At 6:28 on the video Bishop Robert Barron cites Lumen Gentium 16 which he interprets with the false premise, the red passages.Then he projects Vatican Council II(LG 16) as a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So there is no more exclusive salvation in the only the Catholic Church for him.So to get to Heaven one does not have to be a Catholic for him. He refuses to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, the blue passages.
If he did not choose the irrational option he could not have received the 1.7 grant from the Templeton Foundation.
It was by creating a rupture between faith and reason, with the false premise, that he was able to collect that money.
In their review and criticism of this talk Fr. Mark Goring and Ralph Martin have overlooked this point. Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc can be interpreted with the red or blue passages and the conclusion would be different.
All three of them use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Lumen Gentium and so their conclusion is non traditional.
Fr.Mark Goring cites Scripture too but rejects the conclusion of Lumen Gentium 16 interpreted with the false premise. Ralph Martin also does not seem aware that LG 16 can be interpreted as being only hypothetical. So LG 16 could not be relevant to EENS or an exception to the old 'imperialism'.
At 7:36 on the video Bishop Barron cites Nostra Aetate 2 and there being rays of light; rays of that one Truth found also in other religions.Again his premise is that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church, 'with the ray of that Truth which enligtens all men'.So for him, NA 2 contradicts the past exclusive ecclesiology. He uses the same false premise as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
He is irrational like that Letter(1949).Nostra Aetate 2,or Gaudium et Specs 22, like LG 16, refers to a hypothetical and speculative case.Always. It is something we can hope for with good will.Theoretically only. If the Council Fathers assumed that it referred to a practical exception to EENS this was an objective error.
Here we have Bishop Robert Barron drawing upon the New Theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to suggest that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the new doctrine which the popes from Pius XII over looked.
Now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with the error and the other without it.
For Bishop Barron the fullness of salvation does not necessarily mean being saved through Jesus in the Catholic Church only (AG 7). He is Christocentric. He excludes St. Peter's implicit reference to the Church of that time, the Catholic Church.St. Peter was calling for a baptism of water in a particular Church. It was not independent of the Church.At that time there were no Christian churches with their different doctrines.There was no sola scriptura.
Bishop Barron refers to the Christian church and not the Catholic Church - but there was only one true Church at that time(UR 3).It was the Catholic Church.Catholics were the new people of God( NA 4). All needed faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7)in the Catholic Church.
At 8:36 on the video he asks can someone be saved in a participated way in these other traditions? Even if someone was saved as such we would not know.So this theoretical case would not be an exception to the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27Q) and the Athanasius Creed.So why mention it? So what if someone is saved as such in other religions ? Are there any such known people in 2021?
At 9:30 on the video he refers to following the voice of Christ in one's conscience,as in the case of a non believer, again drawing upon LG 16. It is the same error. In principle he assumes hypothetical cases are objective and explicit in the present times(1965-2021). Who among us knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church with a good conscience ? Where are the practical cases ? There are none.So why mention them? Again he chooses to confuse what is implicit as being explict, unknown as known, hypothetical as objective and then project imaginary exceptions to the past exclesiocentrism which was Magisterial and which he rejects.He cannot interpet Vatican Council II without this false premise.
All this is deception and a rupture between faith and reason. Bishop Robert Barron received the collected the Templeton Foundation grant to address the harmony between faith and science. How do you address it, with duplicity? He has to interpret the Council with a fake premise, inference and conclusion ? This is the Magisterium for Bishop Barron ? In this way Vatican Council II is Magisterial for him ?
Bishop Barron's interpretation of Vatican Council II reminds me of the fossils, Peking Man which Teilhard de Chardin accepted as genuine and scientific. It was a fake. Chardin based his bad theology upon this un-scientific finding to support evolution and reincarnation.
The Holy Spirit guided the Church over the centuries and taught exclusive salvation.Bishop Barron rejects this Magisterium, which for him is 'agressive exclusivism'.The saints and martyrs affirmed exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church without being violent.
Instead we see an intolerance of our Catholic beliefs.Bishop Barron who would criticize the 'extremists' (but does use that word any more)knows that if he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally, he would be an extremist.
So now with deceptive theology he he presents Jesus without the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church.He cites Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise and calls this our 'Christian identity'.-Lionel Andrades
Fake premise
______________________________________
Posts
