story of someone like King Henry VIII, with the murder of his wives, and St. Thomas More. However— the professor is supposed to explain the historical background of the material, and everyone should read it, objectively. I will continue…
I will continue, with my above post. So, America should “wake up,” and get rid of all her immature, “leftist liberal social activists”— especially, in teachers and administrators of our schools and universities– and return to giving students a good classical education! Later, when one is full-grown and mature, with a good education and disciplined thinking– one will now be able to offer of their talents and training, to the world, to help make the world a better place!
A classical education teaches a child to think and reason, not recite “officially” approved ideology. To include twisting Church teaching to advocate for a particular agenda of nuanced ambiguity.
What, exactly, do you mean Linda Maria, by ” ‘get rid of’ all her immature, leftist liberal social activists”. What exactly does that mean? Who is supposed to do it? What methods are they supposed to employ to do so?
YFC– It may help, as a starting point, read the tragic history of poor Fr. Fessio’s brave effort, along with several fellow Jesuits, to save the traditional classical liberal arts curriculum, at USF. I the 1960’s, with the hippie movement, and the radical social activist movements in the U.S.- many American university leaders suddenly became liberal, “hippie-type” leftist social activist themselves- and desired to turn all American schools into “liberal social activist hippie-style schools,” too! They stated that they wanted to “erase the past” and “kill Western Civilization, with its European-derived history, art, literature, and culture, etc.”– I will continue…
So, anyway– brave Fr. Fessio, and some of his fellow Jesuits, and others in secular universities– all tried to save their schools– but couldn’t! Instead, they were all extremely persecuted, and fired! There is much more to this, but I will simplify it, here– no space to write! So– basically, these “liberal leftist reformers” felt that the classical liberal arts education was no longer “relevant,” and they all wanted a big “leftist-style” revolution– to erase European-derived Western Civilization, and its traditional classical education! I have shortened this– but you can read much more, for yourself!
I recall, in the 1960’s, arguing with a priest who was a college professor, who was trying to tell me and others, that Aquinas was no longer “relevant,” and a big waste of time, and he did not want to teach Aquinas anymore. He next got a “fashionable” PhD., in Protestant theology! Funny! I told him that day, with several friends, that Aristotle and Aquinas are BASICS of all Western Civilization, and they are MIGHTY GIANTS, in their fields! You have an obligation, whether you like the Catholic Church or not– to teach the great works of these GIANTS, in college classes!
Linda Maria, I asked you a very specific set of questions trying to understand what you meant by 3 words in your prior post. Instead of answering the question, you treated us all to another multi-part rant. Why can’t you just answer the question, what EXACTLY did you mean when you wrote, ” ‘get rid of’ all her immature, leftist liberal social activists”.
These are PEOPLE. You want to get rid of PEOPLE. What do you mean by that?
YFC– I DID answer your questions, but I do not think you wanted to hear the answer! The answer, YFC, is very simple! Are you interested in making a better Nation and a better Church?? Well, what do you say is needed– to produce good future leaders, of our Church and country?? Have DEVIANT schools, like the Jesuit USF and Notre Dame- with professors who are immoral “leftist-liberals,” who promote radical feminism, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, etc. etc.?? I think America– and our Church– needs to get rid of such bad academic leadership, don’t you? Very simple!
YFC– the famed UN Secretary-General and Nobel Prize winner, Dag Hammarskjold, who died in a mysterious plane crash, in 1961– was a CHASTE man, deeply religious, (and privately– a homosexual!) and he was honored by President Kennedy, as being the most outstanding statesman, of the 20th century! Excellent world leader, I am sure you will agree, YFC!!
What specifically are your fears, YFC? Perhaps if you shared what you’re projecting others may better understand your excitement.
Goodness knows that solid, believing Catholics have been steadily gotten rid of in academic circles. Or persecuted at the very least. Perhaps the purging of that which is anti-Catholic from inside the Church and institutions that claim to be Catholic could take that form.
…or is that what stirs your passions? Fear of being treated in like manner. And while the Left often forgets that their opposition are real PEOPLE, not everyone operates the way they do.
When Father Barron first presented his landmark video “Catholicism” via his “Word on Fire” ministry, it marked a new and fresh approach to teaching the Faith – both to Catholics and the Non-Catholic world.
It is an excellent teaching tool and its well crafted video and explanations blended in to a very professional and easy to follow lesson plan – which I still admire.
That the tool, like now Bishop Barron, is not perfect – is itself an example of not letting the perfect interfere with the Good. I sympathize in many respects, lacking perfection and striving for Good none the less myself.
As for “Reasonable Hope” – I too Hope, and as for whether that is reasonable or not, I suggest reasonable minds may differ. I know Barron…
I know Bishop Barron takes a lot of flack for his position, and I submit that this stimulates discussion about a subject we all should think more about…
And that this Is Good – if not quite perfect. Ahem & Amen.
Michael McDermott, Have you been sandbagging the readers with your many blustery posts about the deadly dangers of the “gaystapo’ and it’s diseases? It looks like Toto is pulling away the curtain. This is not about anyone being perfect. It IS about accountability to upholding Revealed TRUTH, not opinions. Homosexualizing activists are also capable of doing good in certain areas so by your latest standards, be consistent by saying.”Nobody’s perfect so let’s not hold Bishop Barron or anyone else for that matter to hearing the standard known as Revealed TRUTH. You’ve lost credibility with a blustering inconsistency.
Rarely do I respond to ad hominem personal attacks – and I will not directly Catherine, save to say that I am quite familiar with the subject of Bishop Barron and his critics, particularly Michael Voris of Church Militant – who has his own past to account for.
The Gaystapo Is Evil – but Bishop Barron is neither perfect nor evil, and he has made some strong arguments in favor of his position on the “Reasonable Hope of Salvation”.
I have read quite a lot of both sides of the discussion – and admittedly I give Barron the benefit of the doubt in many aspects because of how Impressed I was with his Catholicism Series and the Word on Fire program.
However – I do not as yet feel certain enough to denounce the Bishop or Fully Endorse…
I do not as yet feel certain enough to denounce the Bishop or Fully Endorse… His assertions.
This is one of those times where I differentiate between my own personal code of conduct (which I am nowhere near properly upholding in all circumstance – hence the need for regular Confession myself) and the statement of Pope Francis on ‘Who am I to Judge’ – in itself ‘slightly controversial’, Ahem.
In essence – Unlike Murder and other Mortal Sins, I am not willing to pull the plug on those Trying under the Reasonable Belief Clause – because Truly I do believe it above my pay grade – albeit a Standard I Hope to Exceed.
That obtuse enough for all:
Thank you, Michael McDermott for your thoughtful response. The “reasonable hope” distraction reminds me of all of the “hopeful” parents who unreasonably want to believe that their children will all receive full ride scholarships and all be superstar pro athletes, when in reality their children might possess zero ability. It is cruel for a parent to ill prepare their children because of a reality that they find painful. Today everyone wins the top prize trophy just for participating. IOW Bishop Barron and others still question Jesus’s reasonability when Jesus, (“dark” as this TRUTH may sound) ALREADY clarified HIS POSITION. 2 Peter 2:4 – Psalm 9:17
On the rare occasions that I agree with Mr. McDermott, which I do here, I have to stop, go have a glass of water, clean my glasses, and make sure that I read his name and his post correctly. It’s nice to be able to agree once in a while – well said, Mr. McDermott!
“YFC”, having read many of your posts, I believe you are in need of spiritual clarity. Maybe this breakthrough of agreeing with Michael McDermott is a first step for you. God Bless you on your journey.
Pardon me, Michael McDermott, but I think a detected a slight error in your comment on Bp. Barron—“flack” is misspelled, horrors. :o
“Flak” is an acronym from my native Deutschland for “Flieg-abwehr-kanone” –“flight air cannon”, F-L-A-K.
I knew you would want to know, so as to maintain your usual high level of sophisticated pun-punctuated punditry and exact excellent spelling :) .
S: The 60s series “12 O’ Clock High’, about B-17 missions in WW-2 is back on TV.
I knew some former Airmen (SF Firemen / WW-2 Veterans – libeled by former judge Hall Patel in the ‘swastika incident’ – for using symbols of their defeated foe in a ribald skit about Risking Their Lives to Defeat the homo-nazi reich)…
– Targeted to cover up Misconduct by ‘inspectors’ who used a staged racist hoax to cover up for Falsifying Safety Inspections; & thus Understand FLAK.
However – Flack in English also refers to media hacks who deliver or receive politically un-good publicity barrages; hence it is also appropriate usage here – albeit employing different cannons for delivery – with or without ’emojis’
Producing Dirty Air is…
…Producing Dirty Air is the least harm from FLAK – whereas creating Dirty Air is usually the main purpose of the Flack Hacks of ‘our’ bought and paid for (often with the Lives & Health of Vets) lamesteam media..
Hope that soothes some emojis out there – or am I still gonna take further Flak over Flacks?
Ah. Well, then, with regard to the media flak, just remember, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not flack.” (New “Word on Fire” Translation)
How self-revealing an article. Mother Angelica did NOT serve a historical legacy. She served God. As one commenter wrote, “She was not nuanced because her yes, meant yes, and her no meant no.” I am still very hopeful that one day Bishop Barron will publicly apologize for writing, as one commenter wrote, such hurtful and snarky comments. Let us lovingly help Bishop Barron by helping him to understand that he publicly sounded more like a jealous competitor of legacies than a bishop who unites with truth and pastoral love.
Catherine – I don’t want you angry at my response on this “How to Have a Public Argument’ / Discussion thread because – as Best I Understand It – the central issue for Pope Francis and Bishop Barron is not a Static – You Have Arrived (at Salvation) – but whether you are Moving Towards a Reasonable Hope of Salvation
I know anonymous (Paid?) Trolls – want to divorce Reasonable Hope from the concept of Not Yet Having Arrived but Needing Further Effort to Move Towards…
This is a Tough Issue, and would that I could Believe So Absolutely as I do in the Divinity of Our Lord or the Mortal Sin of Murder
But I have Not Yet Arrived – and engaging in the Debate is part of My Journey
Thus – I ask help from You And Faithful Others…
I hear you, Michael McDermott. I am not angry with you and I certainly do not want to assist the paid trolls. Yes, I also believe they are paid. Thank you for your much needed male leadership in exposing evil and dangerous myths. Thank you, also, for your kind teaching response.
You have borne false witness Catherine.
“Dearly ‘Anonymous’ I usually scroll past the ‘anonymous / phony screen name’ posters here as a waste of time, but yours struck a chord with me – although in truth I couldn’t carry a tune in a basket.” – Michael McDermott Quote
The 9 Ways of Being an Accessory to Another’s Sin
The Path to Hell is Paved with the Skulls of Bishops: 8 Quotes and Sources
I think Catherine post was just written poorly. She may not have intended to commit false witness. I think she just left some of her thoughts out and did not give the exact quote that she was criticizing.
I find nowhere that Bishop Barron said that Mother Angelica served a historical legacy. Mother Angelica is not even named in the article here. I think that contributed to the confusion.
The Spiritual Legacy of Mother Angelica – By Bishop Robert Barron
Mother Angelica wasn’t perfect—and she would be the first to admit it. Due to her lack of polish and advanced theological education, she sometimes said things that were insufficiently nuanced and balanced. And her hot temper, which gave fire to her evangelization, also at times led her to indulge in ad hominem attacks and unfair characterizations of her opponents’ positions.
But these are quibbles. When Church historians write their accounts of the years immediately following Vatican II, Rita Rizzo of Canton, Ohio, Mother Angelica, will find a very honored place.= Quibbles or “perfect” show of ladder climbing solidarity.
“…Due to her lack of polish and advanced theological education, she sometimes said things that were insufficiently nuanced and balanced.”
Unfortunately what passes for “advanced” theological education is much of the problem today. That and being too nuanced and demonstrably imbalanced toward compromise for the sake of temporal advancement.
Ladder-climbing solidarity is the word and much of what is taught under the guise of not being able to do “good” unless you do what it takes to reach the heights of “power”. Unfortunately, the required compromises and or endorsement of ambiguity doesn’t leave a body unaffected on that climb.
That’s why, in the political sphere, the idealistic young Senator who does good is often…
That’s why, in the political sphere, the idealistic young Senator who does good is often relegated to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and happy recollections of Jimmy Stewart. The reason? All that zeal and justification gets worn off in the climb.
Thanks for the observation, Catherine.
You’re welcome, Ann. Without uncompromising, holy, prudent, and faithful leadership, many souls are also in grave danger of falling off of cliffs.
We have one California lead shepherd soft-selling Sacred Scripture regarding hell when it is well known that human nature gravitates to loopholes. We have another California lead shepherd trying to eliminate truthful words from the catechism regarding homosexuality. Then we have another California lead shepherd, recently shown, in the local newspaper, swooning in a high school Guys and Dolls play and now being shown all over Facebook capturing Pokemon on Christ Cathedral’s lawn.
Where are Christ’s faithful leaders? Christians, all over the world are being terrorized, persecuted and beheaded for their faith. In the wake of all the horrific tragedies taking place, even Obama was forced to admit that it looked terrible for him to go golfing after journalist, James Foley was beheaded. Robert H. Schuller must be rolling over in his grave.
2 California men fall off edge of ocean bluff while playing ‘Pokemon Go’
Please Scroll down https://twitter.com/OCBishop
Thanks for posting the link to the OC twitter with the prayer to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.