Context.  It's how the Church does it.  When you see an otherwise entirely orthodox bishop utter a problematic statement, the presumption is that it's a material error.  When you see someone constantly spouting Modernism, then there's likely something else going on.  But the ultimate test is whether they submit to a rebuke from the Church.  Of course Barron will not actually get a rebuke because he's actually to the right of many of the hierarchy.

That's why I'd say we don't know.  If we ever get a solidly orthodox pope, there would be rebukes, and it would be clear.  But short of that, it seems very, very hard to say.

We do know that +ABL is a material heretic, because what he said is wrong.  What we don't know is if he's a formal/obstinate heretic.  As Ladislaus said, considering that the vast majority of catholics since the 16/1700s have been corrupted with this error, many of them hold it without knowing it's wrong.  Much like during the Arian heresy, when almost the whole world was in heresy (save for St Athanasius and some followers).  It took decades for the Church hierarchy to fully convert and then the laity followed.  Most were not formal heretics, but they were still wrong.

I actually meant we don't know for sure whether Barron is a formal heretic.

And only he knows along with God.  For the rest of us, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the fact that he's wrong.

Ladislaus called me out for saying he was foolish, because that didn't go far enough.  And asserted that he was definitely a formal heretic.  That's what I was addressing.

Ladislaus called me out for saying he was foolish, because that didn't go far enough.  And asserted that he was definitely a formal heretic.  That's what I was addressing.

Not quite.  I said he was definitely a heretic.  I leave the formal vs. material part to the Church and to God.  But I consider it more likely that he's a formal heretic than that +Lefebvre was ... due to his overall Modernism.  More than anything, though, Barron was a coward who spoke out of human respect.  When interrogated by a Jєω regarding the possibility of his salvation, Barron conveyed a sense of hope in the possibility, rather than doing the Catholic thing and telling him:  "No, I'm sorry, but unless you join the Church, you cannot be saved."  But it's most certainly more than just being foolish.

Seeing people like Sean's arguments do more for me in deciding that the other side is better backed with their arguments than anything they themselves can make.

To be fair, I'm pro BOD, and I think Sean's argument was deplorable and that he solidly lost this debate.  I think I'd probably lose too, Ladislaus and Pax Vobis both know a lot more than I do, but I'm plainly, obviously, engaging in this conversation to learn, and not pretending to *definitively* know I'm right about anything,

For what its worth, I asked Bishop Barron about this at 28 minutes here: http://wordonfireshow.com/episode162/?fbclid=IwAR1vUFdrmyU4k6V4kylQgOlvPJ1mZ_XNNzegkVz5rh8ox4RFYZh2T0cE7NY

I found his answer pretty unsatisfying.  For one thing, he *only* cites the post Vatican II magisterium, he doesn't really either cite or explain how his views connect with the pre Vatican II magisterium.  For another thing, even if you want to affirm that technically there's a snowball's chance that Shapiro could be saved (and I don't even think its clear that that level of chance exists) he should have emphasized the *grave* danger Shapiro is putting himself in "as is", whereas the way he actually answered implied substantive hope, which is at best grossly imprudent.

For what its worth, I probably would've said something like "Jesus said unless you believe in me you'll be condemned.  You're telling me you don't believe in Jesus.  I'll take you at your word."  

As far as I understand, merely material heretics wouldn't actually be labeled as heretics, would they?  At least without the "material" qualifier?

Interesting.  Thank you.  I'll have a listen later.  Well, sometimes the semantics are disputed.  Some people go so far as to claim that there's no such thing as a material heretic, for those in material error are not heretics (since heresy by definition, etymologically, implies pertinacity).  

I would typically use the term "objectively" heretical, since I don't know that it's MERELY material any more than I know that it's formal.

Yes, the answer is extremely unsatisfying.  Even if one thinks there might be a small chance that he could be saved, it's still his obligation to shock him out of his complacency.  St. Pius X's Holy Office once responded, that when Catholics are asked if any given infidel could be or could have been saved, the answer must be no, that they're damned. I believe the question was along the lines of, "Could a Catholic, when questioned, say that Confucius (by way of example) could have been saved respond that it's possible?  Answer: No, Catholics must answer that he was damned."  No hemming, no hawing about implicit possibly this or possibly that.

So here's the exact wording of the Holy Office under St. Pius X ...

"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

So Barron was rejecting this ruling of the Holy Office by not responding to Shapiro that he would be lost if he did not convert first.