I find Taylor Marshall very problematic. As for Voris, I think he can be a bit sensationalistic and, in general, I'm not a big fan of him, either, though I'd probably take him over Marshall.

I haven't found any positions of Bishop Barron's that are problematic. The idea that we may hope that all are saved does not contradict the faith at all. It was championed by Hans Urs von Balthasar who was named, at the end of his life, a cardinal by Pope St. John Paul the Great. I hardly think therefore that the idea is questionable. Note: We are not saying that all men are saved, but that we may hope that all men are saved (a big difference). The Church has never infallibly declared that anyone is in Hell so there is nothing wrong with believing this.

Let's not forget that Marshall and Voris do not have the Magisterial charism that Bishop Barron and the other bishops have. They do not represent the Catholic faith. They have their own agendas and their own (fiefdoms|agendas).

I do know however people, whom I know well and respect, who have worked closely with Voris and have no objections as far as I am aware.

I think there is enough error to expose in the Church without resorting to attacking Bishop Barron who, even if he is in error (and I don't think he is), is comparatively benign.

I'd like to see a live debate or discussion between Bishop Barron and Marshall.

That would be interesting.

Alex

Dear Stan,

You said:

1. I was surprised to learn that the Church has not infallibly declared anyone is in Hell and agree with either Marshall or Voris' point (I'm not sure which one or maybe both) that the Bible clearly declares at least Judas to have set up permanent residency in Hell. To me it's one of the obvious things that shouldn't even need a formal declaration.

This is certainly a sticking point. But there are people who make an argument from Scripture that this is not a foregone conclusion. They may be wrong, but it doesn't make them heretics or dissenters or bad people.

You said:

2. One of the most beautiful descriptions of Man's sinful nature is, in my view, the passage describing the wide gate versus the narrow gate, (Matthew 7:13-14) a comparison that I know all too well from my days before returning to the faith. I remind myself of it daily. The Bible says that many will choose the wide gate, spoken with authority since both God the Father and God the Son know the time line of past and future. This is proof in my mind that there are many in Hell unless of course, the wide gate is seen as a choice and not a destination.
   
   
• But then we come up against St. Faustina's vision where those taking the wide gate, fall off a cliff, <Yes/No?>
• If true, doesn't it void the reasonable hope argument?

I think if you relied on private revelations, which are of their nature private and not part of general revelation, one would have to conclude that there are at least some people in Hell. I agree with you there. But it doesn't make it error or heresy to teach that we may hope that all men be saved, because private revelation is not binding.

As for the narrow/wide passage, yes, this is a difficult one for one who hopes that all men be saved. I don't know how it would be explained. Personally, I am not convinced of the hope that all men be saved premise; I am just arguing it is not an error or contrary to the Faith.

You said:

3. And again, as a Barron fan, your point about having a Magisterial charism (if I understand it correctly) is central to my whole topic.
   
   
• Can we, indeed, during these times, trust everyone within the Church to be truthful?
• Is there either now or in the near future, likely to be an attack on the faith from within?
• Aren't we already seeing that today?

Truth is not related to Magisterial charism per se. Bishops can tell lies. They can live lies. Of course, Bishop Barron is not doing this. They [Bishops] are, except for one, not personally infallible but when a bishop teaches solemnly in a matter of faith and morals in an official capacity, we ought to at least pause and listen. I do think he should be given a certain amount of respect as a bishop.

You said:

4. One last question Re: Protecting statues/religious icons to include Church buildings. In these crazy days of activist movements, cancel culture, and mob rule:
   
   
   • If I am set against a group that wants to deface a Pro-Life monument at our parish, or attack the Church building itself, where does the Church stand on drawing a line?
   • Protect and defend as St Theodosia did, or turn the proverbial cheek?

I don't think the Church necessarily has a teaching on this. Generally, I think the Church has commended those who protect and rescue the Blessed Sacrament, for example, from danger.

How far, however, to go doing this, may not be worked out. I don't think you can justify doing violence to a human being to protect an inanimate object such as a monument or church building. I would not personally endorse what St. Theodosia did. I will note that she became a Saint through popular acclaim and not by the formal canonization process we use today, so it's hard to draw firm conclusions on what the Church thought of what she did, except that obviously many people thought it was either okay or not sufficiently grave to block her glorification. I think it is dubious to even call her a martyr; she died for killing someone, not because she was a Christian. The best you can say is she was an iconodule martyr. Iconoclasm hadn't even been condemned at this point.

But, a lot depends on context and there is room for a judgment call.

• Would I approve of an army protecting St. Peter's by force?
  <I admit I probably would.>
• If someone tried to burn the Shroud of Turin or destroy the Holy Sepulchre?
  <Hard to resist the use of force there.>

I can imagine a situation where allowing the destruction of a church or monument might encourage or enable the destruction of Christian belief and practice, in which case, the issue is larger than simply defending a building or statue. It's an interesting and difficult question.

• I guess the question is, which decision will result in more souls saved?
• Will the destruction of the holy thing inspire faith, like the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church?
• Or will it destroy faith?

I don't think a blanket statement can be made.

Alex

Dear Friend,

I am with you in your assessment of Bishop Barron. He is great, to a point. I am also a fan of Dr. Marshall and CM, so I know all the arguments.

The bottom line is that bishops like Barron have been formed in the post-Vatican II era, and that comes with baggage. The theology that abounds in seminaries and even Catholic universities is interwoven with confusion and contradiction, if not outright error. I know because I have studied at both.

The fact that Barron is as solid as he is, is remarkable. We have to pray for these Bishops. Even Dr. Marshall applauded Barron when he finally did get out to pray the Rosary on site with some of the defenders of statues . . . so sometimes they come around.

That needs positive reinforcement.

One thing we laity can do is send encouragement to our Bishops when they are facing difficult choices. Even generals sometimes need to know their troops are with them.

Peace,

Andrew