Bishop Barron on the Mass 

join brah!

@@fitztobias6080 🤣 I don't think so. Christ died for me. Why would I betray him?

@@mikkis668 what? The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ??

@@fitztobias6080 😆😯 Sorry, my misstake! I read "join bahá'i" 🤦🏻‍♂️😄. Yes, I believe the Early Church was the true Church of Christ, that today is split into East and West. Both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have maintained the Apostolic Succession and the Tradition. And though both have added elements of culture and religion, the are a full expression of the Christian faith, with the witnesses of Saints and Martyrs.

Yes and yes. After many years of atheism, I began to look seriously into Catholicism around a year ago (in large part encouraged by Bishop Barron's videos). I love Catholic theology, history, and the richness of its cultural and intellectual heritage but I'm continually frustrated by their disconnection with what happens today in a typical mass, and the seeming lack of seriousness with which the liturgy is taken. Last Sunday I visited an Orthodox church for the first time and was profoundly taken aback by the difference. The liturgy was almost totally in English. I plan to go back next week.

tim spangler Hi Tim, this is not the first time I've seen you comment on this channel and I think it's great you're here even if you disagree with Catholicism. Have you ever checked out episodes of the Journey Home on EWTN? They have most of their episodes on RU-vid.

It's not about incense or Latin. It's about the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Bulls eye, my friend. I'm a craddle catholic (from Brasil) who left the Church in my early teens for not feeling that sense of the Sacred and the solemnity of what we used to hear from the old times. I couldn't stand all the dancing, singing catholic "pop hits" and lack of liturgy from the new mass my family used to go to. Neo-pentecostalism was just starting in Brasil during that time, and what I saw in this "happy hippie" new church was just so much like it. Thank God I came back to the Church in my early 20's, when I discovered the "old" Mass and Tradition. I'm not a radtrad or sedevacantist, I think Vatican II had some great stuff and I'm very devout to Saint John Paul II, but the younger generations wish very hard to have something solid and rooted in their lives. Post-modernity makes us really have a need of this reference, and there is nothing in this world more solid and rooted than Our Lord and His Church.

Joshual Cerdenia P. -- look for a Byzantine or Coptic Catholic Mass, or a Greek Catholic Mass...or Maronite! Almost all the Eastern Traditions celebrate the ancient Mass, and are in communion with the bishop in Rome. The Orthodox have gorgeous liturgies, and beautiful mystical traditions, but long ago disputed the supremacy of Peter, despite Scriptural evidence. At issue were things like inserting "Filioque" without consulting the Eastern Patriarchs. To this day, our Orthodox brethren argue for reasons why the "Filioque" should *not* be in the Creed, but I think it's really based in the pride of the Patriarchs, part of the evidence being later splits within the Orthodox Churches, and even secular political cooperation, such as with the Tsars of Russia, and later, with Communists in the former USSR. They are uniquely cultural, not global. That's part of the reason I think the Catholic Church is the True Faith of the Holy Savior.

Yeah, And while your thumbing that Bible -- take a look at book of Mathew , chapter 23 , verse 9. !!

Jason Concepcion; Jesus Christ will never forget those who assist at the mass whether it's an altar server or someone helping out with the collections.God gives many graces to those who assist at mass.

john b Amen!!

tim; Besides the purpose for which the Mass is offered and the effects that it produces, there are also special fruits of the Mass. The fruits Of the Mass are the blessings that God bestows through the Mass upon the celebrant, upon those who serve or assist at it, upon the person or persons for whom it is offered, and also upon all mankind, especially the members of the Church and the souls in purgatory.

tim; Malachi 1;11 11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

tim; In catholic churches yesterday Sunday the gospel reading around the world referred to Matthew 25 1-13.You are invited to the supper of the lamb wedding feast and you Tim keep refusing saying no.Midnight the door will be shut. Matthew 25;10 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.

tim - I know you won't respond to me because I've spanked you in logical debates so often, so here we go again: Jesus really did turn water into wine. It sounds like a ridiculous myth, the stuff of fairy tales, any atheist will tell you it's a piece of fiction, but our faith informs us that it's true. You look at that and say, "Oh sure, that's normal, but turning bread into His Body, and turning wine into His Blood, nahhhhh....." And by doing that, you place limits on God. Of course you're not humanly capable of actually limiting Him, but you try. Let he who has ears hear. Let he who has wisdom discern.

Tim wouldn't you agree that truly accepting The Eucharist; what appears to the mind as a pathetic unleavened wafer, to be (when seen with the heart) the true and honest body of the risen Christ (the sole soul food); the base consciousness constructing all reality, and therefore the all-powerful being one might purport to love, honor, and obey) is a very strong test of faithful fidelity? I mean, it's really hard for the rich and powerful to avoid golddiggers and find people who really love them for who they are.

Thank you Tim!!

Unbiblical criteria such as 'This is My Body' and 'This is My Blood' and 'Do this in memory of Me.' Catholics in fact take Scripture very seriously. Not just our own unaided understanding of it, but as it has been revealed to us historically in and through the Church, against which the gates of Hell shall never prevail. We know this because Jesus promised that He would remain with us to the end of the world. Now you may put a different interpretation on many of these passages of Scripture but that does not give you the right to suggest that other interpretations are unbiblical. After all, isn't Protestantism all about one's own personal interpretation? So how can Protestantism deny other interpretations? Nobody seems able to answer this question.

Amen!

The former Associate ("intern") Pastor at my parish brought in Mass Journaling, making little journals available right after Christmas last year. He doesn't so much give homilies as teach the Faith much like a classroom, asking questions and inviting interaction from those in the pews. When he made the journals available, he had us write a question or two to consider throughout the week. I've pretty much kept up my Mass Journaling, taking notes during the regular priest's homilies, but almost everyone else has given it up. Both of them went to Seminary together, the regular pastor graduating a couple years earlier. Both are fervent in the Faith, and I learn a great deal from both of them, even though our regular priest is a little more traditional in giving a homily as a lecture, but it's an interesting lecture.

@Tim spangler --- who u?

@tim spangler -- ahh ok so that is who you are -- according to you...did a little research and i see you commenting and following Bishop Barron...that is a good sign that you will be converted soon to the Catholic faith and soon find out who you really are according to Our Lord...keep it up...praying for your speedy conversion, my brother...

@tim spangler -- zero chance? never say never...only Our Lord has the last say :-)

@tim spangler -- Amen to that! ...but nobody is "ensnaring" you....just listen more carefully to your heart and God's loving whisper -- you'll know He wants you to be part of His Mystical Body...again, never say never...

@tim spangler -- ahhh then you want to be Catholic!...and since the word 'ensnare' came from you, I think it is your subconcious telling you that you want to be 'ensnared' because you are spending time in a Catholic site, watching Catholic videos, and talking to Catholics? hmmm...admit it, deep in your heart you want to be a true blue Catholic Christian!...don't be shy, we will welcome you with open arms...woohoo! excited for you, bro!

Are you a Protestant ?

Are you for or Againest the Catholic Church ?

So you're Againest what Bishop Barron is saying. Just so you know, Communion IS biblical - LUKE 22:19-20 You might say that Catholicism is a False Religion. The only way It would be false is if it had a different God. We believe in GOD, CHRIST and THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Sacraments don't save nor Works BUT Faith without Works is Dead. TRUE FAITH PRODUCES WORKS.

Francisco Douglas go RU-vid & type in dr. Fred Transitano on the mass & read Hebrews 10th chapter

Ive been to the liturgy of addai and mar Mari in kerala

Because I'm not assured that I won't spend eternity in hell. That's exactly the point.

I don't take Bishop Barron's comments to mean that "play" is the same as "leisure", but instead that the Mass is an end to itself, unlike the servile work we do in our secular lives. The Mass is not done to effect some other earthly goal, but it does require our participation, the contribution of our own limited humanity in the form of liturgy, to bring us into the presence of Christ. Much like God having the reason for His being within Himself, so does the Mass. I firmly believe, as I'm sure you do, that once the underlying beauty of the Mass is understood by the faithful, they will never allow themselves to miss a Sunday Mass ever again.

Yes I am interested. That's why I'm Catholic.

Leisure in its truest sense, which is as you describe. Done for its own sake, which is what we are created for. Absolutely, if we would have them understand the mass more fully they would be banging the doors down. But when it is so poorly conveyed it certainly lacks credibility, and being humans as we are, having to constantly strain our intellect against every other sensibility becomes exhausting. We press on though! Bless you Bil

I believe that Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 16) and the power to loose and bind. The Church has made it a binding obligation to attend Mass on certain days, so therefore it is done under the authority of Christ. Catholics do NOT believe that every thing in our system of beliefs must have been first uttered by Jesus Himself. Our Sacred Tradition is just as authoritative as Scripture. We call them together the "Deposit of Faith."

Not really.

Very good point. Obviously He didn't eat Himself. So evidently when He said, "This is my body" it sounds symbolic expression just as the cup itself can't be the covenant when He said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." In both cases, the bread and wine symbolizes His body and blood. And as Jesus Himself commanded, we have to do the Lord's Supper in remembrance of him, his death on the cross.

@@barnabaspark There is 1000x more evidence for Jesus’s words of institution being literal opposed to symbolism

cloudsabove The sacrifice is the play, since it's the highest possible value.

tim; You still have to do the will of God.Once saved always saved is a protestant lie.If you wake up tomorrow and God forbid kill your whole family yet profess to be a Christtan are you doing God's will of course not.In society you will see in the news of young families with financial difficulties go through this mess.You continually blaspheme the holy spirit because you deny faith which has been preached for over 2,000 years. In Roman Catholic teaching there are six sins that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. They are: 1. Despair (believing that one's evil is beyond God's forgiveness); 2. Presumption (glory without merit, that is, hope of salvation without keeping the Commandments, or expectation of pardon for sin without repentance); 3. Envying the goodness of another (sadness or repining at another's growth in virtue and perfection); 4. Obstinacy in sin (willful persisting in wickedness, and running on from sin to sin, after sufficient instructions and admonition); 5. Final impenitence (to die without either confession or contrition for our sins), and 6. Impugning the known truth (to argue against known points of faith, and this includes misrepresenting parts or all of the Christian faith to make it seem undesirable). Tim you are misrepresenting the catholic faith to seem that we don't preach the truth of Christ.You are preaching a different gospel.

tim; You still have to do the will of God. If you read further 1 John 5 11-12 11 And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. Now how do we obtain this life easy through the eucharist.John describes it in John 6;53 53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Have you seen this website? www.elementsofthecatholicmass.com/episodes

In the latest word on fire show Bishop Barron did he said that they are filming a whole new DVD series on the Mass. I can't wait!

John, did you listen to the video?

I did. I understand what you're saying, and I admit it's minutia, but I'm sensitive to fact that we've already overly Protestantized our Liturgy. I think people will misunderstand what you mean by "play."

Kate M Did you watch the video? I’m arguing that there is nothing more important and solemn than play.

I understood that you argued that play was in the category of things that we do for themselves, a category superior to things we do for other purposes, like work. So help me out here -- are you saying that by "play," you intend all the things that we do for themselves? If so, it seems to me a poor word choice. Are you saying that sacrifice is "work," and thus inferior to "play"? I was left overall wondering how your highlighting a "play" feature of Mass is going to call back the majority who can't be bothered to attend. I would love to get your reflections on the last point I made, what to make of what I believe to be the destruction of the Roman Rite (call it "reform" if you like; my question is the same) if liturgy is supposed to be the main repository of Tradition.

Well, one could say you Protestants make everything so bland and don't appreciate everything the Lord has done for us.

Jesus is the Truth, yes? And in the Great Commission, He commanded His apostles to make disciples of all the nations, and He said He would be with them until the end of time (Matt 28:20), yes? I therefore trust in the authority of the Catholic Church, which traces the succession of its popes and bishops back to Peter, the rock on which He built His Church (Matt 16:18). The Protestant idea that the Truth remains which the thousands of sects teaching conflicting versions of the truth is nonsensical. Who founded your church, Tim? The one who claimed "sola fide" but added the word "alone" to "faith alone" when he translated the Bible? That same one who claimed "sola scriptura," but on his own authority took out books from the Bible, like the Letter of James, which conflicted with his idea of faith alone? And in addition to the Church, Catholics take advantage of sacraments, channels of grace that don't flow in Protestant communities. How about confession? Remember when our Lord on the evening of the Resurrection breathed on His disciples and send "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:22-23) All sacraments are rooted in Scripture, as this is for the sacrament of confession. Or do you believe this was simply Jesus telling His disciples (the 2nd thing He said to them post-Resurrection) that they could forgive each other, a merely human act b/c they were apparently too dull-witted to know they could forgive each other (and then Pentecost was a "re-do" b/c this gift didn't take) -- Protestants? As for the Eucharist, it is not only rooted in the Institution Narrative of the Last Supper in each of the synoptic gospels, but also in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, a chapter which is at best meaningless for Protestants (though it was a big part of the conversion process for Scott Hahn). When Jesus said that He was the Bread of Life and that you had to eat that bread or have no life within you, do you remember that many disciples were repulsed and left Him, but He called them back, saying, "Hey! I was only talking symbolically!" No, what He actually did was to switch verbs, to a stronger form of eating akin to "gnawing;" in other words, He doubled down on what He was saying even at the cost of a large group of disciples. Research "eucharistic miracles" and see what has been happening at various places throughout the ages. This post is already too long, but I really hope you study the Eucharist because, at the end of the day, that is the heart of the divide. If you believed, as Catholics do, that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, I am sure you would be there to receive Him. Consider this last thought (and this is just my speculation). St. Irenaeus, in the 2nd century A.D., taught a theory of recapitulation, that Jesus in a sense re-lived the life of Israel (out of Egypt, time in the desert, baptism in the Jordan). If the Church is, as St. Paul taught, the body of Christ (a concept impossible to reconcile with the broken mass of Christianity today, btw), then mustn't the Church go where her Head did? Is the Protestant revolution the same as the large group of disciples leaving in John 6 over the teaching about the Eucharist? If so, there are reasons to think that the time is very late. (Again, that's my speculation, but I do encourage you to study, pray and believe.) Hope that helped.

PPbest My suggestion would be to try a prayer something along the lines of, "God, if you really exist I want to know you. Please help me." In my experience all people who come to faith have at some point prayed something like that... I'll pray for you too!

PPbest - the first step is simply to decide to believe in God and in Jesus Christ His Son. The second step is to try to live according to what that belief demands of you. Do not worry about feelings nor about doubts. Abraham chose to give his life to God and he made the decision that he would refuse point blank to turn away from that decision, whatever God did or did not do. We do not come to faith simply through reason or simply through emotion. We come to faith (perhaps gradually) through a deliberate decision to trust in God - even if we are not sure whether he is there or not.

Read the Word of God King James Version and you will not become a Catholic. Catholicism is pagan and has roots in sun god worship. God wil speak to you through reading His Word.

Karmen, that's a very strange thing to say. I have always loved the King James Bible - and it is simply untrue nonsense to say that Catholicism is pagan and based on sun-worship. It is based on the revealed Word of God. Of course you can disagree with Catholicism and its teachings and its interpretation of the Scriptures, but please do so in a sensible manner. You need to understand things before you can offer any meaningful criticism. Comments such as yours seem to indicate an unwillingness to engage, and a fear of truth.

The Catholic church worships Mary and prays to saints and dead people..God calls that Idolatry. Lent=weeping for Tammuz, Xmas and Easter both pagan. Many traditions come directly from sun God worship. I know of Clement and have read his extra biblical writings which are awesome. The traditions of the Catholic church have nothing to do with that.

What???

You are correct to say "Not ONE instance of a Mass...", because there are MORE than one instance of the Mass in the NT, both before and after Pentecost . And, that REAL Church that began at Pentecost was known as the "catholic" Church very early in the 2nd century, only 70-ish years after Jesus ascended.

The pagan origins of the Mass. Wake up people come out of the WHORE babylonian Catholic church.. amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_paganism_Catholic_mass_silver

karmen, Such "evidence" of links between ancient pagan religions and Catholicism is superficial and insubstantial. Your position is a new and novel, twisted, interpretation of history. The idea was first popularized by Alexander Hislop in his work "The Two Babylons" in the 19th century. Since then, it has been roundly refuted and condemned for it's shoddy literary product, not substantiated with real evidence and lacking solid references. Not just Catholics, but Protestant scholars have rejected this work.

tim, NO, it is not a Mass without a legitimate priest saying the words of consecration. Any time you see the disciples "break bread", they are in the company of an Apostle or other presbyter (as the Christian priests are called, in the NT) and that pericope is the Mass in it's earliest forms. From the first century, the extra-biblical Christian writings describe the Mass and it is substantially identical to modern Catholic practice (only differences in style exist).

Tim, Does every doctrinal practice NEED to be explicitly set forth in Scripture? If so, why do you believe all revealed Truth is found in your Bible of 66 books? It says nowhere within itself which books belong and which do not. Instead, you accept authentication from outside Scripture to tell you what the Bible is composed of. In this, you contradict yourself, in requiring all doctrines to be explicitly stated in the Bible. This idea, Sola Scriptura, is thus logically self-refuting and therefore false. But, as to the words of consecration in the Mass, they are passed down to us today from the Apostles. The ritual is supported by Paul in 1Cor11 "23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come." Thank God for such a gift. Because in this way we can keep the command God gave Moses to celebrate the Passover feast until the end of time. The Mass is the New Passover and so we can keep that command, which was never abrogated by the New Covenant but was fulfilled by the New Covenant in the Lamb of God (Jesus) whom we can eat in obedience to God so that His judgement of condemnation can pass over us and thus we are saved.

I certainly applaud your devotion to the Eucharist and your attention to the moment of consecration, but your reading is too simple. Would you simply skip over everything in the Gospels in order to get to the Passion? In fact, the life and ministry of Jesus provide the necessary context for understanding the cross. The same is true in regard to the Mass.

The life and ministry of Jesus was known in detail by the apostles yet they didn't understand the Cross. It's the Passion and Cross in relation to Original sin that provides context for understanding His life. The passages in the Gospels describing His Passion are what make us appreciate the magnitude of His sacrifice. This is what provides the context for understanding the Mass.

Can “God’s Word” be seen as anything less important than His body and blood? Unfortunately, in the mind of the “Catholic” of today, as we know him, the answer is mostly yes.

Oh come on, Tyler. It's not that complicated. The Mass is the privileged encounter with Jesus and the Mass is the highest form of play. Take another listen.

Elliott Smith; The mystery of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. This wondrous gift allows us to experience the most intimate encounter with Christ this side of heaven. The Church has always taught the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.The eucharist nourishes the soul in Christ.

How about replying to my argument?

Elliott Smith; Your argument is understanding that not receiving the eucharist you can somehow reach a closer encounter with Christ.Of course doing good works in serving the poor is part of salvation for we will be judged on our works.To say catholics just go through the motions is unfair.Christ gives each one of us a measure of faith and certain gifts.Just going to mass driving and dressing up to go is an act of faith. Romans 12;6 6 And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; Now receiving Christ in the eucharist most catholics know or should know that we are receiving the real presence of Christ meaning catholics acknowledge what we are receiving. 1 Corithians 11;29 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. The catholic mass is both an internal and external ritual. Just as we say the eucharist is the summit of our faith we can also say the Easter season is most solemn feast day for Christians because we are celebrating the death of Christ on Good Friday and Easter Sunday Christ's resurrection.The eucharist is part of Holy Thursday the last supper preparation day or the passover/sedar meals for the forgiveness of sins. This is how we encounter Christ the hidden love of man in the cross. To you jeopardizing your soul you are undermining the euharist at your peril.

Eric Davenport; Jesus wants to be loved.He's given himself in an initimate way through holy communion the eucharist.A pope has the authority to change the way we practise our catholic faith for example receiving the eucharist by hand instead of just the tongue. If you have a wife and you do not touch her I guarantee you she you will think you do not love her.

He means privileged as in special. Because God is present everywhere, but especially in the Mass.

I’m not even a Catholic but u r mislead

Thomas Paine; And false protestant preachers didn't warn of eternal punishment in their fake tent revivals.

Fundamentalist Protestant Bible thumpers throughout the ages preached hell, fire and brimstone with great zeal. The simple remedy they offered was to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. As nonsensical as it was, at least Protestant kids weren't running to Confession every Saturday as did Catholic kids in pre-Vatican II days (especially post-puberty boys)!

Not worshipping God is indeed a serious spiritual problem. Failing to do so on a regular basis is as "deadly" to the soul as eating fatty foods and not exercising are to the body. This has nothing to do with threats; it's just straightforward spiritual physics. As to Hell, no one has the right or ability to claim that a person is finally condemned. That is purely a matter for God to decide.

Thomas Paine; A Christian is to work out their salvation through trembling and fear of God meaning to have a reverence towards the Lord.The catholic church gives catholics a foundation of faith baptism/holy communion/confirmation a gift from the holy spirit.The church yes has rules but what company would not have rules if it did not want structure.God teaches through his prophets that false teachers will preach pillows and cushions a sentimental preaching that will destroy the soul.I don't want pillows and cushions I want the truth.

Tim; Faith without love is useless. You confuse works with justification. And no Catholics don't condemn people to hell only God can judge this. If you want to understand clearly what the catholic church teaches the Council of Trent is the better source. This is widely misunderstood. One reason is that the term anathema is often glossed in Protestant circles to mean something like “damned by God,” and the canon is represented as condemning Protestants to hell. It isn’t. At that time in history, the term anathema referred to a form of excommunication that could be imposed by a Church court for certain serious offenses. It was performed with a special ceremony, and its purpose was to motivate people to repent. When they did repent, it was also lifted with a special ceremony. It was seldom imposed and was eventually abolished. The anathema did not sentence people to hell, it did not take effect automatically, it was never applied to all Protestants as a group, and it doesn’t apply to anyone today. The use of the term does, though, imply an authoritative rejection of the “faith alone” formula-when it is used to mean a specific thing.For someone to say some catholic said they saw Martin Luther in hell is sensationalism.Some said Padre Pio said that which I doubt he said it. The canon doesn’t say, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, let him be anathema.” Instead, it rejects a particular use of the formula, whereby someone “understands that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will.” Trent is therefore concerned to reject “faith alone” when it’s used to say that you don’t need to in any way cooperate with God’s grace, that a merely intellectual faith would save you.

So-called Last Supper? What are you talking about?

Not only do I agree Gerald, but the Vatican asserts that the so-called sacrifice of the mass is a real sacrifice, where Roman Catholic priests supposedly have the power to call Christ down from heaven in order to re-present Him as a victim in an unbloody manner, where he is essentially re-sacrificed thousands upon thousands of times per day on Catholic altars all over the world (not that the term "re-present" is anything more than a classic example of the Vatican conveniently creating its own terminology such as with “transubstantiation”). But if you consider what the Vatican's official assertions actually are concerning the mass, you will basically find them to be as I've described, and I’m quite certain that most practicing Catholics aren't aware of what those assertions really are, nor are they aware of how they don't align with Scripture. Nevertheless, compare the Vatican’s assertions with what the Bible actually says regarding at the proper time Christ was sacrificed once for all (1 Peter 3:18-20; Hebrews 9:26-28; Hebrews 10:1-10; Romans 5:6; Romans 6:10). And even just by reasonable deduction alone, those Scripture verses (and perhaps others too) would certainly appear to suggest that Christ's sacrifice was all sufficient, and was never intended to be repeated again, nor will it ever be repeated again. In other words, the entire notion of the "sacrifice of the mass" as being a real sacrifice seems totally erroneous and without any merit whatsoever, because it does not hold up under scrutiny based on what Scripture very plainly tells us. In fact, any claim that the mass is a real sacrifice would only appear to be in complete opposition with Scripture! It's also important to remember that it's actually Christ's shed Blood that was poured out for us is what actually atones for our sin. And since that is indeed the case, one must ask himself, what in the world is all of this unbloody sacrifice nonsense even about? And once again, the notion of an “unbloody" sacrifice of the mass simply makes no Scriptural sense whatsoever. And as Christ hung on the cross, He also said, "It is finished" (John 19:28-30). But if Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the cross for us was made complete and is finished, why does Roman Catholicism claim to "re-present" Christ as their victim in their so-called unbloody sacrifice many thousands of times per day all over the world? And once again, based on the aspect of Jesus saying, "It is finished," the Vatican's claim that the mass is a “real sacrifice" makes no sense whatsoever, and would actually also appear to be in direct opposition with Christ's own words. It's also useful to bear in mind that not attending mass was more or less decreed as being a mortal sin around the year 1,000, which is utterly absurd on several levels, and has no foundational support based on Scripture either. However, it wasn't until the year 1215 that Pope Innocent III asserted his “transubstantiation” claim - meaning that priests allegedly have the power to call Christ down from heaven to indwell their wafer and wine so that they can “re-present” Christ as their sacrificial victim in their unbloody manner. With all of that in mind, doesn’t it beg the question that if popes speaking in “ex Cathedra” are supposedly infallible, why wasn’t this transubstantiation claim made centuries earlier? I think it's also worth mentioning that Jesus told the eleven disciples that He would be with them always, even unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:16-20) which I believe very likely applies to everyone who is in Christ. However, if Christ is extra-present with us during communion for some reason, Christ Himself would have to carry that out by His own limitless power and authority. In other words, there’s no scriptural evidence that would support any claim that a Roman Catholic priest (or any man for that matter) has the power to call Christ down from heaven off of His throne to indwell their wafer and wine, which quite frankly strikes me as being a woefully audacious claim to be asserting. It’s also worth noting that many Roman Catholic priests (including the Bishop in this video) also often assert that separate infusions of grace are merited on an ongoing incremental basis, such as from attending mass, going to confession, etc., etc. However, the bible states that, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us…" (Ephesians 1:7-8). In other words, based on Scripture, God's grace has already been lavished upon all of those who are in Christ. Therefore, the notion that grace can be merited or earned on an incremental ongoing basis would certainly appear to be totally erroneous based on Scripture as well. Okay, so what's the bottom line here? Roman Catholicism asserts many claims, teachings, and traditions that don't line up with Scripture at all. Personally speaking I was raised Roman Catholic, my entire family is Roman Catholic, I went to Roman Catholic schools while growing up, I was an altar boy when I was young, and I seriously contemplated the priesthood in my early teens. However, after reading the bible the first time from cover to cover around the age of 15 or so, I left Roman Catholicism and never looked back. I’m now 55 years old and I’ve been reading the bible for decades. At one point I also eventually began becoming more aware of how incredibly diabolical the Papacy’s persecution of non-catholic Christians which was actually carried out in various places over the course of entire centuries, as well as several aspects of Roman Catholicism’s evolution over time regarding the timeframes in which many of its unbiblical claims and teachings either surfaced or became official dogma. More recently, and thanks to Michelle Malkin who happens to be a Roman Catholic, I’m also now aware that Catholic organizations and lobbyist groups exist that are profiteering directly from the illegal immigration issue here in the United States, not that I’m the least bit surprised by that, because I’m aware of far worse actions that have been carried out through the centuries for the sake of profiting from them. But far more importantly, I am acutely aware of why I believe Roman Catholicism is in direct opposition with the Word of God on many fronts, and I would never consider participating in Roman Catholicism as I once routinely did as an extremely naïve youth - nor am I the least bit impressed by anyone’s self-aggrandizing sense of religious pride masquerading as humility, which it clearly is not. Nevertheless, I actually find it quite interesting that this Bishop alleges that between 70 to 80% of Catholics do not attend Mass, because 70 to 80% strikes me as being an awfully unrealistic high percentage range. That said, I wonder if some percentage of those alleged no-shows merely wound up on a Roman Catholic register of some sort as a result of being baptized as voiceless infants under the wishes of their well-meaning, but biblically illiterate and brainwashed Catholic parents? That said, if my name appears anywhere on their rosters, that’s not my problem, because I walked away from Roman Catholicism long ago, and I’m very certain that at least some considerable portion of those alleged no-shows are Bible believing Christians just like me, and want absolutely nothing to do with Roman Catholicism (except for perhaps helping others better understand Scripture so that they’re able to gain a clear understanding about why Roman Catholicism is rife with false teaching). And what exactly is this Bishop’s extremely strange discourse regarding "play" all about? I mean really! I’ve been blessed with a pretty high IQ, I'm well educated (biological sciences, math, and chemistry) and I'm quite familiar with university-level philosophy course work as well. Yet I'm having a difficult time appreciating or sympathizing with this Bishop’s attempt to make a cogent connection between the term "play" and the Roman Catholic Mass. That said, perhaps this sort of thing is to be expected when a person ends up in a Roman Catholic leadership role such as this man has. But while this Bishop’s inherent bias seems to have led him to a bit of a self-inflated superiority complex, his ecumenism agenda is blatantly self-evident in my opinion. And what this man actually appears to be doing in my opinion, is attempting to employ a perhaps creative, but remarkably nonsensical paradigm for the sake of voicing an obvious complaint that he has regarding the fact that many people who once may have been involved with the Roman Catholic Church have no further interest in "playing" church with Roman Catholicism any longer. And what I believe this Bishop is actually complaining about beneath the surface, I actually find to be condescendingly arrogant and insulting. Furthermore, this video actually reminds me a lot of “The Emperor's New Clothes” fairytale because of the trailing string of comments offered by its many brainwashed onlookers congratulating the Emperor on how wonderful he looks in his new “play” clothes. And at least two people commenting actually address this man as “Your Excellency.” Are you kidding me? Even so, this Bishop did say, “a lot of Catholics don't really know what the mass is” (00:59) and that much I would totally agree with. But if people really understood what the Vatican’s assertions actually are regarding the mass, and understood how those assertions are in direct opposition with Scripture, I would imagine that Roman Catholic Churches everywhere would empty out the rest of the way very quickly, and rightfully so. God bless you.

@@gollygeewillickersbatman1824 If I understand correctly, the Catholic Church is wrong because you believe its teachings contradict your interpretation of the Bible. Are you infallible?

@@truthseeker5489 Like every man (including yourself, the pope, and everyone else) I'm extremely fallible. However, the Word of God is inerrant (infallible) living and active, and perfect. It's also a direct extention of Christ Himself, just as your words are an extension of you.

@@gollygeewillickersbatman1824 So, since you are extremely fallible, that means your claims about the Catholic Church could be erroneous, right? It also means that you could be making mistakes in your interpretation and understanding of the Bible, right?