Gaudium et Spes: The Right Reading of Vatican II by Fr. Robert Barron

Praise God for Bishop Barron for his zest & dynamism in discussing & interpreting Church doctrines & the Gospel. Thank you for emphasizing man's longing for God etched in our hearts....

My spirit is elevated towards God each time I hear Bishop Barron speak. God bless him and Word on Fire ministries 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️❤️✝️

Excellent presentation. God bless you father Robert Barron.

This video needs to be rediscovered! It's time.

Thank you, Bishop, for your great talk, it will help me in my formation as a Lay Dominican. God Bless,

Boy, Bishop Barron, you got me with your Bruce Springsteen, U2, and Mick Jagger references while expounding on Augustine's hunger of the heart.😂😂😂

I was there and took notes. When they asked for questions, I had a few, but didn't think, with the little time they had, they'd get to them. But at the encouragement of one of the monks I wrote it down and he hand-carried it up to the front to the prior. My whole visit there was marked by their hospitality, which I appreciate very much. Thank you.

The clarity of doctrine, teaching, reflects the clarity of our vision of God, of how we relate to Him and our fellow men, of how we are to understand our bodies and minds and souls. I see nothing obscure or subjectivistic in Christ's teaching. They are very direct. Their very uncompromising clarity summon us to metanoia. We have to know why we should change and what we should change in our attitudes and behavior in order to "inherit the Kingdom."? Ambiguity and doubt serve no purpose.

Watch this talk just now. So full of information. Wow! Thanks Bishop Barron being a very good preacher, a valueable asset of the Catholic church. I still continue watching your videos thru youtube. Thank much.

You bring up one Christological and one Trinitarian dogma. You miss the bigger issue: If we accept "substantial change of doctrine" these teachings are as historically relative as those on religious liberty or ecumenism. For Martini and francis,religion is based on a human feeling or drive. The "form", the expression this drive takes alters and mutates from one epoch and culture to another. This is he REAL spirit of Vatican II. This is he brave new world they are leading us into.

. "Sacrosanctum Concilium" employed a clever strategy of saying one thing, exemplum, (paraphrase), "Latin should be retained", then another that guts it, (paraphrase) but "local conditions may require translations and use of the vernacular". When the Bishops, who now had more discretion,, returned with these ambiguous statements, their liturgists interpreted them in the more progressive, "enculturating" manner. That's how we got clown masses. Why didn't Rome correct these abuses?

What an excellent lecture!

Well done, Fr. Robert Barron! This is fantastic!

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.

Praise Jesus the Christ!

JUST BY THE FACT OUR LADY CONDEMNED IT, IS ENOUGH FOR ME.

nostalgically trying to make the Church a museum piece that never changes and "eternalize" the time bound aspects of Trent and St. Pius V's Mass that itself was a development as proven by the Liturgical Movement of the 19th century and the discovery, for example, of the "Didache" (a liturgical/mystagogical manual of the 1st-2nd century) in Constantinople, and the "Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus of the 3rd century which was discovered, translated and published in 1900, as well as Migne's

Does the devil use confusion as a tool? If a document needs interpretation, does that mean it is confusing? If it is confusing, then who is the author? God love you!

One must "witness" to the Truth. the Truth is objective and clear.. Just being "nice" to people is not enough. Jesus, if my memory serves me, had many "hard sayings." He was not concerned so much with not offending peoples' sensibilities or customary habits of thought, but stimulating them into thinking a different way. Naturally I would not evangelize someone by insisting they learn all the dogmatic minutiae on Patripassianism or Arianism. That is caricature of my position.

Thank you Father Barron. I wish all of us in Church are enabled to listen to you as a community.