I came into the church this year from the Anglican church, thoroughly convinced of the truth of Catholic teaching as laid out in the 1992 Catechism, which in my opinion is a wonderful treasure that is underrated and underappreciated by Catholics. That said, I see a contrast between what is contained in the catechism and what is practised liturgically in most OF Masses that I have been to. That may be an Australian thing, but I now attend Mass in the EF. The reason for that is because of the reverence for the Eucharist that I see in the EF (and of course the beautiful music). It's got nothing to do with being "trad" or anti-Council. I believe that the 1992 catechism is true. I don't know where that puts me on the "trad" vs. "Concilium" spectrum. Bishop Barron speaks eloquently about the beauty of Catholicism. Most OF Masses I have been to seem deliberately to eschew beauty: projector screens, awful cringy "modern" (read circa-1970) hymns, irreverent clothing by "extraordinary" ministers (I was a "liturgical assistant" in the Anglican church and always had to wear an Alb), etc. I would happily attend the OF if it was more reverent. I don't know if that makes me a "trad" or not.

Dear Bishop Barron, I want to personally thank you for all your evangelical work. You're one of the main reasons why I have renewed my faith. Your You tube lectures and Word on Fire digital content have inspired me to re-establish my relationship with Christ after more than a decade not receiving the Eucharist and not going to confession and rarely attending mass.. I was one of those Catholics you talk about that moved away from the Church...Because of your teachings, I have recently gone to Confession and received the Holy Eucharist. Now, I'm going to church 3 times a week in between my work schedule. I have bought your Word on Fire Bible, your "Centered" book, and your "Classical" collection which I plan to use for prayer, reflection, and to learn more about our God. Thank you again and please continue your ministry. God Bless❤️🙏

Bishop Barron, why do you repeatedly call the old conservative Thomism “ahistorical?” Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you think that after years of Vatican II, the destruction of our beautiful sacred spaces, and the watering down of our theology, that perhaps it is time to re-evaluate this “ahistorical” Thomism?

Thank God for you, Bishop Barron! You've really answered many nagging questions and concerns I've had about the Second Vatican Council by starting with the First Vatican Council to provide a time-line of ideas, persons and events needed to understand the need for, and conflicts/agreements of the various thinkers during the Second Council. Also, I now have an understanding of how the groups have moved within the Church since Vatican II and where we find ourselves today. I agree that the path provided by Communio guides us to the authentic Spirit and Truth of the Council. And I was born the year the Second Vatican Council commenced, 1962. I remember my Dad, a devout Catholic, being perplexed by the outcomes of the Council and not fully understanding the direction. He obtained and read the Post-Conciliar documents as soon as they were available. However, I don't remember being as engaged as he, back then.

If Vatican I basically established Thomism as the almost the pre-eminent school of theology for the Church - what was the merit in subsequently abandoning traditional Thomism in less then a hundred years from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical ? Seems like the equivalent of telling Pope Leo XIII 'thanks but no thanks' I went through over a decade of Catholic Education and not a single mention or exposure to Aquinas - to be honest I feel completely robbed

Dear Bishop Barron, I told my parents I was going to convert to the Catholic faith. Now my mum wants to disown me and my dad has serious issues with me. Father, I'm in a really low spot right now and I'm really sorry if I'm troubling you with this message. However, as you were the catalyst for the beginning of my conversion I wish to seek your prayers and advice. Thank you and God bless.

Bishop Barron, would it at least be fair to say that the council documents have been problematic at least insofar as they were so vague and non-specific as to inspire, permit, and encourage such widely divergent practices and interpretations?

Fascinating! The major point here is that we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the direction of the church as He has done through the ages. It's vital that the Church ministers today and beyond into the future but always based on the truths from the past as outlined by the prophets, by Christ, the disciples, the Church Fathers and ultimately the leaders of the Church to this very day.... Evidence if it was ever needed that we need to pray for all those who lead us. Congratulations on the 200th too!

The medium is the message. Post Vatican 2 lithurgy opened up a pandora's box and I saw mass that were difficult to distinguish from a low church Anglican worship.

I want the Latin mass back

The Rhine flowed into the Tiber. Sadly, a strong group of conciliar documents drafted by the prepatory committee were jettisoned by the Rhine country bishops, and the rest is, sadly, history. The proof is in the pudding and a good tree will not produce bad fruit.

@25:20 "Went back to the sources" - where does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, Protestants went (and still go) back to the source (of Scripture)!! I thought ignoring tradition wasn't what we did here...

Hi Bishop Barron. I've been listening to your channel for about 4 months now. I discovered you after watching Jordan Peterson for several months, then not knowing how it was going to play out, your one on one with him was very impressive. Myself a Catholic for all my life, an usher for 8 years also but have not frequented mass as much as I should have for the last 4 years. Your channel has really given me a fresh new look and interest in my faith. I'm so glad I found your channel, Thank you for all the interesting a d rich information you put out on every episode. Was wondering I'm a big fan of St. Benedict, and the whole mystery behind his Seal which is on certain crosses, and surprised that you haven't made a video regarding this? Thank you for all that you do!

Dear Bishop Barron, I admire you and your efforts and education but the Culture's not so great and nothing to be concilliated with. We need the Latin Mass back, for a start.

Just my two cents is a fairly new convert. I love the Latin Mass it is beautiful, historic, and very spiritual. But I also love the N.O. Mass because it's nice to know what's going on. I like that I can understand and be a part of the worship.

It seems that Bishop Barron is actually part of the Pope Francis heresie. Pope Francis when asked to clarify open ended terms said" I like the confusion. "But really to us there is no doubt we can tell when they say Our Father we know who their Father is.

I remember as an undergrad (many years ago now:) the contempt I encountered towards the scholastic era was striking! I was literally told from plato to descartes it was a dark age! Thomism has made a most welcome come back in recent years in some sections of academia.

Let us all pray for Bishop Barron. Please. He is an amazing man doing amazing work. He is obviously under duress from the forces we all are under. But for him, I imagine these forces are even greater. To be an evangelist and a Bishop. To be an apologist and a Bishop. His mind is pressed to it's maxim. Please pray for him to be restored by the holy spirit, and for him to be renewed in his vigor. Amen.

Bishop Robert, I read your book “LETTER TO THE SUFFERING CHURCH “ given by my Parish, Sacred Heart Catholic Church In Lacey, Washington, recommended by our Parish Priest-Fr. Tim ILGEN. Was I emotionally hurt while reading it? You bet! I felt more sadness than anger... but finally, it made me more understanding towards human behavior and I became more forgiving even to those abusive bishops and priests whose done unspeakable deeds and abused their powers to give our church a bad name. I became more prayerful, felt more love and closer to Jesus. I truly believe that you put into words in your book the knowledge all catholic needs to know about their faith. To me...You are the new “St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo of our time. Thank you for your indefatigable service to the One True Church of Jesus Christ. May God Bless You Always. Thank You.🙏😇

Thank you. A very helpful discussion.

Bishop, I was baptized in the Anglican congregation. I attended Christmas midnight service about 15 years ago at the same church. The Christmas carols were sung. Only one verse. They wouldn’t take the time to sing the entire piece. I was appalled. Recently I went to a new mass and the same thing happened. They wouldn’t finish the hymns. I’m glad I recently purchased a 1962 missal. I don’t know how to use it yet, but I will learn. I seriously doubt I will ever attend the new mass again if I can help it. As a leader in the Church, I implore you to turn the priest around during the holy sacrifice. That will signal to the church that the Latin Mass is our universal goal in defeating the smoke of Satan which has entered the Church . You must lead. It is a small change. But the new mass seems destructive to Catholicism. Please open your eyes. The church militant is forming. It is opposed to the new mass. Bishop, do you promote the Holy rosary? What if I pray all four sets of mysteries everyday? Do you consider that as pleasing to Christ? Mary? I do. The synod happening now seems to promote hostility toward tradition. I see this hostility by francis as an ape of the church that bishop Sheen warned about. So do many pious Catholics. If francis starts more radical change against tradition, he will be in schism. Poor guy. Pray for his conversion. This is the month of the Holy rosary. May Mary protect our Holy Church from all who assault her tradition, morality, dogma, faith.

These really are amazing and one of my favorite podcast to listen to! Keep at it!

Thank you Bishop Baron. This was very informative.

I am happy with the current mass because I feel fully engaged in it. It is traditional yet accessible.

ADORE BISHOP BARRON. SO SMART, BRIGHT, INSIGHTFUL. THANK YOU FOR STRENGTHENING MY FAITH AND RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR BLESSED LORD JESUS.

Dear Bishop Baron, Why do they hide the tabernacle in the church now? Shouldn’t that be the focal point of the church? And our lives? I personally think the lord prefers the old mass because it reveres the blessed sacrament so so much , dont you agree

200 episodes! Guess older folks like me get constant reminders from God that we are getting nearer. Thanks for those nuggets of wisdom over the last four years. God bless your work!

Should we be picking "the most reasonable path"? Or should we pick the truest path? Could it be that JPII appreciated the errors or ambiguities in the Vatican II documents and how they opened the door to untoward manipulation and he did the best he could to do damage control in the later part of his Papacy? If Benedict XVI was so committed to Vatican II and gained a sense of the willful abuse of the Vatican II Documents by certain clerics, why did he retire? Also, why not be honest and admit that the radical left is now in power at the Vatican. And admitting this, address how we can best pass down and try to preserve sound Catholic Doctrine. I appreciate your being more open to your theological leanings. We did sense that, but it is refreshing that you are now verbalizing it. Thank you for your love of Church.

It's really a fairly small slice of traditional Catholics who *reject* Vatican II - they're mostly sedes. Even the *SSPX* accepts the Council as *legitimate.* But it's also true that some councils have had problematic legacies, sometimes due to certain of their texts. Some have even been de facto *failures* (Vienne? Lateran V? Florence?). Perhaps this is really a question about just how critically we're allowed to engage Vatican II - not just its received legacy (what Benedict XVI called the "Council of the Media") but even certain of its passages - for what was, after all, a "pastoral" council.

Excellent discussion! I would love to hear Bishop Barron's assessment on the pro's & con's of Nouveau Theologie (or whatever the term is for the John Paul II school of thought) compared with neo-scholasticism (or whatever the term is for Garrigou-Lagrange school of thought).

This clarifies things a bit, Bishop. Thank you for this response. As someone who leans“trad” (mostly because I love the TLM, I get better homilies from our ICKSP parish than the NO parishes, more of a sense of connection with my family history, and more tangible grace from the traditional liturgy) my concerns do not seem to be fully addressed by the “Communio” path you’re laying out. BUT I am going listen again to this talk and take some notes. I want to understand your thinking on all of this more fully. Do you think the Church is in an identity crisis and if so, how does the “Communio” path resolve that?

Bishop Barron, I am concerned about Pope Francis and how he leads the Church. I believe a schism is necessary, so that the true believers should not be led away from Christ, and that we can continue to evangelize as you teach us. The way the Amazon Synod appears these days is an end time sign. What do you think about this?

What was wrong with “Pre-conciliar Catholic conservatism” that it merited a “pastoral” council to bring the Church into the modern world? Also, why did V2 call a pastoral council rather than defining dogma like all the other ecumenical councils?

Letter to a Suffering Church was my first introduction to Bishop Barron as a recommendation from my local religious store: Paschal Lamb in Fairfax, VA.

Can you interview Susan from the Parish Council ? She has some deep insight into the practical application of Vatican II.

As a non-believer simply interested in developing my understanding of catholicism, these videos are great. Thanks for your work.

I’m on the fence about VII. I think the council may have possibly did more harm than good. In the 16th century there was a Protestant revolution and the Church had to come up with a counter-reformation-a revival of sorts to address growing concerns. In 1962, the Church again had another crisis of sorts and had another reformation revolution within its own walls. Today, Everything just seems so needlessly complicated and I can’t help but wonder if that is what Jesus really intended.

Bishop Barron, this was extremely helpful for me to grasp, at least in a small way, the modern anthropology of the Catholic Church. Thank you! I gave you a hard time the other day regarding Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin. I'd like to apologize for that. I highly respect you, both as a bishop and as a man of God. Finally, I am wondering which post-Conciliar camp you believe Pope Francis to be a part.

The truth must be defended even if we go back to be only 12. We should not change tradition to please the mundane world; that is so wrong.

Very interesting, thank you. Plenty of threads to follow. It can be expensive listening to Word on Fire : I've just bought a book by Etienne Gilson about the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and another by Brant Pitre about the Jewish roots of Mary.

I think we need to go back to the Traditional Liturgy.

Dear Bishop Barron, i dont get your bad attitude against the Latin mass? How can a mass that produced thousands of saints and uplifted the church be bad? the Vatican 2 church has shown its fruits which are bad. I go tot he new mass but after the pachamama Sinod recently considering going to the old mass for good

I'd say that the revitalisation of Thomism at present is just part of getting back to the work of the Church. As far as I can see, it is more of a change of focus than an outright attack on the Nouvelle Theologie. Schools of theology seem to have their time in the sun, before scholars pay attention to different things. The consistency of Thomism appeals to many in the context of some of the excesses of the immediately post-Conciliar era, but outside of the SSPX, I don't see the resurgence of interest in "manualist" Thomism as an attack on Vatican II or the style of theology that was popular at the time. Most trads I know are interested in the Church Fathers and reading the bible. In that respect, I'd say that present day traditionalism has absorbed the better elements of the Nouvelle Theologie movement.

I'm glad to hear about these topics, but I'm not great at understanding French accents applied to French names. I heard the first names of great thealogians, but couldn't for the life of me understand the last names. I'd appreciate these names spelled and referenced in the description for everyone's benefit. God bless!

I saw this title: "Understanding the Post-Vatican II Church" and thought maybe we would have a discussion of why there were wholesale changes with no explanation. I'm sorry to say that bishop Barron has missed the boat. The feeling still exists that the church turned it's back on the middle 20's and older people in the pews in favor of the younger people as the future of the church and just did change after change without any explanation nor justification. A priest I was close to in those days said he thought the Mass would just be changed from Latin to English. But, it was gutted. Several priests I was close to at the time just did not like what was going on. There was a claim by some that this would give more time for the priest sermons, except that has not happened in real life. All of the priests in all of the churches I've been a member of since the 1960 still have used about the same amount of time as pre-Vatican 2. Then there was the exodus of priests and nuns who left the church. I experienced a number of both who I had as teachers in high school. Even the President of the Catholic men's college I attended, who was a Monsignor and later a bishop, left the church. There has continued to be changes to wording in prayers to the point one wonders just why and why. The prime example is the wording of Psalm 23. Then there is the required singing. In the pews the common belief has always been that Vatican 2 wanted the Mass to take on the characteristics of Protestant services where singing is a big part. However, even today in the Mass, there are many who do not, who will not sing. And while on the subject of music, some of the post Vatican written songs are just plain awful.

What I'd really like to know is how the changes leading up to VII and the aftermath interplay with the sexual abuse crisis. I believe but I could be wrong that the cases really peaked in the 60s and 70s? What was going on before this time? I just don't get the disconnect between the high language and aspirations of VII and the perversion going on in the ranks of the clergy. There was a negligence or even a cover up/conspiracy on the part of the hierarchy that I think really made the spiritual life of parishes take a nose dive during this time. I am 59 years old. I remember how one year my grade school was mostly taught by IHM sisters and then next by only two. Why the mass exodus? I remember that learning about the saints just vanished overnight from our curriculum but we were listening to the Carpenters and Simon and Garfunkel in religion class (not that I don't enjoy both of those musical artists but it was weird! And not Catholics either!). I remember when I received the sacrament of confession in 1967 my family went every Saturday but then suddenly made by 4th grade we weren't going anymore. Confession was actively being discouraged? Was this the result of the Rahner, Kung and company folks? In other words why was a council that was supposedly so profound and nuanced implemented so badly? And why did we have so many priests who were sexual predators? I am not a Trad but I kind of get where they are coming from. I find it frustrating that no one seems to address this. Please, what happened????

Simply great intellectual and mentalling stimulating discourse.

I always wondered why the Church went downhill so fast after Vatican 2 and now I know why...the Church’s theology that had guided her was abandoned for a New Theology. I don’t think it was the Holy Spirit guiding Vatican 2 to abandon the guiding of the Holy Spirit for the previous centuries.

Please elaborate why you're unhappy with the recent Trad movement. What are they missing out on.

The “Spirit of Vatican II” heretics are ageing and close to death. The traditional Catholicism that was practiced since the earliest days will reassert itself. The end of the current heresies and line of Anti-popes is near. It was the Bishop that converted me to Catholic Church however it is the Vatican II heretical council that makes me wish orientate around traditional Catholicism - the true faith

Hello Bishop Barron, I liked the podcast, and found it very informative. I just wanted to get you point of view on something. From his own writing it seems that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s reason for calling the works of Henri de Lubac and several others a new theology is a little more deep and nuanced then a sort of flippant dismissal of them. From how you presented it it seemed like he was a grandfather dismissing the music his grandchildren listen to, without consideration, because he thinks his oldies are better. I don’t think this is at all the case with Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s objection and reaction against many of them. In the article he writes, where he first coins the term, he responds to these theologians claim of going back to the fathers. From what I understood of the article, he demonstrates that this “going back to the sources” is more of a guise through which they introduce a new theology, which in its essence is not rooted in the patristics at all. He didn’t have such a strange reaction against thomists like Maritain and Gilson, but rather against those with who the Vatican itself had suspicion. I’d love to know your thoughts on it. Thank you and God bless

Do we have the book in our book stores here in the Philippines?

Watching your series on the 7 sins and virtues today at our church tonight.

In other words : thank the Lord for the French ! Merci Monseigneur pour cet excellent résumé.

Your Excellency I am ecstatic that you’ve given this talk! Very informative and clarifying. Though it saddens me slightly that you see the reemergence of precounciliar Thomism as an unhappy development. As far as I can see, that has been the vehicle for my conversion to Catholicism. I was at a place two years ago where I had rejected the modern culture as nonsensical and had decided that I should strip my own worldview down to find its foundation, determine if it was good and follow the conclusions from there. Shortly after I was introduced to Edward Feser’s book The Last Superstition And was convinced that God must exist and was so impressed with the logical rigor of Thomism that I was lead to become a Catholic. I do agree that the historical narrative is important in explaining how we got to where we are, which is among the reasons that I took St. John Henry Newman as my confirmation saint. But as Newman says the ante-Nicean fathers should be interpreted through the lens of the Nicean Council, it seems reasonable to me that the Fathers should be interpreted through the lens of the Common Doctor and not the other way around. Regardless of that disagreement, I appreciate your work as it was also very helpful to me in my conversion, and I hope you do more videos like this one, and as you seem to be one of the best representatives of your “camp,” I hope to one day see debates between you and equally fit representatives of the other two “camps.” Thank you again!

What about the Oath against Modernism required by Pope Pius X beginning in 1910 (through 1967)? Why did the Pope require it and why was that requirement dropped? Is it a coincidence that the requirement was dropped in at around the time of Vatican II? Is it not what has happened in the Church since Vatican II, evidence in and of itself sufficient to establish the failure of the trajectory of the Church designed by virtue of Vatican II?

One word to describe it, "FAILURE"... You'r welcome

@Bishop Robert Barron The "Communio path" is also the Assisi prayer meeting path. How that isn't material relativism/heresy (at best) is beyond me...

Pope Leo XIII is one of my favorite popes. He was the right Pope for his time, and he is still relevant.

Thanks Brandon and Bishop Barron.

And what about pope Francis? Is he part of the Communio way? What he thought/thinks about i?

There is another virtue of the older style moral philosophy and theology manuals: the very deductive rigour that they express mades them very suitable as a means of laying forth a form of ethics that could be used as the basis of control systems to regulate the behaviour of artificially intelligent robot systems. In that sense, they offer something in a very current field of practical ethics. This is a very exciting way that Catholics educated in the "manualist" tradition might contribute to ethical technology development.

Don’t we perpetuate the spirit of Nicaea every Sunday? V2 is great, but not so great after? Why was post V2 so divisive? Could it be that it was not sufficiently clear?

I think a bit more gain perhaps. Your videos don’t have quite the level of volume that they should.

Your excellency, I would love to hear you make a video about the Synod. Iv’e heard such mixed reviews of it and seen so many troubling images coming from it that it’s honestly giving me headaches and serious heartache. What do we as Catholics do if does formalize heresy? How do we respectfully disagree with the Holy Father without going too far? What’s up with all the weird Mother Earth stuff? Without meaning to in any way to be disrespectful to the Holy Father, it makes me understand St. Boniface! All in all, this whole things hasn’t tempted me to leave the church, it just made me leave the Novus Ordo. I officially started going to an FSSP parish last week. I want my church back, I want my Catholic faith back, I want a Church that feels, and sounds, and speaks like a Catholic. I don’t want or need a church with “an Amazonian Face”.

God bless you Bishop Barron! Thanks for your work!

Bishop, tell me please. Should you evangelize Masons? Or should you be ecumenical toward them?

One can be traditional without being a traditionalist.

Father Barron: Why do you think that the Holy Father is so contradictory in his public remarks? Do you believe that it has to due to attempting to not disclose that he is on the path of the more progressive path oh the councilmen?

We need more of this!! The Catholic church has become Battleground for Conservative Catholics and progressivism...

And what about a Gustav Siewerth no one never hears about, yet he has a vast tomistic oeuvre doing a lot for overcoming the rationalistic streak in Hegel by forging a very fruitfull dialogue with Thomas, not thomism; also to be mentioned in this context is Ferdinand Ulrich and then on to more recent thinker-theologians like Albert Chapelle, s.j., (1927) founder of the IET-Institute in Brussels, Mgr. André Léonard (1940), Emilio Brito, s.j., -and their mutual friend the phenomal, collosal figure of Claude Bruaire (1932), hushed to virtual non-existence in all universities!!!- the so-called second Louvain-school of Thomas inspired real Hegel scholars, seeing the need for developping thomism into some version of an identity-system, without complete negativity being the final word on being...? Dear Dear Bishop Barron, please take on, (and thus take up the gauntlet many times thrown in your direction yet, with or without Brandon's help), the huge amount of "noise" produced, in a serious way though (although full of unconsciousness smuggness) by good people the likes of Michael Matt, Timothy Gordon and his TNT-buddy Taylor Marshall, Patrick Coffin and the likes. I so sense that in their many Pope Francis and Vatican II diatribes, they are really fishing for a conversation with Bisshop Barron (TNT and The Remnant Matt explicitely have) about "an enormous doctrinal confusion" the current pope and his St Gallen launching-pad-cabal (Kasper, Martini, Danneels) are supposed to have been steadily creating...??? I honestly think a man like You, Sir, should take up that gauntlet, and not also be somewhat Dubbia-silent on these extremely important issues. Many other good, and now deeply Francis-sceptical people, (like Philip Lawyler, Daniel, J. Mahoney and others) would greatly benefit in their upright souls and steady minds from such a dialogue, much more , If I may say so, than from another 200 issues of a one-way conversation betrween You and excellent young Brandon of Word on Fire. I prey to God Allmighty that the firecracker that is now the TNT-show, would really become trutfull theological TNT for our every illumination were You, your Emminence to launch yourself into such a brave venture, and bring this whole important but very one-sided discussion about Vatican II and its "final corruption under pope Francis" into a broadened rational and culturally vast critical assesment. Please do not continue to talk past one another anymore, why I am so sure a great many american catholics would vastly benefit, intellectually and spritually and ecclesialy, were there to be such an ongoing modality of real dialogue between lets say the Remnant-camp (Westen, Coffin , Matt, TNT) and the Vatican II camp (basically You, your Emminence). Might such a hoped for conversation not be to be considered possible by You, would it be feasable to receive a short and clear reply (even strictly private if need be) as to why not? I myself (a belgian living over the border in Mexico, of the exact same generation as your Emminence), a somewhat keen observer of the american catholic scene, appreciative of both "camps" (but not in a like manner though) would, for one, be enourmously relieved to hear these two Catholic sides, both in love with the church, talk to each other at last... Please Robert, Bisshop Barron.... Sincerely yours, Guy Georges Voet (Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico)

Bishop Barron's book, "Letter to a Suffering Church" helped me immensely. I recommend it!

I wish the media format was different.

Me, thrice or more watching each episode, as the need arises!!!

Nicer background. So much warmer than the blue screen

I understand Bishop Barron very differently. I don't see him as someone cutting ties with the great traditions of the Catholic Church. Instead, I see him as a pastor who prospects himself towards a position where he can evangelize people back to the tradition - using the modern methods. In fact, as Bishop, I believe it should already be assumed that he knows what pre-Vatican II spirit was all about. If you stumble upon his commentary on Gaudium Et Spes (Church in the Modern World), you understand from his statements that while he understands explicitly the consequences of Vatican II, he invites all the faithful to be strong in their sense of tradition - all the while being immersed in modern culture. I can sense from Bishop a leadership style - and it's one that tries to save as much soul as he can - regardless, the backlash he receives most especially from conservatives. There are Catholics who are effectively being Catechized using new, whatever we say "modernists" methods, and while they immerse themselves with the faith longer, they shift towards a more traditional pose. I think in that sense, the pastoral technique used was effective. He's not loosening the bonds, he's inviting rather, more people to look into tradition by presenting it in a way that modernists could understand. One thing we should understand about modern individuals is that they are not that morally as exceptional as we are - precisely because modern life has numbed their senses to morality. Various philosophers have even seen this "moral numbness". With that in mind, I think Bishop Barron is giving them a "teaser" trailer into the beautiful Catholic life, but we cannot do that unless we Catholics are willing to negotiate and be patient with moderns. What Catholic would want to be called schismatic, heretic, and inclined to apostasy, anyway? In all good will, I do not think that will be the case. Moderns are "already spiritual", Bishop I think, is just trying to spark more senses into them by presenting Catholicism, first - in their language, and then second - into the beautiful traditional way it should be. In short, he is a adjusting a "cultural language" where the modern culture gets to understand what we're talking about - but that doesn't mean the job is done. Every evangelization leads to the Eucharist, of course, and a proper understanding of it. We'll get there, eventually - but not everyone has that privilege immediately. In third world countries for example in the Philippines and Africa (poor churches), not everyone is as educated to understand proper catechism, that's why our pastors have to "adjust culturally', and then later on "teach them culturally". Conservatives always invite us to do Latin Mass, and as a Catholic, of course I - all - would love that, but not everyone even knows how to read and communicate. Guide us, guide them. Teach the Catechism, but before that, address social issues to get people into the parish first.

re BRB's book "Letter to a suffering Church" : Yes, "stay and fight". Catholicism relies on the laity to speak up - as the Saints did - to Priests and Bishops, when abuses take hold. We have to value this faith for 'Theology of the Body' and finally acting toward repair on the reality of abuse.

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.

I think this is one of the most disliked videos of the channel, what may be a proof of the fact that theological debate it isn't dead at all and it is a passional one

The subject of Vatican II has bothered me for around 28 years now. I have grappled with it extensively. Until one day I realised how to explain what bothers me about it using the logical 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?

Thanks for the video your Excellency, I watched the video, if you could answer some questions to help me understand more your view or the "communio" view. > The communio view sees JPII as a hero and a man of heroic virtue, a man to imitate. However I find that view hard to hold for myself, because of what he did at assisi (allowing buddhists to worship in a church, by putting a buddha statue and burning incense, praying with leaders of other "religions" (Ps 95:5)) and things like kissing the qu'ran. How would the communio branch view this and would they say that these actions are sinful or good? If they are good, could you find a pope, a Church father, an apostle or a doctor of the Church before the 20th century that would do these things? >How does the communio view see the situation in the Church since the Second Vatican Council? How does it explain the disaster that is occuring with the destruction of the faith in the majority of Catholics (in european civilizations), the collapse of vocations, all the sacrileges (with communion in the hand, clown masses and things of this sort, lapsed catholics receiving communion at masses), the wreckovations, the abuse of the faithful, ignorance of the Catholic faith and the lavender mafia that we see running things in many dioceses >What do you think of Pope Francis' papacy, is he a good pope? a bad pope? Has he done bad things that need reprimanding or is he someone who's virtues we should imitate? Thanks for your clarity and your time, your Excellency. God bless you and Our Lady keep you!

I came here to try to learn about what you would say about the heresies in Nostra Aetate. How could they say Allah the god who says to "kill all infidels" is the same as our Lord of Abraham and Isaac and Israel who says to "love the stranger"?

"The devil can imitate humility but not OBEDIENCE." - St. Faustina "He who is not with the Pope is not with God." - Sr Lucia

Brandon, what's going on with the books on strings ?!

As a newcomer to these videos and unschooled in serious Catholic thought, what is a good reading list and a good place to start learning?

Vatican 1 was a new hope. Vatican 2 the empire struck back. We need a Vatican 3 and return to tradition!

Whether or not Modernism/Liberalism as such entered the Church through the doors of the Council, I don't think it can be denied that a positive shift brought about as a result of Vatican II was a reorienting of the Papal Church toward a more catholic/universal vision of the ecclesiology. The trajectory of the Roman Church since the Council of Trent (but going as far back as the Great Schism) had been a radical narrowing of the West's theological and liturgical identity to a place that in many ways was quite "far" from the Spirit of the Early, undivided Church. Without V2, you wouldn't have Benedict XVI saying that the "Church must breath with two lungs", but only a rigid and stale continuation of the ultra-montanist rhetoric of V1.

Curious why you would think a return to traditionalism would be unhappy, IF in union with the local bishop and Holy See and as stipulated by John Paul II's negotiation's with SSPX that it was perfectly valid to interpret the Council through the lens of tradition and Benedict XVI aka Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity." This lives most notably in the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, though there are at least a half dozen others, all of which foster vocations and piety greater than the largest archdiocese with a fraction of the resources. Case in point, you recognize the "spirit" of the Council was somewhat nebulous and arguably abused by the Hans Kung wing well beyond anything the Council Fathers at Vatican II voted for. The "Garrigou-Lagrange" faction is not all or even majority of noxious schismatics or sedevacantists, but those who pray for the Holy Father and lament the loss of the sense of the sacred, of transcendent beauty and tradition in the name of progress and left most modern Catholics completely ignorant of their heritage, of the patrimony fought for and bequeathed by so many of our saints. Case in point, the "beige" Catholicism you rightly have deplored but is unfortunately all most Catholics experience in their diocesan parishes. It could be a mechanism of "reform of the reform" that Benedict XVI was trying to pursue, but has seemingly been all but abandoned since his abdication. I grew up knowing only the novus ordo and was arguably more interested in it than many of my peers, being deeply interested in apologetics and liturgy from a younger age. I didn't really "get it" until I saw my first Solemn High Mass and recognized so many elements that remain in the Ordinary Form even if so many other noble elements were abandoned... imprudently, we might argue... and the huge decline in Mass attendance, if not orthodoxy of laity who lack witness to belief in the Real Presence in their parishes and normal liturgy (through no deliberate delict of the clerics, mind you!) . Benedict XVI recognized that the Mass and rites known by countless generations of Catholics couldn't suddenly be forbidden as harmful, yet the intransigence of so many bishops and pastors to this day bellies the "hermeneutic of rupture" instead. While you may be familiar with them, I suspect your POV is overly influenced by the visceral reaction of toxic traditionalists, who aren't renown for tact or prudence. I've encountered many of these myself and as bad as they behave, it's unfortunate that in many cases this was inculcated by their bishops and pastors who treated their fathers as pariahs for wanting to worship as their families and so many saints through history have, and on top of that having their churches vandalized and high altars and altar rails and sacred art payed for by the nickels of their fathers, grandfathers and great fathers ransacked in the name of progress and torn down without any command from Pope or Council that can be honestly referenced let alone produced. Could you not find it in your heart to extend a middle way to us? Should those in the "Garrigou-Lagrange" group not have a voice to validly argue the merits of tradition recognized by the bishops and Holy Father? If the Council admits pluralism, why can that not be extended to traditionalists universally, without reservation? There certainly wasn't any condemnation of the principle either at the Council or since.

Thank you for this history .... helpful in clarifying for me the history and meaning of Vatican II; as well as what is going on today.

« That can’t be right! » Just as the cancelling out of some of the deepest, sophisticated thinkers of the history of knowledge building « can’t be right », so it is for the doctrinal and theological base of our faith. The continuing rift between « the communials » and « the other camp» contributes little to the Church as a whole. I can still remember the day where our parish priest, angry from Vatican II, had the 150 year old ornate structure of the altar torn down in order to have it replaced by

I love Vatican II, I believe the Council's ruling on reasonable hope should be adhered to as mentioned in Lumen Gentium 48 as referenced in the editing of Lumen 49: "Unus Pater volt aliquam sententiam introduci ex qua appareat reprobos de facto haberi (ne damnatio ut mera hypothesis maneat). English: One father wanted a sentence to be introduced from which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation remain as a mere hypothesis. Propositum non quadrat cum hoc contextu. Ceterum in n. 48 Schematis citantur verba evangelica quibus Dominus ipse in forma grammaticaliter futura de reprobis loquitur. English: The proposal does not square with this context. In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically future.--Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Volumen III, Periodus Tertia, Pars VIII, Congregationes Generales CXXIII-CXXVII, Sessio Publica V, pages 144-145 archive.org/details/ASIII.8/page/n139

Pray for the conversion of Antipope Jorge Bergoglio 🙏

Starts at 2:57

Traditional or Modern

Your Excellency, when you say that those who held to the "Spirit of Vatican II" approach were "actually anticipating Vatican IV," do you mean to say that Vatican II was part of a progression to the elft, so logically, Vatican IV would be a further progression?

Soooooo interesting and instructive/illuminating! (Your Grace, the mapa mundi behind you gives you a kind of halo! Prophetic??)

I think that we frankly need elements of both as there are those in various parties showing good fruits. But frankly neither party in itself is showing the fruits of the Spirit more than the others. There are heretics indeed masquerading as simply accompanying the culture or being ecumenical and there are holier than though Pharisees that refuse to see any good beyond their rigid standards. One though, not everyone on either side is like that, nor is is Christian to be demonizing our brothers or to be casting off our identity. It frightens me more that there are such camps with such deep canyons between them that they refuse to cross, than what any one of them is proposing. It is expected that we will not do this without mistakes. But, it is expected that we see past each other's mistakes and work as one Holy Catholic Church. We anguish Our Lord, by having His People turned against one another. The heresy, the pridefuhardness of heart, and the division, it is all the smoke of Satan in the Church. I pray for an end to it so we may focus on reigniting the world in the Fire of God's Love. Be under no illusions, this bickering and confusion has consequences, soul may be lost forever because we are being unfaithful servants that do not do the work assigned to them. God have mercy upon us and lighten our path forward. Through Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, I ask this. Amen.

Woah, now, wait a minute...There was a Vatican II??? You mean I learned Pater, Ave, & Gloria all for *nothing*?

Didn't Garrigou-Lagrange once say that some day Thomas Aquinas' bellowing would fill the whole world?

Does vatican II contradict the council of Trent? If so, is it anathema? If protestants can be saved, that contradicts Trent, and so anyone who believes that is anathema (well, any catholic). Which of these man made declarations is correct? Can men declare others to be anathema (damned) because they don't accept catholic opinions. Did God change his mind about protestants? How can anyone understand the catholic church is the better question.