Praise God for Bishop Barron for his zest & dynamism in discussing & interpreting Church doctrines & the Gospel. Thank you for emphasizing man's longing for God etched in our hearts....
Thank you, very helpful, timeless teaching on the truth of Vatican 2 and how to understand and approach it, what we are getting wrong about it. I hope this is widely viewed, discussed, put into action. What a difference it would make and is making, as we see through Bishop Barron's transformative Word on Fire.
I was there and took notes. When they asked for questions, I had a few, but didn't think, with the little time they had, they'd get to them. But at the encouragement of one of the monks I wrote it down and he hand-carried it up to the front to the prior. My whole visit there was marked by their hospitality, which I appreciate very much. Thank you.
Watch this talk just now. So full of information. Wow! Thanks Bishop Barron being a very good preacher, a valueable asset of the Catholic church. I still continue watching your videos thru youtube. Thank much.
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic. I leave you to draw the conclusions.
Excellent points. What you say further proves the point that modern philosophy was the undercurrent of these documents. That is why it is so difficult to spot, and probably why father does not see it.
The clarity of doctrine, teaching, reflects the clarity of our vision of God, of how we relate to Him and our fellow men, of how we are to understand our bodies and minds and souls. I see nothing obscure or subjectivistic in Christ's teaching. They are very direct. Their very uncompromising clarity summon us to metanoia. We have to know why we should change and what we should change in our attitudes and behavior in order to "inherit the Kingdom."? Ambiguity and doubt serve no purpose.
The greatest message is the love of Jesus Christ. Thank you Bishop Barron on sharing the word but greater is the love of Jesus Christ that is apparent in your message. The negative responses always seem to strike the message of love that Jesus has for the world.
The Church's position on religious liberty and ecumenism has its roots in the early Church, even Sacred Scripture. Profound difference in saying that indifferentism on the part of the State may be prudential and saying it is a dogmatic desideratum (Murray) If the Catholic Church is the "Kingdom of God" here on earth during the interregnum between the Ascension and the Parousia, She has a role to play in social life that is not "accidental" and deserves pride of place in any Catholic polity.
Forcing people to become Catholic against their will is wrong, and the Church has always taught this. But lawmakers allowing their Christian conscience to write laws is not. Catholics walk in the light; non-Catholics walk in darkness. How can they write just laws? The only true freedom is freedom in Christ. Ecumenism is a horrible abomination and anyone who loves the truths or tries to make converts readily sees this. Read Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos.
You bring up one Christological and one Trinitarian dogma. You miss the bigger issue: If we accept "substantial change of doctrine" these teachings are as historically relative as those on religious liberty or ecumenism. For Martini and francis,religion is based on a human feeling or drive. The "form", the expression this drive takes alters and mutates from one epoch and culture to another. This is he REAL spirit of Vatican II. This is he brave new world they are leading us into.
Just read below that the Vatican II was written by some of the best theologians. What defines who is the best, their spirituality and faith levels or intellectual prowess?
nostalgically trying to make the Church a museum piece that never changes and "eternalize" the time bound aspects of Trent and St. Pius V's Mass that itself was a development as proven by the Liturgical Movement of the 19th century and the discovery, for example, of the "Didache" (a liturgical/mystagogical manual of the 1st-2nd century) in Constantinople, and the "Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus of the 3rd century which was discovered, translated and published in 1900, as well as Migne's
with His Bride? Yes. The Tridentine focus was to stress the sacrificial aspect because as you rightly observe (perhaps one of the only things correctly posited) it was denied by the "reformers" (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc). The other aspects fell into the background because of the need to combat the errors that were then forcefully presenting themselves to the attention of the public at large in the 'wars of religion' during the 16th - 19th centuries (but particularly in the 16th-18th cent.).
Vatican II has proven that the Church is pliable and changeable when it is necessary and that Luther, Calvin and even Henry the VIII had valid reasons to adjust Church teachings for modern times to the benefit of all the people. We cannot let the dusty traditions of the past divide us, and as we know unity and brotherhood are really all that matters. To paraphrase Pope John the XXIII we have to open the windows and let the air in .
Unity and brotherhood are worthy goals but repentance, conversion, Confession, Mass, and Communion are far more important. Those last five can save our souls; unity and brotherhood don't. If Protestants and Eastern Orthodox went unity and brotherhood with us, the doors to R.C.I.A. are wide open.
One must "witness" to the Truth. the Truth is objective and clear.. Just being "nice" to people is not enough. Jesus, if my memory serves me, had many "hard sayings." He was not concerned so much with not offending peoples' sensibilities or customary habits of thought, but stimulating them into thinking a different way. Naturally I would not evangelize someone by insisting they learn all the dogmatic minutiae on Patripassianism or Arianism. That is caricature of my position.
The "false teachings of Vatican II'' were drafted by one of the finest groups of theologians in the 20th Century. The important detail to examine is that it will not be the last council of the church because it was not perfect, the church is comprised of believers of a perfect God but not of perfect believers. The church has been through dark times and also times of glory, shortages of good vocations and abundance of bad ones but in the end she is still with us 2000 years later. The fact that there is so much hate against the Catholic Church should signal she has done something right since Jesus Christ never promised to his people the journey to Him would be easy but He said you that follow me will be persecuted, attacked and killed here on Earth but those who endure in the Faith will be listed in the book of life. Long live Msgr. Barron for his work!
curbelojazz yes, protestant theologians and free masons. Study your history, friend. This man speaks and teaches heresy. Infact, study your Catholic Faith. ......
On the problem of evil is the reality of the WILL. The will to self, to your own want or desire, is the root of evil in the world, and the reason Father Barron has such a problem with apocatastasis. God respects will. This is why evil is present in the world, why Faith is a choice, and why Hell is not empty, but full, and always will be.
Does the devil use confusion as a tool? If a document needs interpretation, does that mean it is confusing? If it is confusing, then who is the author? God love you!
Rome in most cases just ended up deferring to the local Ordinaries and the National Bishops' conferences. Again, this is the legacy of John's aggiornamento. "We will not condemn propositions! We will not excommunicate!" And so their indecision led to confusion, and temperance has led to a complete e facto repudiation of Papal authority. Can you imagine Orders of women religious resisting and refusing to participlate in the reform of their communities under Pope Pius XII?
Eminence, great commentary. My two cents here, this is the type and content of discourse that the Church needs right now. And now that you are bishop, you have a bigger bullhorn; I suggest you use it liberally with this purpose.
Father Barron preaches pretty well here but when he became a bishop he said that Jews can be saved without converting and that Hell might be empty. It's a shame.
They were tested. The true Saints didn't rebel, but patiently submitted to the Church's "testing" of their sincerity and orthodoxy. Unlike that sack of moral corruption, Martin Luther.Yes. They were dealing with an orthodox prelacy. But let's see. You just made an excellent argument in support of Lefebvre who challenged the "official " Church, was forbidden to celebate Mass or administer the Sacraments, and fobidden to preach. Thank you.
With the changes that Vatican II has brought about it has made it possible with the agreement of the new Bishop of Rome that Catholicism is unnecessary to be saved. In fact even a atheist who believes in his or her heart that there is no God but leads a good life can go to be with the one he or she doesn't believe in and go to a place that in there mind doesn't exist. Maybe Father should look for a different profession, since Christianity is a optional lifestyle.
Veritas Rex It doesn't seem fair, does it? That a good, sincere individual who never experienced faith by grace, but tried to live as honest and compassionate a life as he/she could; could end up by God's infinite mercy in the same heaven as *you*, who are so conspicuously and ostentatiously a much superior human being.
@@xiamrm The Bible is clear---without faith in Christ, all our good works are as filthy rags. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except by me." --Jesus (John 14:6) "I am the light of the world." --Jesus
You are free to draw your own theological and moral conclusions from Scripture. They are personal and subjective. We Catholics believe that our Faith is more than our personal opinion and a "can't we all just get along" philosophy of life. Christ had real things to say about God and man, life and death, and the choices we must make. Those "real things" were objective truths then, and they are objective truths now.
42:05 "Humanism" is anti Catholic and it makes sense based upon what you say that your ideas flow from humanism which promotes the "cult of man" of Paul VI. Humanism is what enhanced the religion of man and dethroned Christ as King.
and said, "What do you seek?", and then "Come and see". He invited them to a living, personal encounter with Himself, and the sacred Scriptures read, "And they went and remained with Him". The point is that we are not after cataloguing the correct list of doctrines so that when we present ourselves at the gates of heaven we can sit down and take the final exam and getting passing grades on the most accurate theological conception ("If I speak with the tongues of men and angels and have not
Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion? The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine. Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus) This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one. The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing. One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined? How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal. I would therefore like to ask: Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Nota bene: the English word "love" with all its modern connotations, is at variance with the koine Greek word, "charitas." You mistake "affection" and that "Woodstock feeling good" mentality for the stern perfecting love commanded by Christ. Your dismissal of the reverance exhibited for the Eucharist by the priest holding his thumb and forefinger closed after the consecration shows your contempt for the Real Presence. Another of those "priggish" doctrines you wish to see obliterated!
That is exactly what I mean when I mention constitution....Vatican II did exactly that....change the doctrines, the disciplines, the government and the liturgy of the Taditional Catholic Church for the intentional purpose of adjurnamento.... adjusting the Church to the values of modern world and ecumenism.... which completely in opposition of the teachings promulgated by the Catholic Church.... and as a result this new institution is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.
I respectfully disagree about changing doctrines. Perhaps Vatican II developed doctrines further, but that is not the same as departing from them. As for disciplines, governance structures, and liturgy, the council either modified some or called for changes to be made after it met. But Catholic teaching acknowledges that these can be modified (for they have been in the past as well) as long as the modifications are in keeping with essential doctrines. Also, as Bp. Barron notes, the updating is not to make the Church like the world (although granted some interpreted it that way) but to equip the Church to evangelize the modern world better.
Your opinions seem to be founded on a form of subjectivism; indicate a preference for seeing religion as properly denuded of any concern for dogma and objectivity. modern theologians and the conciliar church on your side? No consolation! Error and distortion. Francis is slyly subverting the objective moral teachings of the Church everyday with his "off the cuff remarks" and ambiguous statements. Say something orthodox, then something that puts it into question. Clever.
I have often wondered why we did not hear enough from our Bishop and priests, explaining Vatican 2. I have been under the misguided impression that the Church must be more accommodating to the culture of the times. I understand now, how so much of Vatican 2 has been misinterpreted. “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”
Yes, the documents of Vatican II have often been misinterpreted or misrepresented to people. Once we see this, we can approach the documents themselves and draw help from them for living and proclaiming the gospel in our times.
Wonderful job, Bishop Barron, and thank you so much! I'm ashamed by some of the comments here... fanaticism , haven't any understanding of theology.. would be better off to stay away from it. Prayers for you , Bishop!
Gaudium et spes 12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. Authentic Catholics know the center and crown is the Eucharist. It was the Eucharist before VII. Are the documents of VII heretical? Was VII an authentic council? Are other heresies in other VII documents. The faith is for all not just learned. Look at the fruits of the council. By their fruits you shall know them.
The teaching of the Church regarding God has NOT changed. God is one in substance (ousia) and three in Person (hypostases). It is unchangeable, immutable. Jesus Christ is still God from God, Light from Light, begotten not made, one in being with the Father - the Incarnation: fully human, fully divine; the hypostatic union - not separable, without comingling; two natures, one divine/human Person. The Church is still the Bride of Christ, His Mystical Body of which, in the state of grace, we
A right reading of gaudiium and spes demands a right reading of yves congar and de lubac, and a right readiong of congar and de lubac demands a right reading of the philosophers who influenced their thoughts. Even though, they are dominicans, who are supposed to know by heart st. thomas aquinas philosophy like gariggou-lagrange, they adhered more to the influence of the prevailing philosophy during their times which ultimately is traceable and ends up with immanuel kant. In short, a right reading of gaudium and spes demands a right reading of its philosophical structure, which is not definitely the philosophical structure of scholastic philosophy so prevalent of pre-vatican ii.
@@Deerhunt528 Read Congar, de Lubac, Rahner, and you will know why "there is zero continuity of Trent with Vatican II." These guys will lead you ultimately to Hegel and Immanuel Kant. Read these philosophers and contrast these to St. Thomas Aquinas philosophy. Then you will appreciate the difference in moorings of Trent and Vatican II. Good luck! And God bless you!
What is purely historical and "limited" is not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Repeatedly presented in a way which confirms its irreformable nature. For instance, the use of caput firmiter..and "anathema sit." It is not only acts of the Extraordinary Universal Magisterum, for instance Pius IX definition of the Immaculate Conception, that are infallibly proposed for our belief.
I think you see things very abstractly and are not attentive to detail and the concrete changes made. These concrete changes, taken cumulatively, where clearly part of a strategy to de-sacralize and de-Catholicize the Mass. To make it more acceptable to Lutherans, et alia, as part of the ecumenical project. In fact, there are Lutherans that use the Novus ordo service. How could they possibly do this if it retained its character as a true unbloody Sacrifice? Something they vehemently reject
I don't see that comparison working. It'd be more constructive to point out some teaching from the documents of Vatican II that you find problematic (not what people say Vatican II says, but what its documents actually say).
41:05 I don't know which Jesus you all worship but the real one is not a vague collective consciousness that was summed up in an individual. He is the second Person of the Trinity Who is owed our worship and loyalty. It is satanic to say Christ is a collection of ideas or realizations that man has made or that man desires to be. He is God and we are His subjects and our fidelity to Him and His true Church's teachings is not optional. If we obey and honor His commands inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church then we will be conformed to Him but we didn't design Who Christ is, He always is and was and will be the same person, God the Son.
Clown masses certainly are not prescribed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Have you actually ever read "Sacrosanctum Concilium"? None of the abuses has been prescribed or directed. Individual priests or parishes (liturgical directors, cantors, lectors, etc) have taken liberties with the Divine Liturgy. None of the abuses are a matter of doctrine. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy speaks throughout that "the human is directed and subordinated to the divine",
I don't know how that vague observation negates my points of substantial change of dogma or the subversion of the doctrinal foundations of the Mass. We won't even go into the validity of the new rite of ordination and episcopal consecration. That is really disturbing.
. "Sacrosanctum Concilium" employed a clever strategy of saying one thing, exemplum, (paraphrase), "Latin should be retained", then another that guts it, (paraphrase) but "local conditions may require translations and use of the vernacular". When the Bishops, who now had more discretion,, returned with these ambiguous statements, their liturgists interpreted them in the more progressive, "enculturating" manner. That's how we got clown masses. Why didn't Rome correct these abuses?
To be sure, the Real Presence was also stressed because, again, it was being denied by 'consubstantiation' and the merely symbolic understanding of the 'reformers'. But, nearly from the beginning there was softening of Luther's emphasis even by the first generation of the leadership that took over those movements and there have been great strides made in trying to reach unity in many of these sad divisions (Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall see God) - how ecumenical outreach coul be
God bless our Church and Our Pope ad priests. The gates of hell will npt prevail it. we trust Our Lord words. Finally to all Catholics here, Love each others the way God loves us. please.
If the conclusions I am drawing were only or solely mine, then one may make the argument that I am merely presenting a subjective opinion; but if the conclusions I am drawing are consonant with or congruent with the conclusions of the Church, then I am presenting the Churches teaching by way of using examples from Scripture. That is specious reasoning. I wholeheartedly agree that Christ had real things to say about all of those issues. They have not changed, as you merely allege and assert.
Now that the Catholic Church has decided against tradition for a more modernistic approach to the Catholic faith, I believe we should modernize it totally, in order to come in to full brotherhood with all Christianity we should remove the trappings of power of the Pope and refer to his office as The Bishop of Rome. Churches should be more accommodating to other religions and traditions as to remove any item that would be offensive such as crucifixes statuary and anything honoring Mary.
active participation" in the Mass. The Mystery is still there, but instead of it shrouded in darkness and extrinsic symbols (genuflections, 50 signs of the cross, reflexive responses in a language they no longer understand - they will be able to internalize and hopefully manifest which before was not understood or thought to be ONLY for the priest....that is not disturbing, it is an exciting adventure....
You would lose the Head of the Church which would splinter the largest Christian Congregation. If you take a look, you would find that the Holy See has already extended the umbrella of the Church over all the Christian Faithful around the World. A journey to the Unity required by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Universal Christian Church embracing from our shared Love of Christ the different traditions within the Universal Church. God bless.
Chrstian unity? The Protestant denominations can't even unite with each other, and aren't even trying. Protestants aren't interested in unity! They are only interested in their own opinions, in violation of Roverbs 3:5 and 2 Peter 1:20.
I already itemized what I thought were exempla of "substantial change of dogma" in reference to the doctrine on religious liberty, the nature of the Church (the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church; now, the Church of Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church.), and ecumenism You choose to ignore my points. Liturgically, I mentioned the removal of the Offertory the radical changes in the collects, and the general collapsing of the sacramental priesthood into the "priesthood of the believers".
Bishop Barron is very knowledgeable,, but anybody that preaches pretty much everybody goes to heaven and hell is empty I will think twice,,, Let’s pray for our pope our church leaders
He does not claim that hell is empty. Follow this link from his organization, Word on Fire, for an explanation of what he holds with regard to hell: www.wordonfire.org/hope/
Israel as rejected the Messiah... as lost the alliance... because they refuse to recognize and accept the Messiah... they were called to identify the Messiah, to make Him known and to follow Him; they rejected him instead....They loss the kingdom .....
The "right reading" of Gaudium et Spes, is not to read it at all. Ambiguous, banal, accomodationist, and detrimental to the proper understanding of the immemorial doctrine of the Church. It adds nothing to established Magisterial teaching but confusion.
The significance of the Vatican II is the bringing of Jesus Christ's Word, the reiteration of the OT God's Word in New Testament, at true Church mass, throughout the world in each outskirt community such as tribal in their own language or vernacular. If there was a confusion of external modernizing morality, the true intent of Vatican II didn't have anything to do with it. The essence of the traditional Catholic mass stays. The confusion looks like it was picked by atheists to push their unbelief in God, the illusion that there's nothing about God is existent. FERVENT PRAYERS TO ATHEISTS TO REALIZE THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR, THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BORN, HAD IT NOT THE DIVINE POWER, LOVE, AND WISDOM OF GOD IN CREATING MAN, TO HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH ALL THE ABILITIES AND CAPACITIES THAT EACH ONE POSSESS, RIGHT NOW. LIKE YOUR ABILITY TO THINK, AND REASON, THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YET YOUR UNCONSCIETIOUS UNBELIEF OF WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
The Second Vatican Council is in continuity with, congruent with, substantially flows from and continues the 2,000 year teaching of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Not rupture, continuity.
LOVE, I am as a clashing cymbal and toneless gong..." ICor 13). It won't do to walk up to a homeless person on the street in the middle of winter and tell them, "You really should be wearing a heavy winter coat, a pair of gloves, some long underwear, a hat and scarf or you will catch a death of cold." While that is certainly TRUE, the Christian response is, in love, for Christ's sake, to GIVE the person the long underwear, and the coat, and the gloves, and the hat and the scarf so that they
an episcopally ordained priest alone, may offer the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not know where you ever got the impression that by virtue of their baptism, prior to the Second Vatican Council, believers did not receive a common participation in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly office of Christ, but it is patently untrue (Romans 12:1, 2 - Present yourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God which is your reasonable service of worship).
Wit, charm, oratory skills, smooth talking and pleasant speech cannot compensate for this man denying or questioning that anyone is in Hell. What dangers to souls there are these days! No wonder he got the promotion to Bishop, although he was consecrated in the doubtful new rite of episcopal consecration that Paul VI introduced in 1968. He might not even be a true Priest, because if the Bishop who first ordained him to the Priesthood was himself consecrated in the same New Rite of 1968, then Bishop Robert Barron is not even Fr Robert Barron. He is Mr Robert Barron.
when i read comments like yours and others of the same ilk i understand why atheism is on the rise. Either the holy spirit is guiding the church or he is not. If the spirit did not guide vatican 2 than what guarantee have we that he guided any council. You cannot have it both ways.
Qui tacet consentiri videtur. Therefore by Rome's silence over the decades of the deconstruction of the Mass, she gave her consent. Can you imagine Pius XII or Pius X allowing local chuches to so corrupt the Eucharistic celebration without intervening? Rome is conplicitous.
This is all very interesting, but not material to my problem, poor fool I! I suppose as a "prig" I am barred from grasping the esoterica of Gnostic Christianity. Here is my problem: If the Church consistently embraced the "wrong side" of historical crises for 1800 years, why should I believe she has any authority to teach now.? Maybe Francis is wrong, just as Progressives would say pope St. Pius V was wrong.
some things now because they are necessary, and doing away with those things of which there is already, in storage, an excess, or that are no longer necessary - either because the soil no longer grows it or because it has ceased to produce seed or yield fruit. That is not the decision of any particular lay person (me or you), or even any particular bishop (say, e. g. Lefebvre), but of the world's bishops gathered in unity and in union with and under the successor of the vicar of Christ.
gold standard of orthodoxy. God is one is substance, three in Person; Jesus Christ is still God Incarnate; the Divine Liturgy is still a participation in the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the Church is still filled with the Holy Spirit, love (of both God and neighbor) is still the perfection of the law. Nothing has changed.
YET always has certain cells dying off because they have reached their life expectancy (a red blood cell, or a muscle cell, or a bone cell) and is therefore always being recreated, renewed, always adapting to and living in the changing historical circumstances and like a good servant is always bringing out of its resources things both old AND new (cf. Matt 13:52); or like a living garden (e. g. like the garden of Paradise) that is always in need of cultivation, the pulling of weeds, growing
in signs and symbols and symbolically signifying extrinsically which, by its very nature is primarily meant to be an intrinsic reality, and to encourage a "full and active participation" by the laity, instead of a passive, extrinsic one; the laity are now going to directly hear and be affected by the spoken words of the entrance antiphons, the collects, the readings, the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy so that they also will now be amateur liturgical / spiritual theologians by that same "full,
reach out to the world, to save it (how very Christological), not to condemn it (I have not come to condemn, but to save), to be held up as a priceless object (I have not come to be served, but to serve), but to seek and to save that which is lost.
It is now time to meditate on your Catholic faith !! Maccabees 1 & 2 In the two books of Maccabees, ONE MAN dies three times, in three different ways, and in three different places !!! WOW !! He raised from the dead, one more time than Jesus did! But this is why ALL the Jewish Churches in Israel rejected your faiths Old Testament !! AND, they LOVE the 1611 KJV Old Testament, as you will find most of them carrying it around with them in Israel !! Don't believe me, then just go to Israel and find out for yourself !! What is it called to believe the lies of your faith ... Willful ignorance.
@@Ambassador-For-Christ It is really very sad that you fancy yourself a modern day prophet who sits arounding condemning everyone for not accepting your narrowly, insular, Protestant fundamentalist worldview. You aren't engaging in exegesis of any given passage, describing what it means in and of itself, relating it to other passages that touch on the same subject in other books of the Bible. You are going around cherry-picking condemnatory passages, and then simply deciding that this or that horrifying prediction applies to the people with whom you believe yourself to be engaged in a discussion. This passage where St. John is talking about those who go to hell, THIS applies to YOU QuisutDeus. You BETTER repent of the truth you believe in otherwise this will happen to YOU (cue the bogeyman music). As I said, sir. Holding the fear of hell over people, in the manner of, say, Jonathan Edwards in his essay, 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' may be a very 'Puritan' thing to do, it may have been how those in the 17th century were accustomed to thinking, but we live in the 21st century, not Puritan New England. The 1611 King James Bible may have spoken to those living in that time, but it doesn't make it the end all and be all of biblical translations.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Praise God for Bishop Barron for his zest & dynamism in discussing & interpreting Church doctrines & the Gospel. Thank you for emphasizing man's longing for God etched in our hearts....
My spirit is elevated towards God each time I hear Bishop Barron speak. God bless him and Word on Fire ministries 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️❤️✝️
Thank you, very helpful, timeless teaching on the truth of Vatican 2 and how to understand and approach it, what we are getting wrong about it. I hope this is widely viewed, discussed, put into action. What a difference it would make and is making, as we see through Bishop Barron's transformative Word on Fire.
Excellent presentation. God bless you father Robert Barron.
Thank you, Bishop, for your great talk, it will help me in my formation as a Lay Dominican. God Bless,
This video needs to be rediscovered! It's time.
I was there and took notes. When they asked for questions, I had a few, but didn't think, with the little time they had, they'd get to them. But at the encouragement of one of the monks I wrote it down and he hand-carried it up to the front to the prior. My whole visit there was marked by their hospitality, which I appreciate very much. Thank you.
Watch this talk just now. So full of information. Wow! Thanks Bishop Barron being a very good preacher, a valueable asset of the Catholic church. I still continue watching your videos thru youtube. Thank much.
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species.
Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing:
Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates.
Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus.
This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature.
Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific.
The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties.
Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error.
Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded.
How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic.
I leave you to draw the conclusions.
Excellent points. What you say further proves the point that modern philosophy was the undercurrent of these documents. That is why it is so difficult to spot, and probably why father does not see it.
The clarity of doctrine, teaching, reflects the clarity of our vision of God, of how we relate to Him and our fellow men, of how we are to understand our bodies and minds and souls. I see nothing obscure or subjectivistic in Christ's teaching. They are very direct. Their very uncompromising clarity summon us to metanoia. We have to know why we should change and what we should change in our attitudes and behavior in order to "inherit the Kingdom."? Ambiguity and doubt serve no purpose.
I find your ramblings very ambigious
The greatest message is the love of Jesus Christ. Thank you Bishop Barron on sharing the word but greater is the love of Jesus Christ that is apparent in your message. The negative responses always seem to strike the message of love that Jesus has for the world.
The Church's position on religious liberty and ecumenism has its roots in the early Church, even Sacred Scripture. Profound difference in saying that indifferentism on the part of the State may be prudential and saying it is a dogmatic desideratum (Murray) If the Catholic Church is the "Kingdom of God" here on earth during the interregnum between the Ascension and the Parousia, She has a role to play in social life that is not "accidental" and deserves pride of place in any Catholic polity.
Forcing people to become Catholic against their will is wrong, and the Church has always taught this. But lawmakers allowing their Christian conscience to write laws is not. Catholics walk in the light; non-Catholics walk in darkness. How can they write just laws? The only true freedom is freedom in Christ.
Ecumenism is a horrible abomination and anyone who loves the truths or tries to make converts readily sees this. Read Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos.
Thank you Father Barron. I wish all of us in Church are enabled to listen to you as a community.
Paganized indian!
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
You bring up one Christological and one Trinitarian dogma. You miss the bigger issue: If we accept "substantial change of doctrine" these teachings are as historically relative as those on religious liberty or ecumenism. For Martini and francis,religion is based on a human feeling or drive. The "form", the expression this drive takes alters and mutates from one epoch and culture to another. This is he REAL spirit of Vatican II. This is he brave new world they are leading us into.
Just read below that the Vatican II was written by some of the best theologians. What defines who is the best, their spirituality and faith levels or intellectual prowess?
nostalgically trying to make the Church a museum piece that never changes and "eternalize" the time bound aspects of Trent and St. Pius V's Mass that itself was a development as proven by the Liturgical Movement of the 19th century and the discovery, for example, of the "Didache" (a liturgical/mystagogical manual of the 1st-2nd century) in Constantinople, and the "Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus of the 3rd century which was discovered, translated and published in 1900, as well as Migne's
Boy, Bishop Barron, you got me with your Bruce Springsteen, U2, and Mick Jagger references while expounding on Augustine's hunger of the heart.😂😂😂
Praise Jesus the Christ!
Thenk you like haleloya Amen
with His Bride? Yes. The Tridentine focus was to stress the sacrificial aspect because as you rightly observe (perhaps one of the only things correctly posited) it was denied by the "reformers" (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc). The other aspects fell into the background because of the need to combat the errors that were then forcefully presenting themselves to the attention of the public at large in the 'wars of religion' during the 16th - 19th centuries (but particularly in the 16th-18th cent.).
Vatican II has proven that the Church is pliable and changeable when it is necessary and that Luther, Calvin and even Henry the VIII had valid reasons to adjust Church teachings for modern times to the benefit of all the people. We cannot let the dusty traditions of the past divide us, and as we know unity and brotherhood are really all that matters. To paraphrase Pope John the XXIII we have to open the windows and let the air in .
Unity and brotherhood are worthy goals but repentance, conversion, Confession, Mass, and Communion are far more important. Those last five can save our souls; unity and brotherhood don't.
If Protestants and Eastern Orthodox went unity and brotherhood with us, the doors to R.C.I.A. are wide open.
We let the air in and it choked the Church.. V2 has proven to be a disaster ...
What an excellent lecture!
thanks for the enlightenment . . .
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
One must "witness" to the Truth. the Truth is objective and clear.. Just being "nice" to people is not enough. Jesus, if my memory serves me, had many "hard sayings." He was not concerned so much with not offending peoples' sensibilities or customary habits of thought, but stimulating them into thinking a different way. Naturally I would not evangelize someone by insisting they learn all the dogmatic minutiae on Patripassianism or Arianism. That is caricature of my position.
The "false teachings of Vatican II'' were drafted by one of the finest groups of theologians in the 20th Century. The important detail to examine is that it will not be the last council of the church because it was not perfect, the church is comprised of believers of a perfect God but not of perfect believers. The church has been through dark times and also times of glory, shortages of good vocations and abundance of bad ones but in the end she is still with us 2000 years later. The fact that there is so much hate against the Catholic Church should signal she has done something right since Jesus Christ never promised to his people the journey to Him would be easy but He said you that follow me will be persecuted, attacked and killed here on Earth but those who endure in the Faith will be listed in the book of life. Long live Msgr. Barron for his work!
curbelojazz yes, protestant theologians and free masons. Study your history, friend. This man speaks and teaches heresy. Infact, study your Catholic Faith. ......
On the problem of evil is the reality of the WILL. The will to self, to your own want or desire, is the root of evil in the world, and the reason Father Barron has such a problem with apocatastasis. God respects will. This is why evil is present in the world, why Faith is a choice, and why Hell is not empty, but full, and always will be.
Does the devil use confusion as a tool? If a document needs interpretation, does that mean it is confusing? If it is confusing, then who is the author?
God love you!
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Rome in most cases just ended up deferring to the local Ordinaries and the National Bishops' conferences. Again, this is the legacy of John's aggiornamento. "We will not condemn propositions! We will not excommunicate!" And so their indecision led to confusion, and temperance has led to a complete e facto repudiation of Papal authority. Can you imagine Orders of women religious resisting and refusing to participlate in the reform of their communities under Pope Pius XII?
If you don’t like it then stop commenting it’s boring
Eminence, great commentary. My two cents here, this is the type and content of discourse that the Church needs right now. And now that you are bishop, you have a bigger bullhorn; I suggest you use it liberally with this purpose.
Father Barron preaches pretty well here but when he became a bishop he said that Jews can be saved without converting and that Hell might be empty. It's a shame.
@@georgepenton808
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
They were tested. The true Saints didn't rebel, but patiently submitted to the Church's "testing" of their sincerity and orthodoxy. Unlike that sack of moral corruption, Martin Luther.Yes. They were dealing with an orthodox prelacy. But let's see. You just made an excellent argument in support of Lefebvre who challenged the "official " Church, was forbidden to celebate Mass or administer the Sacraments, and fobidden to preach. Thank you.
Most saints of more recent times did rebel. Especially the women, who were.often very tough eggs Hildegard, Mary McKillop..
With the changes that Vatican II has brought about it has made it possible with the agreement of the new Bishop of Rome that Catholicism is unnecessary to be saved. In fact even a atheist who believes in his or her heart that there is no God but leads a good life can go to be with the one he or she doesn't believe in and go to a place that in there mind doesn't exist. Maybe Father should look for a different profession, since Christianity is a optional lifestyle.
Veritas Rex It doesn't seem fair, does it? That a good, sincere individual who never experienced faith by grace, but tried to live as honest and compassionate a life as he/she could; could end up by God's infinite mercy in the same heaven as *you*, who are so conspicuously and ostentatiously a much superior human being.
@@xiamrm The Bible is clear---without faith in Christ, all our good works are as filthy rags.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except by me."
--Jesus (John 14:6)
"I am the light of the world."
--Jesus
Well said
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Another modernist and heretic. A true child of vat. 2.
Interesting speech and engaging speaker
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Great lecture!
You are free to draw your own theological and moral conclusions from Scripture. They are personal and subjective. We Catholics believe that our Faith is more than our personal opinion and a "can't we all just get along" philosophy of life. Christ had real things to say about God and man, life and death, and the choices we must make. Those "real things" were objective truths then, and they are objective truths now.
The true follower of Christ does not go along to get along.
25:00 “that’s it.”
JUST BY THE FACT OUR LADY CONDEMNED IT, IS ENOUGH FOR ME.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Please expound!
42:05 "Humanism" is anti Catholic and it makes sense based upon what you say that your ideas flow from humanism which promotes the "cult of man" of Paul VI. Humanism is what enhanced the religion of man and dethroned Christ as King.
and said, "What do you seek?", and then "Come and see". He invited them to a living, personal encounter with Himself, and the sacred Scriptures read, "And they went and remained with Him". The point is that we are not after cataloguing the correct list of doctrines so that when we present ourselves at the gates of heaven we can sit down and take the final exam and getting passing grades on the most accurate theological conception ("If I speak with the tongues of men and angels and have not
Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion?
The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine?
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species.
Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing:
Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates.
Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus)
This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal.
Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific.
The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one.
The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing.
One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case.
Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined?
How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal.
I would therefore like to ask:
Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Ven, Holy Spirt , Ven ( Roman Catholic) : Viva Cristo Rey!
Which "church" are your opinions "congruent" with? That is the issue. Not the Church of "Mystici Corporis" or "Mediator Dei."
Nota bene: the English word "love" with all its modern connotations, is at variance with the koine Greek word, "charitas." You mistake "affection" and that "Woodstock feeling good" mentality for the stern perfecting love commanded by Christ. Your dismissal of the reverance exhibited for the Eucharist by the priest holding his thumb and forefinger closed after the consecration shows your contempt for the Real Presence. Another of those "priggish" doctrines you wish to see obliterated!
That is exactly what I mean when I mention constitution....Vatican II did exactly that....change the doctrines, the disciplines, the government and the liturgy of the Taditional Catholic Church for the intentional purpose of adjurnamento.... adjusting the Church to the values of modern world and ecumenism.... which completely in opposition of the teachings promulgated by the Catholic Church.... and as a result this new institution is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.
I respectfully disagree about changing doctrines. Perhaps Vatican II developed doctrines further, but that is not the same as departing from them. As for disciplines, governance structures, and liturgy, the council either modified some or called for changes to be made after it met. But Catholic teaching acknowledges that these can be modified (for they have been in the past as well) as long as the modifications are in keeping with essential doctrines. Also, as Bp. Barron notes, the updating is not to make the Church like the world (although granted some interpreted it that way) but to equip the Church to evangelize the modern world better.
Your opinions seem to be founded on a form of subjectivism; indicate a preference for seeing religion as properly denuded of any concern for dogma and objectivity. modern theologians and the conciliar church on your side? No consolation! Error and distortion. Francis is slyly subverting the objective moral teachings of the Church everyday with his "off the cuff remarks" and ambiguous statements. Say something orthodox, then something that puts it into question. Clever.
I have often wondered why we did not hear enough from our Bishop and priests, explaining Vatican 2. I have been under the misguided impression that the Church must be more accommodating to the culture of the times. I understand now, how so much of Vatican 2 has been misinterpreted. “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”
Yes, the documents of Vatican II have often been misinterpreted or misrepresented to people. Once we see this, we can approach the documents themselves and draw help from them for living and proclaiming the gospel in our times.
Thank you - what happened to Dialogue ? the word used so much from 1967
@@karinmaryturner the term dialogue is still used in Church documents and by recent Popes.
This guy is a "Roman Catholic" priest???????
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Well done, Fr. Robert Barron! This is fantastic!
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
I watch it in 2020 and see that this lecture lead to barren harwest.
Why is Gaudium et Spes the most Controversial document of the Second Vatican Council?
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Cuz people dont really read 🤷🏻♂️
"Some modernization of the Church was necessary." --"Bishop" Barron
Sedevacant 1914, your brain is sedevacant.
@@tomthx5804 you brain is full .... of trash. No room for the Truth.
Yikes
Wonderful job, Bishop Barron, and thank you so much! I'm ashamed by some of the comments here... fanaticism , haven't any understanding of theology.. would be better off to stay away from it. Prayers for you , Bishop!
paul wood so, you support this man's heresies??? Wow! You need to learn 1st grade catechism again! And, of course you need to read your Bible.
This man is a wolf.
Paul he says a Lot of good sounding things, but none of it has substance.
Gaudium et spes 12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. Authentic Catholics know the center and crown is the Eucharist. It was the Eucharist before VII.
Are the documents of VII heretical? Was VII an authentic council? Are other heresies in other VII documents. The faith is for all not just learned. Look at the fruits of the council. By their fruits you shall know them.
Yes! It's heretical! Leave the false novus ordo!
The teaching of the Church regarding God has NOT changed. God is one in substance (ousia) and three in Person (hypostases). It is unchangeable, immutable. Jesus Christ is still God from God, Light from Light, begotten not made, one in being with the Father - the Incarnation: fully human, fully divine; the hypostatic union - not separable, without comingling; two natures, one divine/human Person. The Church is still the Bride of Christ, His Mystical Body of which, in the state of grace, we
A right reading of gaudiium and spes demands a right reading of yves congar and de lubac, and a right readiong of congar and de lubac demands a right reading of the philosophers who influenced their thoughts. Even though, they are dominicans, who are supposed to know by heart st. thomas aquinas philosophy like gariggou-lagrange, they adhered more to the influence of the prevailing philosophy during their times which ultimately is traceable and ends up with immanuel kant. In short, a right reading of gaudium and spes demands a right reading of its philosophical structure, which is not definitely the philosophical structure of scholastic philosophy so prevalent of pre-vatican ii.
@@Deerhunt528 Read Congar, de Lubac, Rahner, and you will know why "there is zero continuity of Trent with Vatican II." These guys will lead you ultimately to Hegel and Immanuel Kant. Read these philosophers and contrast these to St. Thomas Aquinas philosophy. Then you will appreciate the difference in moorings of Trent and Vatican II. Good luck! And God bless you!
What is purely historical and "limited" is not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Repeatedly presented in a way which confirms its irreformable nature. For instance, the use of caput firmiter..and "anathema sit." It is not only acts of the Extraordinary Universal Magisterum, for instance Pius IX definition of the Immaculate Conception, that are infallibly proposed for our belief.
I think you see things very abstractly and are not attentive to detail and the concrete changes made. These concrete changes, taken cumulatively, where clearly part of a strategy to de-sacralize and de-Catholicize the Mass. To make it more acceptable to Lutherans, et alia, as part of the ecumenical project. In fact, there are Lutherans that use the Novus ordo service. How could they possibly do this if it retained its character as a true unbloody Sacrifice? Something they vehemently reject
Having a bishop like you extol the the virtues of Vatican II is like John Gotti explain the virtues of hit men.
I don't see that comparison working. It'd be more constructive to point out some teaching from the documents of Vatican II that you find problematic (not what people say Vatican II says, but what its documents actually say).
Is this talk about Gaudium et Spes or freestyle Catholic talk?
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
The "right reading" of the documents of Vatican 2 in three steps: 1. kerosene 2. match 3. trashcan.
18:00 Christify the World
41:05 I don't know which Jesus you all worship but the real one is not a vague collective consciousness that was summed up in an individual. He is the second Person of the Trinity Who is owed our worship and loyalty. It is satanic to say Christ is a collection of ideas or realizations that man has made or that man desires to be. He is God and we are His subjects and our fidelity to Him and His true Church's teachings is not optional. If we obey and honor His commands inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church then we will be conformed to Him but we didn't design Who Christ is, He always is and was and will be the same person, God the Son.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Clown masses certainly are not prescribed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Have you actually ever read "Sacrosanctum Concilium"? None of the abuses has been prescribed or directed. Individual priests or parishes (liturgical directors, cantors, lectors, etc) have taken liberties with the Divine Liturgy. None of the abuses are a matter of doctrine. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy speaks throughout that "the human is directed and subordinated to the divine",
I don't know how that vague observation negates my points of substantial change of dogma or the subversion of the doctrinal foundations of the Mass. We won't even go into the validity of the new rite of ordination and episcopal consecration. That is really disturbing.
Arbiter Veritatis Lol this guy you are arguing with is a modernist heretic. End of story.
. "Sacrosanctum Concilium" employed a clever strategy of saying one thing, exemplum, (paraphrase), "Latin should be retained", then another that guts it, (paraphrase) but "local conditions may require translations and use of the vernacular". When the Bishops, who now had more discretion,, returned with these ambiguous statements, their liturgists interpreted them in the more progressive, "enculturating" manner. That's how we got clown masses. Why didn't Rome correct these abuses?
Think before you speak, you heretic
To be sure, the Real Presence was also stressed because, again, it was being denied by 'consubstantiation' and the merely symbolic understanding of the 'reformers'. But, nearly from the beginning there was softening of Luther's emphasis even by the first generation of the leadership that took over those movements and there have been great strides made in trying to reach unity in many of these sad divisions (Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall see God) - how ecumenical outreach coul be
27:53 ... The philosopher Jagger is often quoted in this regard.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
God bless our Church and Our Pope ad priests. The gates of hell will npt prevail it. we trust Our Lord words.
Finally to all Catholics here, Love each others the way God loves us. please.
Kumbaya!!! Lol
If the conclusions I am drawing were only or solely mine, then one may make the argument that I am merely presenting a subjective opinion; but if the conclusions I am drawing are consonant with or congruent with the conclusions of the Church, then I am presenting the Churches teaching by way of using examples from Scripture. That is specious reasoning.
I wholeheartedly agree that Christ had real things to say about all of those issues. They have not changed, as you merely allege and assert.
Now that the Catholic Church has decided against tradition for a more modernistic approach to the Catholic faith, I believe we should modernize it totally, in order to come in to full brotherhood with all Christianity we should remove the trappings of power of the Pope and refer to his office as The Bishop of Rome. Churches should be more accommodating to other religions and traditions as to remove any item that would be offensive such as crucifixes statuary and anything honoring Mary.
Veritas, are you being facetious?
active participation" in the Mass. The Mystery is still there, but instead of it shrouded in darkness and extrinsic symbols (genuflections, 50 signs of the cross, reflexive responses in a language they no longer understand - they will be able to internalize and hopefully manifest which before was not understood or thought to be ONLY for the priest....that is not disturbing, it is an exciting adventure....
Sadly, I fear many younger Catholics in the West will reject this. Nevertheless excellent. Thank you, Excellency.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
You would lose the Head of the Church which would splinter the largest Christian Congregation. If you take a look, you would find that the Holy See has already extended the umbrella of the Church over all the Christian Faithful around the World. A journey to the Unity required by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Universal Christian Church embracing from our shared Love of Christ the different traditions within the Universal Church. God bless.
Paul Schofield
Chrstian unity? The Protestant denominations can't even unite with each other, and aren't even trying. Protestants aren't interested in unity! They are only interested in their own opinions, in violation of Roverbs 3:5 and 2 Peter 1:20.
I already itemized what I thought were exempla of "substantial change of dogma" in reference to the doctrine on religious liberty, the nature of the Church (the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church; now, the Church of Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church.), and ecumenism You choose to ignore my points. Liturgically, I mentioned the removal of the Offertory the radical changes in the collects, and the general collapsing of the sacramental priesthood into the "priesthood of the believers".
Arbiter, you might as well give up. They will never get it.
Bla bla bla. Bunch of words and didn't say anything. Waste of time.
His speciality
I gained nothing from listening to this. All that schooling on the Church’s dime for nothing.
Vatican 2 was subject of dire Third Secret of Fatima. Council -A horrible scourge on good Catholics.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Bishop Barron is very knowledgeable,, but anybody that preaches pretty much everybody goes to heaven and hell is empty I will think twice,,,
Let’s pray for our pope our church leaders
He does not claim that hell is empty. Follow this link from his organization, Word on Fire, for an explanation of what he holds with regard to hell: www.wordonfire.org/hope/
I AM WHO IAM...❤😊😂❤❤❤
Israel as rejected the Messiah... as lost the alliance... because they refuse to recognize and accept the Messiah... they were called to identify the Messiah, to make Him known and to follow Him; they rejected him instead....They loss the kingdom .....
The "right reading" of Gaudium et Spes, is not to read it at all. Ambiguous, banal, accomodationist, and detrimental to the proper understanding of the immemorial doctrine of the Church. It adds nothing to established Magisterial teaching but confusion.
Thank you, Pope Arbiter the First. Shall I kiss your ring, your Highness?
The significance of the Vatican II is the bringing of Jesus Christ's Word, the reiteration of the OT God's Word in New Testament, at true Church mass, throughout the world in each outskirt community such as tribal in their own language or vernacular. If there was a confusion of external modernizing morality, the true intent of Vatican II didn't have anything to do with it. The essence of the traditional Catholic mass stays. The confusion looks like it was picked by atheists to push their unbelief in God, the illusion that there's nothing about God is existent. FERVENT PRAYERS TO ATHEISTS TO REALIZE THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR, THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BORN, HAD IT NOT THE DIVINE POWER, LOVE, AND WISDOM OF GOD IN CREATING MAN, TO HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH ALL THE ABILITIES AND CAPACITIES THAT EACH ONE POSSESS, RIGHT NOW. LIKE YOUR ABILITY TO THINK, AND REASON, THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YET YOUR UNCONSCIETIOUS UNBELIEF OF WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
The Second Vatican Council is in continuity with, congruent with, substantially flows from and continues the 2,000 year teaching of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Not rupture, continuity.
LOVE, I am as a clashing cymbal and toneless gong..." ICor 13). It won't do to walk up to a homeless person on the street in the middle of winter and tell them, "You really should be wearing a heavy winter coat, a pair of gloves, some long underwear, a hat and scarf or you will catch a death of cold." While that is certainly TRUE, the Christian response is, in love, for Christ's sake, to GIVE the person the long underwear, and the coat, and the gloves, and the hat and the scarf so that they
an episcopally ordained priest alone, may offer the sacrifice of the Mass. I do not know where you ever got the impression that by virtue of their baptism, prior to the Second Vatican Council, believers did not receive a common participation in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly office of Christ, but it is patently untrue (Romans 12:1, 2 - Present yourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God which is your reasonable service of worship).
48:50
Wit, charm, oratory skills, smooth talking and pleasant speech cannot compensate for this man denying or questioning that anyone is in Hell.
What dangers to souls there are these days! No wonder he got the promotion to Bishop, although he was consecrated in the doubtful new rite of episcopal consecration that Paul VI introduced in 1968.
He might not even be a true Priest, because if the Bishop who first ordained him to the Priesthood was himself consecrated in the same New Rite of 1968, then Bishop Robert Barron is not even Fr Robert Barron. He is Mr Robert Barron.
when i read comments like yours and others of the same ilk i understand why atheism is on the rise. Either the holy spirit is guiding the church or he is not. If the spirit did not guide vatican 2 than what guarantee have we that he guided any council. You cannot have it both ways.
Bobby Barron is a total snake
Can the Holy Ghost teach error?
Deshawn Washington no, but Satan wears many disguises
Dingaling personage - he did not deny that anyone is in hell. Go back to your crebtree.
Qui tacet consentiri videtur. Therefore by Rome's silence over the decades of the deconstruction of the Mass, she gave her consent. Can you imagine Pius XII or Pius X allowing local chuches to so corrupt the Eucharistic celebration without intervening? Rome is conplicitous.
Celebrating 50 years of living in the Synagogue of Satan.
Shame that such a wonderful video possesses such cancerous comments.
William Chami apparently you do not know this priest
The devil is strong in the kooks. He makes them quite mad and insistent on spreading their venom
Obviously you know very little of the Catholic Faith.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
This is all very interesting, but not material to my problem, poor fool I! I suppose as a "prig" I am barred from grasping the esoterica of Gnostic Christianity. Here is my problem: If the Church consistently embraced the "wrong side" of historical crises for 1800 years, why should I believe she has any authority to teach now.? Maybe Francis is wrong, just as Progressives would say pope St. Pius V was wrong.
Arbiter Veritatis it's because of freemasonry infiltration. There sole goal is to destroy the Catholic Church.
I see no "growth." I see no "spiritual prosperity". I see no "New springtime". sorry.
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
What planet have you been on the last half century? The Church has been ripped apart.
some things now because they are necessary, and doing away with those things of which there is already, in storage, an excess, or that are no longer necessary - either because the soil no longer grows it or because it has ceased to produce seed or yield fruit. That is not the decision of any particular lay person (me or you), or even any particular bishop (say, e. g. Lefebvre), but of the world's bishops gathered in unity and in union with and under the successor of the vicar of Christ.
Human project? Ran by whom pray tell?😊
What's the context? Anyone make the scriptures look more heretical than what you've brought up
*You're Doing Confession Wrong!*
ruclips.net/video/Ffx2fSULvn0/видео.html
Sedevacantist here, error has no rights.
Why won't local ordinary give me excommunication?
There shouldn't be multiple rdings! This idea ISupports devil
gold standard of orthodoxy. God is one is substance, three in Person; Jesus Christ is still God Incarnate; the Divine Liturgy is still a participation in the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the Church is still filled with the Holy Spirit, love (of both God and neighbor) is still the perfection of the law. Nothing has changed.
YET always has certain cells dying off because they have reached their life expectancy (a red blood cell, or a muscle cell, or a bone cell) and is therefore always being recreated, renewed, always adapting to and living in the changing historical circumstances and like a good servant is always bringing out of its resources things both old AND new (cf. Matt 13:52); or like a living garden (e. g. like the garden of Paradise) that is always in need of cultivation, the pulling of weeds, growing
in signs and symbols and symbolically signifying extrinsically which, by its very nature is primarily meant to be an intrinsic reality, and to encourage a "full and active participation" by the laity, instead of a passive, extrinsic one; the laity are now going to directly hear and be affected by the spoken words of the entrance antiphons, the collects, the readings, the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy so that they also will now be amateur liturgical / spiritual theologians by that same "full,
reach out to the world, to save it (how very Christological), not to condemn it (I have not come to condemn, but to save), to be held up as a priceless object (I have not come to be served, but to serve), but to seek and to save that which is lost.
It is now time to meditate on your Catholic faith !! Maccabees 1 & 2 In the two books of Maccabees, ONE MAN dies three times, in three different ways, and in three different places !!! WOW !! He raised from the dead, one more time than Jesus did! But this is why ALL the Jewish Churches in Israel rejected your faiths Old Testament !! AND, they LOVE the 1611 KJV Old Testament, as you will find most of them carrying it around with them in Israel !! Don't believe me, then just go to Israel and find out for yourself !! What is it called to believe the lies of your faith ... Willful ignorance.
@@Ambassador-For-Christ
Get back on your anti-psychotic medications, sir.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Your self projection is very revealing !!!
@@QuisutDeusmpc It is really very sad that you are not aware that your future home is described in the last three words of Revelation 20:15 KJV .
@@Ambassador-For-Christ
It is really very sad that you fancy yourself a modern day prophet who sits arounding condemning everyone for not accepting your narrowly, insular, Protestant fundamentalist worldview. You aren't engaging in exegesis of any given passage, describing what it means in and of itself, relating it to other passages that touch on the same subject in other books of the Bible. You are going around cherry-picking condemnatory passages, and then simply deciding that this or that horrifying prediction applies to the people with whom you believe yourself to be engaged in a discussion.
This passage where St. John is talking about those who go to hell, THIS applies to YOU QuisutDeus. You BETTER repent of the truth you believe in otherwise this will happen to YOU (cue the bogeyman music). As I said, sir. Holding the fear of hell over people, in the manner of, say, Jonathan Edwards in his essay, 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' may be a very 'Puritan' thing to do, it may have been how those in the 17th century were accustomed to thinking, but we live in the 21st century, not Puritan New England. The 1611 King James Bible may have spoken to those living in that time, but it doesn't make it the end all and be all of biblical translations.
gaudium et spes 24/3 mankind is created for itself/ and not for GOD/ proverbs 16 verse 4 therefore is wrong
Abuses have been condemned....repeatedly....people have been disciplined....repeatedly....