Fr. Barron....I agree with you 100%....you are an awesome teacher and I totally condemn what Michael Voris and those at Church Militant say about you...they seem to want to empty Churches while at the same time you are filling them...GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR WORK... :)
Fr. Robert Barron I have high esteem for the work you do Fr. Robert. But holding to the idea of a "reasonable hope that all men will be saved" just seems to fly in the face of Matthew 7:13-14 and the sense of the fath. From the first time I heard it I thought it was wrong. I therefore don't blame people like Michael Voris for calling you out on it. I think it would be a good idea to recant this position. I recently heard Cardinal Francis George speaking against this view of almost universalism by Hans Urs Von Balthasar also in his address on Ecclesiology of Communion at Leeds Trinity University.
Jennifer Chan your observation is easy and to the point thank you for supporting our priest. Iet's always pray for them till the end I say. but, think about it this way, if we calculate with our thoughts in a simplistic manner about these matters only, that's where we can fall short...this is what I mean....Voris (not that I agree 100% with him, but he does have good points that require deep thinking (deep thought is always good) ( meditation is meditation when its deep and guided by the holy spirit that (hopefully) is welcomed in our deepest parts of heart. deep thinking can sink, by the grace of God, into the very depths of our hearts. Where our Lord is (hopefully) ..[the soul and mind go hand in hand]...so just as grace is needed to experience Heaven in the heart on this life (thy kingdom come) so is deep and complex thinking needed to see the reason behind faith. In order to continue or actually start thinking along and with the same mind as God. Grace required here lol I'm sure they don't want to empty churches, its more if churches become empty because of solid men preaching with the fire of zeal, then so be it. Christ didn't chase after ppl when most ppl who where following left him when he said that they must eat his body and drink his blood. At the same time, Christ taught us not to throw stones either. While he told the religious that they where clean in the outside and dead in the inside, he cried out extremely thirsty for souls....but, if we don't repent....then what??? BUT ONE THING WE KNOW IS THAT OUR FATHER WILL NEVER ABANDON US EVEN THOUGH WE ARE FILLED WITH THE WORST OF SINS AND LIVING AT THE BOTTOM WITH OUR POOR HUMAN CONDITION, BUT on the condition of repentance is heaven offered to us. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" Our Lord "woe to he who dies in mortal sin" St Francis of Assisi.... theology is never ending because its based on a never ending GodMan if this encouraged you to seek for more answers to anything Christ, then its worth being on this wall, if not, Father delete this .
Jennifer Chan If I may, I work at Church Militant (I'm on a one year internship), and on behalf of myself and my friend who is also in this program, I completely disavow Michael's treatment towards Father Barron. I am in fact writing a defense of Father Barron and agree with him on the hope of universal salvation.
I've just begun to dip a sliver of a toenail in von Balthasar's work, and I was stoked to find your two-part commentary on his life and work. I appreciate the work you do, and best of luck in your future endeavors.
Your other video on von Balthasar made his book "Love Alone" stand out in the library more than "Catholicism" by Henri de Lubac, which is no small thing for someone who has been wanting to read that book for a while. Thanks for the videos. PS: keep these sorts of videos coming! I know there is plenty to talk about, but there are other giants in Catholic 20th century theology, not least de Lubac, Congar, Ratzinger (whom you have sort of addressed), Karl Rahner, Alice von Hildebrand and Pope St John Paul II (in particular his theology of the body).
Thanks for this excellent explanation of Von Balthasar's theology. I have read him for years and I am delighted with this masterly summary thanks Bishop Barron for all you give us we are fallowing you in our community m. Giovanna Trappistine monastery Philippines
I must say, Your Excellency, that I have watched a number of your videos these past few days and am stunned at the clarity and nuance with which you treat each subject (_Amoris Laetitia_ especially). IMHO, von Balthasar is arguably the greatest thinker of the 20th century, a century of great minds in many disciplines. As Angelo Scola noted, von Balthasar wrote the deepest theology _in sonata form_ (to which I would add that he wrote in German, so you don't get the verb until the end of the paragraph, lol!). Your treatment of von Balthasar, whose work is about as nuanced as neurosurgery, in these two videos, is brilliant. While I know that his book on the possibility of universal salvation was controversial, you treat it justly and accurately, as far as my own understanding goes. I had not been aware of your ministry until now, but I shall certainly be going to your web site in support of your work.
Love Balthasar ... his hopeful inclusivism (so similar to Kallistos Ware) was a game-changer for me. His higher vision of freedom (vis-a-vis autonomy). Thanks to Fr. Barron for entering the gold mine and bringing up these nuggets where we could come to his kiosk for a core sample!
Fr. Barron, watching this video stirred my heart. I want to go forth and tell people about this video itself! Thank you. I would like a deeper understanding of why it is "more free" to follow God than to follow the world and it's love of autonomy. From the faith perspective, I subscribe to this " in following God, one is more free" quite easily. It's the reason perspective of this that I need help with. Can you recommend an accessible resource for this topic? Thank you in advance.
I LOVE Hans Urs, he's my favorite - and I have this video downloaded; but I also have to thank specifically for it! Can we maybe have some more? On the first book maybe (Seeing the Form)?... Eventually?...
Thank you for the great video! I'm glad you brought up the Reasonable Hope again and explained it more. I remember reading some of the backlash from the last time it was brought up. It occurred to me recently just how valid this hope is when we consider the Fatima Prayer (despite that I have seen some claim that some of the private revelations at Fatima refute this Hope). The prayer asks Christ to "lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy". How can we pray this without a least a real Hope that it could be fulfilled? And it doesn't say "lead some souls to heaven" or "lead good souls to heaven", it says lead all ESPECIALLY those in most need of Christ's mercy. This was a prayer given to us by Our Lady and approved for general use by the Church, so there's no reason for us to doubt its orthodoxy. As a result, I see no reason why we should doubt the orthodoxy of a position that essentially says we can hope that this petition might be realized. It seems required to say the prayer with sincerity.
Dear Rev. Father, Have you read the works of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange? It would be great if you could produce some youtube videos on his theological works.
I hear a lot of the best of Simone Weil in here too. The arrest of beauty (though she would also talk about the arrest of affliction - her theologia crucis).
Yes, in particular Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale is very similar to Weil's understanding of Christ's crucifixion as a manifestation of God's eternal self-existence.
As good fortune would have it, there is a twelve part course on von Balthasar by Bishop Barron himself at the word on fire institute. There is a cost of $27 per month to be a member, but if you can afford to do so, you should strongly consider it.
As is tradition, loved the video. However, I'm admittedly struggling with the beauty of Christ aesthetically, surely my dear sweet Lord is beautiful, but how do I reconcile that with what Isaiah 53 says about it him "He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him." ?
Hi Father Barron, Your videos have been a great aid in learning about my faith. I, as many others below me, have a question/concern regarding the view that there is reasonable hope that all will be saved. Now, I realize that reasonable hope isn't the same thing as certitude, but I think most of the general populace would equate reasonable hope with certitude. In doing so, I fear that they would take the attitude of "Hey, I'll probably be saved anyway. Why listen to the Church or follow it's commandments?" I suppose our response would be that salvation is certain, rather than probable, when in full communion with the Church, but I'd like to hear your take on this. Thanks Father; keep up the great work! :) ~Damian
Thanks Fr. Barron for these two videos! I've picked up Balthasar a few times, but this makes me want to pick him up in ernest. Best wishes and prayers from Canada
This is unspeakably beautiful, your best video, Fr. B. Nearly every sentence in it needs to be unpacked in detail in its own video -- otherwise much of it will surely be misunderstood. If this was the faith I encountered in the Catholic Church, I might still be Catholic. Suggestion: people who are looking into Balthasar for the first time probably will be defeated by Herrlichkeit. I suggest Heart of the World, a beautiful meditation unlike most of Balthasar's other work in style. A secondary work such as Edward Oakes' Pattern of Redemption is also worth reading to get a better idea what Balthasar is up to. The screeching of the heresy-hunters shows what's worst in Catholicism. They should be ignored.
@Collins Anosike Oh my, please refrain from this sort of unkind and venomous remark. He is only trying to share other resources on Balthasar's insights.
As a Catholic, it is I feel regrettable that aside from the core doctrines of the faith there is not more suspension of judgment possible in discourse, and this reluctance or refusal to suspend judgment on some theological questions has, I think, resulted at times in misrepresentation of Catholics as not duly rational, separation, misunderstanding, and even bloodshed. With respect to the Aquinas/Balthasar vs. Dun Scotus debate, for example, it might be that both, neither, or a third, unintroduced, view is correct. We have the freedom to opt which we like certainly, but the real truth is that it is God who ultimately decides. If then it is God who actually knows, who of us can then say we ourselves are God to categorically decide such matters?
Magisterium or no, only a rational and honest person could begin to even consider such questions. And the Magisterium can only be correct, imo, if it is consistent with honesty and right reason. If this is not so, by what other criteria can non-essential, not core teaching be resolved? In sum, while I think the core doctrine of the church can be permitted a certain amount of subjective discretion (as respecting, e.g., the Trinity, Baptism, the Eucharist, the Immaculate conception, traditional morals); to such non-critical matters else there must even so be a limit. Again, if indulged in too far, it can lead to the church to be discredited among people who can actually think, and in the process possibly risk doing to the church quite unnecessary and incalculable harm. Consider this story told in Gibbon: "Christianity was more deeply rooted in the Abyssinian empire; and, although the correspondence has been sometimes interrupted above seventy or a hundred years, the mother-church of Alexandria retains her colony in a state of perpetual pupilage. Seven bishops once composed the Aethiopic synod: had their number amounted to ten, they might have elected an independent primate; and one of their kings was ambitious of promoting his brother to the ecclesiastical throne. But the event was foreseen, the increase was denied: the episcopal office has been gradually confined to the abuna, the head and author of the Abyssinian priesthood; the patriarch supplies each vacancy with an Egyptian monk; and the character of a stranger appears more venerable in the eyes of the people, less dangerous in those of the monarch. In the sixth century, when the schism of Egypt [versus orthodox Constantinople] was confirmed, the rival chiefs, with their patrons, [Byzantine Emperor] Justinian and [Empress] Theodora, strove to outstrip each other in the conquest of a remote and independent province. The industry of the empress was again victorious, and the pious Theodora has established in that sequestered church the faith and discipline of the Jacobites. Encompassed on all sides by the enemies of their religion, the Aethiopians slept near a thousand years, forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten. They were awakened by the Portuguese, who, turning the southern promontory of Africa, appeared in India and the Red Sea, as if they had descended through the air from a distant planet. In the first moments of their interview, the subjects of Rome and Alexandria observed the resemblance, rather than the difference, of their faith; and each nation expected the most important benefits from an alliance with their Christian brethren. In their lonely situation, the Aethiopians had almost relapsed into the savage life. Their vessels, which had traded to Ceylon, scarcely presumed to navigate the rivers of Africa; the ruins of Axume were deserted, the nation was scattered in villages, and the emperor, a pompous name, was content, both in peace and war, with the immovable residence of a camp. Conscious of their own indigence, the Abyssinians had formed the rational project of importing the arts and ingenuity of Europe; and their ambassadors at Rome and Lisbon were instructed to solicit a colony of smiths, carpenters, tilers, masons, printers, surgeons, and physicians, for the use of their country. But the public danger soon called for the instant and effectual aid of arms and soldiers, to defend an unwarlike people from the Barbarians who ravaged the inland country and the Turks and Arabs who advanced from the sea-coast in more formidable array. Aethiopia was saved by four hundred and fifty Portuguese, who displayed in the field the native valor of Europeans, and the artificial power of the musket and cannon. In a moment of terror, the emperor had promised to reconcile himself and his subjects to the Catholic faith; a Latin patriarch represented the supremacy of the pope: the empire, enlarged in a tenfold proportion, was supposed to contain more gold than the mines of America; and the wildest hopes of avarice and zeal were built on the willing submission of the Christians of Africa. "But the vows which pain had extorted were forsworn on the return of health. The Abyssinians still adhered with unshaken constancy to the Monophysite faith [i.e., the view that Jesus came as God and not also quite as a man]; their languid belief was inflamed by the exercise of dispute; they branded the Latins with the names of Arians and Nestorians, and imputed the adoration of four gods to those who separated the two natures of Christ. Fremona, a place of worship, or rather of exile, was assigned to the Jesuit missionaries. Their skill in the liberal and mechanic arts, their theological learning, and the decency of their manners, inspired a barren esteem; but they were not endowed with the gift of miracles, and they vainly solicited a reenforcement of European troops. The patience and dexterity of forty years at length obtained a more favorable audience, and two emperors of Abyssinia were persuaded that Rome could insure the temporal and everlasting happiness of her votaries. The first of these royal converts lost his crown and his life; and the rebel army was sanctified by the abuna, who hurled an anathema at the apostate, and absolved his subjects from their oath of fidelity. The fate of Zadenghel was revenged by the courage and fortune of Susneus, who ascended the throne under the name of Segued, and more vigorously prosecuted the pious enterprise of his kinsman. After the amusement of some unequal combats between the Jesuits and his illiterate priests, the emperor declared himself a proselyte to the synod of Chalcedon [i.e., the orthodox view that Jesus came as God and man], presuming that his clergy and people would embrace without delay the religion of their prince. The liberty of choice was succeeded by a law, which imposed, under pain of death, the belief of the two natures of Christ: the Abyssinians were enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath; and Segued, in the face of Europe and Africa, renounced his connection with the Alexandrian church. A Jesuit, Alphonso Mendez, the Catholic patriarch of Aethiopia, accepted, in the name of Urban VIII., the homage and abjuration of the penitent. 'I confess,' said the emperor on his knees, 'I confess that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and the sovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I offer my person and kingdom.' A similar oath was repeated by his son, his brother, the clergy, the nobles, and even the ladies of the court: the Latin patriarch was invested with honors and wealth; and his missionaries erected their churches or citadels in the most convenient stations of the empire. The Jesuits themselves deplore the fatal indiscretion of their chief, who forgot the mildness of the gospel and the policy of his order, to introduce with hasty violence the liturgy of Rome and the inquisition of Portugal. He condemned the ancient practice of circumcision, which health, rather than superstition, had first invented in the climate of Aethiopia. A new baptism, a new ordination, was inflicted on the natives; and they trembled with horror when the most holy of the dead were torn from their graves, when the most illustrious of the living were excommunicated by a foreign priest. In the defense of their religion and liberty, the Abyssinians rose in arms, with desperate but unsuccessful zeal. Five rebellions were extinguished in the blood of the insurgents: two abunas were slain in battle, whole legions were slaughtered in the field, or suffocated in their caverns; and neither merit, nor rank, nor sex, could save from an ignominious death the enemies of Rome. But the victorious monarch was finally subdued by the constancy of the nation, of his mother, of his son, and of his most faithful friends. Segued listened to the voice of pity, of reason, perhaps of fear: and his edict of liberty of conscience instantly revealed the tyranny and weakness of the Jesuits. On the death of his father, Basilides expelled the Latin patriarch, and restored to the wishes of the nation the faith and the discipline of Egypt. The Monophysite churches resounded with a song of triumph, 'that the sheep of Aethiopia were now delivered from the hyaenas of the West;' and the gates of that solitary realm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism of Europe." ~ Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4, Chapter XLVII: Ecclesiastical Discord.-Part VI.
Ah, but which perspective sounds and smacks more like the devil? (And sounds more like legalism -- vis a vis St. Paul's objections to? And legal positivism?) There is nothing wrong with change, and correction. After all did we not just canonize a pope who believed this and who ushered in Vatican 2? As someone once said: "No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak. If he does, its fullness pulls away, the new from the old, and the tear gets worse. Likewise, no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins are ruined. Rather, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins.” Mark 2:21-22 While irrational and amoral modernism must of course be abhorred and guarded against, it is not strictly necessary to stay wholly in the Middle Ages -- again as Vatican 2 made plain.
Another quick point I want to add is that by not relinquishing right reason, the church saves it from being claimed by irrational, dogmatic, and superstitious moderns, and where the moderns are wrong, it invariably is when they are irrational, etc.; though claiming to be otherwise. Again, I think the question is what is best for the church; including let's encourage people to think; not dissuade them from it. Did not Jesus also say: “Why do you not judge for yourselves the right thing to do?" Luke 12: 57 -- while placing due emphasis on the notion (first promoted by Arcesilaus and Carneades) that there is much to be said for suspending judgment, and it is an option often worth availing ourselves of when faced with what are after all often impossible (for us) questions.
And were a person to abandon right reason that makes them not only a mad man, but such who rejects the Holy Spirit. Our Lord reasoned regularly with doubters. Are we so weak and feeble that we merely shut them out and not speak to and answer them? If you would you discourage people from thinking deeply, honestly, and rationally, then you will find fine company with the devil; for that is how he is also. For my part, I have no reason to believe that what the church believes is or needs to be in conflict with right reason. But you seem to suggest it can, and this it seems to me as a far worse heresy than an individual wondering about the validity of a given point of non-critical theology, and merely SUSPENDING judgment as a result. As Clement of Alexandria says in his "Stromata": [ch. 2] Philosophy came into existence, not on its own account, but for the advantages reaped by us from knowledge, we receiving a firm persuasion of true perception, through the knowledge of things comprehended by the mind. [ch. 6] ...But as we say that a man can be a believer without learning, so also we assert that it is impossible for a man without learning to comprehend the things which are declared in the faith. But to adopt what is well said, and not to adopt the reverse, is caused not simply by faith, but by faith combined with knowledge. But if ignorance is want of training and of instruction, then teaching produces knowledge of divine and human things. But just as it is possible to live rightly in penury of this world's good things, so also in abundance. And we avow, that at once with more ease and more speed will one attain to virtue through previous training. But it is not such as to be unattainable without it; but it is attainable only when they have learned, and have had their senses exercised. [Hebrews 5:14] “For hatred,” says Solomon, “raises strife, but instruction guards the ways of life;” in such a way that we are not deceived nor deluded by those who are practiced in base arts for the injury of those who hear. “But instruction wanders reproachless,” [Proverbs 10:19] it is said. We must be conversant with the art of reasoning, for the purpose of confuting the deceitful opinions of the sophists... For him who is fluent in words he calls loquacious; and him who is clever, vocal; and “divine,” him who is skilled, a philosopher, and acquainted with the truth.
Thank you Father for these informative videos on this thoughtful and influential theologian. There is much to admire in his work. I am particularly interested in his personal views on the "reasonable hope all are saved". I understand (somewhat, at least) the arguments but don't find them persuasive against Jesus own words, other Holy Scripture, the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, most Saints and the fairly continuous teaching of the Magisterium. These seem clearly at odds to me. We have a "hope that all are saved", but is that not best understood in the context of individuals: that each person chooses salvation and converts? The likelihood that all collectively (likely, probably) are saved, regardless of their apparent free choices to the contrary, seems to me to be infinitesimally small in light of far more authoritative teaching and also extremely dangerous.
I really enjoy your videos Fr.Barron. The video on Balthasar's idea of aesthetic arrest is thought-provoking. Have you ever thought of doing a video on German Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg?
Ok, so my understanding of this is that we might “reasonably dare to hope that all may be saved” & that this is very, very different to saying or believing that “we can have reasonable hope that all may be saved”. It seems to me that Bishop Barrons critics think that the latter is being advocated - but I just don’t get that from listening to the three videos and reading the explication on the WOF webpages about this topic. it seems to me that it is the former quote I listed that is being stated by BB. ... but I could be wrong. My point is : Is this just a semantics issue that is getting everyone so up in arms about HUvB ?
Reverend Father Barron, A casual perusal of a google search on the "fewness of the saved" includes Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, Marian Apparitions and Scripture (the strongest descriptions coming from our Lord Jesus Himself) which all indicate that many are going to Hell. Our Lord Jesus, as you mentioned, not only warned of Hell, but also warns about the difficulty of gaining Heaven. Father, how does one reconcile these myriad of consistent (at least until recently) teachings, plethora of Saint, Popes and Church Doctors’ statements regarding the “fewness of the saved” with the “reasonable hope that all will be saved” that comes from one contemporary Theologian who was clearly influence by Protestantism? Thank you, Father and May the Lord Bless you and Keep you (Num 6:24-26)
That's too one-sided. There are many Biblical passages that suggest the possibility that all will be saved, and they have to be read in tension with those that suggest otherwise. Further, there are many other figures in the great tradition who tend in the direction of universalism: Origen, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, Julian of Norwich, etc. But finally, the liturgy obliges us to pray, over and over again, for the salvation of all. This has to indicate, at the very least, that such a state of affairs is something for which we can earnestly hope.
@@BishopBarron What about the Fatima apparitions, where Mary says that more souls *_do go_* to hell for sins of the flesh (or impurity -- I forget the specifics) than for any other sin? Mary even showed the children the vision of hell where they *saw* people in hell. We know from countless exorcist tales that Judas' spirit possesses people, not to mention the Bible says it would be better had he never been born, which is indicative of only one thing. The Council of Trent, Session VI Chapter 3: "But though he died for all, yet _do _*_not_* all receive the benefit of his death, but those only unto whom the merit of his passion is communicated [excepting, of course, those who, through no fault of their own, do not accept Him, but that's an exception only because it is expressly delineated]. What about Limbo of the Infants?
Humility is seemingly never found in TH-cam comments. This topic more than most reminds me of a great quote most would do well to remember: "Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." - George Bernard Shaw
Thank you , Fr. Barron, for this video. I think it was a great job of condensing a lot of complex theological thought into a level at which ordinary interested folks (such as myself) could understand, and it was a good followup to this idea of the "reasonable hope of salvation" which seems to generate so much commentary here. I look forward to more videos on this channel. One question, Father. If I were interested in reading von Balthasar's writings, where would be a good place for me to begin?
"Balthasar to Luther, "Watch me!"😂 I've read some of The Heart of the World, it's beautiful & also deep. I first heard about Balthasar from an essay, "Kurokami, Kumagawa, and Christ: A Christological Interpretation of Power in Medaka Box" on the website, Mage in a Barrel. I come at things at odd angles. It wonderfully highlights a difference between right & good, and what it means to be a god rather than metely super-powered, among other subjects.
You know, I believe it is BY DESIGN that almost none of the english Christian writers are being translated to Spanish. At least I never heard of C.S. Lewis an G.K Chesterton until I moved to US. But hey! THAT could our goal, right?
Apparently, Balthasar was considered so idiosyncratic and an autodidact who was not worthy of serious listening to in his day. He was not a professor affiliated with a university, was largely self-published in his time, and was not invited to the Second Vatican Council. Yet, today he is considered by many the premier theologian and by some as the best modern theologian of the 20th century. I wish we could have a discussion conference about his works with others with an interest in his writings.
I'm stuck on the beauty part, if something "sends" me it is not the force or power of the beautiful thing that causes me to spread it's message, it is my social nature. I am driven to interact with other humans because it is in my nature. When something makes an impression on me I am driven to communicate that to others because of my nature, not because of it's nature.
To reason "God's love is so extreme that all may be saved" also carries the implication "if anyone is damned, God's love must not be as extreme as we thought." Does not this notion falsely depict Hell as arising from a lack of love on God's part? God's love is the very reason Hell exists. His decision not to force himself upon us, not to negate our free will, is itself a dramatic expression of love.
That's not at all what I argued! I have long maintained that the doctrine of Hell is a function of two more fundamental convictions, namely, that God is love and that we are free. Going to Hell is a consequence of bad human choice, not a failure in the divine love.
Fr. Robert Barron Then perhaps its VB's phrasing that causes so much conflict here, as does the idea "an iota of remorse is all it takes to gain Heaven" since it appears to place matters of the heart above the will. We need to remember that feelings of guilt or remorse are just that: feelings. Unless they lead to action, to actually asking God for forgiveness (prior to death!), they are ultimately irrelevant.
Fr. Robert Barron Father, could you clear up one more thing? Thanks for quickly summarizing some key points of VB's theology, but I'd like to know your personal view. Clearly, we all hope ("wish" might be a better term) for an empty Hell, but do you personally believe that no one has ever died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin? I'd like to know how likely you feel that is. Hope is a virtue, but sometimes cowardice gets masked as hope, and the empty Hell hope sounds a lot like the cowardice of a soldier sent off to the front lines, clinging to a head-in-the-sand hope that the war will have zero casualties.
Dante said that all God needs is one tear of repentance on the part of a sinner to save him from damnation. None of us possibly knows the human heart well enough to rule out that state of affairs. Therefore, yes, we may hope that all people will be saved. By the way, I'm not speculating about "likelihood." I'm asserting the legitimacy of hope.
Fr. Robert Barron Thanks again, I only ask for clarification because, to many, it reads as if you’re already commenting on likelihood, just using roundabout language. When most hear “a reasonable hope,” they take “hope” to mean expectation. And a “reasonable” expectation is one that points toward an outcome that is fairly likely. To clear the confusion, it would truly help if you gave your view on whether or not you personally believe that no one has ever died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.
Father, first off I love your videos. I have learned so much from them. But I have a question. In some of your previous videos you talk about Jesus going to the limits of God forsakenness to pull us out of our sin, ignorance, death etc... Then you clarify and say that some people reject even this "acrobatic act of love". My question would be this: what kind of sin, action, or attitude would be a complete and total rejection of even Christ crucified?
Ernest question : If we can *reasonably* hope that even the great tyrants and monsters of history have not made such a definitive rejection, wouldn't that be effectively saying most people are quite likely to have made the cut? Put another way, if Hitler, Mao, Ghangis Khan, Mohammed, etc. all have a realistic shot of avoiding eternal punishment, wouldn't that make most people virtually guaranteed?
There is more nuance to Luther’s theology of glory that doesn’t seem to be captured here. It’s not the beautiful side of divine life that Luther critiques as much as a theology of glory that minimizes suffering while maximizing triumphalism. Luther would definitely agree with beauty as God’s glory and that it is precisely revealed in an ‘emptying out’ of one’s life for the life of the world.
Hey Bishop Barron, might you recommend a good Balthazar starter? Would you recommend starting with the book on the paschal mystery that you mention in this video? Cheers! Thanks!
Von Balthazar’s teachings are based on the mystic he promoted Adrienne Von speyr and especially on her version of the decent into Hell by Jesus which is contrary to the council of Trent which says Jesus descended into the paradise of the bosom of Abraham the hell of waiting, and Bishop challenor wrote on this too, St. John of the cross warned of trusting in mysticism.
I can't claim to be any great fan of the bishops these days, but I do think the controversy surrounding this issue has been whipped up falsely by a particular individual whose motives I'm uncertain of. Anybody with the slightest legal training would know that when the words "reasonable hope" are used, they simply mean a hope to which you can assign a reason. You may think that reason is flimsy. You may think it is not strong enough to support the hope, but the advocate still gets to argue his case provided the theory is admissible. Within the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Balthazar's case is admissible. It may be weak, it may be unlikely, but ultimately, it's a question of fact for the jury to decide, not one of law for the judge. And certainly not for someone unilaterally appointing himself to the bench.
This is deep and beautiful, but in a time when humanity is far too lax as it is in all areas of discipline, morality and religion I believe this message may be a double-edged sword. What use is it to lead people to the beginning of the road without warning them that the road ahead is the Way of the Cross?
"What use is it to lead people to the beginning of the road without warning them that the road ahead is the Way of the Cross?" Some may follow not because they desire something for themselves, some redemption from _unimaginable_ damnation on a 'cosmic scale', but because they _love_ who preceded them. Shepherds may have the 'headstart' - while 'magicians' will make it barely in time.
I'm flabbergasted, completely flabbergasted by these Father Barron videos about Hans Urs von Balthasar! One may find the complete demolition of von Balthasar's theological fantasies in "The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar", by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., in: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3344.
Well, St. John Paul II made Balthasar a Cardinal, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) spoke glowingly at Balthasar's funeral. I don't think you can write him off so easily.
Forgive me, Father Barron, but what can you mean by that? Saint John Paul II also gave a most beautiful funeral eulogium of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani -- and yet Ottaviani was written off (very) easily...
mendoncacorreia Ottaviani shouldn't have been written off. And if you want to dismiss Balthasar out of hand, you have to come up with some real arguments, friend.
Besides the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1033-1037 -- not to mention Denzinger-Hünnermann's 'Enchiridion' (1999 ed.), n. 411 --, you find them namely in Scanlon's lenghty article pointed out be me in my first comment. You may not (as I'm sure you don't) agree with them; but, with all due respect, if you want do dismiss them as 'unreal', you should explain why. In passing, allow me to tell you that I'm a canonist, so I have some knowledge about this and other theological subjects. For what is worth, my Salamanca masters believe I'm not completely unarmed (so to speak) to talk and write about them: I gather that's one of the reasons why they proposed me to get my doctorate there. I'm telling you this because I don't want you to take me for another 'youtuber' who spams the videos s/he doesn't like. I'm honestly searching for the Truth because I know the Truth will set me free.
+mendoncacorreia Several statements of Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap are clearly wrong. I'm scholar on Biblical Theology at a Pontifical University. Regis Scandlon doesn't understand Balthasar's using of Scriptures. It is obvious Scandlon has not read even the ENTIRE Balthasar's Trilogy or he has not undestood it. Balthasar teached NONE heresy on his works. What's the Theological framework used by Scandlon to arrive to such conclusions? He has not understood Balthasar's hermeneutics nor his use of analogy. He just can't simply say: "The problem with Balthasar's "hope" is that it conceals an implicit doubt about the Church's philosophy of truth and her doctrine on Jesus Christ.", because Balthasar read and understood about Catholic philosophy and theology more than many others. Hoping for salvation to all men IS NOT AGAINST SCRIPTURES!!!! It's a real hope derived FROM SCRIPTURES read IN Church living Tradition and according to Magisterial Teachings. Just read and have a deep meditation on the all New Testament theological background. Hoping means not that God must sabe anyone, but that hoping is a coherent theological attitude.
6:40 O Your Excellency, is the sin of modernism and even of modernity truly autonomy, which is self-policing, or is it rather individual sovereignty, which is rebellion? For the peasant who genuflects willingly to his king without being told to is autonomous but the pretender to the throne who beheads his king and takes his crown is sovereign, no?
This current conflict to me is a bit pointless, because ultimately it comes down to a simple fact. This Creation is not ours, it is God's. Our definition of good or evil is, by our nature, at best incomplete and at worst flawed, thank God that it is His definition of these it is based on and not ours, otherwise we would all be simultaneously in Heaven and Hell at once if all of human views were taken to account. So hope and love like all may be saved and you might be with the other person forever in Paradise seeing who God intends them to be, but pray and evangelize like none but the Saints are surely in Heaven, for one soul lost for lack of such is an eternity of loss of God for them, something unalterable once the time has come. A person forever lost. We can hope it for all that is out of our hands, but it ought never be risked in case we are mistaken. So neither this way nor that way are best, but both molded to our limited state, not acting as though we have the verdict. This is only an issue if we want to be lazy or if we want to know all as God does. So we need to do what Christ told us to do and be workers and stop pretending we are running the house.
Why did Jesus come and die such a horrible death in order to save us from Hell if no matter what we do we will be saved from Hell. No need of Confession or following Commandments and following Jesus. Then Jesus life death and Resurrection of no value or meaning and the Ten Commandments. Of no concern or value. Doesn’t make sense.
10:57 "And that's why the cross of Jesus is the redemption of all...This is where the controversial idea comes from of the hope that all people may be saved...Does Balthasar know it? No, he repudiates Origens apocatastasis... that's against the Church's teaching." I had to look up apocatastasis in the New Advent and there St. Gregory of Nyssa is said to have explicitly taught apocatastasis: "a name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls." Origen before Gregory of Nyssa also taught apocastastasis which the Church eventually anathematized. I'm going to post this on Michael Voris's Vortex today as he needs to also indict St. Gregory of Nyssa along with Balthasar and Fr. Barron to be fair.
There is debate over whether St Gregory taught it, but to be fair, this doctrine was not condemned ecumenically and at council until centuries after St Gregory's death. Von Balthasar and others defending "dare we hope" are denying the words of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 48 as well as Pope John Paul in Crossing the Threshold of Hope where the doctrine of "reasonable hope" is killed. Pope John Paul II mentioned Origen and von Balthasar by name. Funny though, defenders of von Balthasar never mention JPII's statement against von Balthasar in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 3 years later but I was curious and found what you mentioned. In no way is Balthasar accused in that work… On the contrary: Saint John Paul II seems to assume a similar position. Here the quote: “The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.” Where is Balthasar spoken against? It is simply said that the problem bugged many authors: the first being Origen and the last being Balthasar.
@@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832 because the pope said Matthew 25 is clear and unequivocal. The CCC and Vatican II said the same about Hell--Matthew 25 is clear and it's about those that will be damned.
@@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832 How is this taking Hans' position? "And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment" The Pope just says we don't know the names, "Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard" But even this seems like an error since the 5th ecumenical council declared several dead theologians anathema and "separated from God"
if BEAUTIFUL is objective and it pulls you to GOOD and TRUE, then the Traditional Latin Mass with its chants and reverence should be the mainstream mass, churches should be built like the cathedrals of old and the clergy should ditch the business suit and don the cassock
Muszę przyznać, że ktoś, kto opowiada o pustym piekle, a tym kimś jest Hans Urs von Balthasar, kto odrzuca stałą naukę Kościoła na ten temat, kto ją bagatelizuje, pokazuje skrajną nieodpowiedzialność. Przecież taki człowiek wystawia ludzi na potworne, realne niebezpieczeństwo, niemal popycha ich ku wiecznej zagładzie. Jak taki ktoś został mianowany kardynałem?!
If we were all perfect God's glory would be manifest...the theology of the Cross(alone) is the usual homiletic stance ....if Christ did not rise our preaching is useless.
+Bishop Robert Barron We have one of these priests here. A real treat these followers of Balthasar. Likes his Kenotic Theology. Did you know that Jesus was "powerless"? And that there are no miracles. And he doesn't believe in sin. And in one homily talked about the spirit & 4 elements and the God Ra (apparently wicca of some sort). Do I really need to spell out the argument? Defend.
Judas Iscariot... "but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." (Mt. 26:24) Oh and... 'Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.' Matthew 25:41-46 And so many more. Then there is the admonishment not to lead any of his sheep astray like the teaching of von Balthasar and likewise Bishop Barron are doing... Matthew 18:6 - 'but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.' Universalism is a heresy. Please stop.
@@christophmahler The example you are speaking of is the example of Christ that I am following. The words I quote are His. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ was divine while on the earth like von Balthasar and Bishop Barron most likely do, or that the Gospels are inspired by God and that men like Hitler and Stalin will be joined in communion with the most High in heaven, then you should start your own religion. That simply is not Catholic. Truth will not change to fit your feelings.
@@mrbooe "(...) the example of Christ that I am following." You sound _sure_ of that... But in my experience the See of Rome is not a means in itself - it just what is left standing. And when it comes to what other people think on the early church (i.e. Balthasar), I can see that You don't care. Have You ever visited a Salafist meeting ? I suspect, You would feel quite _at_ _home_ , give it try, who needs to consider love when one can speak like a *'ringing* *gong'* ...
@@christophmahler You really don't see it. Let me be simpler. I quoted the words of Christ in 90%-95% of that first post and you questioned it as if the words were mine. Your argument is with Christ on that point... good luck with that. If your 'experience' leads you to deny that the Catholic Church was established by Christ as the fullness of Truth and the only means of salvation then again I say... go start your own religion. That is not Catholic. If you truly believe that the Catholic Church is only what was left standing and that the Holy Spirit has not actively kept the Truth safe within for 2000 years then again, you should either convert to the one true faith found in the Catholic Church or simply start your own religion. God forbids worshiping other gods, but He will let you do it to preserve your free will until the day you die... and you shall hear on that day, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.' As for Salafist Islam... Islam is the most vile, evil plague to ever touch the face of the planet. Don't try to misquote my words and claim I am speaking about any particular Muslim who has been diluted into following such evil. I am speaking about Theological and the inextricable Political Islam. So even advising someone to 'try' an abomination to God shows your true indifferentism. You are not concerned with Truth, but with diluting it so that your chosen lifestyle is able to be justified by your own subjective standards after the fact.
Every night I pray that men (and women) all over the world will come to see all other men as their brothers. That they will lay down their weapons and make war no more. It is my faith that this is possible through Jesus Christ, the joining into the brotherhood of Jesus Christ. If one man sees an enemy as a brother, my prayer has been answered, but it is my "hope" that all men come to see this. There are many mysteries to Christianity. One is how can we be happy in Heaven if someone we loved on earth is in Hell? We have adequate Scriptural evidence that those who are with God in Heaven will be happy. So is the solution the "hope" that regardless of faith or morals, all men are saved and nobody is in Hell? I don't have the answer to this question. What I am trying to say is that the "hope" in universal salvation is a theological hypothesis, but there seems to be enough Scriptural evidence for me to reject that hypothesis. So it is reasonable for me to abandon the "hope" that all are saved and continue to pray that all men may come to know God through his Son.
Mesmerized ever the more by von Balthasar's theology. The depths to which God goes in loving of us and the drama of our response....
Fr. Barron....I agree with you 100%....you are an awesome teacher and I totally condemn what Michael Voris and those at Church Militant say about you...they seem to want to empty Churches while at the same time you are filling them...GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR WORK... :)
Thank you, Jennifer.
Fr. Robert Barron I have high esteem for the work you do Fr. Robert. But holding to the idea of a "reasonable hope that all men will be saved" just seems to fly in the face of Matthew 7:13-14 and the sense of the fath. From the first time I heard it I thought it was wrong. I therefore don't blame people like Michael Voris for calling you out on it. I think it would be a good idea to recant this position. I recently heard Cardinal Francis George speaking against this view of almost universalism by Hans Urs Von Balthasar also in his address on Ecclesiology of Communion at Leeds Trinity University.
Jennifer Chan your observation is easy and to the point thank you for supporting our priest. Iet's always pray for them till the end I say. but, think about it this way, if we calculate with our thoughts in a simplistic manner about these matters only, that's where we can fall short...this is what I mean....Voris (not that I agree 100% with him, but he does have good points that require deep thinking (deep thought is always good) ( meditation is meditation when its deep and guided by the holy spirit that (hopefully) is welcomed in our deepest parts of heart. deep thinking can sink, by the grace of God, into the very depths of our hearts. Where our Lord is (hopefully) ..[the soul and mind go hand in hand]...so just as grace is needed to experience Heaven in the heart on this life (thy kingdom come) so is deep and complex thinking needed to see the reason behind faith. In order to continue or actually start thinking along and with the same mind as God. Grace required here lol I'm sure they don't want to empty churches, its more if churches become empty because of solid men preaching with the fire of zeal, then so be it. Christ didn't chase after ppl when most ppl who where following left him when he said that they must eat his body and drink his blood. At the same time, Christ taught us not to throw stones either. While he told the religious that they where clean in the outside and dead in the inside, he cried out extremely thirsty for souls....but, if we don't repent....then what??? BUT ONE THING WE KNOW IS THAT OUR FATHER WILL NEVER ABANDON US EVEN THOUGH WE ARE FILLED WITH THE WORST OF SINS AND LIVING AT THE BOTTOM WITH OUR POOR HUMAN CONDITION, BUT on the condition of repentance is heaven offered to us. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" Our Lord "woe to he who dies in mortal sin" St Francis of Assisi.... theology is never ending because its based on a never ending GodMan
if this encouraged you to seek for more answers to anything Christ, then its worth being on this wall, if not, Father delete this .
Jennifer Chan If I may, I work at Church Militant (I'm on a one year internship), and on behalf of myself and my friend who is also in this program, I completely disavow Michael's treatment towards Father Barron. I am in fact writing a defense of Father Barron and agree with him on the hope of universal salvation.
FuturePriest387 yeahhh right! lol
Thank you Bishop Barron for educating all of us Catholics but ignorants of our beautiful faith
Another triumph. Thank you, Bishop Barron.
I've just begun to dip a sliver of a toenail in von Balthasar's work, and I was stoked to find your two-part commentary on his life and work. I appreciate the work you do, and best of luck in your future endeavors.
Stoked? Surely an Aussie expression!
@@schillo4878 Also used in southern California, USA
Your other video on von Balthasar made his book "Love Alone" stand out in the library more than "Catholicism" by Henri de Lubac, which is no small thing for someone who has been wanting to read that book for a while. Thanks for the videos.
PS: keep these sorts of videos coming! I know there is plenty to talk about, but there are other giants in Catholic 20th century theology, not least de Lubac, Congar, Ratzinger (whom you have sort of addressed), Karl Rahner, Alice von Hildebrand and Pope St John Paul II (in particular his theology of the body).
Thanks for this excellent explanation of Von Balthasar's theology. I have read him for years and I am delighted with this masterly summary thanks Bishop Barron for all you give us we are fallowing you in our community m. Giovanna Trappistine monastery Philippines
I must say, Your Excellency, that I have watched a number of your videos these past few days and am stunned at the clarity and nuance with which you treat each subject (_Amoris Laetitia_ especially). IMHO, von Balthasar is arguably the greatest thinker of the 20th century, a century of great minds in many disciplines. As Angelo Scola noted, von Balthasar wrote the deepest theology _in sonata form_ (to which I would add that he wrote in German, so you don't get the verb until the end of the paragraph, lol!). Your treatment of von Balthasar, whose work is about as nuanced as neurosurgery, in these two videos, is brilliant. While I know that his book on the possibility of universal salvation was controversial, you treat it justly and accurately, as far as my own understanding goes.
I had not been aware of your ministry until now, but I shall certainly be going to your web site in support of your work.
Father Barron is an intellectual who can teach; he does it very well!
2:36 - 2:50 Bishop Barron, this is exactly how I feel towards this video.
One of your best videos - how he arrived at the reasonable hope that all might be saved.
Love Balthasar ... his hopeful inclusivism (so similar to Kallistos Ware) was a game-changer for me. His higher vision of freedom (vis-a-vis autonomy). Thanks to Fr. Barron for entering the gold mine and bringing up these nuggets where we could come to his kiosk for a core sample!
Beautiful explanation nobody teaches Catholicism better than you
Fr. Barron, watching this video stirred my heart. I want to go forth and tell people about this video itself! Thank you.
I would like a deeper understanding of why it is "more free" to follow God than to follow the world and it's love of autonomy. From the faith perspective, I subscribe to this " in following God, one is more free" quite easily. It's the reason perspective of this that I need help with. Can you recommend an accessible resource for this topic?
Thank you in advance.
I know this is 6 years old, but can I recommend Fr. Jacques Philippe's book Interior Freedom on this topic? It is phenomenal.
Hell is not empty...
I LOVE Hans Urs, he's my favorite - and I have this video downloaded; but I also have to thank specifically for it! Can we maybe have some more? On the first book maybe (Seeing the Form)?... Eventually?...
Thank you for the great video! I'm glad you brought up the Reasonable Hope again and explained it more. I remember reading some of the backlash from the last time it was brought up.
It occurred to me recently just how valid this hope is when we consider the Fatima Prayer (despite that I have seen some claim that some of the private revelations at Fatima refute this Hope). The prayer asks Christ to "lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy". How can we pray this without a least a real Hope that it could be fulfilled? And it doesn't say "lead some souls to heaven" or "lead good souls to heaven", it says lead all ESPECIALLY those in most need of Christ's mercy. This was a prayer given to us by Our Lady and approved for general use by the Church, so there's no reason for us to doubt its orthodoxy. As a result, I see no reason why we should doubt the orthodoxy of a position that essentially says we can hope that this petition might be realized. It seems required to say the prayer with sincerity.
DJIndy b
Dear Rev. Father,
Have you read the works of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange? It would be great if you could produce some youtube videos on his theological works.
I've read many of them, yes. And I deeply appreciate Garrigou, even as I quarrel with him.
I hear a lot of the best of Simone Weil in here too. The arrest of beauty (though she would also talk about the arrest of affliction - her theologia crucis).
Yes, in particular Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale is very similar to Weil's understanding of Christ's crucifixion as a manifestation of God's eternal self-existence.
Bishop can you do a commentary on Edith Stein? Thanks and God bless.
I really want to attend a class by Bishop Barron with this topic. If anyone knows of a class someday, sign me up!
Hi Biel! :)
@@mariago118 Lol! Hi!
As good fortune would have it, there is a twelve part course on von Balthasar by Bishop Barron himself at the word on fire institute. There is a cost of $27 per month to be a member, but if you can afford to do so, you should strongly consider it.
As is tradition, loved the video. However, I'm admittedly struggling with the beauty of Christ aesthetically, surely my dear sweet Lord is beautiful, but how do I reconcile that with what Isaiah 53 says about it him
"He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him."
?
Hi Father Barron,
Your videos have been a great aid in learning about my faith. I, as many others below me, have a question/concern regarding the view that there is reasonable hope that all will be saved.
Now, I realize that reasonable hope isn't the same thing as certitude, but I think most of the general populace would equate reasonable hope with certitude. In doing so, I fear that they would take the attitude of "Hey, I'll probably be saved anyway. Why listen to the Church or follow it's commandments?"
I suppose our response would be that salvation is certain, rather than probable, when in full communion with the Church, but I'd like to hear your take on this.
Thanks Father; keep up the great work! :)
~Damian
Thanks Fr. Barron for these two videos! I've picked up Balthasar a few times, but this makes me want to pick him up in ernest. Best wishes and prayers from Canada
This is unspeakably beautiful, your best video, Fr. B. Nearly every sentence in it needs to be unpacked in detail in its own video -- otherwise much of it will surely be misunderstood. If this was the faith I encountered in the Catholic Church, I might still be Catholic.
Suggestion: people who are looking into Balthasar for the first time probably will be defeated by Herrlichkeit. I suggest Heart of the World, a beautiful meditation unlike most of Balthasar's other work in style. A secondary work such as Edward Oakes' Pattern of Redemption is also worth reading to get a better idea what Balthasar is up to.
The screeching of the heresy-hunters shows what's worst in Catholicism. They should be ignored.
@Collins Anosike
Only *morons* are 'mislead' by _reading_ _a_ _book_ ...
@Collins Anosike Oh my, please refrain from this sort of unkind and venomous remark. He is only trying to share other resources on Balthasar's insights.
Thanks much for this video.
From Mehulkumar, I have become Michael !!
Faith
Hope
Love
The greatest is LOVE...
What an amazing expose. Thank you!
As a Catholic, it is I feel regrettable that aside from the core doctrines of the faith there is not more suspension of judgment possible in discourse, and this reluctance or refusal to suspend judgment on some theological questions has, I think, resulted at times in misrepresentation of Catholics as not duly rational, separation, misunderstanding, and even bloodshed. With respect to the Aquinas/Balthasar vs. Dun Scotus debate, for example, it might be that both, neither, or a third, unintroduced, view is correct. We have the freedom to opt which we like certainly, but the real truth is that it is God who ultimately decides. If then it is God who actually knows, who of us can then say we ourselves are God to categorically decide such matters?
Magisterium or no, only a rational and honest person could begin to even consider such questions. And the Magisterium can only be correct, imo, if it is consistent with honesty and right reason. If this is not so, by what other criteria can non-essential, not core teaching be resolved? In sum, while I think the core doctrine of the church can be permitted a certain amount of subjective discretion (as respecting, e.g., the Trinity, Baptism, the Eucharist, the Immaculate conception, traditional morals); to such non-critical matters else there must even so be a limit. Again, if indulged in too far, it can lead to the church to be discredited among people who can actually think, and in the process possibly risk doing to the church quite unnecessary and incalculable harm.
Consider this story told in Gibbon:
"Christianity was more deeply rooted in the Abyssinian empire; and, although the correspondence has been sometimes interrupted above seventy or a hundred years, the mother-church of Alexandria retains her colony in a state of perpetual pupilage. Seven bishops once composed the Aethiopic synod: had their number amounted to ten, they might have elected an independent primate; and one of their kings was ambitious of promoting his brother to the ecclesiastical throne. But the event was foreseen, the increase was denied: the episcopal office has been gradually confined to the abuna, the head and author of the Abyssinian priesthood; the patriarch supplies each vacancy with an Egyptian monk; and the character of a stranger appears more venerable in the eyes of the people, less dangerous in those of the monarch. In the sixth century, when the schism of Egypt [versus orthodox Constantinople] was confirmed, the rival chiefs, with their patrons, [Byzantine Emperor] Justinian and [Empress] Theodora, strove to outstrip each other in the conquest of a remote and independent province. The industry of the empress was again victorious, and the pious Theodora has established in that sequestered church the faith and discipline of the Jacobites. Encompassed on all sides by the enemies of their religion, the Aethiopians slept near a thousand years, forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten. They were awakened by the Portuguese, who, turning the southern promontory of Africa, appeared in India and the Red Sea, as if they had descended through the air from a distant planet. In the first moments of their interview, the subjects of Rome and Alexandria observed the resemblance, rather than the difference, of their faith; and each nation expected the most important benefits from an alliance with their Christian brethren. In their lonely situation, the Aethiopians had almost relapsed into the savage life. Their vessels, which had traded to Ceylon, scarcely presumed to navigate the rivers of Africa; the ruins of Axume were deserted, the nation was scattered in villages, and the emperor, a pompous name, was content, both in peace and war, with the immovable residence of a camp. Conscious of their own indigence, the Abyssinians had formed the rational project of importing the arts and ingenuity of Europe; and their ambassadors at Rome and Lisbon were instructed to solicit a colony of smiths, carpenters, tilers, masons, printers, surgeons, and physicians, for the use of their country. But the public danger soon called for the instant and effectual aid of arms and soldiers, to defend an unwarlike people from the Barbarians who ravaged the inland country and the Turks and Arabs who advanced from the sea-coast in more formidable array. Aethiopia was saved by four hundred and fifty Portuguese, who displayed in the field the native valor of Europeans, and the artificial power of the musket and cannon. In a moment of terror, the emperor had promised to reconcile himself and his subjects to the Catholic faith; a Latin patriarch represented the supremacy of the pope: the empire, enlarged in a tenfold proportion, was supposed to contain more gold than the mines of America; and the wildest hopes of avarice and zeal were built on the willing submission of the Christians of Africa.
"But the vows which pain had extorted were forsworn on the return of health. The Abyssinians still adhered with unshaken constancy to the Monophysite faith [i.e., the view that Jesus came as God and not also quite as a man]; their languid belief was inflamed by the exercise of dispute; they branded the Latins with the names of Arians and Nestorians, and imputed the adoration of four gods to those who separated the two natures of Christ. Fremona, a place of worship, or rather of exile, was assigned to the Jesuit missionaries. Their skill in the liberal and mechanic arts, their theological learning, and the decency of their manners, inspired a barren esteem; but they were not endowed with the gift of miracles, and they vainly solicited a reenforcement of European troops. The patience and dexterity of forty years at length obtained a more favorable audience, and two emperors of Abyssinia were persuaded that Rome could insure the temporal and everlasting happiness of her votaries. The first of these royal converts lost his crown and his life; and the rebel army was sanctified by the abuna, who hurled an anathema at the apostate, and absolved his subjects from their oath of fidelity. The fate of Zadenghel was revenged by the courage and fortune of Susneus, who ascended the throne under the name of Segued, and more vigorously prosecuted the pious enterprise of his kinsman. After the amusement of some unequal combats between the Jesuits and his illiterate priests, the emperor declared himself a proselyte to the synod of Chalcedon [i.e., the orthodox view that Jesus came as God and man], presuming that his clergy and people would embrace without delay the religion of their prince. The liberty of choice was succeeded by a law, which imposed, under pain of death, the belief of the two natures of Christ: the Abyssinians were enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath; and Segued, in the face of Europe and Africa, renounced his connection with the Alexandrian church. A Jesuit, Alphonso Mendez, the Catholic patriarch of Aethiopia, accepted, in the name of Urban VIII., the homage and abjuration of the penitent. 'I confess,' said the emperor on his knees, 'I confess that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and the sovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I offer my person and kingdom.' A similar oath was repeated by his son, his brother, the clergy, the nobles, and even the ladies of the court: the Latin patriarch was invested with honors and wealth; and his missionaries erected their churches or citadels in the most convenient stations of the empire. The Jesuits themselves deplore the fatal indiscretion of their chief, who forgot the mildness of the gospel and the policy of his order, to introduce with hasty violence the liturgy of Rome and the inquisition of Portugal. He condemned the ancient practice of circumcision, which health, rather than superstition, had first invented in the climate of Aethiopia. A new baptism, a new ordination, was inflicted on the natives; and they trembled with horror when the most holy of the dead were torn from their graves, when the most illustrious of the living were excommunicated by a foreign priest. In the defense of their religion and liberty, the Abyssinians rose in arms, with desperate but unsuccessful zeal. Five rebellions were extinguished in the blood of the insurgents: two abunas were slain in battle, whole legions were slaughtered in the field, or suffocated in their caverns; and neither merit, nor rank, nor sex, could save from an ignominious death the enemies of Rome. But the victorious monarch was finally subdued by the constancy of the nation, of his mother, of his son, and of his most faithful friends. Segued listened to the voice of pity, of reason, perhaps of fear: and his edict of liberty of conscience instantly revealed the tyranny and weakness of the Jesuits. On the death of his father, Basilides expelled the Latin patriarch, and restored to the wishes of the nation the faith and the discipline of Egypt. The Monophysite churches resounded with a song of triumph, 'that the sheep of Aethiopia were now delivered from the hyaenas of the West;' and the gates of that solitary realm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism of Europe."
~ Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4, Chapter XLVII: Ecclesiastical Discord.-Part VI.
Ah, but which perspective sounds and smacks more like the devil? (And sounds more like legalism -- vis a vis St. Paul's objections to? And legal positivism?) There is nothing wrong with change, and correction. After all did we not just canonize a pope who believed this and who ushered in Vatican 2? As someone once said:
"No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak. If he does, its fullness pulls away, the new from the old, and the tear gets worse.
Likewise, no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins are ruined. Rather, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins.”
Mark 2:21-22
While irrational and amoral modernism must of course be abhorred and guarded against, it is not strictly necessary to stay wholly in the Middle Ages -- again as Vatican 2 made plain.
Another quick point I want to add is that by not relinquishing right reason, the church saves it from being claimed by irrational, dogmatic, and superstitious moderns, and where the moderns are wrong, it invariably is when they are irrational, etc.; though claiming to be otherwise. Again, I think the question is what is best for the church; including let's encourage people to think; not dissuade them from it. Did not Jesus also say:
“Why do you not judge for yourselves the right thing to do?"
Luke 12: 57
-- while placing due emphasis on the notion (first promoted by Arcesilaus and Carneades) that there is much to be said for suspending judgment, and it is an option often worth availing ourselves of when faced with what are after all often impossible (for us) questions.
And were a person to abandon right reason that makes them not only a mad man, but such who rejects the Holy Spirit. Our Lord reasoned regularly with doubters. Are we so weak and feeble that we merely shut them out and not speak to and answer them?
If you would you discourage people from thinking deeply, honestly, and rationally, then you will find fine company with the devil; for that is how he is also. For my part, I have no reason to believe that what the church believes is or needs to be in conflict with right reason. But you seem to suggest it can, and this it seems to me as a far worse heresy than an individual wondering about the validity of a given point of non-critical theology, and merely SUSPENDING judgment as a result.
As Clement of Alexandria says in his "Stromata":
[ch. 2]
Philosophy came into existence, not on its own account, but for the advantages reaped by us from knowledge, we receiving a firm persuasion of true perception, through the knowledge of things comprehended by the mind.
[ch. 6]
...But as we say that a man can be a believer without learning, so also we assert that it is impossible for a man without learning to comprehend the things which are declared in the faith. But to adopt what is well said, and not to adopt the reverse, is caused not simply by faith, but by faith combined with knowledge. But if ignorance is want of training and of instruction, then teaching produces knowledge of divine and human things. But just as it is possible to live rightly in penury of this world's good things, so also in abundance. And we avow, that at once with more ease and more speed will one attain to virtue through previous training. But it is not such as to be unattainable without it; but it is attainable only when they have learned, and have had their senses exercised. [Hebrews 5:14] “For hatred,” says Solomon, “raises strife, but instruction guards the ways of life;” in such a way that we are not deceived nor deluded by those who are practiced in base arts for the injury of those who hear. “But instruction wanders reproachless,” [Proverbs 10:19] it is said. We must be conversant with the art of reasoning, for the purpose of confuting the deceitful opinions of the sophists...
For him who is fluent in words he calls loquacious; and him who is clever, vocal; and “divine,” him who is skilled, a philosopher, and acquainted with the truth.
Thank you Father for these informative videos on this thoughtful and influential theologian. There is much to admire in his work.
I am particularly interested in his personal views on the "reasonable hope all are saved". I understand (somewhat, at least) the arguments but don't find them persuasive against Jesus own words, other Holy Scripture, the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, most Saints and the fairly continuous teaching of the Magisterium. These seem clearly at odds to me.
We have a "hope that all are saved", but is that not best understood in the context of individuals: that each person chooses salvation and converts? The likelihood that all collectively (likely, probably) are saved, regardless of their apparent free choices to the contrary, seems to me to be infinitesimally small in light of far more authoritative teaching and also extremely dangerous.
Deep, deep.
I really enjoy your videos Fr.Barron. The video on Balthasar's idea of aesthetic arrest is thought-provoking. Have you ever thought of doing a video on German Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg?
Ok, so my understanding of this is that we might “reasonably dare to hope that all may be saved” & that this is very, very different to saying or believing that “we can have reasonable hope that all may be saved”. It seems to me that Bishop Barrons critics think that the latter is being advocated - but I just don’t get that from listening to the three videos and reading the explication on the WOF webpages about this topic. it seems to me that it is the former quote I listed that is being stated by BB. ... but I could be wrong. My point is : Is this just a semantics issue that is getting everyone so up in arms about HUvB ?
Reverend Father Barron,
A casual perusal of a google search on the "fewness of the saved" includes Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, Marian Apparitions and Scripture (the strongest descriptions coming from our Lord Jesus Himself) which all indicate that many are going to Hell. Our Lord Jesus, as you mentioned, not only warned of Hell, but also warns about the difficulty of gaining Heaven.
Father, how does one reconcile these myriad of consistent (at least until recently) teachings, plethora of Saint, Popes and Church Doctors’ statements regarding the “fewness of the saved” with the “reasonable hope that all will be saved” that comes from one contemporary Theologian who was clearly influence by Protestantism?
Thank you, Father and May the Lord Bless you and Keep you (Num 6:24-26)
That's too one-sided. There are many Biblical passages that suggest the possibility that all will be saved, and they have to be read in tension with those that suggest otherwise. Further, there are many other figures in the great tradition who tend in the direction of universalism: Origen, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, Julian of Norwich, etc. But finally, the liturgy obliges us to pray, over and over again, for the salvation of all. This has to indicate, at the very least, that such a state of affairs is something for which we can earnestly hope.
Right. I don't see why we can't or shouldn't hope for this.
Fr. Robert Barron What are some of those Biblical passages?
@@BishopBarron
What about the Fatima apparitions, where Mary says that more souls *_do go_* to hell for sins of the flesh (or impurity -- I forget the specifics) than for any other sin?
Mary even showed the children the vision of hell where they *saw* people in hell.
We know from countless exorcist tales that Judas' spirit possesses people, not to mention the Bible says it would be better had he never been born, which is indicative of only one thing.
The Council of Trent, Session VI Chapter 3: "But though he died for all, yet _do _*_not_* all receive the benefit of his death, but those only unto whom the merit of his passion is communicated [excepting, of course, those who, through no fault of their own, do not accept Him, but that's an exception only because it is expressly delineated].
What about Limbo of the Infants?
Oh mon Dieu Bishop Baron, arrêtez de tromper les gens sur l'enfer !
Humility is seemingly never found in TH-cam comments. This topic more than most reminds me of a great quote most would do well to remember:
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." - George Bernard Shaw
Thank you , Fr. Barron, for this video. I think it was a great job of condensing a lot of complex theological thought into a level at which ordinary interested folks (such as myself) could understand, and it was a good followup to this idea of the "reasonable hope of salvation" which seems to generate so much commentary here. I look forward to more videos on this channel.
One question, Father. If I were interested in reading von Balthasar's writings, where would be a good place for me to begin?
Mysterium Paschale.
Fr. Robert Barron Thank you!
Universal Reconciliation seems much more likely to me than eternal, conscious torment
"Balthasar to Luther, "Watch me!"😂
I've read some of The Heart of the World, it's beautiful & also deep. I first heard about Balthasar from an essay, "Kurokami, Kumagawa, and Christ: A Christological Interpretation of Power in Medaka Box" on the website, Mage in a Barrel. I come at things at odd angles.
It wonderfully highlights a difference between right & good, and what it means to be a god rather than metely super-powered, among other subjects.
You know, I believe it is BY DESIGN that almost none of the english Christian writers are being translated to Spanish. At least I never heard of C.S. Lewis an G.K Chesterton until I moved to US. But hey! THAT could our goal, right?
Apparently, Balthasar was considered so idiosyncratic and an autodidact who was not worthy of serious listening to in his day. He was not a professor affiliated with a university, was largely self-published in his time, and was not invited to the Second Vatican Council. Yet, today he is considered by many the premier theologian and by some as the best modern theologian of the 20th century. I wish we could have a discussion conference about his works with others with an interest in his writings.
I wish this is taught in all art schools :( :( :(
I'm stuck on the beauty part, if something "sends" me it is not the force or power of the beautiful thing that causes me to spread it's message, it is my social nature. I am driven to interact with other humans because it is in my nature. When something makes an impression on me I am driven to communicate that to others because of my nature, not because of it's nature.
To reason "God's love is so extreme that all may be saved" also carries the implication "if anyone is damned, God's love must not be as extreme as we thought." Does not this notion falsely depict Hell as arising from a lack of love on God's part?
God's love is the very reason Hell exists. His decision not to force himself upon us, not to negate our free will, is itself a dramatic expression of love.
That's not at all what I argued! I have long maintained that the doctrine of Hell is a function of two more fundamental convictions, namely, that God is love and that we are free. Going to Hell is a consequence of bad human choice, not a failure in the divine love.
Fr. Robert Barron Then perhaps its VB's phrasing that causes so much conflict here, as does the idea "an iota of remorse is all it takes to gain Heaven" since it appears to place matters of the heart above the will. We need to remember that feelings of guilt or remorse are just that: feelings. Unless they lead to action, to actually asking God for forgiveness (prior to death!), they are ultimately irrelevant.
Fr. Robert Barron Father, could you clear up one more thing? Thanks for quickly summarizing some key points of VB's theology, but I'd like to know your personal view. Clearly, we all hope ("wish" might be a better term) for an empty Hell, but do you personally believe that no one has ever died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin? I'd like to know how likely you feel that is.
Hope is a virtue, but sometimes cowardice gets masked as hope, and the empty Hell hope sounds a lot like the cowardice of a soldier sent off to the front lines, clinging to a head-in-the-sand hope that the war will have zero casualties.
Dante said that all God needs is one tear of repentance on the part of a sinner to save him from damnation. None of us possibly knows the human heart well enough to rule out that state of affairs. Therefore, yes, we may hope that all people will be saved. By the way, I'm not speculating about "likelihood." I'm asserting the legitimacy of hope.
Fr. Robert Barron Thanks again, I only ask for clarification because, to many, it reads as if you’re already commenting on likelihood, just using roundabout language. When most hear “a reasonable hope,” they take “hope” to mean expectation. And a “reasonable” expectation is one that points toward an outcome that is fairly likely. To clear the confusion, it would truly help if you gave your view on whether or not you personally believe that no one has ever died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.
Father, first off I love your videos. I have learned so much from them. But I have a question. In some of your previous videos you talk about Jesus going to the limits of God forsakenness to pull us out of our sin, ignorance, death etc... Then you clarify and say that some people reject even this "acrobatic act of love". My question would be this: what kind of sin, action, or attitude would be a complete and total rejection of even Christ crucified?
It would be a no to God's yes, even to the very roots of one's being. Has anyone in fact said that definitive no? I don't know, but I hope not.
Ernest question : If we can *reasonably* hope that even the great tyrants and monsters of history have not made such a definitive rejection, wouldn't that be effectively saying most people are quite likely to have made the cut? Put another way, if Hitler, Mao, Ghangis Khan, Mohammed, etc. all have a realistic shot of avoiding eternal punishment, wouldn't that make most people virtually guaranteed?
@@user-cz8gi2om3n not for us to say I imagine. But everyone does have a shot. Even the worst of us can find redemption.
There is more nuance to Luther’s theology of glory that doesn’t seem to be captured here. It’s not the beautiful side of divine life that Luther critiques as much as a theology of glory that minimizes suffering while maximizing triumphalism. Luther would definitely agree with beauty as God’s glory and that it is precisely revealed in an ‘emptying out’ of one’s life for the life of the world.
Hey Bishop Barron, might you recommend a good Balthazar starter? Would you recommend starting with the book on the paschal mystery that you mention in this video?
Cheers!
Thanks!
Von Balthazar’s teachings are based on the mystic he promoted Adrienne Von speyr and especially on her version of the decent into Hell by Jesus which is contrary to the council of Trent which says Jesus descended into the paradise of the bosom of Abraham the hell of waiting, and Bishop challenor wrote on this too, St. John of the cross warned of trusting in mysticism.
I can't claim to be any great fan of the bishops these days, but I do think the controversy surrounding this issue has been whipped up falsely by a particular individual whose motives I'm uncertain of. Anybody with the slightest legal training would know that when the words "reasonable hope" are used, they simply mean a hope to which you can assign a reason. You may think that reason is flimsy. You may think it is not strong enough to support the hope, but the advocate still gets to argue his case provided the theory is admissible. Within the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Balthazar's case is admissible. It may be weak, it may be unlikely, but ultimately, it's a question of fact for the jury to decide, not one of law for the judge. And certainly not for someone unilaterally appointing himself to the bench.
Amen
This is deep and beautiful, but in a time when humanity is far too lax as it is in all areas of discipline, morality and religion I believe this message may be a double-edged sword. What use is it to lead people to the beginning of the road without warning them that the road ahead is the Way of the Cross?
"What use is it to lead people to the beginning of the road without warning them that the road ahead is the Way of the Cross?"
Some may follow not because they desire something for themselves, some redemption from _unimaginable_ damnation on a 'cosmic scale', but because they _love_ who preceded them. Shepherds may have the 'headstart' - while 'magicians' will make it barely in time.
Bravo.
I'm flabbergasted, completely flabbergasted by these Father Barron videos about Hans Urs von Balthasar! One may find the complete demolition of von Balthasar's theological fantasies in "The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar", by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., in: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3344.
Well, St. John Paul II made Balthasar a Cardinal, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) spoke glowingly at Balthasar's funeral. I don't think you can write him off so easily.
Forgive me, Father Barron, but what can you mean by that? Saint John Paul II also gave a most beautiful funeral eulogium of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani -- and yet Ottaviani was written off (very) easily...
mendoncacorreia Ottaviani shouldn't have been written off. And if you want to dismiss Balthasar out of hand, you have to come up with some real arguments, friend.
Besides the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1033-1037 -- not to mention Denzinger-Hünnermann's 'Enchiridion' (1999 ed.), n. 411 --, you find them namely in Scanlon's lenghty article pointed out be me in my first comment. You may not (as I'm sure you don't) agree with them; but, with all due respect, if you want do dismiss them as 'unreal', you should explain why.
In passing, allow me to tell you that I'm a canonist, so I have some knowledge about this and other theological subjects. For what is worth, my Salamanca masters believe I'm not completely unarmed (so to speak) to talk and write about them: I gather that's one of the reasons why they proposed me to get my doctorate there. I'm telling you this because I don't want you to take me for another 'youtuber' who spams the videos s/he doesn't like. I'm honestly searching for the Truth because I know the Truth will set me free.
+mendoncacorreia Several statements of Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap are clearly wrong. I'm scholar on Biblical Theology at a Pontifical University. Regis Scandlon doesn't understand Balthasar's using of Scriptures. It is obvious Scandlon has not read even the ENTIRE Balthasar's Trilogy or he has not undestood it. Balthasar teached NONE heresy on his works. What's the Theological framework used by Scandlon to arrive to such conclusions? He has not understood Balthasar's hermeneutics nor his use of analogy. He just can't simply say: "The problem with Balthasar's "hope" is that it conceals an implicit doubt about the Church's philosophy of truth and her doctrine on Jesus Christ.", because Balthasar read and understood about Catholic philosophy and theology more than many others. Hoping for salvation to all men IS NOT AGAINST SCRIPTURES!!!! It's a real hope derived FROM SCRIPTURES read IN Church living Tradition and according to Magisterial Teachings. Just read and have a deep meditation on the all New Testament theological background. Hoping means not that God must sabe anyone, but that hoping is a coherent theological attitude.
This calls to mind Thomas Merton's discussion of Julian of Norwich in his work on the English mystics.
6:40 O Your Excellency, is the sin of modernism and even of modernity truly autonomy, which is self-policing, or is it rather individual sovereignty, which is rebellion? For the peasant who genuflects willingly to his king without being told to is autonomous but the pretender to the throne who beheads his king and takes his crown is sovereign, no?
"Acrobatic act of love", sounds like acrobatic language, or mental gymnastics.
Dear Bishop , I think God himself said in Luke 13 that will try but will not enter heaven.
This current conflict to me is a bit pointless, because ultimately it comes down to a simple fact. This Creation is not ours, it is God's. Our definition of good or evil is, by our nature, at best incomplete and at worst flawed, thank God that it is His definition of these it is based on and not ours, otherwise we would all be simultaneously in Heaven and Hell at once if all of human views were taken to account.
So hope and love like all may be saved and you might be with the other person forever in Paradise seeing who God intends them to be, but pray and evangelize like none but the Saints are surely in Heaven, for one soul lost for lack of such is an eternity of loss of God for them, something unalterable once the time has come. A person forever lost.
We can hope it for all that is out of our hands, but it ought never be risked in case we are mistaken. So neither this way nor that way are best, but both molded to our limited state, not acting as though we have the verdict.
This is only an issue if we want to be lazy or if we want to know all as God does. So we need to do what Christ told us to do and be workers and stop pretending we are running the house.
Why did Jesus come and die such a horrible death in order to save us from Hell if no matter what we do we will be saved from Hell. No need of Confession or following Commandments and following Jesus. Then Jesus life death and Resurrection of no value or meaning and the Ten Commandments. Of no concern or value. Doesn’t make sense.
10:57 "And that's why the cross of Jesus is the redemption of all...This is where the controversial idea comes from of the hope that all people may be saved...Does Balthasar know it? No, he repudiates Origens apocatastasis... that's against the Church's teaching." I had to look up apocatastasis in the New Advent and there St. Gregory of Nyssa is said to have explicitly taught apocatastasis: "a name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls." Origen before Gregory of Nyssa also taught apocastastasis which the Church eventually anathematized. I'm going to post this on Michael Voris's Vortex today as he needs to also indict St. Gregory of Nyssa along with Balthasar and Fr. Barron to be fair.
There is debate over whether St Gregory taught it, but to be fair, this doctrine was not condemned ecumenically and at council until centuries after St Gregory's death.
Von Balthasar and others defending "dare we hope" are denying the words of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 48 as well as Pope John Paul in Crossing the Threshold of Hope where the doctrine of "reasonable hope" is killed. Pope John Paul II mentioned Origen and von Balthasar by name. Funny though, defenders of von Balthasar never mention JPII's statement against von Balthasar in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 3 years later but I was curious and found what you mentioned.
In no way is Balthasar accused in that work… On the contrary: Saint John Paul II seems to assume a similar position.
Here the quote:
“The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.”
Where is Balthasar spoken against?
It is simply said that the problem bugged many authors: the first being Origen and the last being Balthasar.
@@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832 because the pope said Matthew 25 is clear and unequivocal. The CCC and Vatican II said the same about Hell--Matthew 25 is clear and it's about those that will be damned.
@@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832 How is this taking Hans' position?
"And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment"
The Pope just says we don't know the names, "Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard"
But even this seems like an error since the 5th ecumenical council declared several dead theologians anathema and "separated from God"
Why not mention his heresies about hell?
It would be a shame that no book from Hans Urs von Balthasar were translated to Spanish, I really want to read some of his writings.
Can someone identify the painting of Christ at 3:20?
if BEAUTIFUL is objective and it pulls you to GOOD and TRUE, then the Traditional Latin Mass with its chants and reverence should be the mainstream mass, churches should be built like the cathedrals of old and the clergy should ditch the business suit and don the cassock
I disagree
Didn't Jesus went even lower, to Hell itself? And then came back to life. Maybe he did that to save the "pre-Cross" just men.
au hasard balthazar by robert bresson!
Sheesh, what a smarty-pants.
Muszę przyznać, że ktoś, kto opowiada o pustym piekle, a tym kimś jest Hans Urs von Balthasar, kto odrzuca stałą naukę Kościoła na ten temat, kto ją bagatelizuje, pokazuje skrajną nieodpowiedzialność. Przecież taki człowiek wystawia ludzi na potworne, realne niebezpieczeństwo, niemal popycha ich ku wiecznej zagładzie. Jak taki ktoś został mianowany kardynałem?!
Dr Karen Kilby is going to paddle your behind!
If we were all perfect God's glory would be manifest...the theology of the Cross(alone) is the usual homiletic stance ....if Christ did not rise our preaching is useless.
Lots of perfumery there padre. Yes, heretics have quite a rich bounty of what must be made better-smelling.
How about a real argument and not just huffing and puffing?
+Bishop Robert Barron Thank you. Don't mind if I do. Was it not his belief that Jesus was not divine? Not only is that heresy, but Antichrist.
+Bishop Robert Barron We have one of these priests here. A real treat these followers of Balthasar. Likes his Kenotic Theology. Did you know that Jesus was "powerless"? And that there are no miracles. And he doesn't believe in sin. And in one homily talked about the spirit & 4 elements and the God Ra (apparently wicca of some sort). Do I really need to spell out the argument? Defend.
Great video, reminds me of he that see'th me see'th he who sent me. J N I
Judas Iscariot... "but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." (Mt. 26:24)
Oh and...
'Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.'
Matthew 25:41-46
And so many more.
Then there is the admonishment not to lead any of his sheep astray like the teaching of von Balthasar and likewise Bishop Barron are doing...
Matthew 18:6 - 'but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'
Universalism is a heresy. Please stop.
If God would follow Your example, the heavens would have been kept on 'lock down' - man is just too much of a _risk_ ...
@@christophmahler The example you are speaking of is the example of Christ that I am following. The words I quote are His. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ was divine while on the earth like von Balthasar and Bishop Barron most likely do, or that the Gospels are inspired by God and that men like Hitler and Stalin will be joined in communion with the most High in heaven, then you should start your own religion. That simply is not Catholic. Truth will not change to fit your feelings.
@@christophmahler Oh and... universalism is still a heresy.
@@mrbooe
"(...) the example of Christ that I am following."
You sound _sure_ of that...
But in my experience the See of Rome is not a means in itself - it just what is left standing. And when it comes to what other people think on the early church (i.e. Balthasar), I can see that You don't care.
Have You ever visited a Salafist meeting ? I suspect, You would feel quite _at_ _home_ , give it try, who needs to consider love when one can speak like a *'ringing* *gong'* ...
@@christophmahler You really don't see it. Let me be simpler. I quoted the words of Christ in 90%-95% of that first post and you questioned it as if the words were mine. Your argument is with Christ on that point... good luck with that.
If your 'experience' leads you to deny that the Catholic Church was established by Christ as the fullness of Truth and the only means of salvation then again I say... go start your own religion. That is not Catholic.
If you truly believe that the Catholic Church is only what was left standing and that the Holy Spirit has not actively kept the Truth safe within for 2000 years then again, you should either convert to the one true faith found in the Catholic Church or simply start your own religion. God forbids worshiping other gods, but He will let you do it to preserve your free will until the day you die... and you shall hear on that day, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.'
As for Salafist Islam... Islam is the most vile, evil plague to ever touch the face of the planet. Don't try to misquote my words and claim I am speaking about any particular Muslim who has been diluted into following such evil. I am speaking about Theological and the inextricable Political Islam. So even advising someone to 'try' an abomination to God shows your true indifferentism. You are not concerned with Truth, but with diluting it so that your chosen lifestyle is able to be justified by your own subjective standards after the fact.
Every night I pray that men (and women) all over the world will come to see all other men as their brothers. That they will lay down their weapons and make war no more. It is my faith that this is possible through Jesus Christ, the joining into the brotherhood of Jesus Christ. If one man sees an enemy as a brother, my prayer has been answered, but it is my "hope" that all men come to see this.
There are many mysteries to Christianity. One is how can we be happy in Heaven if someone we loved on earth is in Hell? We have adequate Scriptural evidence that those who are with God in Heaven will be happy. So is the solution the "hope" that regardless of faith or morals, all men are saved and nobody is in Hell? I don't have the answer to this question. What I am trying to say is that the "hope" in universal salvation is a theological hypothesis, but there seems to be enough Scriptural evidence for me to reject that hypothesis. So it is reasonable for me to abandon the "hope" that all are saved and continue to pray that all men may come to know God through his Son.