Bishop Barron on The Development of Doctrine 

Well, God bless you!

No Kal V. I'm a protestant and I get this.... it makes sense.

Life At Home Could you give an example of how a new revelation by the Church has contradicted a former revelation?

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

@@laurenceraran4027 mary being sinless when in the bible Mary says "my savior"

I agree, Father Barron's videos are awesomely enlightening and entertaining! (I think he would totally dig Interstellar too)

***** Well it's at 74% on Rotten Tomatoes and the audience gices it 88%! I guess you are in that 12% minority.

Mich Elle God said He is an unchanging God, not that you are an unchanging man/woman. Your understanding of Him is expected to evolve infinitely, since He is infinite. Sure, there’s a difference between evolving and devolving, which is the point the Bishop is trying to make. But of course our understanding of God must change. Read the Song of Solomon for insight on this matter, and maybe read Gregory of Nysa’s commentary on it.

Crys S as an orthodox I get what you mean, but God surely is unchanging, but our collective relationship with Him isn’t

❤️❤️❤️

Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Juan Carlos Escobar Hi Juan, Would you be able to identify the section in the CC that contains the list of disciplines, doctrines and dogmas; with explanations? I've got the book and have read it twice...what a bad memory I must have!

graciela quinn Hello Graciela! Well, you can go here www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm and scroll the index on the left of the page. Peace and good

Ooops ! dimly, not daily,

Of course, Christianity isn't an idea. It's a living being; the son of God. However, there's still more to learn about the mysteries of God and truth. In the gospel of John, Jesus does say that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles whatever else is necessary to know. So revelation and understanding does deepen through time, and doctrine shouldn't and wouldn't ever contradict itself with newer understandings if they come from the same source, being God.

Agreed - it's very nice to see Christian themes geared towards something other than personal salvation, (such as in this theme, the protection of humanity) - the pursuit of which in itself is ironically opposed to the means of attaining it.

cbooth151 You do understand that you can have all sorts of undesirable persons and actions present in a christian movie if it is intellectual geared towards a greater truth. The world is ugly, and only by contrast can we show this.

ThoseTolerableNoobs I wouldn't even acknowledge cbooth151's comment. It is so ridiculous that it is not worth your time. He is essentially saying that all other literature with Christian themes, even C. S. Lewis, is not valid and people should read the bible only. Ridiculous.

You do realize that there are a number of distasteful people and subject matters in the bible, correct? Murder, prostitution, incest, profanity, heresy, idolatry. The list goes on. While these things may be PRESENT in the bible, the book never CONDONES those things. The same can be said for any book or movie with sinful subject matter in it. As long as the book or movie never condones these things, and uses these things to offer a lesson for a greater purpose, it is fine.

cbooth151 I didn't agree with you - I was arguing that to portray christian themes, one must often contrast them with the actions of objectionable persons. A character can be vile and commit horrible crimes in a piece of fiction if those actions serve the overall message of the piece. For instance, in Paradise Lost, Satan is characterized, but we are not meant to emulate him but we are being cautioned against him.Also - How many times in the Bible are evil characters presented as cautionary tales? The Serpent, Pharaoh Ramses, Herod? Is the Bible filth, too, because it gives voice to these people only to deride them? You can use a foul word if the intention is to prevent others from doing so. Additionally, it is not for you to tell people if they are or aren't christians or if they are or aren't in God's favour. You are not objectively good - and you cannot pass judgement on another. I can't decide if you're a Muslim or a Jehovah's Witness. Given your obsession with the Bible, and the fact that Islam is a scholarly religion, I would gather the latter.

Not at all. As doctrine develops, the truth becomes more and more clear. Did you not watch the video or are you just playing dumb?

Luke Acerra That's what I'm saying, Luke. If truth becomes more & more clear with time then it was less and less clear in the past. Therefore the "fullness of truth" claim cannot be true. You can't have it both ways.

This sentence is six words long. That is the truth about the sentence whether or not I look at it with my glasses or not. Truth never changes, though our perception of it might.

The truth is independent of humans, much like virtue and morality - we can have something imbued with truth, but be unable to perceive it. For example, a politician might do something characteristically wrong, but because of our perception, they are able to hire a spin doctor to mitigate their guilt.

IAmTheSwordmaster Very well put. The same principle underlies the Deposit of Faith contained within the Church.

St. Paul calls Jesus the New Adam...COMMON SENSE would obviously mean that Mary is also the NEW Eve... Go read Genesis 3:15....if there is ENMITY between the seed and woman VERSUS Satan , then obviously Mary DID not in any point in time became an ally of the Devil from Conception to Assumption of Mary...🙄🙄

@@krishyyfan5153 I think the church (all believers) are the new Eve

@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr it does not take sophisticated explanation to see Mary as the New Eve...The Old Eve came from the Rib of Old Adam....The New Adam came from the Virgin birth of the New Eve... Isn't it obvious??🙄

@@krishyyfan5153 The church (all believers) come from Jesus and we are to be the bride of Christ. We are made new (born again). New creations. Mary is one of the church, but to be the entirety of the new Eve? No, I think the new Eve is the church (us) Eve came from Adam but the new Adam came from the new Eve? That's backwards.

@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr LOL...isn't it obvious that your interpretation is clearly WRONG?? ADAM is not a Church...old eve is not a Group or community... New Adam = individual New Eve = individual.... It's just COMMON SENSE..... Stop making very weird interpretation.... Even the manner by which the Old Eve was created and the New Adam was created clearly shows the parallelism.... This has been the will of God from the beginning of Genesis 3:15....

Let's see what ST. john Henry Newman said... ST. JOHN HENRY NEWMAN ""In the Catholic Church," says St. Augustine to the Manichees, "not to speak of that most pure wisdom, to the knowledge of which few spiritual men attain in this life so as to know it even in its least measure,-as men, indeed, yet, without any doubt,-(for the multitude of Christians are safest, not in understanding with quickness, but in believing with simplicity,) not to speak of this wisdom, which ye do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other considerations which most sufficiently hold me in her bosom. I am held by the consent of people and nations; by that authority which began in miracles, was nourished in hope, was increased by charity, and made steadfast by age; by that succession of priests from the chair of the Apostle Peter,🙄🙄 to whose feeding the Lord after His resurrection commended His sheep, even to the present episcopate; lastly, by the very title of Catholic, which, not without cause, hath this Church alone, amid so many {257} heresies, obtained in such sort, that, whereas all heretics wish to be called Catholics,🙄🙄 nevertheless to any stranger, who asked where to find the 'Catholic' Church,🙄🙄 none of them would dare to point to his own basilica or home. These dearest bonds, then, of the Christian Name, so many and such, rightly hold a man in belief in the Catholic Church, even though, by reason of the slowness of our understanding or our deserts, truth doth not yet show herself in her clearest tokens. But among you, who have none of these reasons to invite and detain me, I hear but the loud sound of a promise of the truth; which truth, verily, if it be so manifestly displayed among you that there can be no mistake about it, is to be preferred to all those things by which I am held in the Catholic Church; but if it is promised alone, and not exhibited, no one shall move me from that faith which by so many and great ties binds my mind to the Christian religion." -----ST. JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, ESSAY ON DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, CHAPTER 6

@@krishyyfan5153 V2 is NOT the Catholic Church. It is indeed a heresy as pernicious as the Manichees. It preaches modernism, evolution, ecumenism, liberalism. It's so obviously a secular ideology even atheists stare at the Church in amazement.

​@@pearl1606ST. Francis De Sales on the CATHOLIC title.... ST. FRANCIS DE SALES "THAT great Father, Vincent of Lerins, in his most useful Memorial, says that he must before all things have a great care to believe "that which has been believed by all [always and everywhere] " . . such as the jugglers and tinkers; for the REST of the WORLD call us Catholic;🙄🙄 and if we add Roman, it is only to inform people of the See of that Bishop who is general and visible Pastor of the Church. And already in the time of St. Ambrose to be Roman in communion was the same thing as to be Catholic.🙄🙄 But as for your church, it is called everywhere🙄🙄 Huguenot, Calvinist, Heretical, Pretended, Protestant, New, or Sacramentarian. 🙄🙄Your church was not before these names, and these names were not before your church, because they are proper to it. Nobody calls you Catholics🙄🙄, you scarcely dare to do so yourselves. I am well aware that amongst you your churches call themselves Reformed, but just as much right to that name have the Lutherans, and the Ubiquitarians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and other offshoots of Luther, and they will never yield it to you. The name of religion is common to the Church of the Jews and of the Christians, in the Old Law and in the New; the name of Catholic 🙄🙄is proper to the Church of Our Lord; the name of Reformed (insert SSPX here😁😁) is a blasphemy against Our Lord, who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church in his blood, that it must never take other form than of his all lovely Spouse, of pillar and ground of truth. One may reform the nations in particular, but not the Church or religion. She was rightly formed, change of formation is called heresy or irreligion. The tint of Our Saviour's blood is too fair and too bright to require new colors. Your church, then, calling itself Reformed, gives up its part in the form which the Saviour had established. But I cannot refrain from telling you what Beza, Luther, and Peter Martyr think on this. Peter Martyr calls you Lutherans, and says you are brothers to them; you are then Lutherans; Luther calls you Zwinglians and Sacramentarians; Beza calls the Lutherans Consubstantiators and Chymists, and yet he puts them in the number of Reformed churches. See then the new names 🙄🙄which the reformers acknowledge for one another. Your church, therefore, not having even the name of Catholic,🙄🙄 you cannot with a good conscience say the Apostles' Creed;🙄🙄 if you do, you judge yourselves, who, confessing the Church Catholic and universal, obstinately keep to your own, which most certainly is not such. If St. Augustine were living now, he would remain in our Church, which from immemorial time is in possession of the name of Catholic."🙄🙄 -------ST. FRANCIS DE SALES , THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY, AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH , CHAPTER XI.

Obviously you did not watch and listen the context of the video carefully

Conserving? Why are traditional catholics looked down on then???

What was rhe conclusion. Any relation to Newman?