Fr. Barron advocates what Thomas Aquinas and Vatican II clearly teach: that those who follow their consciences sincerely can (notice I said "can" and not "will") be saved. Friend, there should be nothing controversial about this. It's standard Catholic teaching.
Jesus 33 AD - “My Kingdom is not of this world”. “Do not love the world or the things in the world” John 2:15 Pope John XXIII 1959 - "I want to throw open the windows of the Church to the world so that we can see out and the people (world) can see in” Pope Paul VI. 1972 - “Through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God”
In 1917 Our Blessed Mother warned the world that God is already too much offended, and the solution is prayer, The Holy Rosary, and the repentance of men for our sins. I still believe that the divisions that confuse Catholic is diabolic, and that is often used to claim erroneously that the changes from Vatican II are diabolic as well. The confusion is from poorly educated priests, and bishops often doing and saying that which aids the confusion, The answer remains as Our Blessed Lady said, prayer and penance.
William Tyndale You surly love hell if you are saying that about the virgin Mary and confusing man acts with the Catholic Church and its teachings that are The most important.
Well friend, we're not talking about automaticism here! Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it doesn't mean that every baptized person is saved. The point at issue is whether someone who is not formally baptized can be saved, and the clear answer of Trent is "yes," precisely through the desire--conscious or otherwise--for baptism.
Friend, the problem is that you're repeating words without really understanding them. Just consider this one point: neither Anselm nor Thomas Aquinas believed that God has emotions, varying attitudes across time. That's why his "anger" and the "satisfying" of that "anger" must be interpreted metaphorically. God's anger is his passion to set things right. The cross of Jesus, by swallowing up the darkness of the world, set things right, "appeased" God's "anger." Don't read this literally.
Come on, man! You're giving the worst possible spin to every comment I'm making. Last time I checked, St. John the Apostle said, "God is love." Love is not, therefore, a mere "attribute" of God, but rather his very essence. Indeed, due to the simplicity of God, it is inappropriate to speak of "attributes" at all. Theiosis, or deification, is the process by which we human beings are drawn into the love that connects the Father and the Son.
Aileen Bordelon thanks to the VCII the succesor of Peter enters in temples of false religions, the sacred body of Our Lord is touched by laity even by women, the mass is a mess and the devil is so happy for it not even the Borgias did so much damage to the Church as Jhon XXIII and Paul VI.
It is altogether inappropriate to speak of "causality" within the Trinitarian relations. The Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Causality is the process by which creatures come forth from God. This is why we say, in the Nicene Creed, that the Son was "begotten not made."
I do really love this. Again and again, though only a few times I've commented, Bishop Barron is heaven-sent. While you, Bishop, provide us deep and somewhat never-before heard insights on the faith and our Church, they settle quickly in me as though your discourses are a blueprint of what God in Christ has revealed in the divine economy. I am gratefully enlightened.
Not so! As you probably have gathered from my videos and books, I am an ardent advocate of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. I have absolutely no quarrel with Thomas and the great tradition that flows from him. What I and many others find more problematic is a form of theologizing--really pseudo-Thomist in spirit--that took hold around the mid-nineteenth century and endured to the mid-twentieth century. That's the only "tradition" that I would dispute.
I found this very interesting and informative; I really don't know much about the history and players of Vatican II, but now I'd certainly like to learn more.
Well I didn't say that love is the essence of God; St. John did! By spiritual adoption, we share in the dynamism of the divine life, though we never, of course, become divine persons, for that would involve a suspension of our creatureliness. The fullness of who God is remains opaque to us, but that doesn't mean we can't make positive, though analogical, statements about God's essence. For example, we say "God is good; God is just; God is perfect," etc.
I wiould like to see what Fr. Barron thinks about this rather large push to bring the tradition back in the church. What does Fr. Barron think about the SSPX message and the health of the church after VatII. Its clear something happened we cant ignore it. How can we get such public voices and great minds like Fr. Barron on board? Id like to hear from him!
I was a cradle Vatican II Catholic who became a Latin rite Catholic later in life. I have come to appreciate at this age that the Catholic Church is truly THE universal church with it's rich diversity in its rites (east and west). Vatican II opened the door for all to join us to become ONE church. The Ordinariate rite is just ONE example of such miracle!!! Praise God!
Some good things came out of Vatican II but overall unfortunately a lot of the Churches Teachings have been misinterpreted by many, They should have fixed what was wrong instead of starting over heading towards Modernism is never a good thing in today's world
I think this is your best video yet. I'm 27 and so much of the issues that have the present in such turmoil happened in that 10 to 15 years before I was born. The "spirit" of those times has become politicized and institutionalized to the point that it's hard to trust anyone's perspective on it. I think that having an accurate understanding of that "spirit" is so important when dealing with today's issues. So thank you for adding that perspective!
Not so! Catholic theology doesn't in any way "confuse" the Father and the Son, for the latter proceeds from the former. They are one in being, but they are different in regard to origin. And you should never speak of "cause" in regard to any of the Trinitarian persons, since neither the Son nor the Spirit is a creature made ex nihilo.
Latin is also a principle of unity for the Church, subordinate to that of the Dogma Papal Infallibility and all Doctrines of the Church. You will feel the weight of it if you know the struggle of the Church through 20 centuries of internal and external heresies. I refer you to a specialist present at Vatican II and Post Vatican II in Italy, Romano Amerio who move Rome to change the course of suspending Latin in certain historical and doctrinal tendencies of the Church.
CB: The problem is not one but many. You will have to purchase a Russian Missal, a Samoan Missal, a Fijian missal, a German missal, a Latin American missal, a French missal in order to attend the Catholic Mass throughout the World when you travel. The Latin saves you money to spent when touring, you just either need to understand the mass or bring without your Latin and vernacular translation missal all over the World. Unity is kept on Sundays this way especially for tourists. The other one consist of the Protestant heresies in terms of uniformity with Apostolic Teachings called Tradition. There are many others both extrinsic and intrinsic in nature problems.
2:09 ... "the renewal of the liturgy" ... a kind choice of words since I remember lots of people stopped going to Mass after the change; the destruction of the liturgy is more apt. A new emphasis on God's love for us seems to be the [only (?)] good fruit from V2. And, it seems to me, that was over emphasized to the point of error. V2 was a disaster that the Church is barely recovering from even now [2018].
A Mascia ... What you describe is what I call the “It’s all about the love” crowd. It’s a naive, reckless and shortsighted way of understanding Christ’s love. Yes, he loves us but we must still be reconciled to his Word by repenting - and I’m the first on that list! But acceptance without expecting someone to change their ways is a downright travesty since it risks one losing their soul.
Very instructive! He “came of age” when all the church teachings were “up for grabs.” So, “What do we believe?” Etc. Now I get it, it finally has sunk in. For faithful Catholics like Barron, “belief” is not personal, not something one comes to after long arduous self seeking contemplation. But, rather, something that the Church tells you to believe. Even to the extent thaatt as a faithful Catholic you could “believe”one thing today, yet “believe” the exact opposite tomorrow simply because the Church has changed its official position. Now I see that faithful Catholics have a different definition of “belief” than do I. No Church, no organization, no officials are ever going to dictate what I “believe.” I will come to my own beliefs, thank you very much!
@georgeroberts442 Have you really "come of age"? It doesn't sounds as that from your comment 11 years after this video was made. Listen to fresher videos on what you expects. You are mixing oranges and apples, as not even distinguishing that this is not a sermon from the pulpit, but a historical-theological reflection on Vatican II's developing thoughts among thinkers. What is a faithful Catholic for you? And what does that person believe? Nothing has changed in what and how a Catholic believes! Pope, Scripture & Tradition. Have you ever read the present Catechism of 1983? That explains in details what the Church believes! Wake up! Pax Christi
But you are denying what Tertullian saw, namely, that the economic missions are iconic representations of the immanent processions. When you deny this, you devolve into a form of modalism. Catholicism would certainly affirm that the Father is the deepest ground of deity, since the Son proceeds from the Father. But this doesn't preclude the fact that the Son and Father together spirate the Spirit.
"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma,' which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1988 Address to Chilean Bishops).
Vatican II has become a "black hole" in that it sucks up any progress or reflection outside of it. Most...most clergy and laity that run stuff on the parish level have read anything that predates V2. It's as though V2 was the Council to end all Councils and eclipsed them all. I argue people cannot understand or comment intelligently on Vatican II or the modern catechism unless they have read Trent in its catechism and Canons and Decrees. I would add Vatican I aswell.
Well, sure he is, since he gives rise to the Son, and without the Son, there is no Spirit. The problem with your reading is that it breaks the link between the economic and immanent Trinity. The former should always be seen as the iconic representation of the latter, and Jesus clearly says that he and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. That economic mission represents the immanent procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.
I agree with Bishop Alexander Sample who stated: "“While I certainly don't blame the Council (Vatican 2), much upheaval occurred in the church in its aftermath... there was an anti-authoritarian spirit.” He goes on to explain how he was a member of the “first generation of poor catechesis, which raised up another generation that is equally un-catechized,”. I couldn’t agree more with the Bishop.
So a Council that contained language that promoted secular humanism and secular utopianism wihich implicitlly denied original sin is indisputably traditional Barron?
@@therealong No, your comment only shows that you haven't actually read the documents or have failed your course in remedial reading comprehension, not to mention bothered to listen to the many criticisms of VII by Pope Benedict and many other prelates who said precisely what I said in my comment above. Even the Synod of 1985 was highly critical of the many mistakes that were made. There are dozens of silly statements in the documents praising secular culture along the lines as this one from Dignitatus Humanae: "A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man" That moronic statement less than 20 years after the revelation of the Nazi concentration camps.
@@edwardbaker1331 I stand with what I wrote in my comment because it's what any Catholic should do. Understand the reasons behind Vatican II and implementing it correctly with the guidance of the Church. All the other concepts, terms and words you continually add and resort to should also be analyzed one by one and put in the right context: The Church's context, not only yours. You are following sites that go against the Spirit of the Council, so you are getting used in expressing yourself as they do and are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as they do. Pope Benedict wrote also much other stuff, before and after he became pope. I doubt you have read anything in the right context. You are still picking up only what suits your arguments, out of a much larger and fundamental one: Having Faith, which also implies how to explicate it to others in words. Three simple words from Pope Benedict dismantle your unsound reasoning: "Faith purifies reason." Now what does being "traditional" actually mean for you?
@@therealong One thing it means is honoring the Ten Commandments, which includes not bearing false witness. Who do you think you are to treat your assumptions as factual? When you make baseless assumptions, you bear false witness to yourself. And this is not me finding something to suit my argument. This is indisputably an act of trashing the Eighth Commandment on your part. What "sites" am I following exactly? It's pretty hard to "follow" a site since it's been years since I've been on any site other than shopping sites. I am aware that the documents are available for downloading, which I don't need since since I've read them all many times. Your whole capacity to reason, aside from being childishly dishonorable, is illogical. Your contention that I argued that essentially everything about VII was wrong is both childish and presumptuous. I said no such thing. I believe they were 98 pecent orthodox. It is Barron who contends that there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can be criticized in the documents or that departs from Catholic tradition, a position that is ridiculous on his part as he snottily insults anyone who disagrees with him. Instead of you arguing about things you know nothing about about, especially the mind and motivations of a total stranger, why don't you go to sites that contain the documents, cut and paste them into a word file, then do a search of how many times the stupid concept of evolve or derivative of the word (search: evolv) and what is said. Since when does Catholic Tradition deny the permanent imperfectability of the human condition the way modernists at VII implied that it did, a concept they inserted into the documents? Be a man, not a mindless puppet.
Very interesting... I have listened to this talk many times now.. it clearly explains why some people say that the spirit of the Vatican II is not what is on display, and through that they try to bring people to the ideology of liberalism.. thank you Bishop for this wonderful explanation
Not so! What Jesus says in John 15:26 is that he and the Father will together send the spirit: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father..." And if the economic missions iconically represent the immanent processions, then it is altogether correct (and Biblical) to say that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.
Not so! The son, precisely as begotten, does not share utterly in the ungenerated quality of the Father. Even as he spirates the Spirit with the Father, the Son is other than the Father.
I am so glad that Christianity didn't die in its infancy over arguments like this. I seriously think that if you are happy where you are, and you imitate Christ as best as you can, then you will find heaven on earth. I have a lot of faith in this Church, and have no complaints in being led and fed by the Bishop of Rome.
So your friend's theory stands against the entire Catholic tradition! The relevant term in Latin is "voto," which means, according to my dictionary, "by wish" or "by desire." Don't see the ambiguity.
Did Christ already come back? Because if he didn't then why are acting like the Church that Christ started, which he said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against you" is in heresy? I'm confused by traditionalist.
Not so! The Spirit would be subordinated if and only if he did not share utterly in the Godhead, but this is not the case. The act by which the Father and Son love one another is God, just as the act by which the Father others himself is God. In point of fact, it is the Eastern tradition, with its roots in Origen's subordinationism, that is in real danger of teaching that the Spirit is not fully divine.
Bishop Barron: I am a Latin rite Catholic. I was baffled by this statement, which, admittedly, was one post of an extended thread with someone seven years ago. My confusion comes from the fact that the Cappadocian father, St. Basil, wrote a treatise on the Holy Spirit in which he states, if the Spirit be not God, how can he then deify us? It is my understanding the Cappadocian fathers (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, are highly regarded in the eastern Orthodox tradition. My question, then, is, is Origen's theology regarding subordinationism, given a greater weight than the Cappadocian Fathers in this regard; or is it only certain circles in eastern Orthodoxy who stress Origen with regards to the 'filioque' clause which they claim was invalidly added to the creed by the Latin west?
I apologize if I offended anyone by my comment that the video is a bit too academic for Fr. Barron's Word on Fire audience. What I meant was that many of his subscribers are smart people, but just aren't quite theologically developed enough to discuss theology at this level quite yet. I enjoyed the video, btw. Thank you for your service to the Church, Fr. Barron.
Augustine Hourigan It struck out or deemphasized parts of the mass, enough to render it a Protestant service. The only key thing that keeps the new mass valid is the consecration which becomes the real presence of Christ. But most Catholics aren’t even taught about transubstantiation any more. It’s mostly just be nice to illegal immigrants and reduce your carbon footprint, which you can get from watching the MSM.
Friend, take a look at the Council of Trent's teaching on baptism by desire. And then notice how Vatican II amplified and deepened that teaching. The relevant text is Lumen Gentium ch. 16.
the Lay Faithful, whether they realize it or not, are still engaged in the discussions that took place at Vat2. We, to this day, are still debating and discussing it, trying to find our way with its pastoral guidance. the Church is a "World Church" and we have a duty to evangelize. let's continue our discussions in charity and for justice.
Well, the operative word is "as!" To say that the Father and the Son together spirate the Spirit is by no means to confuse Father and Son in regard to origin.
Bishop, speaking of Congar's journals, have you had a chance yet to read through Henri de Lubac's journals from the council, recently released from Ignatius Press? If so, was wondering what your thoughts on them were - perhaps even a topic for a future video?
This is obviously another incredibly insightful video by Fr. Barron. Is it more "academic" and theological than some of the others? Sure. But wouldn't a little more theology and a raising of the academic bar be good for everyone? I think so. Fr. Barron, keep up the great work!
Now it's the year 2023, almost 2024, and it's Interesting to see and read comments' developing respectively from 11 years ago through each year, to the present date, It also shows how differently people's reasoning has been influenced by the social media.
Friend, I've been an outspoken critic of many features of the post-conciliar period, when I came of age. But these represent distortions and misapropiations of Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II as such, what prevents you from rejecting Trent, Chalcedon, and Nicea?
We all are the church. Please let Jesus guide us for the future as always. Don't forget to pray for all our bishops, they need our spiritual energy to avoid the evil.
Mary, the context of the cannon you are quoting is from the 'negative' list. it was written as a response to some people's beliefs at the time that people could be christians with or without baptism. No one said in this entire chain of conversation, that it is 'optional' to be baptised or not. that isnt even the question. the question is whether someone who desires baptism, but cant be baptised due to extreme circumstances (martydom is one example) can be saved. the same council (trent) says yes
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema." End of "baptism of desire" debate.
Augustine cont: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’.I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart if, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism"
Is the word "alone" actually in the Creed? Is this not analogous to Martin Luther's insistence on "justification by faith alone" (except that the word "alone" in not in any known text of St. Paul)?
Any Mass that is approved by the Catholic Church, any Mass that is valid and licit is the one Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And when I am attending those, I am as much in the presence of the angels and saints and Our Holy Mother at Our Lord Jesus' Sacrifice as I ever was in any other valid or licit Mass
He says something interesting at 7:22. In regards to the 3 that wanted additional reforms that were not called for by Vatican II he says they want, "Change in celibacy, women's ordination, change in the sexual teaching of the church, etc. We know that's the whole agenda of much of liberal Catholicism even to this day." Sounds like what's some are saying is currently going on within the church. I'm Orthodox but have recently been looking into Roman Catholicism. I'm not sure who within RC to listen to. Gay friendly parishes? How does that work?
There is no one in churches asking for gay friendly parishes, I mean, a huge amount of the people there are already gay, they're not asking for recognition, they don't care. The church cannot accept Exhibitionist sexuality
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-researched reply. I will check into these matters for myself, following the direction in which you have pointed me.
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.
Come on, friend; this is absolute nonsense and utterly unfair to Thomas Aquinas. Ipsum esse must be in possession of any and all ontological perfection; therefore, God is personal, intelligent, free, etc. And your last comment is just beneath contempt. I thought we had a chance to engage in a serious theological conversation, but you've just resorted to the crudest kind of propaganda.
friend, the Dogma you keep citing does not exclude the Baptism of Desire as i pointed out. "OR" in the trent document doesnt make sense as you try to frame it. Baptism was well defined by the time of Augustine; he certainly would not make an error in faith on one of the Sacraments, as you seem to imply. but my point is that I am not making up this argument.
I think the reasons we Westerners tend to take a more scholastic approach is because we have the impression that divine revelation is necessary because our *capacity* to experience God has a definite limit. After all, why have scriptures or traditions at all if the "key", so to speak, is found in prayer and ascetic struggle?
I think this comment illustrates the problems that I have with the Catholic Church. I read Thomas Aquinas and what stays with me is his statement ‘Ipse Actus Essendi subsistens,’ that God is the act of being itself. While others, with much louder and more hardline voices, read Thomas Aquinas and somehow the one thing they take away from him is the fact that touching the Eucharist with your hands should be forbidden.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of Christ? I disagree. That doesn't mean non-Christians can't be saved, but that salvation can only be achieved through Christ. I think that saying there is no salvation outside the Church is a matter of deep meaning. What is 'the Church'? What is the role of the Church in salvation? Can salvation be attained through 'the Church' without being a member of 'the Church'? I think you're both using the same words with different meanings....
What was discussed during the council sessions was not exactly what was in the constitutions. So although the overwhelming majority of bishops signed off on the constitutions, what was implemented by the post conciliar committees was unrecognizable to the Church fathers.
You should talk about the practice of communion in the hand. I thought Thomas Aquinas himself said that only the hands of the CONSECRATED could touch the Eucharist. Now people are dropping the host and not caring for the particles left to be stepped upon and forgotten. The patton and the communion kneelers have become obsolete. The loss of respect for Christ in the real prescience has had devastating effects on the church. Father Barron, this needs to be talked about.
you did not address the full comment made by Benedict; i assume that is because you either did not read it, or you do not understand it. if you read it, you'll see that Benedict 16 is not embracing the 'protestant' notion of faith alone at all. if you want, i'll give you the link to the full quote.
Did at least some good things come out of, Vatican II ? Like improved relations with Protestants & Jews , should there ultimately be a Vatican III, a Third Vatican Council ?
There’s getting along and then there’s conversion. The Council made a big push for ecumenism. Through a slight of hand they emphasized a unity of all Christians. But that implies unity or being saved exists outside the Church, which is itself a heresy to the Church. It also implies a battering away of truth for the sake of getting along. In the end it does no one good salvation wise, but it’s a good way for modernist priests and bishops to network and vacation with their Protestant buddies.
@@New-Moderate Who decides what is and isn't heresy ? Isn't it all a matter of opinion, were many Catholics against the First Vatican Council as well ?
I have much truth and veauty there aswell. But the documents are irrelevant as far as any context to the Church now. V2 was a meandering contemplation in which a moderates modernism was the lens. The reforms that followed after the Council were loosely (at best) related to the documents or not at all. I challenge anyone to show me any true reform taken from the documents. The Novus Ordo Missae has little to do with Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Traditional Latin Mass is more faithful and better fulfills the stipulations of that document. So, I agree that the documents have much truth and beauty they are ultimately irrelevant in the modern context as they have no solutions for any of the.problems V2 started or bolstered that were underlying the true intentions of the Council.
@@justinreany1514 Now it's the year 2023, almost 2024, and it's Interesting to see and read comments' developing respectively from 11 years ago through each year, to the present date, It also shows how differently people's reasoning has been influenced by the social media. What is your current position today, if you still are on RUclips?
Vatican 2 is basically like trying to fix something that’s not even broken and actually breaking it, ruining it in the process. Once I discovered the TLM, I just never desired to go back to the novus ordo, just not the same really.
"It is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." -St Alphonsus Liguori so there you have it, a saint who saw trent to be saying what i stated..
Hi Lombard! I'm not sure if your reply to my comment was a show of concern of the diversity in the Church, or if you feel that I am confused in some way. I have read some of the history, and I am happy to be in such a loving family. :)
I'm fairly aware of how many splinter groups feel about the church after vatican 2. the church has not done away with any doctrine from earlier than V2, so what is your basis for suggesting the catholic church 'no longer' teaches the catholic faith? i'd make the argument that since the catholic church is alive and organic, that what it teaches "is" the catholic faith.
so the catechism agrees with augustine when it says:Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" 1260-1261, 1281, 1283
"Faith and Reason"? I only see emotion. VII was a masonic robber council that created a new religion. The religion you see today where Muslims and Jews are praised and sent on their ways. Let's look one case. Vatican II taught that the Jews are not rejected by God. The problem is, the Catholic Church declared as a infallible Dogma, that all who hold a different opinion on the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Church rejects, they are rejected by God. Jews reject the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Saint John said: GOD IS LOVE. Not only an energy, or something vague that emanates from Him. But He IS Love, just as God is His Word, and His Word IS God. Love is a Person of the Holy Trinity, even if we can't understand that concept. As for your concern about us "becoming divine persons"... you are only half right. We will never become a "Person" in God, who is Perfect Trinity, But we will indeed become "part of God's glory", i.e. THEIOSIS... "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1.4)
Catechism of the Council of Trent p 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, -- the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.” "The "negative list"? You'll have to forgive me, where is Trent's "the negative list"?
I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that I think mysticism is anything less than an indispensable part of the life of the Church. One of the things that the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas points out is that it is the intellect that first grasps the goodness of a thing (like mysticism), and the will--assuming all is well--dutifully follows the higher faculty. Eastern Orthodox chant follows this pattern as well, subordinating the ison--the "heart"--to the melody--the "head".
The exposition on the Concilium - Communio divide is enlightening, goes to show how guided a lot of the councilmen were not to proceed with a "Vatican III", and how Vat II itself has been the subject of wild and far-fetched misinterpretations. I can understand how some people wanna blame the council for the disciplinary and catechetical crisis of the Church. That's fine and valid. Of course, implementation of Vat II has always been evolving under each pope. But that's not the whole story, or even the main issue, especially considering the faithful worldwide, Catholics in Christian-minority regions, developing countries, those with diverse participation of the laity. All of Catholicism has been under attack by various ideologies and forces, even before the 1960s, left AND right, authoritarian AND liberal. It's not just the "council's fault." Ordinations and baptisms are still on the rise. Please brothers and sisters, we are the Church too, read the documents! Engage our bishops, priests, deacons, and nuns!
no. in the context of the council language, in the context of scripture, and in the context of what prior popes and church fathers wrote, baptism of desire is possible. Let me point out two things: 1. i am NOT saying the church says baptism of desire can replace normal baptism. that is not what i have described. I reference catechumens martyred before they could be baptised, or the thief next to Jesus. 2. friend, by your love you are known.
the big "but" here friend is that a council in union with the Pope also taught exactly what St. Alphonsus said. in fact, i cited the council's very words. you cant just decide to pick and choose what words from a council are meaningful.
Why, yes. Yes, you certainly do have quite a bright audience :) At any rate, I found it fascinating information, not too academic at all. A question: Was JPII (then Karol Wojtyla) on the board for either publication?
Ahh that old 'Spirit of Vatican II'.... everyone says it... few are awake enough to even ask "What Spirit is this" the spirit of revolt? destruction? division? et al....ad nauseum... seems so.
El Rico ... liberals love to say that. It feels good but says nothing. Based on the results of Vatican II, my question is, “What spirit are we talking about?”
I'm what you would probably call a protestant, so excuse me if this is just something I wouldn't get, but what is mysterious about Latin? I mean, people don't usually speak it now, but didn't they speak it quite often before? Back then should they have used another slightly unfamiliar language? How does it show any nire devotion to Chris than in english? And how does it show reverence?
I do not have the writings of the Council (I presume you meant Constantinople 1) at my disposal, and have not been able to successfully "Google" the passages you refer to. Can you help me out here?
I would very much like to know what you mean by "pseudo-Thomist theologizing." Please feel free to PM me if you're interested in sharing your thoughts in more detail than is possible here. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that Vatican I endorsed exactly the kind of scholastic theology that you seem to think of as "pseudo."
I was just demonstrating that councils and personal disputes are not alien to the text of the Gospels. The Acts of the Apostles, since it covers the history of the early church, contains richer data in this area. I wonder if you would write the same things had you been listening to someone talk about the dynamics of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15...
So tell me..is hell empty..I mean never mind what scripture tells us..what the saints have taught..and what our blessed mother told us..oh great bishop barron..being greater than any i just mentioned..can we hold out " hope"..that hell is empty...gag..
Bishop Robert Barron Know what..I am getting a little tired of all the smiling and not being offensive. I asked an honest question..even if you dont like the mean tone...it is still a question..do you NOT have an answer..or are you just going to ignore me..
It is impossible for you to show that Trent teaches "baptism of desire", since it doesn't teach that heresy. Session 6 chapter 4 simply teaches that the state of grace is impossible without baptism or the desire for baptism. The fact that the desire for baptism is necessary does not mean that the mere desire will suffice.
friend, here are the points: 1. the document you cite as infallible, Trent, is the very one i and numerous saints agree speaks of a baptism of desire. 2. you say i'm a liar for stating that; yet that was the interpretation that holy men in the catholic church also thought Trent was making; prior to vatican 2-right after Trent it was taught to be so 3. you've made yourself the interpreter of what each Dogma means in the church, rather than listening to the church tell you what it meant.
I believe it was Pope Francis I heard say "Stop Complaining, and start Praying." When we complain and are stubborn, we "block" the Holy Spirit from moving in our hearts. I've read so many complaints about Vatican II, but if it's so bad why do those who disagree not pray about it? Has worldly culture become so powerful in the lives of Christians that we cannot openly discuss, submit to the authority of the Pope & Bishops, and pray for change according to God's Will? Must we constantly write bad posts in ignorance and rebellion? After spending years in Protestant churches, watching egos destroy God's work, how can "Traditionalists" condone the same thing with Catholicism? Hasn't God always directed his Church? When Bishop Barron (or any Bishop for that matter) makes a statement concerning instruction in our Faith, where do we get the nerve to feel as though we can just brush it off as a "common" man's opinion? The title Bishop has been passed down from the Apostles to modern day, and Bishops have the authority to speak in such a manner. We do not. Perhaps when listening to Bishop Barron or others, and We find ourselves in disagreement, rather than argue in ignorance we should Pray that God opens our eyes, and ask the Bishop to explain further so we can understand. Then we can have ONE Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and change WILL happen with God's providence and timing.
Another Catholic who refuses to see the complete devastation of the Church in the past 60 years, we have been praying for 60 years for an end of the novelties and"reforms". We have had it... we cannot tolerate the wholesale gutting of Mother Church, are blind to what the "spirit of Vatican 2" has done. Bishop Barron rushes to defend at council which has proven to be a complete disaster in the end.
Because most of the things they want to teach the faithful go against tradition. We can’t just blindly obey if it’s not accurate with the traditions of our fathers. I do think we should pray a lot.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Fr. Barron advocates what Thomas Aquinas and Vatican II clearly teach: that those who follow their consciences sincerely can (notice I said "can" and not "will") be saved. Friend, there should be nothing controversial about this. It's standard Catholic teaching.
Jesus 33 AD - “My Kingdom is not of this world”. “Do not love the world or the things in the world” John 2:15
Pope John XXIII 1959 - "I want to throw open the windows of the Church to the world so that we can see out and the people (world) can see in”
Pope Paul VI. 1972 - “Through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God”
It was called Vatican II
Vatican Doo Doo
In 1917 Our Blessed Mother warned the world that God is already too much offended, and the solution is prayer, The Holy Rosary, and the repentance of men for our sins. I still believe that the divisions that confuse Catholic is diabolic, and that is often used to claim erroneously that the changes from Vatican II are diabolic as well. The confusion is from poorly educated priests, and bishops often doing and saying that which aids the confusion, The answer remains as Our Blessed Lady said, prayer and penance.
William Tyndale You surly love hell if you are saying that about the virgin Mary and confusing man acts with the Catholic Church and its teachings that are The most important.
Well friend, we're not talking about automaticism here! Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it doesn't mean that every baptized person is saved. The point at issue is whether someone who is not formally baptized can be saved, and the clear answer of Trent is "yes," precisely through the desire--conscious or otherwise--for baptism.
Friend, the problem is that you're repeating words without really understanding them. Just consider this one point: neither Anselm nor Thomas Aquinas believed that God has emotions, varying attitudes across time. That's why his "anger" and the "satisfying" of that "anger" must be interpreted metaphorically. God's anger is his passion to set things right. The cross of Jesus, by swallowing up the darkness of the world, set things right, "appeased" God's "anger." Don't read this literally.
I'm praying every day that our church goes back where it belongs. It doesn't feel right anymore.
goes back to Inquisition par exemple?
@@makikoba Yes exactly if ever one was needed it is now... purge the Left from the Church.
Come on, man! You're giving the worst possible spin to every comment I'm making. Last time I checked, St. John the Apostle said, "God is love." Love is not, therefore, a mere "attribute" of God, but rather his very essence. Indeed, due to the simplicity of God, it is inappropriate to speak of "attributes" at all. Theiosis, or deification, is the process by which we human beings are drawn into the love that connects the Father and the Son.
Vatican II "threw open the doors"--to the Devil.
Can you explain how?
Aileen Bordelon thanks to the VCII the succesor of Peter enters in temples of false religions, the sacred body of Our Lord is touched by laity even by women, the mass is a mess and the devil is so happy for it not even the Borgias did so much damage to the Church as Jhon XXIII and Paul VI.
He doesn't have to. It is plain to see--for yourself.
Vatican II doesn't allow Catholic priests.
UTTER NONSENSE. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.?
It is altogether inappropriate to speak of "causality" within the Trinitarian relations. The Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Causality is the process by which creatures come forth from God. This is why we say, in the Nicene Creed, that the Son was "begotten not made."
Very helpful and instructive. Thank you.
I do really love this. Again and again, though only a few times I've commented, Bishop Barron is heaven-sent. While you, Bishop, provide us deep and somewhat never-before heard insights on the faith and our Church, they settle quickly in me as though your discourses are a blueprint of what God in Christ has revealed in the divine economy. I am gratefully enlightened.
Not so! As you probably have gathered from my videos and books, I am an ardent advocate of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. I have absolutely no quarrel with Thomas and the great tradition that flows from him. What I and many others find more problematic is a form of theologizing--really pseudo-Thomist in spirit--that took hold around the mid-nineteenth century and endured to the mid-twentieth century. That's the only "tradition" that I would dispute.
Renewal of liturgy? These are not words of Catholic. Give us back our Latin Mass
I prefer the Mass in English.
Amen. Please...traditional Latin mass. To hell with the “spirit of the council.”
It is not a question of preference. One might prefer a sin which they are bound in conscience to deny themselves.
@@paulmorgan2948read quo prinum
I found this very interesting and informative; I really don't know much about the history and players of Vatican II, but now I'd certainly like to learn more.
Well I didn't say that love is the essence of God; St. John did! By spiritual adoption, we share in the dynamism of the divine life, though we never, of course, become divine persons, for that would involve a suspension of our creatureliness. The fullness of who God is remains opaque to us, but that doesn't mean we can't make positive, though analogical, statements about God's essence. For example, we say "God is good; God is just; God is perfect," etc.
I wiould like to see what Fr. Barron thinks about this rather large push to bring the tradition back in the church. What does Fr. Barron think about the SSPX message and the health of the church after VatII. Its clear something happened we cant ignore it. How can we get such public voices and great minds like Fr. Barron on board? Id like to hear from him!
Maybe or it means they ate like the orthodox and schismatic
There is a difference in being traditional and being stupid traditional
Sspx are not in schism at this point btw. Their sacraments are valid until proven otherwise.
They are not in schism
Therefor not protestant
I was a cradle Vatican II Catholic who became a Latin rite Catholic later in life. I have come to appreciate at this age that the Catholic Church is truly THE universal church with it's rich diversity in its rites (east and west). Vatican II opened the door for all to join us to become ONE church. The Ordinariate rite is just ONE example of such miracle!!! Praise God!
The Catholic Church was always the Universal Church BEFORE V2. Catholic means Universal. Also V2 gies against Quo Primus.
Some good things came out of Vatican II but overall unfortunately a lot of the Churches Teachings have been misinterpreted by many, They should have fixed what was wrong instead of starting over heading towards Modernism is never a good thing in today's world
Christian or ir should not have been done except the language thing then anything else.
I think this is your best video yet. I'm 27 and so much of the issues that have the present in such turmoil happened in that 10 to 15 years before I was born. The "spirit" of those times has become politicized and institutionalized to the point that it's hard to trust anyone's perspective on it. I think that having an accurate understanding of that "spirit" is so important when dealing with today's issues.
So thank you for adding that perspective!
Not so! Catholic theology doesn't in any way "confuse" the Father and the Son, for the latter proceeds from the former. They are one in being, but they are different in regard to origin. And you should never speak of "cause" in regard to any of the Trinitarian persons, since neither the Son nor the Spirit is a creature made ex nihilo.
Traditional Latin Mass!
Abraham Rocha what about it?
Latin is also a principle of unity for the Church, subordinate to that of the Dogma Papal Infallibility and all Doctrines of the Church. You will feel the weight of it if you know the struggle of the Church through 20 centuries of internal and external heresies. I refer you to a specialist present at Vatican II and Post Vatican II in Italy, Romano Amerio who move Rome to change the course of suspending Latin in certain historical and doctrinal tendencies of the Church.
CB: The problem is not one but many. You will have to purchase a Russian Missal, a Samoan Missal, a Fijian missal, a German missal, a Latin American missal, a French missal in order to attend the Catholic Mass throughout the World when you travel. The Latin saves you money to spent when touring, you just either need to understand the mass or bring without your Latin and vernacular translation missal all over the World. Unity is kept on Sundays this way especially for tourists. The other one consist of the Protestant heresies in terms of uniformity with Apostolic Teachings called Tradition. There are many others both extrinsic and intrinsic in nature problems.
Vatican II never abolished Latin Mass. It has always been available to those who want to participate in Latin Mass.
If they no longer teach latin in schools. NO1 FKIN UNDERSTAND IT OOPIDS DEY! ENGLISH SPEAK ENGLISH SO ALL CAN UNDERSTAND. AT LEAST IN THE US
2:09 ... "the renewal of the liturgy" ... a kind choice of words since I remember lots of people stopped going to Mass after the change; the destruction of the liturgy is more apt.
A new emphasis on God's love for us seems to be the [only (?)] good fruit from V2. And, it seems to me, that was over emphasized to the point of error. V2 was a disaster that the Church is barely recovering from even now [2018].
A Mascia ... What you describe is what I call the “It’s all about the love” crowd. It’s a naive, reckless and shortsighted way of understanding Christ’s love. Yes, he loves us but we must still be reconciled to his Word by repenting - and I’m the first on that list! But acceptance without expecting someone to change their ways is a downright travesty since it risks one losing their soul.
The liturgy, Bishop ,did not have to be renewed.
Jesus does not have to be reborn.
Very instructive! He “came of age” when all the church teachings were “up for grabs.” So, “What do we believe?” Etc. Now I get it, it finally has sunk in. For faithful Catholics like Barron, “belief” is not personal, not something one comes to after long arduous self seeking contemplation. But, rather, something that the Church tells you to believe. Even to the extent thaatt as a faithful Catholic you could “believe”one thing today, yet “believe” the exact opposite tomorrow simply because the Church has changed its official position. Now I see that faithful Catholics have a different definition of “belief” than do I. No Church, no organization, no officials are ever going to dictate what I “believe.” I will come to my own beliefs, thank you very much!
@georgeroberts442
Have you really "come of age"? It doesn't sounds as that from your comment 11 years after this video was made. Listen to fresher videos on what you expects.
You are mixing oranges and apples, as not even distinguishing that this is not a sermon from the pulpit, but a historical-theological reflection on Vatican II's developing thoughts among thinkers.
What is a faithful Catholic for you? And what does that person believe? Nothing has changed in what and how a Catholic believes! Pope, Scripture & Tradition.
Have you ever read the present Catechism of 1983? That explains in details what the Church believes! Wake up!
Pax Christi
But you are denying what Tertullian saw, namely, that the economic missions are iconic representations of the immanent processions. When you deny this, you devolve into a form of modalism. Catholicism would certainly affirm that the Father is the deepest ground of deity, since the Son proceeds from the Father. But this doesn't preclude the fact that the Son and Father together spirate the Spirit.
"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had
made itself into a sort of 'superdogma,' which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1988 Address to Chilean Bishops).
Vatican II has become a "black hole" in that it sucks up any progress or reflection outside of it. Most...most clergy and laity that run stuff on the parish level have read anything that predates V2. It's as though V2 was the Council to end all Councils and eclipsed them all. I argue people cannot understand or comment intelligently on Vatican II or the modern catechism unless they have read Trent in its catechism and Canons and Decrees. I would add Vatican I aswell.
Well, sure he is, since he gives rise to the Son, and without the Son, there is no Spirit. The problem with your reading is that it breaks the link between the economic and immanent Trinity. The former should always be seen as the iconic representation of the latter, and Jesus clearly says that he and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. That economic mission represents the immanent procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.
I agree with Bishop Alexander Sample who stated:
"“While I certainly don't blame the Council (Vatican 2), much upheaval occurred in the church in its aftermath... there was an anti-authoritarian spirit.”
He goes on to explain how he was a member of the “first generation of poor catechesis, which raised up another generation that is equally un-catechized,”.
I couldn’t agree more with the Bishop.
So a Council that contained language that promoted secular humanism and secular utopianism wihich implicitlly denied original sin is indisputably traditional Barron?
@edwardbaker1331
No, your comment only shows that you still haven't fully comprehended the Council with the comprehension of the Church.
@@therealong No, your comment only shows that you haven't actually read the documents or have failed your course in remedial reading comprehension, not to mention bothered to listen to the many criticisms of VII by Pope Benedict and many other prelates who said precisely what I said in my comment above. Even the Synod of 1985 was highly critical of the many mistakes that were made. There are dozens of silly statements in the documents praising secular culture along the lines as this one from Dignitatus Humanae: "A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man" That moronic statement less than 20 years after the revelation of the Nazi concentration camps.
@@edwardbaker1331
I stand with what I wrote in my comment because it's what any Catholic should do. Understand the reasons behind Vatican II and implementing it correctly with the guidance of the Church.
All the other concepts, terms and words you continually add and resort to should also be analyzed one by one and put in the right context: The Church's context, not only yours.
You are following sites that go against the Spirit of the Council, so you are getting used in expressing yourself as they do and are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as they do.
Pope Benedict wrote also much other stuff, before and after he became pope. I doubt you have read anything in the right context.
You are still picking up only what suits your arguments, out of a much larger and fundamental one: Having Faith, which also implies how to explicate it to others in words.
Three simple words from Pope Benedict dismantle your unsound reasoning:
"Faith purifies reason."
Now what does being "traditional" actually mean for you?
@@therealong One thing it means is honoring the Ten Commandments, which includes not bearing false witness. Who do you think you are to treat your assumptions as factual? When you make baseless assumptions, you bear false witness to yourself. And this is not me finding something to suit my argument. This is indisputably an act of trashing the Eighth Commandment on your part.
What "sites" am I following exactly? It's pretty hard to "follow" a site since it's been years since I've been on any site other than shopping sites.
I am aware that the documents are available for downloading, which I don't need since since I've read them all many times.
Your whole capacity to reason, aside from being childishly dishonorable, is illogical. Your contention that I argued that essentially everything about VII was wrong is both childish and presumptuous. I said no such thing. I believe they were 98 pecent orthodox. It is Barron who contends that there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can be criticized in the documents or that departs from Catholic tradition, a position that is ridiculous on his part as he snottily insults anyone who disagrees with him.
Instead of you arguing about things you know nothing about about, especially the mind and motivations of a total stranger, why don't you go to sites that contain the documents, cut and paste them into a word file, then do a search of how many times the stupid concept of evolve or derivative of the word (search: evolv) and what is said. Since when does Catholic Tradition deny the permanent imperfectability of the human condition the way modernists at VII implied that it did, a concept they inserted into the documents? Be a man, not a mindless puppet.
Very interesting... I have listened to this talk many times now.. it clearly explains why some people say that the spirit of the Vatican II is not what is on display, and through that they try to bring people to the ideology of liberalism.. thank you Bishop for this wonderful explanation
The split would be the right and left massonic formula, born with the concilium ?
Not so! What Jesus says in John 15:26 is that he and the Father will together send the spirit: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father..." And if the economic missions iconically represent the immanent processions, then it is altogether correct (and Biblical) to say that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.
Not so! The son, precisely as begotten, does not share utterly in the ungenerated quality of the Father. Even as he spirates the Spirit with the Father, the Son is other than the Father.
I am so glad that Christianity didn't die in its infancy over arguments like this. I seriously think that if you are happy where you are, and you imitate Christ as best as you can, then you will find heaven on earth. I have a lot of faith in this Church, and have no complaints in being led and fed by the Bishop of Rome.
So your friend's theory stands against the entire Catholic tradition! The relevant term in Latin is "voto," which means, according to my dictionary, "by wish" or "by desire." Don't see the ambiguity.
Did Christ already come back? Because if he didn't then why are acting like the Church that Christ started, which he said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against you" is in heresy? I'm confused by traditionalist.
There was no doctrinal confusion... No council should have been called. I was born in 1960....never a good pope from rme
YOUR POINT RAYMOND IS?
Not so! The Spirit would be subordinated if and only if he did not share utterly in the Godhead, but this is not the case. The act by which the Father and Son love one another is God, just as the act by which the Father others himself is God. In point of fact, it is the Eastern tradition, with its roots in Origen's subordinationism, that is in real danger of teaching that the Spirit is not fully divine.
Bishop Barron: I am a Latin rite Catholic. I was baffled by this statement, which, admittedly, was one post of an extended thread with someone seven years ago. My confusion comes from the fact that the Cappadocian father, St. Basil, wrote a treatise on the Holy Spirit in which he states, if the Spirit be not God, how can he then deify us? It is my understanding the Cappadocian fathers (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, are highly regarded in the eastern Orthodox tradition. My question, then, is, is Origen's theology regarding subordinationism, given a greater weight than the Cappadocian Fathers in this regard; or is it only certain circles in eastern Orthodoxy who stress Origen with regards to the 'filioque' clause which they claim was invalidly added to the creed by the Latin west?
I feel Vatican II affected the Nuns more than anything else.
I apologize if I offended anyone by my comment that the video is a bit too academic for Fr. Barron's Word on Fire audience. What I meant was that many of his subscribers are smart people, but just aren't quite theologically developed enough to discuss theology at this level quite yet. I enjoyed the video, btw. Thank you for your service to the Church, Fr. Barron.
A great pope will condemn new mass, v2. Will consecrate Russia to Immaculate Heart of Mary.
WHAT IS THERE TO CONDEMN IN THE MASS OF VATICAN 2?
Augustine Hourigan It struck out or deemphasized parts of the mass, enough to render it a Protestant service. The only key thing that keeps the new mass valid is the consecration which becomes the real presence of Christ. But most Catholics aren’t even taught about transubstantiation any more. It’s mostly just be nice to illegal immigrants and reduce your carbon footprint, which you can get from watching the MSM.
@@augustinehourigan7453 lumen gentium
"The devil can imitate humility but not OBEDIENCE." - St. Faustina
"He who is not with the Pope is not with God." - Sr Lucia
@@augustinehourigan7453read quo primum
Friend, take a look at the Council of Trent's teaching on baptism by desire. And then notice how Vatican II amplified and deepened that teaching. The relevant text is Lumen Gentium ch. 16.
Father Barron is this part of a longer series that you produced? I would like to learn more about what you said here. Thank you.
the Lay Faithful, whether they realize it or not, are still engaged in the discussions that took place at Vat2. We, to this day, are still debating and discussing it, trying to find our way with its pastoral guidance. the Church is a "World Church" and we have a duty to evangelize. let's continue our discussions in charity and for justice.
Well, the operative word is "as!" To say that the Father and the Son together spirate the Spirit is by no means to confuse Father and Son in regard to origin.
Guitar mass feels heretical.
I don’t think you know what heresy means.
Bishop, speaking of Congar's journals, have you had a chance yet to read through Henri de Lubac's journals from the council, recently released from Ignatius Press? If so, was wondering what your thoughts on them were - perhaps even a topic for a future video?
This is obviously another incredibly insightful video by Fr. Barron. Is it more "academic" and theological than some of the others? Sure. But wouldn't a little more theology and a raising of the academic bar be good for everyone? I think so. Fr. Barron, keep up the great work!
Now it's the year 2023, almost 2024, and it's Interesting to see and read comments' developing respectively from 11 years ago through each year, to the present date,
It also shows how differently people's reasoning has been influenced by the social media.
Friend, I've been an outspoken critic of many features of the post-conciliar period, when I came of age. But these represent distortions and misapropiations of Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II as such, what prevents you from rejecting Trent, Chalcedon, and Nicea?
We all are the church. Please let Jesus guide us for the future as always. Don't forget to pray for all our bishops, they need our spiritual energy to avoid the evil.
Mary, the context of the cannon you are quoting is from the 'negative' list. it was written as a response to some people's beliefs at the time that people could be christians with or without baptism. No one said in this entire chain of conversation, that it is 'optional' to be baptised or not. that isnt even the question. the question is whether someone who desires baptism, but cant be baptised due to extreme circumstances (martydom is one example) can be saved. the same council (trent) says yes
The meaning of Vatican II can be summed up in one word and I will do it for you and I won't waste ten minutes of your time: Apostasy
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."
End of "baptism of desire" debate.
Augustine cont: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’.I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart if, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism"
Is the word "alone" actually in the Creed? Is this not analogous to Martin Luther's insistence on "justification by faith alone" (except that the word "alone" in not in any known text of St. Paul)?
Any Mass that is approved by the Catholic Church, any Mass that is valid and licit is the one Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And when I am attending those, I am as much in the presence of the angels and saints and Our Holy Mother at Our Lord Jesus' Sacrifice as I ever was in any other valid or licit Mass
The apparently automated text badly mangles the words.
He says something interesting at 7:22. In regards to the 3 that wanted additional reforms that were not called for by Vatican II he says they want, "Change in celibacy, women's ordination, change in the sexual teaching of the church, etc. We know that's the whole agenda of much of liberal Catholicism even to this day." Sounds like what's some are saying is currently going on within the church. I'm Orthodox but have recently been looking into Roman Catholicism. I'm not sure who within RC to listen to. Gay friendly parishes? How does that work?
There is no one in churches asking for gay friendly parishes, I mean, a huge amount of the people there are already gay, they're not asking for recognition, they don't care. The church cannot accept
Exhibitionist sexuality
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-researched reply. I will check into these matters for myself, following the direction in which you have pointed me.
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.
Come on, friend; this is absolute nonsense and utterly unfair to Thomas Aquinas. Ipsum esse must be in possession of any and all ontological perfection; therefore, God is personal, intelligent, free, etc. And your last comment is just beneath contempt. I thought we had a chance to engage in a serious theological conversation, but you've just resorted to the crudest kind of propaganda.
I'm 24 years old and I've already heard of Yves Congar. I was a theology major in college. I think David Tracy mentions him alot in one of his books.
wow
friend, the Dogma you keep citing does not exclude the Baptism of Desire as i pointed out. "OR" in the trent document doesnt make sense as you try to frame it. Baptism was well defined by the time of Augustine; he certainly would not make an error in faith on one of the Sacraments, as you seem to imply. but my point is that I am not making up this argument.
I think the reasons we Westerners tend to take a more scholastic approach is because we have the impression that divine revelation is necessary because our *capacity* to experience God has a definite limit. After all, why have scriptures or traditions at all if the "key", so to speak, is found in prayer and ascetic struggle?
I think this comment illustrates the problems that I have with the Catholic Church. I read Thomas Aquinas and what stays with me is his statement ‘Ipse Actus Essendi subsistens,’ that God is the act of being itself. While others, with much louder and more hardline voices, read Thomas Aquinas and somehow the one thing they take away from him is the fact that touching the Eucharist with your hands should be forbidden.
We're kind of just picking nits now, aren't we? God bless you, friend.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of Christ? I disagree. That doesn't mean non-Christians can't be saved, but that salvation can only be achieved through Christ. I think that saying there is no salvation outside the Church is a matter of deep meaning. What is 'the Church'? What is the role of the Church in salvation? Can salvation be attained through 'the Church' without being a member of 'the Church'? I think you're both using the same words with different meanings....
With all respect wake up Father Barron
Cheryl Baird To what, pray tell?
Watch A Wolf in Sheeps Clothing if you dont get it after that theres no more to say. We all have Free Will.
What was discussed during the council sessions was not exactly what was in the constitutions. So although the overwhelming majority of bishops signed off on the constitutions, what was implemented by the post conciliar committees was unrecognizable to the Church fathers.
A bit of an exaggeration?! This most recent statement of yours is not an encouraging sign that you are moving in the direction of moderation either!
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
You should talk about the practice of communion in the hand. I thought Thomas Aquinas himself said that only the hands of the CONSECRATED could touch the Eucharist. Now people are dropping the host and not caring for the particles left to be stepped upon and forgotten. The patton and the communion kneelers have become obsolete. The loss of respect for Christ in the real prescience has had devastating effects on the church. Father Barron, this needs to be talked about.
The fruits of Vatican II
And the western approach does something different? I don't understand your point and what has any of this to do with Vatican II?
you did not address the full comment made by Benedict; i assume that is because you either did not read it, or you do not understand it. if you read it, you'll see that Benedict 16 is not embracing the 'protestant' notion of faith alone at all. if you want, i'll give you the link to the full quote.
Did at least some good things come out of, Vatican II ? Like improved relations with Protestants & Jews , should there ultimately be a Vatican III, a Third Vatican Council ?
There’s getting along and then there’s conversion. The Council made a big push for ecumenism. Through a slight of hand they emphasized a unity of all Christians. But that implies unity or being saved exists outside the Church, which is itself a heresy to the Church. It also implies a battering away of truth for the sake of getting along. In the end it does no one good salvation wise, but it’s a good way for modernist priests and bishops to network and vacation with their Protestant buddies.
@@New-Moderate Who decides what is and isn't heresy ? Isn't it all a matter of opinion, were many Catholics against the First Vatican Council as well ?
The Vatican 2 documents really are wonderful. Dei Verbum and Lumen Genitum are two of my favourites.
Thanks for saying that because not enough people know this fact. I like Lumen Gentium, also.
I have much truth and veauty there aswell. But the documents are irrelevant as far as any context to the Church now. V2 was a meandering contemplation in which a moderates modernism was the lens. The reforms that followed after the Council were loosely (at best) related to the documents or not at all. I challenge anyone to show me any true reform taken from the documents. The Novus Ordo Missae has little to do with Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Traditional Latin Mass is more faithful and better fulfills the stipulations of that document. So, I agree that the documents have much truth and beauty they are ultimately irrelevant in the modern context as they have no solutions for any of the.problems V2 started or bolstered that were underlying the true intentions of the Council.
@@justinreany1514
Now it's the year 2023, almost 2024, and it's Interesting to see and read comments' developing respectively from 11 years ago through each year, to the present date, It also shows how differently people's reasoning has been influenced by the social media.
What is your current position today, if you still are on RUclips?
Vatican 2 is basically like trying to fix something that’s not even broken and actually breaking it, ruining it in the process. Once I discovered the TLM, I just never desired to go back to the novus ordo, just not the same really.
"It is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." -St Alphonsus Liguori
so there you have it, a saint who saw trent to be saying what i stated..
Hi Lombard! I'm not sure if your reply to my comment was a show of concern of the diversity in the Church, or if you feel that I am confused in some way. I have read some of the history, and I am happy to be in such a loving family. :)
I'm fairly aware of how many splinter groups feel about the church after vatican 2. the church has not done away with any doctrine from earlier than V2, so what is your basis for suggesting the catholic church 'no longer' teaches the catholic faith? i'd make the argument that since the catholic church is alive and organic, that what it teaches "is" the catholic faith.
so the catechism agrees with augustine when it says:Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" 1260-1261, 1281, 1283
"Faith and Reason"? I only see emotion.
VII was a masonic robber council that created a new religion. The religion you see today where Muslims and Jews are praised and sent on their ways.
Let's look one case.
Vatican II taught that the Jews are not rejected by God.
The problem is, the Catholic Church declared as a infallible Dogma, that all who hold a different opinion on the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Church rejects, they are rejected by God.
Jews reject the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Saint John said: GOD IS LOVE. Not only an energy, or something vague that emanates from Him. But He IS Love, just as God is His Word, and His Word IS God.
Love is a Person of the Holy Trinity, even if we can't understand that concept.
As for your concern about us "becoming divine persons"... you are only half right. We will never become a "Person" in God, who is Perfect Trinity, But we will indeed become "part of God's glory", i.e. THEIOSIS... "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1.4)
Catechism of the Council of Trent p 171:
“Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, -- the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
"The "negative list"? You'll have to forgive me, where is Trent's "the negative list"?
I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that I think mysticism is anything less than an indispensable part of the life of the Church. One of the things that the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas points out is that it is the intellect that first grasps the goodness of a thing (like mysticism), and the will--assuming all is well--dutifully follows the higher faculty. Eastern Orthodox chant follows this pattern as well, subordinating the ison--the "heart"--to the melody--the "head".
The exposition on the Concilium - Communio divide is enlightening, goes to show how guided a lot of the councilmen were not to proceed with a "Vatican III", and how Vat II itself has been the subject of wild and far-fetched misinterpretations. I can understand how some people wanna blame the council for the disciplinary and catechetical crisis of the Church. That's fine and valid. Of course, implementation of Vat II has always been evolving under each pope.
But that's not the whole story, or even the main issue, especially considering the faithful worldwide, Catholics in Christian-minority regions, developing countries, those with diverse participation of the laity. All of Catholicism has been under attack by various ideologies and forces, even before the 1960s, left AND right, authoritarian AND liberal. It's not just the "council's fault." Ordinations and baptisms are still on the rise. Please brothers and sisters, we are the Church too, read the documents! Engage our bishops, priests, deacons, and nuns!
no. in the context of the council language, in the context of scripture, and in the context of what prior popes and church fathers wrote, baptism of desire is possible. Let me point out two things:
1. i am NOT saying the church says baptism of desire can replace normal baptism. that is not what i have described. I reference catechumens martyred before they could be baptised, or the thief next to Jesus.
2. friend, by your love you are known.
the big "but" here friend is that a council in union with the Pope also taught exactly what St. Alphonsus said. in fact, i cited the council's very words. you cant just decide to pick and choose what words from a council are meaningful.
Why, yes. Yes, you certainly do have quite a bright audience :)
At any rate, I found it fascinating information, not too academic at all. A question: Was JPII (then Karol Wojtyla) on the board for either publication?
Ahh that old 'Spirit of Vatican II'.... everyone says it... few are awake enough to even ask "What Spirit is this" the spirit of revolt? destruction? division? et al....ad nauseum... seems so.
El Rico ... liberals love to say that. It feels good but says nothing. Based on the results of Vatican II, my question is, “What spirit are we talking about?”
I'm what you would probably call a protestant, so excuse me if this is just something I wouldn't get, but what is mysterious about Latin? I mean, people don't usually speak it now, but didn't they speak it quite often before? Back then should they have used another slightly unfamiliar language? How does it show any nire devotion to Chris than in english? And how does it show reverence?
I do not have the writings of the Council (I presume you meant Constantinople 1) at my disposal, and have not been able to successfully "Google" the passages you refer to. Can you help me out here?
I would very much like to know what you mean by "pseudo-Thomist theologizing." Please feel free to PM me if you're interested in sharing your thoughts in more detail than is possible here. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that Vatican I endorsed exactly the kind of scholastic theology that you seem to think of as "pseudo."
I was just demonstrating that councils and personal disputes are not alien to the text of the Gospels. The Acts of the Apostles, since it covers the history of the early church, contains richer data in this area. I wonder if you would write the same things had you been listening to someone talk about the dynamics of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15...
The Bishop of Krakow : "Please to tell, how to uninstall upgrade?"
WHAT DO YOU MEAN ROWDY YEATS?
So tell me..is hell empty..I mean never mind what scripture tells us..what the saints have taught..and what our blessed mother told us..oh great bishop barron..being greater than any i just mentioned..can we hold out " hope"..that hell is empty...gag..
Catherine H. Not sure how that meanness and sarcasm gets us anywhere, Catharine.
Bishop Robert Barron Know what..I am getting a little tired of all the smiling and not being offensive. I asked an honest question..even if you dont like the mean tone...it is still a question..do you NOT have an answer..or are you just going to ignore me..
It is impossible for you to show that Trent teaches "baptism of desire", since it doesn't teach that heresy. Session 6 chapter 4 simply teaches that the state of grace is impossible without baptism or the desire for baptism. The fact that the desire for baptism is necessary does not mean that the mere desire will suffice.
friend, here are the points:
1. the document you cite as infallible, Trent, is the very one i and numerous saints agree speaks of a baptism of desire.
2. you say i'm a liar for stating that; yet that was the interpretation that holy men in the catholic church also thought Trent was making; prior to vatican 2-right after Trent it was taught to be so
3. you've made yourself the interpreter of what each Dogma means in the church, rather than listening to the church tell you what it meant.
Winnipeg statement ?
Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) was a Theologian at Vatican II.
I believe it was Pope Francis I heard say "Stop Complaining, and start Praying." When we complain and are stubborn, we "block" the Holy Spirit from moving in our hearts.
I've read so many complaints about Vatican II, but if it's so bad why do those who disagree not pray about it? Has worldly culture become so powerful in the lives of Christians that we cannot openly discuss, submit to the authority of the Pope & Bishops, and pray for change according to God's Will? Must we constantly write bad posts in ignorance and rebellion? After spending years in Protestant churches, watching egos destroy God's work, how can "Traditionalists" condone the same thing with Catholicism? Hasn't God always directed his Church?
When Bishop Barron (or any Bishop for that matter) makes a statement concerning instruction in our Faith, where do we get the nerve to feel as though we can just brush it off as a "common" man's opinion? The title Bishop has been passed down from the Apostles to modern day, and Bishops have the authority to speak in such a manner. We do not.
Perhaps when listening to Bishop Barron or others, and We find ourselves in disagreement, rather than argue in ignorance we should Pray that God opens our eyes, and ask the Bishop to explain further so we can understand.
Then we can have ONE Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and change WILL happen with God's providence and timing.
Another Catholic who refuses to see the complete devastation of the Church in the past 60 years, we have been praying for 60 years for an end of the novelties and"reforms". We have had it... we cannot tolerate the wholesale gutting of Mother Church, are blind to what the "spirit of Vatican 2" has done. Bishop Barron rushes to defend at council which has proven to be a complete disaster in the end.
Because most of the things they want to teach the faithful go against tradition. We can’t just blindly obey if it’s not accurate with the traditions of our fathers. I do think we should pray a lot.