tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post1231485555972435419..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Fr. Robert Barron Denies that Adam Was a "Literal Figure"Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50120614460968729112015-04-11T23:32:54.544-04:002015-04-11T23:32:54.544-04:00Yes I did. I don't allow radical Catholic reac...Yes I did. I don't allow radical Catholic reactionary garbage on my site. The problem ain't Vatican II or the Catechism, but Fr. Barron's errors in this regard. He is in error; not Holy Mother Church.<br /><br />I deal with the errors in your strain of thought on a web page of mine:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/traditionalists-catholic-quasi.html <br /><br />Posting something again after I have deleted it constitutes trolling; thus I will close this discussion to prevent you from doing it again.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62068416907780843082014-03-24T13:44:23.420-04:002014-03-24T13:44:23.420-04:00Not my issues at all. To fully understand what I a...Not my issues at all. To fully understand what I am saying (and you haven't even understood <i>this</i> paper), you also have to read my second paper on the topic:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2013/11/fr-robert-barrons-denial-that-adam-and.html Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42338691974042239962014-03-24T13:40:55.022-04:002014-03-24T13:40:55.022-04:00i must say I don't think Fr. Barron was contra...i must say I don't think Fr. Barron was contradicting Catholic doctrine in his statement. He said that Adam is not a literal figure, which i understood to mean that the story of Genesis did not happen literally as told in the bible. He does NOT deny the Catholic doctrine that there was a first man and woman from which all humans are descended from. He merely said that the depiction of the first man is not a literal one. This is in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02906520551394173155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56911803276517582222014-02-26T22:51:56.199-05:002014-02-26T22:51:56.199-05:00He is not the only priest to suggest this. There i...He is not the only priest to suggest this. There is a youtube video of Cardinal Pell saying the same thing in a debate with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins keenly replied... "Then where did original sin come from?"<br /><br />*crickets*<br />Irenaeus of New Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15417864023451617631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-30646469313469094912014-02-26T06:54:32.627-05:002014-02-26T06:54:32.627-05:00Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Chu...Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:<br /><br />"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."<br /><br />Figurative ("poetic") language affirmed an actual event -- sin -- committed by our progenitors. But, the object of the first sin may not have been a literal "fruit", but nevertheless an original sin occurred by the first man and woman imbued with a soul.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16664456710497916181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37684834573968609502014-02-25T22:12:42.006-05:002014-02-25T22:12:42.006-05:00I don't think he's a heretic or outside th...I don't think he's a heretic or outside the faith; just wrong on this matter.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-85866255542353353702014-02-25T22:09:23.898-05:002014-02-25T22:09:23.898-05:00Another heretic. Whatever, I can't judge him p...Another heretic. Whatever, I can't judge him personally but I can judge his actions and thus, he's just another heretic, I wouldn't go to one of his masses, he simply doesn't believe. I'm sure he'd debate that vigorously but no matter, by his actions you can judge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84872541568017032932014-02-24T17:25:22.580-05:002014-02-24T17:25:22.580-05:00I agree with you David. All that Fr. Barron had t...I agree with you David. All that Fr. Barron had to do was sometime in the past 3 years affirm what Pius XII insisted HAD to be true for evolutionary belief to be consistent with Catholicism.<br /><br />I am afraid there are Teilhardians who believe Vatican II removed the obligation of Catholics to hew to any council which preceded it. Hence Fr. Barron and even good Cardinal Pell have said things which seem to deny that sin originated thru our first parents' decision. If sin did not originate via human choice, then we move in the direction of blaming God for sin. He putatively created humans via evolution. Their beastly qualities are seen as leftover instincts from God's 'trial and error' creative process.Kneeling Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16797815971446807261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-76368839879959566132013-12-02T15:25:51.521-05:002013-12-02T15:25:51.521-05:00Okay; thanks much for that clarification.Okay; thanks much for that clarification.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-20430732454358969032013-12-02T15:13:35.363-05:002013-12-02T15:13:35.363-05:00Dave, the "Fr. Jim Tucker" who you quote...Dave, the "Fr. Jim Tucker" who you quote is not the same Fr. Tucker that was the former webmaster of Dappled Things. Dappled Things was run by a now-laicized priest of the Diocese of Arlington (Virginia). James Tucker is now a DC-based lawyer: http://jenner.com/people/JamesTuckerA. T. Wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02816243030572765014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-58045503820175961432013-11-27T14:45:22.840-05:002013-11-27T14:45:22.840-05:00I am sorry to hear that, as it upset me greatly wh...I am sorry to hear that, as it upset me greatly when I saw his video. I know you must be a busy man, but have you come to any comclusions?<br /><br />From his other videos he seems to believe in original sin, so was he perhaps stating that the story of Genesis may not have gone down the way it tells (historically, i.e. Adam naming the animals) but HE believes there were two people that brought sin in the world. Name, time, place..etc is all up for debate but the fact still remains the same.<br /><br />I’m so confused as I respected him greatly<br />Topwater Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006297276342456051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-81254684162080080212013-11-27T14:44:14.349-05:002013-11-27T14:44:14.349-05:00I am sorry to hear that, as it upset me greatly wh...I am sorry to hear that, as it upset me greatly when I saw his video. I know you must be a busy man, but have you come to any conclusions?<br /><br />From his other videos he seems to believe in original sin, so was he perhaps stating that the story of Genesis may not have gone down the way it tells (historically, i.e. Adam naming the animals) us but I am believes there were two people that brought sin in the world. Name, time, place..etc is all up for debate but the fact still remains the same.<br /><br />I’m so confused as I respected him greatly<br />Topwater Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006297276342456051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-12437115658391616942013-11-27T14:33:26.445-05:002013-11-27T14:33:26.445-05:00No. It just hangs in the air and is never clarifie...No. It just hangs in the air and is never clarified. Recently, Fr. Barron was in a thread on a friend's page and I asked him directly, with no reply. It's almost certain that he must know of my article. It made quite a splash at the time. Then a friend of mine recently said he would inquire. Haven't heard anything back. <br /><br />The refusal to reply or non-reply / non-clarification itself makes me all the more inclined to believe that my initial impression was the correct one. But I hope I'm wrong!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-51590164794335354872013-11-27T14:28:06.794-05:002013-11-27T14:28:06.794-05:00Dave, was this ever resolved to your satisfaction?...Dave, was this ever resolved to your satisfaction? I.e., have you discovered what Father Barron was really saying?Topwater Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006297276342456051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36608040972580941652013-11-04T15:46:40.127-05:002013-11-04T15:46:40.127-05:00He was sayin' Mark Shea banned him, not me.
I...He was sayin' Mark Shea banned him, not me.<br /><br />I do ban folks at the drop of a hat on Facebook if they cross certain lines. The last one called Pope Francis a modernist and he was promptly banned.<br /><br />On my blog I don't have moderation and so can't technically ban, but I allow more freedom of speech anyway. I'm more vigilant on Facebook because I don't want anyone led astray.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50107875220393728342013-11-04T14:11:40.771-05:002013-11-04T14:11:40.771-05:00Hi Oakes,
I can count on one finger the number of...Hi Oakes,<br /><br />I can count on one finger the number of people I've seen Dave ban. Unless you've been giving him hell on some other thread I suspect this is an internet glitch. (Actually, I can think of a second person now. But the point is- not likely are you banned. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34039274061294949082013-11-03T00:50:56.402-04:002013-11-03T00:50:56.402-04:00Thanks for the link, David. I think Mr. Shea just ...Thanks for the link, David. I think Mr. Shea just banned me from his site. I just got a message saying "You do not have permission to post on this thread." :)Oakes Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08078500142758654392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70222897113787839182013-11-02T02:11:30.411-04:002013-11-02T02:11:30.411-04:00I should add, Dave, that this is what you did at t...I should add, Dave, that this is what you did at the end of the article, when you say that his words may have been simply poorly chosen. I'm just cautioning us all to be extra careful and emphasize that his words could be taken in a perfectly orthodox way as well. <br /><br />I just wish this were more forcefully stated as a possibility in your article. I really doubt that Father Barron is in error on this point, though of course it is a possibility. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17550243114085803547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-11492944760874996352013-11-02T02:06:19.669-04:002013-11-02T02:06:19.669-04:00I think this may be a little unfair to Father Barr...I think this may be a little unfair to Father Barron, without more. It's really hard to tell from a quick, off the cuff comment like this exactly what he believes about whether Adam is a literal, historical person from which the human race descended. Keep in mind, Father's point was that Genesis is not science, and that we should read it as Theology in order to find its richness. So he is emphasizing not the literal sense of Scripture, but its figurative meaning. <br /><br />Keep in mind, you can consider the same passage of Scripture under several senses. Even those things that can be taken literally and are meant by the inspired author literally can also be considered figuratively. For example, Jonas in the belly of the whale is literal, but it also is a figure of Christ in the tomb. <br /><br />So when Father Barron says "Adam. Now don't read it literally..." and "we're not talking about a literal figure," he may simply mean that he is focusing upon Adam not as a literal figure, but to try and figure out what "richness" we can find in the figurative sense. Just because you're not reading it literally for purposes of his discussion and not currently "talking about" a literal figure, doesn't mean that one cannot read it literally or talk about it in the literal sense. <br /><br />I'm not saying this is what he means. But I am saying we need to be careful before accusing a good priest of even material heresy. We need to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least state that his words are ambiguous. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17550243114085803547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32437295345402968472013-11-01T23:27:47.957-04:002013-11-01T23:27:47.957-04:00Well, he never clarified what he meant, so what he...Well, he never clarified what he meant, so what he DID say remains troubling to me on the face of it.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35528405830567904742013-11-01T22:00:37.326-04:002013-11-01T22:00:37.326-04:00Fr. Barron, who I AM NOT a fan of, but having list...Fr. Barron, who I AM NOT a fan of, but having listened to this video, I fail to see where Fr. Barron is in known error regarding the teaching of the Church? It is easy to misunderstand Fr. Barron for he speaks in the grey a lot which help to devoid his message of meaning. He has not, in this video, denounced Adam's humanity and God's infusion of the human soul into Adam. He is not denying that Adam was a single human being. He is not denying that Adam was our first parent. And when looking at the Book of Genesis, there is a lot of symbolism; not science; theories such as Creationism theory of God creating the heavens and earth in 6, 24 hour periods taking Genesis literally when the Old Covenant Jews have not nor the Catholic Church universal. <br /><br />But what if one did? Would they lose their salvation? No. It has no bearing on salvation. Getting back to Adam, Fr. Barron is not excluding Catholic Church teaching which does have bearing on salvation; not denying they are our first parents, not denying God infused a soul into them, not denying that they are single human beings not being multiple beings such as in a tribe or nationality, etc. I believe Fr. Barron is being misunderstood which is easy to do since he speaks in the grey helping to devoid meaning from his message. He speaks like a genius; something he is not.<br />kodachromefilmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073008042551419256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-67307004092669439622013-08-25T16:54:00.601-04:002013-08-25T16:54:00.601-04:00"The degree in which the infallible magisteri..."The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case."<br />Thurston, Herbert. "Encyclical." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 25 Aug. 2013 .<br /><br />The circumstances that Pius XII wrote that in were dealing with the question of original sin and how this would be explained in light of polygenism. We have since learned much more. It's time to admit that Catholics are not at all obliged to adhere to monogenism so long as they can thoroughly explain the original sin concept in light of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71975131430213884372013-01-22T20:49:17.997-05:002013-01-22T20:49:17.997-05:00I noticed a serious logical flaw in one of the arg...I noticed a serious logical flaw in one of the arguments made in this post and couldn't resist pointing it out. It is said in the post that if Adam is not a literal figure but a theological construct, and Christ is the new Adam, then Christ therefore a theological construct. This, however, is an invalid argument. Christ's title of "the new Adam" is a title in human words and cannot change the reality of his being (granted all titles for Christ say something integral to his essence). If Adam did not really exist, the mere fact that we call Christ the new Adam would not be enough to eliminate Christ from existence. That is similar to saying that my friends call me "the new bob", but bob never existed, therefore I must not exist. Whether or not Adam exists changes the force of the title, but it does not change the existence of Christ. That being said I actually think Adam and Eve exist. I'm open to correction though.MatthewDohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04828586621605710170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-3714027105649294032012-08-31T11:46:38.522-04:002012-08-31T11:46:38.522-04:00The fact of the matter is that; unfortunately, the...The fact of the matter is that; unfortunately, the text of "Humani Generis" opens the door to the heresy of polygenism. The Central Preperatory Commission of Vatican II wanted to close this "door" by proposing mononogenism as "de fide divina et catholica" - at least by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium - if not "de fide definita implicita" by virtue of the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent on Original Sin.<br /><br />Traditional Catholic exegetes Marcone(Italian)and Bone(French) stated at the time(1962);inter alia, that: <br /><br />1) all modern evolutionary theory presupposes the heresy of polygenisnm as its point of departure; therfore, the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater;<br /><br />2) Pius XII also went "too far" by admitting even a moderate tranformism of the body of Adam from pre-existing organic matter - all the Fathers, Doctors, and theologians are unanimous in teaching the immediate creation of the body of Adam by God from pre-existing INORGANIC MATTER - "ex limo terrae" - this would have been defined by Vatican I if not for the Frano-Prussian War... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17120869752367971942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36178159804139063512011-11-18T11:16:28.608-05:002011-11-18T11:16:28.608-05:00When he attacked St Bernard preaching of the Crusa...When he attacked St Bernard preaching of the Crusades that ended it for me with him. It is chronicled that St Bernard performed more miracles in his preaching the 2nd Crusade then all the recorded miracles combined from the time of the apostles. <br /><br />http://airmaria.com/?sn=100127&vp=10084&prefx=hmly&plyrnb=1&ttl=HomilyNoah Moerbeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01429351174719821413noreply@blogger.com