What does Zig Forums think of Bishop Robert Barron?

kek

Attached: elected-chuckle-lol-kek.png (688x418, 584.56K)

He didn't say it's empty though, he said that it's possible that it's empty, which is true insofar that there are Catholic theologians that have been advocating this view and who, as far as I know, weren't condemned by the Church for this. So it's a legitimate matter for theologians to discuss whether Hell being empty is consistent with the Magisterium or not.

And anyway, even if he is genuinely wrong, it's a small, insignificant remark, and it's absolutely expected of a person who speaks and teaches much, and who is also a fallible human, to make at least one error somewhere. This happened even to the greatest saints, even people like St. Thomas Aquinas would err sometimes. Because however great theologians they were, they were still fallible. As long as their errors are small, irrelevant, honest mistakes, there is no point in making them the focus of our consideration of them. We don't do this with Aquinas, whose teachings have much more authority and relevance, so I don't see why we should concentrate our attention so hard on one, understandable mistake of Barron. Obsessing over it distorts our view of his overall work, in the same way that obsessing over Aquinas's small, rare errors whenever he is mentioned would.

Attached: 06_10_2015_17.jpg (1464x1800, 568.93K)

Hell could be empty at the moment, aren't souls cast in after the Final Judgement?

Stating that hell can even be possibly empty flatly contradicts basically every vision of hell ever recorded by the saints and, along with the story of Lazarus and Dives if you want to get fully authoritative. Furthermore, he emphasizes the eternal separation from God while downplaying hellfire to the point of describing it as a metaphor for separation. I don't begrudge him for his hope, but given how vitally important the doctrine of hell and how grossly he misrepresents it I ask us all to pray that God will not as well.

It makes sense for him to say there's a chance of Hell being empty when I saw him make fun of the Fatima apparition in that same video's comment section. People were pointing out that our Lady showed at Fatima a vision of Hell as proof that it cannot possibly be empty, so he laughed the whole thing off instead of admitting he was wrong. Even worse, in another video he said that Hell is not a place of fiery torment, but rather that Hell and Gehenna are spatial metaphors for the deep state of loneliness following separation from God. Again, that directly contradicts scripture and Catholic teaching. What's more, in another video he says not to interpret Adam in Genesis as a literal figure, but rather he is a metaphor for the first "scientist". Once more, he's directly contradicting Catholic doctrine which affirms that Adam and Even were the first humans from which we are all descended.

I understand he probably does good things, but personally I think he's just another false teacher who distorts the truth to appeal to people's "feel good" view of the faith.

...

Hell is where people go now, Lake of Fire is after Judgement Day.

If by scientist he's referring to the tree of knowledge then I understand what he would be getting at there. Man decides not to trust God and instead decides to investigate the gather knowledge about the world on his own, discovering evil through sheer disobedience in the process. It's a reasonable opinion, even if it's a wee bit heterodox. Making light of Fatima is another matter entirely, and it does sadden me to read such a comment. Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile that we all read his most nuanced take on the matter.
wordonfire.org/resources/blog/remembering-hans-urs-von-balthasars-important-book/4620/

That can't be what he meant, because his reasoning behind Adam being a metaphor for a scientist is because Adam was the first to name God's creation. In Genesis, that happens before the fall, so there was no disobedience in him doing so.

Could you find me the video so I could hear his own words on the matter?

At 5:52 he starts talking about Adam

He isn't here stating that Adam is a metaphor for the first scientist. He is simply denying a literal reading, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and extolling Adam in the perfect capacity that a perfect man would have had for rational thought, and shows where Genesis demonstrates this.

But that's heresy…

No, it's not. Allegorical interpretation of Genesis goes back to Augustine, probably even further.

No no, reading Genesis allegorically is fine, but stating that it shouldn't be read a literal historical, THAT is heresy.

He said that Adam should not be read as a literal figure. That's it.

...

Attached: 1453568853701.gif (250x225, 104.06K)

isn't the lake of fire hell?

Hell is relocated to the Lake of Fire, but the Lake of Fire is after Judgement Day. It's basically the exact same as Hell but just at a different place.

catholic pedophile piece of shit(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

lol

Simmer down buddy

Nothing wrong with that. tbh(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

fugg off

Everyone judges him solely from what he puts out on Youtube but he does a lot more than that. The Catholicism documentary series he did as a priest is really well put together.

Attached: jar fry 2.png (183x275, 84.08K)

Dat visual pun

Attached: e4112dd4e30fcadce98480fddff743ded534248ac02ab0645a8c9345dfc14199.jpg (243x355, 13.54K)

if everyone goes to heaven then i'm gonna get drunk and do some drugs tomorrow eff that

hoot hoot

Attached: images (5).jpeg (225x225, 6K)