Friday, October 11, 2013

Once Apologetics Was an Honorable Pursuit

This is what a Catholic
Apologist Looks Like
Edit: Once upon a time lay apologetics was somewhat respectable. There were men of the stature of Joseph de Maistre, the sincere convert Orestes Brownson in the 19th century, and in the 20th century there were some lesser lights, but there was much volume, if not actual brilliance. Then we have those who have attempted to fill, or have been nominated by someone to fill, their shoes.

So, after being treated graciously by Michael Voris.  (Voris even recommends Shea's books, which is something we'd never do)  Shea goes on in his slandering, lying, dishonorable habitude.  This man just can't help but lie:

(Mark Shea): "Bah. Voris attempted to complain that prayer, fasting, almgiving and the works of mercy were "too vague" (and here he got in the sneer "like Vatican II"). Precisely my difficulty here is that so much of what he does is not admonishing sinners. It is expressing rage and often (as last niight) accusing innocent people like Fr. Robert Barron of being sinners and ginning up a mob against them. Poison."

1. Voris never says prayer, fasting and almsgiving is too vague.  This is yet another lie from Shea.

Also, Voris doesn't sneer at Vatican II, he might disagree with many of the interpretations employed by evil Lefty academics, but agree or not, Voris accepts the documents of Vatican II as a valid act of the Church.

2. Notice how Shea doesn't really discuss Voris' very legitimate criticism of Father Barron. Our guess is that Shea is incapable of addressing the problem because he's not only an intellectual lightweight, but also unwilling to admit he's wrong, and so resorts to making personal attacks on Voris.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of low information Catholics who hang on Shea's word.  It doesn't matter if Shea is disrespectful to priests, as he often is, directing his rather voluminous quantities of digestive fluid on them or whether he's slandering various lay Catholics, many of whom aren't traditionalist by the way.

Here's basically what Voris said about Father Barron, who is everything that's wrong with Catholic education:

 If you want to go to the Apostle of Dollars and Cents website, here:


Anonymous said...

At least Voris is taken seriously as a Catholic.

Tancred said...

Voris tries very hard to reflect, mirror the Magisterium, while Shea attempts to manufacture his own.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Voris quotes the clarion words of Christ from the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel as the cornerstone of his disagreement with Fr. Barron, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire..." and “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Voris left out some very important verses regarding the
cause of the goat's condemnation to hell. Just for clarity's sake, and our
own, here is the full text from Matthew 25.
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave
me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I
needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

St. Matthew's Gospel puts Christ's unambiguous words, and all that Vatican II "social justice" stuff, in it's proper place, don't ya think... i.e., at the very heart and core of every individual's personal moral responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Our Lord also said that the poor would always be with us. If I'm not mistaken, the Two Great Commandments have as their order: (1) God and (2) neighbor. The present Bishop of Rome has spent his priestly lifetime inverting the order.

James the Least (just trying to be humble).

Editor said...

I believe Jesus needs both Voris and Shea in His vineyard. Pax in Christi.

Tancred said...

I agree.

Anonymous said...

My friend. I, too, struggle daily with all that the Lord has taught. As I understand His words we must love God with all our mind, heart and soul BY what we do for the least among us. All else is footnote.

Anonymous said...

How do you both figure that one? Honest question.

Anonymous said...

I listened to Mr. Voris' commentary and read Father Barron's. I only intend to suggest that both make solid points. While I feel that Hell exists I also believe that Jesus did not come to save a few. His ultimate sacrifice was done for mankind, not just a select few. Jesus speaks often about eternal damnation but I don't recall him ever stating that any specific person was damned. If anything, he talked about those that were saved! He frequently gave example of sinners who were he named as saved. The Samaritan woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, the thief on the cross. To my knowledge he only identified those that were saved. He never once identified anyone who was damned.

Finally, I appreciate Father Barron's efforts in education as he speaks on the full faith both Scripture and Tradition. Fr. Barron attempts to analyzed Mr. Martin's book as it relates to both Scripture and Tradition. He acknowledges that saints have held divergent views on hell and then goes on to show what modern theologians think. One of these happens to be our past pope. While he was not speaking ex cathedra, I do believe his thinking carries weight.

But, what do I know. I'm just a poor sinner hoping in the Lord.

Sine Nomine said...

Thank you, anon, for being the only sane comment on this blog. This folks who maintain this blog probably also think the earth doesn't rotate and is only a few thousand years old. Face palm.

Tancred said...

Personal opinion doesn't really count for much. Why should anyone care?

_ said...

God wants both Voris and Shae in His vineyard, but one is blinded by pride..

Tancred said...

I was also just going to say that God gives every man a choice between Heaven and Hell. I assume that He desires Mark Shea's salvation just as much, if not more, than he desires Michael Voris' salvation.

Anonymous said...

Re-casting himself as a credible player in the new evangelization as opposed to just a self referential judge with a bee in his bonnet will be a long hard struggle. I suppose interjecting his name among those referenced here might help quell the damage. Time will tell, we'll see.

Anonymous said...

Recasting himself (Voris) as a credible player....

Geremia said...

Deo gratias that Jimmy Akin seems to understand the sedevacantist argument well, though.

Anonymous said...

Comparing Voris and Shea is like comparing a cruise ship and a dingy. Voris towers over Shea in every way possible. Voris is the ONLY Catholic media person speaking the truth about the damage to the Church over the last five decades. His insights and related commentary are vital. God bless Michael Voris. Shea.....well......he may wish to consider Truck Driver Institute and a new career.

Supertradmum said...

I found eleven serious errors in Barron's book Catholicism...find them yourselves.

Anonymous said...

who cares about either of these guys - God bless them, I have a life to live.

They should use "anonymous" as their name so that every time they speak, it is read for face value and not for their status or reputation - leave it all to Jesus.

ProLIFEmommy said...

Our Lord tells us: "The gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." When the possibility that many are lost is put forward, the retort is sometimes made that when Jesus was asked whether only a few are saved, he refused to answer; and the people who make this retort often give the impression that Jesus' omission to answer indicated disagreement with the idea that only a few are saved. They seem to forget what he said. His response was: "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." He went on to speak of his judgment on those who would be thrust out of the kingdom of God. Certainly he does not say only a few will be saved; but he doesn't deny it either.

It would be rash to interpret the reference to "the few" as telling us definitely that not many are saved. Jesus may be stating that few follow the right way of life. But his words, together with the force and frequency of his warnings about hell, surely suggest that many are lost rather than few.

Our Lady showed the little Children of Fatima a horrifying vision of hell. Lucia dos Santos describes the great sea of fire shown them by Our Lady. "Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised up in the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear."

Rejection of hell is heresy. Nor is it possible that hell is inhabited only by the fallen angels, with no human souls there. Were that so, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium would be speaking hypothetically, without intending to say that anyone actually is lost. Now a person who puts forward that interpretation is making words mean what he wants them to mean, remaining blind to their obvious meaning and rejecting the sense in which they have always been understood. Such a person is defying the sensus fidelium.

What of the claim that we have never been told any particular individual is in hell? Even that is going too far, for Christ's words about Judas may mean he is in hell. He is called "the son of perdition" and Jesus says: "It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." Our Lord declares: " . . . whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

He tells us that on the Last Day many will remind him they had done mighty works in his name, but he will say to them: "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers." He warns his disciples: " . . . fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell." He declares that it is better " . . . to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."
He adds that in hell ". . . their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." The parable of the net holding good and bad fish ends with the statement that the angels will separate the evil from the good "and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." The same fate for the wicked is given in the parable of the tares and the wheat.

In Christ's graphic description of the Last Judgment he tells us the sentence he will pronounce on the wicked: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Anonymous said...

If there are real errors why would you recommend for us to read them when many people may not see them (and so fall for them)?

Point them out, please.

Tancred said...

His universalism is a serious problem as well as carrying water for sodomy.

Tancred said...

That's nice but it's wrong and probably heretical.

Tancred said...

Quietism is alive and well.

Aged parent said...

Anon @8:57

If Fr Barron is saying that "all men" can attain salvation, then of course that would be one fundamental error in his book. It matters not at all that von Baltasar, et al, hold the same opinion. They are in error as well.

Any unbaptized soul still carries the defect of Original Sin, so pagans, Jews, Muslims, etc. cannot possibly enter Heaven unless they receive Baptism of Water and become Catholics. And we must be careful with doctrinal theories like Baptism of "desire" or Baptism of "blood" because even though several great Saints held somewhat similar views these are not defined dogmas or settled doctrine. Baptism of Water is defined dogma so it is best that we stay on the safe side here and not assume everyone will be saved by some odd, extra-Sacramental "baptism".

On a less weighty matter, Father Barron is rather dead to true art and does not give one the impression of great intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Aged Parent,
Your comment that Baptism with water is absolutely essential for salvation is not in accord with Catholic Church teaching. See Pius XI, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Blessed John Paul the Great, Second Vatican Council.

By the way, is not the layman's role to sanctify the secular sphere. Perhaps Shea and Voris should go get a real job.

Tancred said...

Canon 4 “If anyone shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.”

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at October 11, 2013 at 5:51 PM,

Your position is confused, as obviously based on ignorance of Scripture and Tradition.

First, God tells us there are persons in Hell. Read the Book of Job, and the Apocalypse. In fact in the Latter he tells us that the False Prophet and the Antichrist will be cast into hell. As for "son of perdition" it definitely means that Judas is of the damned; the "it would have been better than he had never been born" is the worse possible fate one can imagine, and that means damnation. So, have the father read it.

As for Our Lord, von Balthasar's thesis that all can be saved is heretical; because you cannot preach or teach or hope that something is true, unless God has taught it, revealed it, affirmed it. To say as von Balthasar does that you can hope it, is to say you can hope that there will come to pass what God has not promised.

You know, you can hope such; but that is not supernatural hope; that's the fairyland, I wish everything will be as I want, hope. That's optimism, but not Christian hope.

To hope, with human optimism, that God will do what I want or prefer, or interpret the scriptures to mean, against the consensus of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, is pride, presumption, and godlessness. Its a mortal sin, and don't fool yourself, it comes from heresy. Because it is founded upon the denial that God will a select few to be saved absolutely, with His preferentia and consequent will (that is from all eternity, regardless of their merits) and allows many to be damned (that is, does not prefer it, but does not will their salvation from eternity.

I refer you to the summa of St. Thomas.

Finally, Our Lord is sincerety and truth incarnate; if you imply that Our Lord did not mean what He said, you are a blaphemer, and are condemend by Pope John 22nd, who in Quia quorundam, anathematized those who say that there is any sort of deceit in the words or actions of Our Lord.

Anonymous said...

Our Lord's words have nothing to do with social justice, which is a concept drawn from socialism. Our Lord's teaching has to do with Christian charity. Charity and socialism are lightyears apart. The first is based on the fact that God is our adopted Father, who is Love Itself, and thus, in the act of love we remain in Him; the whole purpose of Christian charity is not the love of the poor, it is the love of God. Social justice has two senses: in the objective catholic sense it refers to acts of justice that regard the society; like cleaning upon the streat infront of my own house, when the trash there comes from my property. But in the mouth of socialists, social justice is a code word for redistribution of wealth, as in, the wealthy are guilty for being such and must in justice dole out stuff to the less well off. By which the socialists mean: non socialists must give material support to socialists, so that the latter can reign over the former.

Yes, certain saints have said that we are obliged to help the poor, but it is not out of the title of social justice, it is out of the obligation of Christian charity. Its a big difference. But for the modernists who write nearly every Church document today, they need to push socialism, because they do not see Christian charity as having any sustainable worth in a world in which they wish to purge of call objective supernatural Catholic values.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the immediately preceding comment: Wow...

I'm just... wow.

Anonymous said...

This may be a stupid and off subject question, but if the writings of the Bible are so important why didn't Jesus write anything himself?

Lynda said...

As the Bible says, Jesus said and did many things in teaching the Apostles that aren't recounted in the Bible. Jesus gave us the Church, whose first bishops He had instructed and given their mission and to whom the Holy Spirit was sent. This was the means Our Lord chose to bring salvation to the world. The Church gave us Sacred Scripture, which with Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church make up the Deposit of Faith.

Unknown said...

I have a list of Prayers books. Parents can bought tomorrow with the kids, especially if your parish is doing nothing.
Books On Prayer AND Fasting