I do agree that it is impossible to be a true theologian if we do not study the teachings of the Church Fathers. I will never forget how I felt the very first time I started to study the Church Fathers. I highly recommend their teachings. Origen is the number one theologian. Ignatius lures your soul into purity. You will develop a very strong desire to be holy once you start studying their writings.
@@cruzgomes5660she’s talking about either the name of one of the fathers or one of their writings. You can go to a website by searching up early church fathers writings, they write about many things
When I was considering Catholicism, someone suggested a book called Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. He mentioned the church fathers as what converted him so I wanted to read them. I haven’t read all of them, but enough to know they were Catholic. They also converted me. I want to read more about them this year.
What I have experienced is that by knowing the founding fathers of the Church I’ve got to love even more our faith... their teachings, their life are really inspiring. Bishop Barron, you are doing an amazing work spreading the gospel and opening the eyes of those who wants to see... God bless you.
@@jlurodriguez8262 According to God and Jesus not me: Read the Bible only and not the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic church. The New Testament tells us how to live today.
@@scootergreen3 .. ‘Sola Scripture ’ I’ve heard that before.. sounds like Martin Luther ?? It’s not like that.. the scripture is like an ocean where you can get lost easily if there’s someone to explain it to you in the right way.. and that’s the roll that plays our priest, deacons and Bishops in the Catholic Church.. and the tradition we follow and believe in is the same one that followed and believed the first followers of Jesus Christ meaning the apostles then it was passed on for generations to the present day my friend. So I am convinced and I believe that the Catholic Church/faith is the one true and only that comes from Jesus himself. Blessings brother !
@@scootergreen3 You got that wrong my friend. Jesus did not hand out bibles to the Apostles. He established a church and sent out the Apostles to preach the Gospel. The teaching of the early Church Fathers is pristine, pure Cristian Teaching. Nothing can come closer to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles than Patristic Teaching. Thousands of protestant pastors have turned Catholics by reading the Church Fathers
I was listening to the answer from the listeners questions: the difference between hope and faith. Bishop Barron your way of explaining so clearly all this questions it is truly a gift from God. All your videos I have listened to so far, have helped me grow in faith, and understand of the life of our Lord Jesus. I read the New Testament many times, but it didn’t help me much, or made sense. Now when I listen to your sermons, the Bible makes sense. Thank you for your spiritual guidance.
Enjoyed the conversation very moving emotionally and mentally stimulating, historic figures to church and practicing what they did and believe continues in the Catholic community.
@@JenMichel100 Probably because the catholic Church teaches salvation by grace through faith but not faith alone. BTW, the Church fathers were Catholic who recognized the papacy and celebrated Mass and taught Catholic theology.
I was greatly relieved to hear Brandon name ST. Justin Martyr in the end. Involved in the "Jesus People" movement in the early 70's, and majoring in History, my life has been impacted by what, as far as I know, are the first clear descriptions of the Eucharist as very recognizably the Mass, and "the memoirs of the Apostles", pretty unambiguously the Gospels. The quite certain date of Justin Martyr's writings shows that these elements were present in the apostolic Church, and disallow the late dates cited by militant atheists and other enemies of the Church. I hope that after these comments it doesn't disappoint you that I am an ACNA Anglican.
"that all may be one. As you Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." - JESUS (John 17:21) Genuine Catholics all eagerly look toward and pray for the day and the moment when there will be only one Church of Jesus. Stay blessed☆
It is my hope that your Christianity is solidly based enough to turn away from any Anglican approval of perversion and sin. The Anglican lost it's tap root with the king who felt getting an heir was more important than serving the King who was denying him the same. Organizations founded by only men are inevitably primed to fall under the devils attack ... one way or another. Christ promised that HIS church would stand always ... and that even the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Today it seems we have a poisoner of the church in the chair of Peter. Even that will not prevail against the Lord. Remember that ONLY HE is the HEAD of His church. The pope is NOT above Him. Love and prayers for you and yours.
Thank you Bishop Baron for this excellent fire you fuel in me for my studying of Theology. I am a first-year theological student at the Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology. Honestly, sitting in a long lecture about the Church Fathers has left me winded and disoriented. I didn't know why I was sitting there zipping through the years that were long past. What do these Church figures have to do with me and my goal of being a priest to follow Jesus, to serve the Church and her people? But from your video, I'm quickly resolved to find out the real reason. The examples left by the Church Father not only serve as a window into the early life of the Church, but also how Christians back then lived and their struggles of the Faith. More importantly, their examples aren't just mirrors that inspire but ones to imitate for theirs is the more pristine imitation of Christ himself. I am excited to have found a beacon of hope in my study of theology. I have no aspiration to become a great thinker or theologian for the Catholic Chruch because quite frankly, I don't have the gear. However, excelling at my study and winning over the struggle to stay alive in the classroom are my victories. Thank you again for the inspiring and call-to-action video.
"They were all going back... and finding something extraordinarily fresh. Almost like forgotten treasures." Your Eminence, you've summed up the Extraordinary form of the Mass for me.
@@marypinakat8594 Which the Novus Ordo is not; that is, a valid and legitimate Mass, but not the Last Supper. It unfortunately is a dated creation of the 60s, and I hope that people realize that the beauty and ritualism of the Latin Mass is far more timeless, with Trent only codifying what already existed for hundreds of years; and implement such timelessness into the Novus Ordo, if not scrap the Novus Ordo entirely and allow the Latin Mass, if not in the Latin Mass in the vernacular. The Apostles didn't sing "Lord of the Dance" at the Last Supper, nor did they dance around at the Last Supper being "moved by the Holy Spirit."
@@mattb9914 Jesus said that *if we love as he loved us, his life will be our very own.* Why is it that your argument is overly tainted with contemptuous sentiments?
@@marypinakat8594 What about my argument is "contemptuously sentimental?" Your argument is that the Novus Ordo is more like the Last Supper, and I'm saying that's a garbage argument. Mind you that the person posting wasn't even RAISING an argument; he feels that the Latin Mass is a lost treasure, and it is. And you attacked him. Despite it being nothing more than an ad-hominem fallacy, let's take your argument to the fullest extent possible. As you said, if you love one another as Jesus loved us, His life will be our own. So why are you attacking a man who said that the Latin Mass is a lost treasure, and accusing him of not following Jesus? (Which, by the way, necessarily means, according to your worldview, that the Catholic Church disappeared off the face of the Earth for 500 years, if not longer; because the Catholic Church was promoting a spiritually harmful Mass for 500 years, and ergo, the Catholic Church couldn't be the Catholic Church). The Novus Ordo has so much elements, not only which modern scholarship has shown to be not at all ancient (for example, facing the people, which no liturgical rite or rubric has had in the history of the Church except for ONE Malankara text of dubious origin and the Liturgy of James (the lattermost which has been identified as a nontypical Mass, as it calls for 12 Priests to be present); another example is the laity in the performance of clerical functions), but also which are clear innovations, such as the "contemptuously sentimental" hymnals that are dated and stuck in the 60s. Again, Lord of the Dance was not sung at the Last Supper. Neither were guitars used, neither were drums used, neither were pagan dancers with incense.
You tell me which one of these is farthest from the Last Supper, and which one is the farthest in time period and praxis to the Last Supper. ruclips.net/video/Jlj1NXiRx8I/видео.html Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Thank you Bethany for the most pertinent Question (26:15 - 26:39) *The Theological Virtues* are GIFTS from God. One cannot act one's way toward them. While *Faith is the DOOR* that fundamentally opens us to the reality of God, *Hope COLOURS* the whole of our life." *(Bishop Barron* in answer to Bethany) 26:40 - 28:52
I am a returning catholic, grew up as, baptized, confirmation etc. After being blown up in Afghanistan and surgeries etc I am getting back into it. But still hesitant on some beliefs on catholics. Ill admit I might favor eastern orthodox more. But I could be wrong and maybe do not know enough.
@@shellieperreault6262 luther...the same guy who added by faith alone into the bible in romans where it never existed? Wanted to remove the book of James. Was morally a very questionable guy. No thanks.
My wife and I watched this as one of our 2-3 ongoing religious study home sessions. I was disappointed in that Bishop Barron appeared to be winging it instead of having a well prepared presentation. It is great to learn his personal experiences with the church fathers and his favorite one ... but as a student I was hoping for more. Still, thank you for the video. Something is better than nothing ... and from the comments a lot of folks liked it. Personally I like a different categorization of these gifted men. 1st 300 - 500 years = Fathers of the church; also Doctors of the church. After 500 years = Doctors of the church who were sunk deeply into the original Fathers of the Church data. The impact for a Protestant [of which I was around 50 years ago] is favorable to the 'Original Church'. The general orientation towards later churchmen did not hold that crown of authority so much. Just saying. Again, thank you for the video.
Bishop Barron, I recently listened to your conversation with Dr William Lane Craig (which I loved). In that discussion, you mentioned that the ontological argument was your favourite argument for God's existence. I was wondering whether you could make a video explaining the argument in detail and responding to common objections. God Bless!
@Mountaindew The ignorance and bitter hate you have is disheartening. Leave cool muso from your negligence. The deep and rich understanding us Catholics have of the Holy Bible is beyond what any other denomination has. Instead of just believing word for word like the Protestants, we find the true meaning and true faith to God, without having to sacrifice our intellect. Watch some of Bishop Barron's videos of genesis, creation, etc.
@Mountaindew so how does Moses refer to the Jews he is leading out of Egypt? Your comments reflect what Moses' calls the Jews in his conversation with God. Maybe take a listen to Dale Martin (from Yale) New testament History and Literature. Also please read Bishop Barron's brief book 'Letter to a Suffering Church'
I was given a book called "All roads lead to Rome"... but you have to go back further than that to as it was in the beginning , that is the beginning of the Church Age just after the resurrection and Ascension of Christ to the upper room
@@carlitohanks5959 I was originally actually going to mention the fact the series omits anything too Catholic (i.e. Church Father ref. that are quite Marian or testify to the Magesterium etc.). However, the work compiles quotes from the Fathers, this is hardly a protestant work in that respect. It in no wise fits into Leo XIII's warning. Sure, they make some introductory comments in each volume, but it's the Fathers - Catholic Fathers. There may be a bias selection from the Fathers, but still, it's the Fathers writings. If only us Catholics would produce such works - there is nothing of this caliber available at all. A Catholic is not going to be led astray by the Fathers, only aided.
Bishop Robert Barron Well as a formal alter server (I believe I’ve served beside once before my family left Los Angeles) and Catholic in general I’m not gonna refuse a Bishops orders. I’m on it. Pray it gains traction!
Wonder if you could do a discussion in either the next set or a separate video on the Catholic theology of deification. It's been my favorite topic that I've been researching so far.
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone I'm sure your comment was in jest about how Joe always brings that up, but to give a serious response: bishop Barron was asked about psychedelic experiences recently on a men's health exercise podcast. He was skeptical of them qualifying as 'legitimate spiritual experiences', generally dismissive, & quickly brushed the question aside. Despite my own (emphsis on my own) interests about psychdelics, I appreciate what a priest said about them. They're primarily destructive (at least during consumption) and therefore should be avoided. Likewise there's a quote, something like, " beware of unearned wisdom" and from my field research there's truth in that. I did seem to be accessing something not intended, not deserved. Was it an artifice? Was there some of the true the good the beautiful in it? Idk? Regardless Joe recently had Dawkins on and the good bishop does a great job debunking his arguments. Unfortunately, doing so on the WOF podcast is almost literally preaching to the choir. I'm sure a ton of 'nones' & non practing Catholics (I was 1) listen to joe. So I think It'd be a heck of a conversation, and a great evangelical opportunity to really get out beyond the walls of the church.
@@Minutemanly I'm sure that's not a precursor to being on the show, given the variety of people he's talked too. I'm sure I've heard him say I'll talk to anyone."
Great, except we never abandoned them. Holy Orthodoxy on the other hand, decided to throw out all the things that Clement said about the Primacy of Rome, I wonder why. To be fair, there are many Orthodox that are well aware of that fact, but they try to explain it away. If holy Orthodoxy was true, why do some Bishops say contraceptives aren't wrong? Why do others say that a Catholic who becomes Orthodox, must be re chrismated? Why do others say that he doesn't have to be? Why do some Bishops say contraceptives are wrong, but others don't? Orthodoxy is the beauty of Byzantine worship, with the doctrinal chaos of Anglicanism. Without a central voice, I fear that Holy Orthodoxy could lead someone very well into heresy, and I have seen some evidence of semi-pelagianism being taught in holy Orthodoxy, such as the denial of original sin. Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying someone who is Orthodox cannot be holy or good or even a saint, what I am saying, is that for Orthodoxy to be truly orthodox , it must be in communion with the pope of Rome. Also, Bishop amongst equals, besides being non-historic, is self-contradictory, take, for example the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Sometime in the 1700s, I don't remember the exact year, a pro Catholic patriarch was elected as the patriarch of Antioch. Now, he was an Arab and wanted communion with Rome. So what did Constantinople do? Declare the election invalid and put a Greek in. This is why you have parallel Greek Orthodox and Catholic patriarchates of Antioch to this day. If it were truly Bishop amongst equals, Constantinople would have no authority over what happens in Antioch.
With all that, I hope you know, that I still have great respect for what holy Orthodoxy has right, like the seven holy Mysteries, a priesthood that can trace itself back to the apostles, and some very wonderfully holy people.
Adam Hovey It’s all politics and I really don’t care about that. I’m sure the orthodox don’t question the primacy of Rome, but its supremacy. But the important thing is I think, that it’s just not about that. As far as I know, Jesus came to unify mankind with God, not to decide who rules over what part of the church. If we, for a moment, not deal with worldly affairs (which the question of the pope is, honestly), we could be on a real way of church unity. The schism is a thousand year problem, but we need to be really careful in orchestrating the possible re-unification. It most probably will never happen, we have very old historical wounds, but what a dream it would be for us to be one again, as Christ prayed for us. And concerning the “who got it right” argument, I have one passive-agressive remark that I will surely regret and for which I am apologising in advance: It’s not the orthodox who produced the reformation, secularism and thus by extension the modernist anti-Christian philosophies and ideologies which now poison our modern times ;)
Pat Aherne yes I am very interested in the Catholic Church. The One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church 😊 Jokes aside, I, apart from most orthodox, really admire Aquinas and the scholastics. Though I am more fond of Meister Eckhart and Bonaventura, but they are more on the mystical platonic end of the scholastic spectrum
Had that Lost In Space model myself, Bishop. Had a shelf my late father of fond memory made and put up in my room that held it and also all the Aurora monster model kits I bought with paper route money and assembled and painted; Dracula, Werewolf, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Hunchback, etc. Fun to recall them. I still have the shelf my dad built. Sadly, all the models eventually fell victim to the backyard activities that developed the year i got my first BB gun ;) Boys could very much be boys in those days... and we were!
I remember I had a “Say It-Play It” and I recorded the first landing on the moon with it. That may be the tape machine Bishop was speaking about that his father gave him.
A Christian loves the Cross and carries it. He loves the Christ and he accepts that the world hates him. The Holy Spirit is on him and enlightens him (Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan).
Simply, it is in the LXX- the cannon used by Greek speaking Jews, and not in the Hebrew cannon. The argument for Catholics was that if the Greek translation of the OT was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for us. The Protestant argument is that if the original priests and later rabbis of Judaism didn't think the books were worthy to be in the cannon, then they weren't. Protestants go further into studying the theological conflicts between the apocrypha vs the rest of the cannon. In general, the conclusion is that the apocrypha is inferior in its writing, literary quality, and theology. Martin Luther encouraged it to be read and included it in his German translation of the bible, but discouraged its use in theology and that is the official position of the Lutheran church. Other Protestants reject it completely. It should be know, that the Apocrypha was originally in the KJV bible and wasn't removed until printers in the New World realized it was more profitable to print bibles without it (figuring most Protestants wouldn't miss the extra 300 pages). The Eastern Orthodox have even more books in their cannon (as does the Ethiopian church). Studying why the Catholic church rejects those books will help you to understand the Protestant position better, since there is a role reversal in the case of the Apocrypha.
The only one we should refer to is our LORD JESUS …. The rituals that all denominations do are man made…the things Bishop Barron and any man of the cloth is to bring people to Jesus and He alone
Hello - Theology in the Orthodox Church is the experience of God (that is of course healing ) and an empirical experience. Meaning that theology be just an elaborated commentary on the Bible, while the entire practice is there in order to experience God more and more until . In this case, why would we elaborate comments while the calling is for an actual exercise? I think this is a decision each of us has to make: to talk about it or to exercise it. :-)
With integrity, one cannot return to the Church Fathers and act as if the Scholastics never existed, nor was there any valid development between the Church Fathers and now. What is the fruit of this "hopeful" approach? Is the Church thriving? Are souls being converted and the world submitting to Christ and His Holy Church or is the world converting the parts of the church to them?
Mary Pinakat you my dear sister. Every comment you replied with your advertisement. That’s a huge turn off. And it looks like your comments have been deleted anyway
The Church indubitably thrived for 2000 years. Only now are we seeing the situation which Jesus described as, "When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Apostasy, etc.
It is my understanding that Origen was an early Christian writer but never recognized as a “ Church Father “ although he contributed a great deal to early Christian understanding.
@@BishopBarron Thank you Bishop Barron, I have been unable to locate an official list of those considred to be " Church Fathers ", some include lists include Tertullian there is no question Oregin was a profound early Christian author, can you refer me to an authorized list of Church Fathers or defined characteristics. Merry Christmas and thanks for all you do do for the Church.
Merry Christmas Novena d1: Pray End to Abortion O Lord, infant Jesus, fill us with Joy! The birth of any child is a cause for joy and so much more is the birth of You, our Savior. We pray in union with Mary, Your mother, for a greater joy this Christmas.... May Your Holy Will be done in my life and with these intentions. Hail Mary..Glory Be..Amen
I’d argue that the Great Fathers were those in the 2nd and early-mid 3rd century CE. After that you more have apologetics trying to harmonize issues within the Christian churches.
It pains me to see how the protestant clan turns their nose up at the early church fathers and the Didache as they continue to disassemble the Liturgy of the Word and the Sacraments (Mysteries) that "pattern" the worship that occurs on God's Holy Sabbath Mountain; And I'm not a Catholic, either. In fact, most of the protestant clan has also tossed the Old Testament to the wayside; which is an integral part of our faith that allows us to accurately discern the New Covenant with the echo, archetypes, and shadows of things to come in Christ. "Christians" are a very stubborn breed in that we are so very often the ones who reject God's Word with an intensity that rivals the godless.
Did Thomas Aquinas actually say after a profound spiritual experience (of the summa) that it is as much as straw compared to his experience of connection?
😇😇😇👼🔥 Bishop if i die someday my seraphine and my guard Angel and my martyr will be with me at Ends? There no way for stay separated? If the answer is yes, so understand why i'm try
I'm also getting started with the Church Fathers, I chose to read them cronologically starting with the Apostolic Fathers. I'm going to buy Michael L. Holmes' translation because I heard good things about it
Didicae? Penguin? Pope Benedict 16 has homilies in books. The “ancient Christian commmentary series” has commentary excerpts of the early fathers on scripture
You know, this may seem like a "duh" moment for many of you, but for myself, growing-up in the Protestant tradition of Christianity, specifically, on the non-calvanist side of it at that. The biggest difference between Protestanism vs Non-Protestanism is "church history" and "church fathers." The only people that matters are in the Bible pretty much, and I never knew about it growing-up. Strange, I'd also say within Protestanism itself, church history is more of a thing on the Calvaist side too, but why is it church history isn't that important for Protestants? I'm sure it is for Pastors and folks that have studied at Bible college, but walk into any pentecostal, baptist, methodists, christian church in America and ask a random person in the congregation about the history of the church, and I bet 98 percent of people will only mentioned things in the Bible and nothing else.
Im curious about this. I wonder if he'll talk about who wrote which books of the bible and how they decide which were real or not. Different denominations of christians have more or less books in their bibles and have completely different interpretations of them. Did the church fathers envision thousands of different christians when they started?
*Where Did the Bible Come From?* ruclips.net/video/AT5CoiOyaWo/видео.html *Books That Were Left Out of the New Testament* ruclips.net/video/v0wYXP9X6ic/видео.html
*Five Models of the Church* ruclips.net/video/VauojyTyA6o/видео.html *Why Do Christians Worship on Sunday and Not Saturday* ruclips.net/video/tnKRI0FCD2k/видео.html
@@willgreer4673 I don't know about the link, and I wouldn't care to know. Thanks for the *'scare alert'.* You shouldn't have given yourself away. *(Comment regretted. There was oversight on my part in not seeing that the reply is not from 'Ellie Sarke.')*
Another sick trick by the Easter Bunny Church. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarb were not Catholics. They were Messianic and the Catholic Church was only invented in 325.
These "church fathers" expose the evolution of the apostasy, prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians. 2 Thes. 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; And again: Acts 20:29-30 - For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. The Apostle John also predicted this apostasy: 1 John 2:18-19 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. The "church fathers" show us how this apostasy evolved (devolved?).
Bishop the church fathers are unanimous on salvation by grace through faith not by works. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY WORK? WHEN INFACT WORKS ARE ONLY A BYPRODUCT AND NOT THE REASON OF SALVATION.
Church Fathers are unanimously on the side of Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern Churches and everything not protestant (only Protestants believe in ‘sola fide’, which is a heresy and actually the sole heresy that caused the Protestant revolution to happen) on the precise matter you brought, my friend. If you really were well versed in theology or at least studied it sincerely and with open mind and heart, you would know for a fact that the sentence you used is the exact opposite to the truth. I understand that accommodations on many of the Protestant camps (it would be daring to say “the Protestant camp” because unity is impossible) have been made to grant works are needed but “ex post facto”, which means as a kind of automatized result of the assent of faith, but that is only trying to “save” a grave heresy with another. WE ARE SAVED ONLY BY GRACE, because we cannot demand salvation or earn it by our own strict merit. And we are SAVED BY FAITH AND by the BAPTISMAL REBIRTH, when we die as “old creature” and we are born by “water and spirit” as new ones. We are justified by our faith because only faith can make us righteous and our works good and valuable to God’s judgement, but we are not allowed to not produce the good works of the charity/love and the correspondent works of love, specially the neighbors in need, so that we may be God’s instrument to infuse hope to the world. All theological virtues (faith, love and hope) are strictly related to the applied effects of the salvation Jesus Christ merit to us on the cross into our souls.
Besides, _”Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who _*_built his HOUSE on the ROCK_*_ . The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet _*_it did NOT FALL, because it had its foundation on the ROCK_*_ . But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and _*_it fell with a great crash”_* (Matthew 7, 24-27). Do you think it is a coincidence the later passage in Saint Matthew: _”And I tell you that you are Peter, and _*_on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH_*_ , and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18)? So, Jesus Christ built HIS Church on one (“Simon”), calling him KEPHA or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). We must never forget a parable told by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he says that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK”, or has it house on the ROCK foundation, so that it can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who built his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed (Matthew 7, 24-29). It is not the case that one house or the other won’t have to deal with extreme conditions, but one of then will stand; the other type of construction will fall. Do you really, really think it is a coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon? And do you really think it is a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), and the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means *“OIKO”* (“house” or “home”) and *”DOMUS”* (“to build”)? Our Lord will judge ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. But remember, my dear Protestant friend: _”Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand”_ (Matthew 12, 25). Come home, Ricardo! From a Brazilian 🇧🇷 friend.
If anything is for certain, the approach of Vatican II empirically failed. 1950 years tried and tested worked with the evangelization of the world. No evangelization since Vatican II, but deconversion and Protestantization. The 'return' to the Fathers was a bogus attempt at reading novelties into the Fathers, who by nature wrote less developed theologies susceptible to reinterpretation contrary to the continuum of interpretation by the scholastics-i.e. saints who spent their lives implementing the faith as a lived faith, and not as an intellectual 'school of thought.'
@Prasanth Thomas "Half of Europe left the Faith after the Council of Trent" Pretty sure Protestantism + the printing press is why half of Europe left the faith. Not that I've verified your assertion, but it would make sense. "You are extremely ignorant of the great periods of Evangelisation during the JP2 era- and the Apologetics-Evangelisation Revolution in the 1990s. Was there any great Evangalisation initiative before Vatican 2 as happened in the 90s?" It's more about what people are being converted TO that was the concern. I see a lot of converts to what I endearingly know as Novus Ordoism. And if x didn't happen until the 1990s we're talking about something optional and and addon that isn't part of the faith by definition. We aren't Modernists. "Just look at the Schismastic Vatican-2 denying Cults like the SSPX- how many converts from Protestantism, Atheism or other religions do you have?" Actually in our sChIsmATicC nAZi CulT whICh HaTEs tHE poPE we have many Protestant converts - and they turn out to be some of the best Catholics there are. Atheists, too (a surprising number). What I love most is that without this 'outreach' that you boast of (ours is the 2000-year-old-tried-and-tested convert by example and conversation, over some months or years, rather than the 'we're hip too' Vatican II approach to evangelization - post-Vatican II apologetics are generally good, still). ""The 'return' to the fathers was a bogus attempt of reading novelties into the Fathers," If something is in the Fathers, it is not 'novelty'. I can't see how something believed by the Fathers 700 years ago is considered a 'novelty'" Notice that you didn't read the text you even quoted. "reading ... into" "Hardly true if you consider post Nicene Fathers- esp. the likes of Augustine, the Cappadocians, John Damacene" Even Augustine isn't as developed as the Scholastics. I meant the scholastic tradition in general, not its earliest forms, like, yes, Augustine. Where there is ambiguity, there will be liberties taken by Modernists, naturally. "And, hey, the so called (pseudo)'trads' are the ones here who deny development of Doctrine- not us" Development of doctrine always referred to developed understanding, not a change in doctrine like Modernists suppose. Change in doctrine is a denial of the "once and for all" (Jude 1:3) depositum fidei. "We have arrived by Development of Doctrine Ecumenism among other things that you guys deny" That's not a development of doctrine, if by ecumenism you're referring to the endless Assissi type meetings where we let pagans pray to false pagan idols and demons with no 'you come in' ism in sight? That's adulteration and perversion of doctrine. "You can't accept legitimate Development of Doctrine on one side and deny Ecumenism." This just begs the question, and assumes rather than proves that Ecumenism as I described above is a legitimate develpment of doctrine, or just a false one (not all doctrines are true, just because at a given time they are accepted by this or that number of Catholics - see Arian crisis). "extremely interested in a Systematic and Analytic Form of Theology" Like the scholastics. While being also very good saints in practice. "it is you dissidents" I'm sure Athanasius was considered a dissident, or Judas Maccabeus. I think I'm in good company for refusing to adopt something new. I don't care whose mouth it comes from. Nor can you accuse me or anyone of being uncatholic doctrine-wise, since pre-Vatican II Catholicism can't contradict true development of doctrine, if it is legitimate. If it contradicts what went before, it is change in doctrine, not development, like the acorn that becomes the tree. "rejecting the Dogma of Indefectibility of the Church" It's the indefectibility of the Church that is the ENTIRE REASON for the SSPX. If Vatican II-ism, as we'll call it for purposes of brevity, is true, then the Church was wrong on the very same matters it claims to be right on now. "Abp. Lefebvre is the son of Nestorius- daring to reject an Ecumenical Council and forming his own 'Church'- Isn't that what Luther(and Nestorius) did?" I'm hoping you're just ignorant as hell because that's a crappy comparison to make between the saintly man and a heretic like Nestorius. Abp Lefebvre rejected a Council that itself declared contained no dogmas that to reject would be tantamount to heresy, and the Ecumenical nature of a Council, even with the approval of a Pope, doesn't make all its contents infallible, only those which qualify as the kind of teaching that can be infallible. The rejection of a Council makes its canons etc. void, but its acceptance doesn't make everything said in the Council true ipso facto. And to say he ever wanted, or ever did, 'start his own church' is just disgustingly ignorant, or worse, malicious and bitter. It's just the opposite of reality. " Isn't that what Luther(and Nestorius) did? You are no more 'traditionalist' as Protestants are 'Biblical'" You just seem to be being actively dishonest. I can't reconcile a comparison between Archbishop Lefebvre refusing to accept novelties, and a pig like Luther who rejected the Catholic faith wholesale piece by piece until he reduced it to the 'dregs' that he could accept. What a disgusting comparison. "when you are confronted with the Church's opposition, Schismastics such as yourselves and Protestants claim that you hold onto some important part of our Faith" Well, I mean, if we're right, we are. Just like Athanasius was 100% right even though in his day, he was looked upon as we are. "SSPX and other Sedeprivasionist movements" Where do the SSPX say they are 'Sedeprivationists?'
With respect, one can read the Church Fathers and become less Catholic too. For instance the opposition to the primacy of any one Bishop can be found in Gregory I, Bishop of Rome, who denounced such titles that would elevate one Bishop over any other. He objected to the title "Universal Bishop" and refused it for himself, only for it to be accepted some 3 years after his death by his second successor. The Catholic response to this argument is essentially that "Universal Bishop" or "Universal Pope" means something other than what the current Pope represents. This begs the question however, as it is plainly what it seems to mean in practice, and was explicitly accepted by the Boniface III of Rome and which later became the major reason why the Eastern and Western churches separated. I think it proved Gregory I wise! That being said, Protestants would benefit from the writings of the Church Fathers as we have paid them too little attention. If the result is to draw us closer together, it is to a Christianity that more resembles that of the Early Church before the formation of most of the traditions by which we distinguish ourselves (including Catholics). In short: a good thing.
He was probably thinking more of Protestantism, which is totally other to anything the church fathers thought. Orthodox and Catholic fathers both exist though, I agree
Isn’t going back to the Church Fathers or the Early Church what the Reformers claimed to do? And hasn’t the fruits of the Second Vatican Council been a Protestantization of the Church?(i.e. less Marian devotion, less veneration of the saints, less iconography on church walls, more plain/protestant type churches, a more secular/liberal Catholicism). Don’t get me wrong.I think going back to the Church Fathers is a good thing. Look at the Eastern Orthodox and their continued emphasis on Early Church Fathers. But in that case shouldn’t the Church have gotten more traditional in it’s liturgy, devotion, theology, etc? And not the other way around? It doesn’t make sense. That is why many have become skeptical of the ressourcement movement.
@@marypinakat8594 There is plenty of faults to be found within the Church today. If you can't see this you're either ignorant or stupid and either way part of the problem.
_”Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who _*_built his HOUSE on the ROCK_*_ . The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet _*_it did NOT FALL, because it had its foundation on the ROCK_*_ . But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and _*_it fell with a great crash”_* (Matthew 7, 24-27). Do you think it is a coincidence the later passage in Saint Matthew: _”And I tell you that you are Peter, and _*_on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH_*_ , and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18)? So, Jesus Christ built HIS Church on one (“Simon”), calling him KEPHA or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). We must never forget a parable told by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he says that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK”, or has it house on the ROCK foundation, so that it can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who built his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed (Matthew 7, 24-29). It is not the case that one house or the other won’t have to deal with extreme conditions, but one of then will stand; the other type of construction will fall. Do you really, really think it is a coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon? And do you really think it is a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), and the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means *“OIKO”* (“house” or “home”) and *”DOMUS”* (“to build”)? Our Lord will judge ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. But remember, my dear Protestant / separate friend: “ _”Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand”_ (Matthew 12, 25). Come home, Nunes!!!! Greetings from a friend in 🇧🇷 Brazil.
@@garymitchell6660 A typical response from a misogynistic, privileged male. If your god had been so generous with such an "honor," shouldn't such holy women be made pope?
I do agree that it is impossible to be a true theologian if we do not study the teachings of the Church Fathers. I will never forget how I felt the very first time I started to study the Church Fathers. I highly recommend their teachings. Origen is the number one theologian. Ignatius lures your soul into purity. You will develop a very strong desire to be holy once you start studying their writings.
Origen?
@@cruzgomes5660she’s talking about either the name of one of the fathers or one of their writings. You can go to a website by searching up early church fathers writings, they write about many things
When I was considering Catholicism, someone suggested a book called Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. He mentioned the church fathers as what converted him so I wanted to read them. I haven’t read all of them, but enough to know they were Catholic. They also converted me. I want to read more about them this year.
B/c this is catholic is exactly why I WON’T watch it. Don’t trust the RCC.
One of my local Fathers recommended that book, now I start RCIA on Thursday
@@bethelshiloh you should change your username then
Welcome home
@@bethelshiloh thats becasue you were brought up by protestants who greatly distort the catholic fatih!
It is so refreshing to hear a Bishop discuss the Word of God and apostolic writings. This is what Christians should do when we get together.
ruclips.net/video/dqtJrH43rgo/видео.html
I love history, especially Catholic history!
What I have experienced is that by knowing the founding fathers of the Church I’ve got to love even more our faith... their teachings, their life are really inspiring.
Bishop Barron, you are doing an amazing work spreading the gospel and opening the eyes of those who wants to see... God bless you.
He's not spreading the Gospel he's spreading the Catholic churches false doctrine of the Devil.
@@scootergreen3 .. so tell us Mike.. which is the true gospel according to you ??
@@jlurodriguez8262 According to God and Jesus not me: Read the Bible only and not the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic church. The New Testament tells us how to live today.
@@scootergreen3 .. ‘Sola Scripture ’ I’ve heard that before.. sounds like Martin Luther ?? It’s not like that.. the scripture is like an ocean where you can get lost easily if there’s someone to explain it to you in the right way.. and that’s the roll that plays our priest, deacons and Bishops in the Catholic Church.. and the tradition we follow and believe in is the same one that followed and believed the first followers of Jesus Christ meaning the apostles then it was passed on for generations to the present day my friend.
So I am convinced and I believe that the Catholic Church/faith is the one true and only that comes from Jesus himself.
Blessings brother !
@@scootergreen3 You got that wrong my friend. Jesus did not hand out bibles to the Apostles. He established a church and sent out the Apostles to preach the Gospel. The teaching of the early Church Fathers is pristine, pure Cristian Teaching. Nothing can come closer to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles than Patristic Teaching. Thousands of protestant pastors have turned Catholics by reading the Church Fathers
You are all amazing. Thank you for this gift.
The gift of tears is the most beautiful gift. 💝🔥
*Which Type of Catholic Are You?*
ruclips.net/video/U84znOpESv8/видео.html
I love ❤️ your Series on the History of the Catholic Church ❤🙏🏻
Best interviewer I've ever heard, and of course Bishop Barron is great as usual. Thanks!
I was listening to the answer from the listeners questions: the difference between hope and faith. Bishop Barron your way of explaining so clearly all this questions it is truly a gift from God. All your videos I have listened to so far, have helped me grow in faith, and understand of the life of our Lord Jesus. I read the New Testament many times, but it didn’t help me much, or made sense. Now when I listen to your sermons, the Bible makes sense. Thank you for your spiritual guidance.
Thank you for all your work and the work of Word on Fire, it is life giving and exactly what our age needs. Praise God!
The Catholic church serves the Devil.
@@scootergreen3 lol like you devil
Prayer Intention…Theological Virtues; Faith, Hope….May God’s Will be Done🙏🏾❤️🙏🏾
Thank you again Word On Fire…Wow!
Enjoyed the conversation very moving emotionally and mentally stimulating, historic figures to church and practicing what they did and believe continues in the Catholic community.
I transitioned from Baptist to Lutheran, Catholic direction as mentioned in large part due to the church fathers.
Dell: Next step home to the Catholic Church.
@@Anon.5216look into orthodoxy aswell
Recommended: The Sunday Sermons of the Great Church Fathers: A Manual of Preaching, Spiritual Reading, and Meditation. Ignatius Press 4 Volumes
*The Great Schism*
ruclips.net/video/EWOpn8tRBME/видео.html
Thank you for this reference.
Our Lord's peace and love to you.
Protestant here, I agree with going back to the Fathers...just put a book on hold at the Library with that in mind.
Did you read the Church Fathers? They're great!
Yeah, where are you now?
I thank you for this wonderful and important subject. God bless all
Look at the church father's who died for the faith God bless them all
They earned there place in heaven
ruclips.net/video/dqtJrH43rgo/видео.html
jetson jose Are you my brother in the catholic faith ?
I love the writings of the apostolic fathers.
The church fathers believe on salvation by grace not by works. So why are you a catholic?
@@JenMichel100 Probably because the catholic Church teaches salvation by grace through faith but not faith alone.
BTW, the Church fathers were Catholic who recognized the papacy and celebrated Mass and taught Catholic theology.
Thank you Mommy Mary! Thank you God Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Thank you all Glory from God! Thank you blessed Souls of Purgatory!
Thank you so very much for these outstanding videos! May God bless you both!
I was greatly relieved to hear Brandon name ST. Justin Martyr in the end. Involved in the "Jesus People" movement in the early 70's, and majoring in History, my life has been impacted by what, as far as I know, are the first clear descriptions of the Eucharist as very recognizably the Mass, and "the memoirs of the Apostles", pretty unambiguously the Gospels. The quite certain date of Justin Martyr's writings shows that these elements were present in the apostolic Church, and disallow the late dates cited by militant atheists and other enemies of the Church. I hope that after these comments it doesn't disappoint you that I am an ACNA Anglican.
"that all may be one. As you Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." - JESUS (John 17:21)
Genuine Catholics all eagerly look toward and pray for the day and the moment when there will be only one Church of Jesus. Stay blessed☆
Ya glad to see more Anglicans here!
It is my hope that your Christianity is solidly based enough to turn away from any Anglican approval of perversion and sin. The Anglican lost it's tap root with the king who felt getting an heir was more important than serving the King who was denying him the same. Organizations founded by only men are inevitably primed to fall under the devils attack ... one way or another. Christ promised that HIS church would stand always ... and that even the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Today it seems we have a poisoner of the church in the chair of Peter. Even that will not prevail against the Lord. Remember that ONLY HE is the HEAD of His church. The pope is NOT above Him. Love and prayers for you and yours.
Thank you Bishop Barron an d Word on Fire ... i look forward to the second part in. A week
Thank you Bishop Baron for this excellent fire you fuel in me for my studying of Theology. I am a first-year theological student at the Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology. Honestly, sitting in a long lecture about the Church Fathers has left me winded and disoriented. I didn't know why I was sitting there zipping through the years that were long past. What do these Church figures have to do with me and my goal of being a priest to follow Jesus, to serve the Church and her people? But from your video, I'm quickly resolved to find out the real reason. The examples left by the Church Father not only serve as a window into the early life of the Church, but also how Christians back then lived and their struggles of the Faith. More importantly, their examples aren't just mirrors that inspire but ones to imitate for theirs is the more pristine imitation of Christ himself. I am excited to have found a beacon of hope in my study of theology. I have no aspiration to become a great thinker or theologian for the Catholic Chruch because quite frankly, I don't have the gear. However, excelling at my study and winning over the struggle to stay alive in the classroom are my victories. Thank you again for the inspiring and call-to-action video.
me encantan sus programas, saludos desde México
Thank you Bishop and Brandon.
Thank You Bishop Barron
Looking forward to Part II.
"Theology is an elaborated commentary on the bible." Simple truth, but a super fundamental one...
ruclips.net/video/dqtJrH43rgo/видео.html
Church fathers on eucharist
Wow beloved Church Fathers! 😇😇😇 Thank to God, Thank you all Saints and Mommy Mary! 😂😁👼✌
greetings from the exact location where Basil the great was born !!! and I work where Gregory of Nyssa lived.
I love your videos Bishop.
This is the stuff I subscribe for, thanks
"They were all going back... and finding something extraordinarily fresh. Almost like forgotten treasures."
Your Eminence, you've summed up the Extraordinary form of the Mass for me.
"They were all going back to the Church Fathers and *farther back ... to the Bible.*
*THE LAST SUPPER = Extraordinary form of the Mass*
@@marypinakat8594 Which the Novus Ordo is not; that is, a valid and legitimate Mass, but not the Last Supper. It unfortunately is a dated creation of the 60s, and I hope that people realize that the beauty and ritualism of the Latin Mass is far more timeless, with Trent only codifying what already existed for hundreds of years; and implement such timelessness into the Novus Ordo, if not scrap the Novus Ordo entirely and allow the Latin Mass, if not in the Latin Mass in the vernacular.
The Apostles didn't sing "Lord of the Dance" at the Last Supper, nor did they dance around at the Last Supper being "moved by the Holy Spirit."
@@mattb9914
Jesus said that *if we love as he loved us, his life will be our very own.*
Why is it that your argument is overly tainted with contemptuous sentiments?
@@marypinakat8594
What about my argument is "contemptuously sentimental?"
Your argument is that the Novus Ordo is more like the Last Supper, and I'm saying that's a garbage argument.
Mind you that the person posting wasn't even RAISING an argument; he feels that the Latin Mass is a lost treasure, and it is. And you attacked him.
Despite it being nothing more than an ad-hominem fallacy, let's take your argument to the fullest extent possible. As you said, if you love one another as Jesus loved us, His life will be our own. So why are you attacking a man who said that the Latin Mass is a lost treasure, and accusing him of not following Jesus? (Which, by the way, necessarily means, according to your worldview, that the Catholic Church disappeared off the face of the Earth for 500 years, if not longer; because the Catholic Church was promoting a spiritually harmful Mass for 500 years, and ergo, the Catholic Church couldn't be the Catholic Church).
The Novus Ordo has so much elements, not only which modern scholarship has shown to be not at all ancient (for example, facing the people, which no liturgical rite or rubric has had in the history of the Church except for ONE Malankara text of dubious origin and the Liturgy of James (the lattermost which has been identified as a nontypical Mass, as it calls for 12 Priests to be present); another example is the laity in the performance of clerical functions), but also which are clear innovations, such as the "contemptuously sentimental" hymnals that are dated and stuck in the 60s. Again, Lord of the Dance was not sung at the Last Supper. Neither were guitars used, neither were drums used, neither were pagan dancers with incense.
You tell me which one of these is farthest from the Last Supper, and which one is the farthest in time period and praxis to the Last Supper.
ruclips.net/video/Jlj1NXiRx8I/видео.html
Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Very inspiring.Thank you
Thank you Bethany for the most pertinent Question (26:15 - 26:39)
*The Theological Virtues* are GIFTS from God. One cannot act one's way toward them. While *Faith is the DOOR* that fundamentally opens us to the reality of God, *Hope COLOURS* the whole of our life."
*(Bishop Barron* in answer to Bethany)
26:40 - 28:52
"Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”
Brandon, I am like you were: New Testament writers, then basically fast forward 1,500 years or so. I’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
This was wonderful video.
I am a returning catholic, grew up as, baptized, confirmation etc. After being blown up in Afghanistan and surgeries etc I am getting back into it. But still hesitant on some beliefs on catholics. Ill admit I might favor eastern orthodox more. But I could be wrong and maybe do not know enough.
Hold fast brother & trust the One True Church. Read more and pray to Our Lady for guidance
Consider confessional Lutheranism.
@@shellieperreault6262 luther...the same guy who added by faith alone into the bible in romans where it never existed? Wanted to remove the book of James. Was morally a very questionable guy. No thanks.
The Father's lead me to Orthodoxy but I think the point is the same. Since at the time of the Father's... Catholic and Orthodox were the same thing.
Now dig in more between catholics and orthodox....you are almost there...hehe
My wife and I watched this as one of our 2-3 ongoing religious study home sessions. I was disappointed in that Bishop Barron appeared to be winging it instead of having a well prepared presentation. It is great to learn his personal experiences with the church fathers and his favorite one ... but as a student I was hoping for more. Still, thank you for the video. Something is better than nothing ... and from the comments a lot of folks liked it. Personally I like a different categorization of these gifted men. 1st 300 - 500 years = Fathers of the church; also Doctors of the church. After 500 years = Doctors of the church who were sunk deeply into the original Fathers of the Church data. The impact for a Protestant [of which I was around 50 years ago] is favorable to the 'Original Church'. The general orientation towards later churchmen did not hold that crown of authority so much. Just saying. Again, thank you for the video.
I'll definitely read the church fathers!
Thank you Bishop Barron! The watcher! 😇👼🍼☄️🔥🎄🎶🍝🍨🎼💗💗💗
Bishop Barron, I recently listened to your conversation with Dr William Lane Craig (which I loved). In that discussion, you mentioned that the ontological argument was your favourite argument for God's existence. I was wondering whether you could make a video explaining the argument in detail and responding to common objections. God Bless!
@Mountaindew The ignorance and bitter hate you have is disheartening. Leave cool muso from your negligence. The deep and rich understanding us Catholics have of the Holy Bible is beyond what any other denomination has. Instead of just believing word for word like the Protestants, we find the true meaning and true faith to God, without having to sacrifice our intellect. Watch some of Bishop Barron's videos of genesis, creation, etc.
@Mountaindew so how does Moses refer to the Jews he is leading out of Egypt? Your comments reflect what Moses' calls the Jews in his conversation with God.
Maybe take a listen to Dale Martin (from Yale) New testament History and Literature.
Also please read Bishop Barron's brief book 'Letter to a Suffering Church'
I was given a book called "All roads lead to Rome"... but you have to go back further than that to as it was in the beginning , that is the beginning of the Church Age just after the resurrection and Ascension of Christ to the upper room
Really appreciate this video.
Oh yeah, the 'Ancient Christian Commentary" series is great. Expensive! But slowly building it up!
@@carlitohanks5959 I was originally actually going to mention the fact the series omits anything too Catholic (i.e. Church Father ref. that are quite Marian or testify to the Magesterium etc.). However, the work compiles quotes from the Fathers, this is hardly a protestant work in that respect. It in no wise fits into Leo XIII's warning. Sure, they make some introductory comments in each volume, but it's the Fathers - Catholic Fathers. There may be a bias selection from the Fathers, but still, it's the Fathers writings. If only us Catholics would produce such works - there is nothing of this caliber available at all. A Catholic is not going to be led astray by the Fathers, only aided.
OMG Bishop Barron is all inclusive
You really should go on Rogan. He’d be totally down for it. Plus, the world needs it. God bless you bishop Barron.
I'd go on in a heartbeat. But you and others have to encourage him to invite me.
Bishop Robert Barron Well as a formal alter server (I believe I’ve served beside once before my family left Los Angeles) and Catholic in general I’m not gonna refuse a Bishops orders. I’m on it. Pray it gains traction!
Thanks - go strong
Thanks Fr.
Wonder if you could do a discussion in either the next set or a separate video on the Catholic theology of deification. It's been my favorite topic that I've been researching so far.
Love seeing Catholic priests talking about Orthodox History 🥰
The Church fathers lives before the great schism
lol the church fathers of the east wrote about papal supremacy. And your ancestors submitted to Rome for nearly a thousand years.
Go on the Joe Rogan Experience
*The Great Schism*
ruclips.net/video/EWOpn8tRBME/видео.html
I wonder what Bishop Barron would think about DMT
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone I'm sure your comment was in jest about how Joe always brings that up, but to give a serious response: bishop Barron was asked about psychedelic experiences recently on a men's health exercise podcast. He was skeptical of them qualifying as 'legitimate spiritual experiences', generally dismissive, & quickly brushed the question aside.
Despite my own (emphsis on my own) interests about psychdelics, I appreciate what a priest said about them. They're primarily destructive (at least during consumption) and therefore should be avoided. Likewise there's a quote, something like, " beware of unearned wisdom" and from my field research there's truth in that. I did seem to be accessing something not intended, not deserved. Was it an artifice? Was there some of the true the good the beautiful in it? Idk?
Regardless Joe recently had Dawkins on and the good bishop does a great job debunking his arguments. Unfortunately, doing so on the WOF podcast is almost literally preaching to the choir. I'm sure a ton of 'nones' & non practing Catholics (I was 1) listen to joe. So I think It'd be a heck of a conversation, and a great evangelical opportunity to really get out beyond the walls of the church.
Joe Rogan does not like the Catholic Church, or Catholicism
@@Minutemanly I'm sure that's not a precursor to being on the show, given the variety of people he's talked too. I'm sure I've heard him say I'll talk to anyone."
As an orthodox, I very much appreciate catholics coming back to the holy fathers lately
Great, except we never abandoned them. Holy Orthodoxy on the other hand, decided to throw out all the things that Clement said about the Primacy of Rome, I wonder why. To be fair, there are many Orthodox that are well aware of that fact, but they try to explain it away. If holy Orthodoxy was true, why do some Bishops say contraceptives aren't wrong? Why do others say that a Catholic who becomes Orthodox, must be re chrismated? Why do others say that he doesn't have to be? Why do some Bishops say contraceptives are wrong, but others don't? Orthodoxy is the beauty of Byzantine worship, with the doctrinal chaos of Anglicanism. Without a central voice, I fear that Holy Orthodoxy could lead someone very well into heresy, and I have seen some evidence of semi-pelagianism being taught in holy Orthodoxy, such as the denial of original sin. Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying someone who is Orthodox cannot be holy or good or even a saint, what I am saying, is that for Orthodoxy to be truly orthodox , it must be in communion with the pope of Rome. Also, Bishop amongst equals, besides being non-historic, is self-contradictory, take, for example the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Sometime in the 1700s, I don't remember the exact year, a pro Catholic patriarch was elected as the patriarch of Antioch. Now, he was an Arab and wanted communion with Rome. So what did Constantinople do? Declare the election invalid and put a Greek in. This is why you have parallel Greek Orthodox and Catholic patriarchates of Antioch to this day. If it were truly Bishop amongst equals, Constantinople would have no authority over what happens in Antioch.
With all that, I hope you know, that I still have great respect for what holy Orthodoxy has right, like the seven holy Mysteries, a priesthood that can trace itself back to the apostles, and some very wonderfully holy people.
Aquinas went deeply back to the church fathers also to develop Catholic theology.
Thanks for your interest in the Catholic Church.
Adam Hovey It’s all politics and I really don’t care about that. I’m sure the orthodox don’t question the primacy of Rome, but its supremacy. But the important thing is I think, that it’s just not about that. As far as I know, Jesus came to unify mankind with God, not to decide who rules over what part of the church. If we, for a moment, not deal with worldly affairs (which the question of the pope is, honestly), we could be on a real way of church unity. The schism is a thousand year problem, but we need to be really careful in orchestrating the possible re-unification. It most probably will never happen, we have very old historical wounds, but what a dream it would be for us to be one again, as Christ prayed for us.
And concerning the “who got it right” argument, I have one passive-agressive remark that I will surely regret and for which I am apologising in advance: It’s not the orthodox who produced the reformation, secularism and thus by extension the modernist anti-Christian philosophies and ideologies which now poison our modern times ;)
Pat Aherne yes I am very interested in the Catholic Church. The One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church 😊
Jokes aside, I, apart from most orthodox, really admire Aquinas and the scholastics. Though I am more fond of Meister Eckhart and Bonaventura, but they are more on the mystical platonic end of the scholastic spectrum
A rich treasure trove!
Had that Lost In Space model myself, Bishop. Had a shelf my late father of fond memory made and put up in my room that held it and also all the Aurora monster model kits I bought with paper route money and assembled and painted; Dracula, Werewolf, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Hunchback, etc. Fun to recall them. I still have the shelf my dad built. Sadly, all the models eventually fell victim to the backyard activities that developed the year i got my first BB gun ;) Boys could very much be boys in those days... and we were!
Ken Vee I remember them all!
@Mountaindew This in response to my mention of liking model kits as a kid, like Bishop Barron...? Perhaps RUclips has mixed something up here?
I remember I had a “Say It-Play It” and I recorded the first landing on the moon with it.
That may be the tape machine Bishop was speaking about that his father gave him.
Fantastic!!
A Christian loves the Cross and carries it. He loves the Christ and he accepts that the world hates him. The Holy Spirit is on him and enlightens him (Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan).
What is the best way to find out about the Apocrypha and why the Catholic Church has it and why other denominations are against it?
Simply, it is in the LXX- the cannon used by Greek speaking Jews, and not in the Hebrew cannon. The argument for Catholics was that if the Greek translation of the OT was good enough for the Apostles, then it is good enough for us. The Protestant argument is that if the original priests and later rabbis of Judaism didn't think the books were worthy to be in the cannon, then they weren't.
Protestants go further into studying the theological conflicts between the apocrypha vs the rest of the cannon. In general, the conclusion is that the apocrypha is inferior in its writing, literary quality, and theology. Martin Luther encouraged it to be read and included it in his German translation of the bible, but discouraged its use in theology and that is the official position of the Lutheran church. Other Protestants reject it completely. It should be know, that the Apocrypha was originally in the KJV bible and wasn't removed until printers in the New World realized it was more profitable to print bibles without it (figuring most Protestants wouldn't miss the extra 300 pages).
The Eastern Orthodox have even more books in their cannon (as does the Ethiopian church). Studying why the Catholic church rejects those books will help you to understand the Protestant position better, since there is a role reversal in the case of the Apocrypha.
Carefully compare the church fathers to the book of acts … big difference
The only one we should refer to is our LORD JESUS …. The rituals that all denominations do are man made…the things Bishop Barron and any man of the cloth is to bring people to Jesus and He alone
Hello - Theology in the Orthodox Church is the experience of God (that is of course healing ) and an empirical experience. Meaning that theology be just an elaborated commentary on the Bible, while the entire practice is there in order to experience God more and more until . In this case, why would we elaborate comments while the calling is for an actual exercise? I think this is a decision each of us has to make: to talk about it or to exercise it. :-)
With integrity, one cannot return to the Church Fathers and act as if the Scholastics never existed, nor was there any valid development between the Church Fathers and now. What is the fruit of this "hopeful" approach? Is the Church thriving? Are souls being converted and the world submitting to Christ and His Holy Church or is the world converting the parts of the church to them?
What is your own answer? Please elaborate. Thank you.
Mary Pinakat troll much?
@@minasoliman
Who?
Mary Pinakat you my dear sister. Every comment you replied with your advertisement. That’s a huge turn off. And it looks like your comments have been deleted anyway
The Church indubitably thrived for 2000 years. Only now are we seeing the situation which Jesus described as, "When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Apostasy, etc.
What would be good books to read on the teachings of the Church fathers?
It is my understanding that Origen was an early Christian writer but never recognized as a “ Church Father “ although he contributed a great deal to early Christian understanding.
He's not a canonized saint, but he's certainly recognized as a Church Father, indeed as one of the greatest.
@@BishopBarron Thank you Bishop Barron, I have been unable to locate an official list of those considred to be " Church Fathers ", some include lists include Tertullian there is no question Oregin was a profound early Christian author, can you refer me to an authorized list of Church Fathers or defined characteristics. Merry Christmas and thanks for all you do do for the Church.
This Is The Sign You Are Waiting For 12:12
Merry Christmas Novena d1: Pray End to Abortion
O Lord, infant Jesus, fill us with Joy! The birth of any child is a cause for joy and so much more is the birth of You, our Savior. We pray in union with Mary, Your mother, for a greater joy this Christmas.... May Your Holy Will be done in my life and with these intentions. Hail Mary..Glory Be..Amen
Oh great, pro-life madness. Oh what joy.
I’d argue that the Great Fathers were those in the 2nd and early-mid 3rd century CE. After that you more have apologetics trying to harmonize issues within the Christian churches.
It pains me to see how the protestant clan turns their nose up at the early church fathers and the Didache as they continue to disassemble the Liturgy of the Word and the Sacraments (Mysteries) that "pattern" the worship that occurs on God's Holy Sabbath Mountain; And I'm not a Catholic, either.
In fact, most of the protestant clan has also tossed the Old Testament to the wayside; which is an integral part of our faith that allows us to accurately discern the New Covenant with the echo, archetypes, and shadows of things to come in Christ.
"Christians" are a very stubborn breed in that we are so very often the ones who reject God's Word with an intensity that rivals the godless.
i wanted to learn about the church farthers, all i hear is... Catholics are the true christians
Did Thomas Aquinas actually say after a profound spiritual experience (of the summa) that it is as much as straw compared to his experience of connection?
Compared to what "had been revealed" to him.
For a non-Catholic, what is an easy book to read on th Church Fathers?
while church early "fathers" are important historically, they are not comparable, nor a substitute to scripture.
they were the first Christians, they're interpretation is better than yours, they were taught by the apostles
10:39 Read the Church Fathers. Then read John Calvin
😇😇😇👼🔥 Bishop if i die someday my seraphine and my guard Angel and my martyr will be with me at Ends? There no way for stay separated? If the answer is yes, so understand why i'm try
Does the Church Fathers 'timeline' not extend right up to St Bernard of Clairvaux?
For a newbie where would you recommend I start with regard to the Church Fathers? Who should I read first?
John Chrysostom is the most popular Church Father
I'm also getting started with the Church Fathers, I chose to read them cronologically starting with the Apostolic Fathers. I'm going to buy Michael L. Holmes' translation because I heard good things about it
Thank you Bishop Barron! Is there a link to Ancient fathers commentary on scripture, that is talked about at the end of the vidoes?
www.ivpress.com/ancient-christian-commentary-on-scripture
"I was taught by polycarp, who was taught by John" , can someone point out to me where in Against Heresies i could find this?
Amen 🙏🏻 ❤
04APR2024. Seen for the second time.
What websites did they say we can find these writings at ?
Didicae? Penguin? Pope Benedict 16 has homilies in books.
The “ancient Christian commmentary series” has commentary excerpts of the early fathers on scripture
You know, this may seem like a "duh" moment for many of you, but for myself, growing-up in the Protestant tradition of Christianity, specifically, on the non-calvanist side of it at that. The biggest difference between Protestanism vs Non-Protestanism is "church history" and "church fathers." The only people that matters are in the Bible pretty much, and I never knew about it growing-up. Strange, I'd also say within Protestanism itself, church history is more of a thing on the Calvaist side too, but why is it church history isn't that important for Protestants? I'm sure it is for Pastors and folks that have studied at Bible college, but walk into any pentecostal, baptist, methodists, christian church in America and ask a random person in the congregation about the history of the church, and I bet 98 percent of people will only mentioned things in the Bible and nothing else.
Thank you Bishop. I would now like to read what Pope Benedict had to say on the Apostolic Fathers. What would the book title be?
Ok. Found it. Thanks.
Tal tlk to Neal Donald Walch and Ravi Zachckraisis great guys!!!
Robby the robot from Forbidden Planet please
Did the Church Fathers taught about hell?
Im curious about this. I wonder if he'll talk about who wrote which books of the bible and how they decide which were real or not. Different denominations of christians have more or less books in their bibles and have completely different interpretations of them. Did the church fathers envision thousands of different christians when they started?
*Where Did the Bible Come From?*
ruclips.net/video/AT5CoiOyaWo/видео.html
*Books That Were Left Out of the New Testament*
ruclips.net/video/v0wYXP9X6ic/видео.html
*Five Models of the Church*
ruclips.net/video/VauojyTyA6o/видео.html
*Why Do Christians Worship on Sunday and Not Saturday*
ruclips.net/video/tnKRI0FCD2k/видео.html
castbox.fm/vb/204859079
This is a great little interview that starts to delve into that.
If your nervous about the link, its the pat Flynn show- episode "where did we get the Bible?"
@@willgreer4673
I don't know about the link, and I wouldn't care to know. Thanks for the *'scare alert'.*
You shouldn't have given yourself away.
*(Comment regretted. There was oversight on my part in not seeing that the reply is not from 'Ellie Sarke.')*
Another sick trick by the Easter Bunny Church.
Clement, Ignatius and Polycarb were not Catholics. They were Messianic and the Catholic Church was only invented in 325.
Please do a podcast on Don Scotus and William of Occum.
These "church fathers" expose the evolution of the apostasy, prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians.
2 Thes. 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
And again:
Acts 20:29-30 - For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
The Apostle John also predicted this apostasy:
1 John 2:18-19 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
The "church fathers" show us how this apostasy evolved (devolved?).
Bishop the church fathers are unanimous on salvation by grace through faith not by works. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY WORK? WHEN INFACT WORKS ARE ONLY A BYPRODUCT AND NOT THE REASON OF SALVATION.
Church Fathers are unanimously on the side of Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern Churches and everything not protestant (only Protestants believe in ‘sola fide’, which is a heresy and actually the sole heresy that caused the Protestant revolution to happen) on the precise matter you brought, my friend.
If you really were well versed in theology or at least studied it sincerely and with open mind and heart, you would know for a fact that the sentence you used is the exact opposite to the truth.
I understand that accommodations on many of the Protestant camps (it would be daring to say “the Protestant camp” because unity is impossible) have been made to grant works are needed but “ex post facto”, which means as a kind of automatized result of the assent of faith, but that is only trying to “save” a grave heresy with another.
WE ARE SAVED ONLY BY GRACE, because we cannot demand salvation or earn it by our own strict merit. And we are SAVED BY FAITH AND by the BAPTISMAL REBIRTH, when we die as “old creature” and we are born by “water and spirit” as new ones. We are justified by our faith because only faith can make us righteous and our works good and valuable to God’s judgement, but we are not allowed to not produce the good works of the charity/love and the correspondent works of love, specially the neighbors in need, so that we may be God’s instrument to infuse hope to the world. All theological virtues (faith, love and hope) are strictly related to the applied effects of the salvation Jesus Christ merit to us on the cross into our souls.
Besides,
_”Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who _*_built his HOUSE on the ROCK_*_ . The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet _*_it did NOT FALL, because it had its foundation on the ROCK_*_ . But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and _*_it fell with a great crash”_* (Matthew 7, 24-27). Do you think it is a coincidence the later passage in Saint Matthew: _”And I tell you that you are Peter, and _*_on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH_*_ , and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18)?
So, Jesus Christ built HIS Church on one (“Simon”), calling him KEPHA or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). We must never forget a parable told by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he says that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK”, or has it house on the ROCK foundation, so that it can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who built his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed (Matthew 7, 24-29). It is not the case that one house or the other won’t have to deal with extreme conditions, but one of then will stand; the other type of construction will fall. Do you really, really think it is a coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon? And do you really think it is a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), and the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means *“OIKO”* (“house” or “home”) and *”DOMUS”* (“to build”)?
Our Lord will judge ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
But remember, my dear Protestant friend:
_”Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand”_ (Matthew 12, 25).
Come home, Ricardo!
From a Brazilian 🇧🇷 friend.
👋🏻👋🏽👋🏿
If anything is for certain, the approach of Vatican II empirically failed. 1950 years tried and tested worked with the evangelization of the world. No evangelization since Vatican II, but deconversion and Protestantization.
The 'return' to the Fathers was a bogus attempt at reading novelties into the Fathers, who by nature wrote less developed theologies susceptible to reinterpretation contrary to the continuum of interpretation by the scholastics-i.e. saints who spent their lives implementing the faith as a lived faith, and not as an intellectual 'school of thought.'
@Prasanth Thomas "Half of Europe left the Faith after the Council of Trent"
Pretty sure Protestantism + the printing press is why half of Europe left the faith. Not that I've verified your assertion, but it would make sense.
"You are extremely ignorant of the great periods of Evangelisation during the JP2 era- and the Apologetics-Evangelisation Revolution in the 1990s. Was there any great Evangalisation initiative before Vatican 2 as happened in the 90s?"
It's more about what people are being converted TO that was the concern. I see a lot of converts to what I endearingly know as Novus Ordoism. And if x didn't happen until the 1990s we're talking about something optional and and addon that isn't part of the faith by definition. We aren't Modernists.
"Just look at the Schismastic Vatican-2 denying Cults like the SSPX- how many converts from Protestantism, Atheism or other religions do you have?"
Actually in our sChIsmATicC nAZi CulT whICh HaTEs tHE poPE we have many Protestant converts - and they turn out to be some of the best Catholics there are. Atheists, too (a surprising number). What I love most is that without this 'outreach' that you boast of (ours is the 2000-year-old-tried-and-tested convert by example and conversation, over some months or years, rather than the 'we're hip too' Vatican II approach to evangelization - post-Vatican II apologetics are generally good, still).
""The 'return' to the fathers was a bogus attempt of reading novelties into the Fathers,"
If something is in the Fathers, it is not 'novelty'. I can't see how something believed by the Fathers 700 years ago is considered a 'novelty'"
Notice that you didn't read the text you even quoted. "reading ... into"
"Hardly true if you consider post Nicene Fathers- esp. the likes of Augustine, the Cappadocians, John Damacene"
Even Augustine isn't as developed as the Scholastics. I meant the scholastic tradition in general, not its earliest forms, like, yes, Augustine. Where there is ambiguity, there will be liberties taken by Modernists, naturally.
"And, hey, the so called (pseudo)'trads' are the ones here who deny development of Doctrine- not us"
Development of doctrine always referred to developed understanding, not a change in doctrine like Modernists suppose. Change in doctrine is a denial of the "once and for all" (Jude 1:3) depositum fidei.
"We have arrived by Development of Doctrine Ecumenism among other things that you guys deny"
That's not a development of doctrine, if by ecumenism you're referring to the endless Assissi type meetings where we let pagans pray to false pagan idols and demons with no 'you come in' ism in sight? That's adulteration and perversion of doctrine.
"You can't accept legitimate Development of Doctrine on one side and deny Ecumenism."
This just begs the question, and assumes rather than proves that Ecumenism as I described above is a legitimate develpment of doctrine, or just a false one (not all doctrines are true, just because at a given time they are accepted by this or that number of Catholics - see Arian crisis).
"extremely interested in a Systematic and Analytic Form of Theology"
Like the scholastics. While being also very good saints in practice.
"it is you dissidents"
I'm sure Athanasius was considered a dissident, or Judas Maccabeus. I think I'm in good company for refusing to adopt something new. I don't care whose mouth it comes from. Nor can you accuse me or anyone of being uncatholic doctrine-wise, since pre-Vatican II Catholicism can't contradict true development of doctrine, if it is legitimate. If it contradicts what went before, it is change in doctrine, not development, like the acorn that becomes the tree.
"rejecting the Dogma of Indefectibility of the Church"
It's the indefectibility of the Church that is the ENTIRE REASON for the SSPX. If Vatican II-ism, as we'll call it for purposes of brevity, is true, then the Church was wrong on the very same matters it claims to be right on now.
"Abp. Lefebvre is the son of Nestorius- daring to reject an Ecumenical Council and forming his own 'Church'- Isn't that what Luther(and Nestorius) did?"
I'm hoping you're just ignorant as hell because that's a crappy comparison to make between the saintly man and a heretic like Nestorius. Abp Lefebvre rejected a Council that itself declared contained no dogmas that to reject would be tantamount to heresy, and the Ecumenical nature of a Council, even with the approval of a Pope, doesn't make all its contents infallible, only those which qualify as the kind of teaching that can be infallible. The rejection of a Council makes its canons etc. void, but its acceptance doesn't make everything said in the Council true ipso facto. And to say he ever wanted, or ever did, 'start his own church' is just disgustingly ignorant, or worse, malicious and bitter. It's just the opposite of reality.
" Isn't that what Luther(and Nestorius) did? You are no more 'traditionalist' as Protestants are 'Biblical'"
You just seem to be being actively dishonest. I can't reconcile a comparison between Archbishop Lefebvre refusing to accept novelties, and a pig like Luther who rejected the Catholic faith wholesale piece by piece until he reduced it to the 'dregs' that he could accept. What a disgusting comparison.
"when you are confronted with the Church's opposition, Schismastics such as yourselves and Protestants claim that you hold onto some important part of our Faith"
Well, I mean, if we're right, we are. Just like Athanasius was 100% right even though in his day, he was looked upon as we are.
"SSPX and other Sedeprivasionist movements"
Where do the SSPX say they are 'Sedeprivationists?'
With respect, one can read the Church Fathers and become less Catholic too. For instance the opposition to the primacy of any one Bishop can be found in Gregory I, Bishop of Rome, who denounced such titles that would elevate one Bishop over any other. He objected to the title "Universal Bishop" and refused it for himself, only for it to be accepted some 3 years after his death by his second successor. The Catholic response to this argument is essentially that "Universal Bishop" or "Universal Pope" means something other than what the current Pope represents. This begs the question however, as it is plainly what it seems to mean in practice, and was explicitly accepted by the Boniface III of Rome and which later became the major reason why the Eastern and Western churches separated. I think it proved Gregory I wise!
That being said, Protestants would benefit from the writings of the Church Fathers as we have paid them too little attention. If the result is to draw us closer together, it is to a Christianity that more resembles that of the Early Church before the formation of most of the traditions by which we distinguish ourselves (including Catholics). In short: a good thing.
He was probably thinking more of Protestantism, which is totally other to anything the church fathers thought.
Orthodox and Catholic fathers both exist though, I agree
*Where Did the Papacy Come From*
ruclips.net/video/RXdiBbscEFU/видео.html
@Prasanth Thomas where can I read that letter to the Romans you quoted?
Isn’t going back to the Church Fathers or the Early Church what the Reformers claimed to do? And hasn’t the fruits of the Second Vatican Council been a Protestantization of the Church?(i.e. less Marian devotion, less veneration of the saints, less iconography on church walls, more plain/protestant type churches, a more secular/liberal Catholicism).
Don’t get me wrong.I think going back to the Church Fathers is a good thing. Look at the Eastern Orthodox and their continued emphasis on Early Church Fathers. But in that case shouldn’t the Church have gotten more traditional in it’s liturgy, devotion, theology, etc? And not the other way around?
It doesn’t make sense. That is why many have become skeptical of the ressourcement movement.
What would you be? Part of a problem if any or part of the solution?
@@marypinakat8594 What does that mean?
@@bmc8871
Good bit of *'fault-finding',* not all are true.
Also remember,
*"He has right to criticize who has a heart to help."* - Abraham Lincoln
@@marypinakat8594 There is plenty of faults to be found within the Church today. If you can't see this you're either ignorant or stupid and either way part of the problem.
@@bmc8871
Saviour?
Jesus will judge the Catholic Church.
_”Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who _*_built his HOUSE on the ROCK_*_ . The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet _*_it did NOT FALL, because it had its foundation on the ROCK_*_ . But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and _*_it fell with a great crash”_* (Matthew 7, 24-27). Do you think it is a coincidence the later passage in Saint Matthew: _”And I tell you that you are Peter, and _*_on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH_*_ , and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18)?
So, Jesus Christ built HIS Church on one (“Simon”), calling him KEPHA or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). We must never forget a parable told by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he says that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK”, or has it house on the ROCK foundation, so that it can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who built his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed (Matthew 7, 24-29). It is not the case that one house or the other won’t have to deal with extreme conditions, but one of then will stand; the other type of construction will fall. Do you really, really think it is a coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon? And do you really think it is a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), and the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means *“OIKO”* (“house” or “home”) and *”DOMUS”* (“to build”)?
Our Lord will judge ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
But remember, my dear Protestant / separate friend: “
_”Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand”_ (Matthew 12, 25).
Come home, Nunes!!!!
Greetings from a friend in 🇧🇷 Brazil.
Where are the "church mothers?" Says a lot, doesn't it?
God chose a woman to carry his son...greatest honor any human ever received. All generations will call her blessed
@@garymitchell6660 A typical response from a misogynistic, privileged male. If your god had been so generous with such an "honor," shouldn't such holy women be made pope?
@@thomastallis7450 not if you read God's word in the Bible
Thomas: these are writers. No evidence of women's writings.