Bishop Robert Barron and The Word on Fire Organization

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Gold Member
What doctrine are you referencing, specifically?

Nostra aetate. I've been on the forums for a while but this is my first time digging through this subsection (largely because Vatican II research is causing a bit of a crisis for me and my wife). Please link or respond with any good commentary on it, here or elsewhere. It's appreciated.

I've seen nostra aetate manifest in ceremonies with other religions, statements about how we shouldn't convert Jews because the Old Covenant is eternal, etc. There is certainly non-Catholic behavior that overlaps with Catholic teaching (e.g. helping the poor) and to the extent it does overlap it should be praised, but the post-VCII Church makes no effort to lead others towards the true path, or even say publicly to those with other beliefs that there is a true path. Is this Vatican II itself, the implementation of it, or did Vatican II just open the doors for these "everything is equal" beliefs to take root?

Anecdotally, after confirmation, I started attending Mass in Europe where I was living at the time. The walk to the church took me past a location where groups of homeless and heroin addicts always huddled. It was impossible to miss for anyone going to the church. The "welcome packet" I received from the Church in the mail a few days later was a donation packet for Syrian Muslim refugees coming to Germany, along with how to make sure church tax was deducted from my paychecks. It always struck me as mirroring the secular/globohomo approach -- neglecting your neighbors in front of you and ultimately harming them, in order to save face with non-believers.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Nostra aetate. I've been on the forums for a while but this is my first time digging through this subsection (largely because Vatican II research is causing a bit of a crisis for me and my wife). Please link or respond with any good commentary on it, here or elsewhere. It's appreciated.

I've seen nostra aetate manifest in ceremonies with other religions, statements about how we shouldn't convert Jews because the Old Covenant is eternal, etc. There is certainly non-Catholic behavior that overlaps with Catholic teaching (e.g. helping the poor) and to the extent it does overlap it should be praised, but the post-VCII Church makes no effort to lead others towards the true path, or even say publicly to those with other beliefs that there is a true path. Is this Vatican II itself, the implementation of it, or did Vatican II just open the doors for these "everything is equal" beliefs to take root?

Anecdotally, after confirmation, I started attending Mass in Europe where I was living at the time. The walk to the church took me past a location where groups of homeless and heroin addicts always huddled. It was impossible to miss for anyone going to the church. The "welcome packet" I received from the Church in the mail a few days later was a donation packet for Syrian Muslim refugees coming to Germany, along with how to make sure church tax was deducted from my paychecks. It always struck me as mirroring the secular/globohomo approach -- neglecting your neighbors in front of you and ultimately harming them, in order to save face with non-believers.
It sounds like you're seeing the "Spirit of V2" and using it to condemn the entire council. If I recall correctly, Nostra Aetate does NOT say that we should NOT convert the Jews. However, it was taken as such by the masses. I'm open to be proven wrong.

The traditional missal still prays for the conversion of Jews on Good Friday.

I could send over days worth of content, but if you're having a crisis of faith, you need to start talking with a priest and not randoms on the internet. Are you attending a traditional parish? Do you have a priest you can trust?
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
It sounds like you're seeing the "Spirit of V2" and using it to condemn the entire council. If I recall correctly, Nostra Aetate does NOT say that we should NOT convert the Jews. However, it was taken as such by the masses. I'm open to be proven wrong.

The traditional missal still prays for the conversion of Jews on Good Friday.

I could send over days worth of content, but if you're having a crisis of faith, you need to start talking with a priest and not randoms on the internet. Are you attending a traditional parish? Do you have a priest you can trust?
With respect redbeard, the actual document Nostra Aetate is full of ecumenical, religious-liberty-speak, at complete variance to the historical, unchanging, crystal clear Church faith. Would the Apostolic fathers of the past have uttered lines like:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems."

"Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle."

www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Compare this with:

“…the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism.” Pope Pius XI's 1928 Decree "Cum Supremae"

But I would like to study your position more in-depth, can you share some links to arguments that it was not a heretical council. Please know I'm speaking from Christian love, and not in the name of pride.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Gold Member
With respect redbeard, the actual document Nostra Aetate is full of ecumenical, religious-liberty-speak, at complete variance to the historical, unchanging, crystal clear Church faith. Would the Apostolic fathers of the past have uttered lines like:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems."

"Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle."

www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Compare this with:

“…the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism.” Pope Pius XI's 1928 Decree "Cum Supremae"

But I would like to study your position more in-depth, can you share some links to arguments that it was not a heretical council. Please know I'm speaking from Christian love, and not in the name of pride.
My take is that quotes from the council are taken way out of proportion to justify division within the Church. Are you a sedevecantist?
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
My take is that quotes from the council are taken way out of proportion to justify division within the Church. Are you a sedevecantist?
Yes, sir. I knew I could never be a Left/progressive Catholic so I was in the Semi-Trad camp of Athanasius Schneider, Vigano, Taylor Marshall for a while. But "Recognize and Resist" just seemed too contradictory a theological position to take. You can't have papal infallibility and apostasy/heresy at the same time. I just wanted the unchanging, perfect Catholic faith that hadn't changed from the beginning. I know a very devout sede priest who is a spiritual advisor. He passed me some Catechisms to study and we are Zoom calling tomorrow.

Everyone jumps on Francis, but he's at least more open about his heresy than someone like Benedict XVI or JPII who are very much in the same ecumenical spirit as Francis and trick people into thinking they are "Trads".

Yours in Christ
 

roger808

Chicken
I second @lskdfjldsf (sorry, I did not see that he'd already responded. noob.) . I'm looking forward to his answer to @redbeard, but my own answer is that they don't specify and in fact, often enough they refuse to. It seems to be a general strategy that is in full swing today. Didn't the joint statement signed by Pope Francis in Abu Dhabi say something to the affect of: "The pluralism and diversity of religions" [1+1=2, but also 1+1=3 and 1+1=4], ... "willed by God in His wisdom"

 

roger808

Chicken
@redbeard . I would say I'm in the same position as @lskdfjldsf . I was going to a fairly middle-of-the road church before covid, but when things closed down, the dispensations started up, my wife refused to go. At that point I started going to a traditional church because it was the most open. I completely understand if you don't want to get into it with @Fenaroli because absolutely any debate online can turn into too much, but as someone that is on the edge, my view is that the reluctance to engage is allowing plenty of converts for the sedevacantists. In saying this I'm not putting any onus on you alone. I've talked to a traditional priest and to a catechist at our diocese. It's somewhat helpful at best. The priest mostly just listened. The catechists was defensive and horrified and gave me a verbal wall of text. It leaves me with the impression that there is no good answer.

On the plus side, I don't think there has to be an immediate answer. My mid-term position is mostly one of agnosticism about the papacy. Frankly if I've decided to mostly only study pre-1950 materials and saints why dive headlong into any analysis of what is going on. Meanwhile, I will appreciate the Pope Pius XI reference above since it has the advantage (over V2) of both censuring hate, yet denouncing all but the true faith. This seems to be the clarity we've lost. And what did we gain?
 
Can anyone help me navigate this man and his business the "word on fire" ministry. Is it any good? His face and look disturb me on a gut level. There's something self satisfied / mocking in his eyes and he's extremely "slick" looking. More like a CEO than a priest. But that's only my impression from looking at him / listening to a couple of his videos. Am I being too harsh? Is this a stupid prima facie assessment?

I'm asking because a friend of mine is big into him and the products his company produces.
Not at all, his theology is misguided at best and I'm hoping it's not intentional. If your a Dan Crenshaw/Ben Shapiro type Republican you may fall for him as he tries to appear to be on the devout side but be weary of Priests like this.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Gold Member
@redbeard . I would say I'm in the same position as @lskdfjldsf . I was going to a fairly middle-of-the road church before covid, but when things closed down, the dispensations started up, my wife refused to go. At that point I started going to a traditional church because it was the most open. I completely understand if you don't want to get into it with @Fenaroli because absolutely any debate online can turn into too much, but as someone that is on the edge, my view is that the reluctance to engage is allowing plenty of converts for the sedevacantists. In saying this I'm not putting any onus on you alone. I've talked to a traditional priest and to a catechist at our diocese. It's somewhat helpful at best. The priest mostly just listened. The catechists was defensive and horrified and gave me a verbal wall of text. It leaves me with the impression that there is no good answer.

On the plus side, I don't think there has to be an immediate answer. My mid-term position is mostly one of agnosticism about the papacy. Frankly if I've decided to mostly only study pre-1950 materials and saints why dive headlong into any analysis of what is going on. Meanwhile, I will appreciate the Pope Pius XI reference above since it has the advantage (over V2) of both censuring hate, yet denouncing all but the true faith. This seems to be the clarity we've lost. And what did we gain?
I have no time to argue with those who are in schism with the Church. My 5 second take is that most people are using sedevacantism as a coping mechanism against liberal opinions propagated in the Church. I can hear the sedes cracking their fingers getting ready to reply to this, but that's as far as I'll go.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
I have no time to argue with those who are in schism with the Church. My 5 second take is that most people are using sedevacantism as a coping mechanism against liberal opinions propagated in the Church. I can hear the sedes cracking their fingers getting ready to reply to this, but that's as far as I'll go.
I have the time.

My summary complaint with the "semi-trads" (SSPX, FSSP, Schneider, Vigano, Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, Tim Gordon etc) is they appear to want the external fineries of the Catholic faith (Latin, proper Altars, Rites, Conservative politics, large trad families, Communion on tongue - all basic requirements or external consequences of the Catholic faith) but refuse to address the elephant in the room which is the poisonous bile of ecumenism and outright heresy from that accursed council Vatican II.

I don't recall Athanasius the Great being afraid of being called a schismatic despite being completely outnumbered and outresourced by the Arians. "They have the buildings, we have the faith"

But I most humbly add, I do not seek to condemn the people but the theology, I want everyone to be saved and I must (according to Christian charity) point out error.
 
Last edited:

Fenaroli

Sparrow
My advice to anyone flirting with schism is to pray, pray, & pray, then ask yourself if you really have the theological prowess & canon law education to make the decision if the Pope should be anathema.

Oh, and read this: https://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/faq-sedevacantism-general-response

To sum the link up, they are saying:

"The Catholic response is that to believe this is to believe that Our Lord's promise to be with His Church until the end of time and protect Her from conquest by the Gates of Hell was a lie. Since Our Lord cannot lie, sedevacantist claims must be false. If the conclusion to sedevacantist arguments is false, then the premises which support that conclusion must be deficient, i.e., unable to prove their conclusion."

I don't agree with this conclusion because there is no church document that I am aware of stating that an empty papal chair indicates that God has abandoned his Church. It just means that there's no Pope for the time being. Did God abandon his Church every time a Pope passed away? Of course not. Did we suddenly lose our unchanging faith? Of course not. The Holy Ghost is still present with the Catholic Church and always will be till the Second coming. Everything that happens does so because God willed it.

I would be very wary of Michael Voris and his so-called "Church Militant" (a very specific Catholic term for the faithful here on Earth which he co-opted for his media organization). He appears to be Opus Dei, which has been labelled a cult by some. For me, the fact that they side with the false pope is enough to dismiss them.

E Michael Jones (who is no sede) did a vicious expose on Voris as well, but I can't seem to find the book.
 
Last edited:

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Gold Member
My summary complaint with the "semi-trads" (SSPX, FSSP, Schneider, Vigano, Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, Tim Gordon etc) is they appear to want the external fineries of the Catholic faith (Latin, proper Altars, Rites, Conservative politics, large trad families, Communion on tongue - all basic requirements or external consequences of the Catholic faith) but refuse to address the elephant in the room which is the poisonous bile of ecumenism and outright heresy from that accursed council Vatican II.

This has been my experience speaking with priests about my concerns (one "mainstream" parish, one traditional). The greater concern seems to be the potential for schism within the Church rather than whether or not the issues at hand are heretical.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
The greater concern seems to be the potential for schism within the Church rather than whether or not the issues at hand are heretical.
I think that shows the major issue that's dividing the semi-trads from sedes. The semi-trads want to be as "trad" as possible and take delight in revealing all the basic pre-Vatican II customs to newcomers/lapsed Catholics who've never seen a pre-Vat II Catechism, which lay out all these essentially standard Catholic beliefs and customs in an easy to read Q&A format.

Heresy is not pedantic wrangling or "Jewish" lawyering (I know it's not you saying that) . It's an extremely serious, grave sin that infuriates God and offends him. It's the reason Catechisms are so detailed with their explanations and exegesis. The Church wants you to know exactly every aspect of the faith at a deep level, so you don't commit error at any point. It's true Christian Charity, they want to make sure you get to Heaven.

So if you're super "trad" on the surface with your Latin, your large Catholic family, daily rosary, Communion on the tongue (which wouldn't matter because the whole mass was invalid anyway) but still accept the blatant heresy of Vatican II with it's ecumenism and it's false head, Mr. Bergoglio (stage name "Pope" Francis), you've committed the real schism of the faith which absolutely enrages God.

The Catholic faith has not changed in 2,000 years except with Vatican II. It does not innovate, introduce novelties or "change with the times". All the church does with every new council is to clarify with greater detail for the faithful, the dogma that was handed down by Jesus.

There really needs to be a Vatican II thread here, detailing the internal corruption, vile heresy and conspiratorial planned crushing of traditional voices.
 

Domino

Pigeon
My advice to anyone flirting with schism is to pray, pray, & pray, then ask yourself if you really have the theological prowess & canon law education to make the decision if the Pope should be anathema.

Oh, and read this: https://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/faq-sedevacantism-general-response
The article accuses sedevacantists of being "Protestants with sacraments"... Well, let's assume that, yes, we are just Protestants in reverse, we’re Martin Luther to the other extreme. Well? So what? The Vatican II Church does not have a problem with that. In fact, Vatican II even says (see Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio) that as Protestants, we sedes “are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” and that we “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” because “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [us] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” We are very honored to be Protestants, since even God Himself makes use of us to save souls! In fact, when we baptize someone, we are using a liturgical action that “must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation,”. So Church Militant should stop complaining about us being Protestants.

But let's be serious here. Do sedevacantists assist at or promote an invalid Protestant-modernist worship service? No. Do sedevacantists sign theological agreements with Protestant heretics? No. Do sedevacantists say that the Holy Ghost uses Protestant sects as means of salvation? No. Do any sedevacantists act as though Protestants had an apostolic mandate to preach the Gospel or make society a better place? No. Do sedevacantists give away Catholic symbols such as episcopal rings or pectoral crosses and hand them to Protestant laymen dressed up as clergy? No. Do sedevacantists invite Protestant clergy to have joint ecumenical worship services and even allow for the building of joint Catholic-Protestant churches, as John Paul II’s "Directory on Ecumenism" says? No. Do sedevacantists help any heretic celebrate his false worship “worthily” by lending him whatever may be necessary for it, as John Paul II said his bishops may do? No. Do sedevacantists deny, compromise, or equivocate on any doctrine, esp. as taught by the Council of Trent against the Protestants? No. The Vatican II Church does all of those things. Sedevacantists don't. But somehow we're the Protestants? No, we are not Protestant. The Vatican II Sect is a neo-Protestant church. It is not the Catholic Church, and that is why we have nothing to do with it. We adhere fully to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church from her founding in 33 A.D. by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ through the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. We are Roman Catholics.

In his trashy article, Voris/Church Militant even calls sedevacantism a "heresy". Hilarious. All serious Recognize-and-Resist Traditionalists (like Bp. Williamson, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, Abp. Lefebvre himself, etc.), despite their anti-sede position-- even they begrudgingly acknowledge the fact that sedevacantism, the position that there has been no (known) true Pope of the Catholic Church since the death of Pius XII in 1958 and that the current Vatican establishment is not the Catholic Church, is entirely safe theologically. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one. But at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently. This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism).
 

I am a new Catholic that found my way to religion through unanswered questions of morality and sufferings. I came across this podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bishop Barron so this seemed like a good place to post. JP used to be my spiritual guide like a lot of men but his teachings often left me empty in a way. Now I know why. But I feel this is a good watch.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow

I am a new Catholic that found my way to religion through unanswered questions of morality and sufferings. I came across this podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bishop Barron so this seemed like a good place to post. JP used to be my spiritual guide like a lot of men but his teachings often left me empty in a way. Now I know why. But I feel this is a good watch.
I like Jordan Peterson quite a bit. He was heroic combating those loonies in Canada and then exhibited a polished rhetorical edge against an extremely hostile media on his book tour. No one man should be idolized though other than Our Lord in his earthly form.
 

I am a new Catholic that found my way to religion through unanswered questions of morality and sufferings. I came across this podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bishop Barron so this seemed like a good place to post. JP used to be my spiritual guide like a lot of men but his teachings often left me empty in a way. Now I know why. But I feel this is a good watch.
Yeah, JBP had a great influence on me, too. However, while reading his newest book, you really can see the internal and intellectual flaws in his teachings. False prophets and teachings like Freud, Jung, Taoism etc. guide him. There is no overarching principle that is above God, such as chaos and order. JBP always talks about the the Logos, but in some Gnostic sense. Oftentimes he will idolize psychology and psycholanalysis, although these things are entirely secular and in my opinion do not really heal people long term.
 
Top