Bishop Barron on The Meaning of Vatican II 

Well friend, we're not talking about automaticism here! Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it doesn't mean that every baptized person is saved. The point at issue is whether someone who is not formally baptized can be saved, and the clear answer of Trent is "yes," precisely through the desire--conscious or otherwise--for baptism.

Fr. Barron advocates what Thomas Aquinas and Vatican II clearly teach: that those who follow their consciences sincerely can (notice I said "can" and not "will") be saved. Friend, there should be nothing controversial about this. It's standard Catholic teaching.

I do really love this. Again and again, though only a few times I've commented, Bishop Barron is heaven-sent. While you, Bishop, provide us deep and somewhat never-before heard insights on the faith and our Church, they settle quickly in me as though your discourses are a blueprint of what God in Christ has revealed in the divine economy. I am gratefully enlightened.

Jesus 33 AD - “My Kingdom is not of this world”. “Do not love the world or the things in the world” John 2:15 Pope John XXIII 1959 - "I want to throw open the windows of the Church to the world so that we can see out and the people (world) can see in” Pope Paul VI. 1972 - “Through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God”

Friend, the problem is that you're repeating words without really understanding them. Just consider this one point: neither Anselm nor Thomas Aquinas believed that God has emotions, varying attitudes across time. That's why his "anger" and the "satisfying" of that "anger" must be interpreted metaphorically. God's anger is his passion to set things right. The cross of Jesus, by swallowing up the darkness of the world, set things right, "appeased" God's "anger." Don't read this literally.

I'm praying every day that our church goes back where it belongs. It doesn't feel right anymore.

Come on, man! You're giving the worst possible spin to every comment I'm making. Last time I checked, St. John the Apostle said, "God is love." Love is not, therefore, a mere "attribute" of God, but rather his very essence. Indeed, due to the simplicity of God, it is inappropriate to speak of "attributes" at all. Theiosis, or deification, is the process by which we human beings are drawn into the love that connects the Father and the Son.

In 1917 Our Blessed Mother warned the world that God is already too much offended, and the solution is prayer, The Holy Rosary, and the repentance of men for our sins. I still believe that the divisions that confuse Catholic is diabolic, and that is often used to claim erroneously that the changes from Vatican II are diabolic as well. The confusion is from poorly educated priests, and bishops often doing and saying that which aids the confusion, The answer remains as Our Blessed Lady said, prayer and penance.

Not so! As you probably have gathered from my videos and books, I am an ardent advocate of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. I have absolutely no quarrel with Thomas and the great tradition that flows from him. What I and many others find more problematic is a form of theologizing--really pseudo-Thomist in spirit--that took hold around the mid-nineteenth century and endured to the mid-twentieth century. That's the only "tradition" that I would dispute.

It is altogether inappropriate to speak of "causality" within the Trinitarian relations. The Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Causality is the process by which creatures come forth from God. This is why we say, in the Nicene Creed, that the Son was "begotten not made."

I found this very interesting and informative; I really don't know much about the history and players of Vatican II, but now I'd certainly like to learn more.

I was a cradle Vatican II Catholic who became a Latin rite Catholic later in life. I have come to appreciate at this age that the Catholic Church is truly THE universal church with it's rich diversity in its rites (east and west). Vatican II opened the door for all to join us to become ONE church. The Ordinariate rite is just ONE example of such miracle!!! Praise God!

Friend, I've been an outspoken critic of many features of the post-conciliar period, when I came of age. But these represent distortions and misapropiations of Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II as such, what prevents you from rejecting Trent, Chalcedon, and Nicea?

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma,' which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1988 Address to Chilean Bishops).

Some good things came out of Vatican II but overall unfortunately a lot of the Churches Teachings have been misinterpreted by many, They should have fixed what was wrong instead of starting over heading towards Modernism is never a good thing in today's world

I think this is your best video yet. I'm 27 and so much of the issues that have the present in such turmoil happened in that 10 to 15 years before I was born. The "spirit" of those times has become politicized and institutionalized to the point that it's hard to trust anyone's perspective on it. I think that having an accurate understanding of that "spirit" is so important when dealing with today's issues. So thank you for adding that perspective!

Not so! Catholic theology doesn't in any way "confuse" the Father and the Son, for the latter proceeds from the former. They are one in being, but they are different in regard to origin. And you should never speak of "cause" in regard to any of the Trinitarian persons, since neither the Son nor the Spirit is a creature made ex nihilo.

Vatican II "threw open the doors"--to the Devil.

Very interesting... I have listened to this talk many times now.. it clearly explains why some people say that the spirit of the Vatican II is not what is on display, and through that they try to bring people to the ideology of liberalism.. thank you Bishop for this wonderful explanation

Well I didn't say that love is the essence of God; St. John did! By spiritual adoption, we share in the dynamism of the divine life, though we never, of course, become divine persons, for that would involve a suspension of our creatureliness. The fullness of who God is remains opaque to us, but that doesn't mean we can't make positive, though analogical, statements about God's essence. For example, we say "God is good; God is just; God is perfect," etc.

Renewal of liturgy? These are not words of Catholic. Give us back our Latin Mass

I agree with Bishop Alexander Sample who stated: "“While I certainly don't blame the Council (Vatican 2), much upheaval occurred in the church in its aftermath... there was an anti-authoritarian spirit.” He goes on to explain how he was a member of the “first generation of poor catechesis, which raised up another generation that is equally un-catechized,”. I couldn’t agree more with the Bishop.

I am so glad that Christianity didn't die in its infancy over arguments like this. I seriously think that if you are happy where you are, and you imitate Christ as best as you can, then you will find heaven on earth. I have a lot of faith in this Church, and have no complaints in being led and fed by the Bishop of Rome.

But you are denying what Tertullian saw, namely, that the economic missions are iconic representations of the immanent processions. When you deny this, you devolve into a form of modalism. Catholicism would certainly affirm that the Father is the deepest ground of deity, since the Son proceeds from the Father. But this doesn't preclude the fact that the Son and Father together spirate the Spirit.

Friend, take a look at the Council of Trent's teaching on baptism by desire. And then notice how Vatican II amplified and deepened that teaching. The relevant text is Lumen Gentium ch. 16.

Traditional Latin Mass!

With all respect wake up Father Barron

Guitar mass feels heretical.

2:09 ... "the renewal of the liturgy" ... a kind choice of words since I remember lots of people stopped going to Mass after the change; the destruction of the liturgy is more apt. A new emphasis on God's love for us seems to be the [only (?)] good fruit from V2. And, it seems to me, that was over emphasized to the point of error. V2 was a disaster that the Church is barely recovering from even now [2018].

So tell me..is hell empty..I mean never mind what scripture tells us..what the saints have taught..and what our blessed mother told us..oh great bishop barron..being greater than any i just mentioned..can we hold out " hope"..that hell is empty...gag..

I wiould like to see what Fr. Barron thinks about this rather large push to bring the tradition back in the church. What does Fr. Barron think about the SSPX message and the health of the church after VatII. Its clear something happened we cant ignore it. How can we get such public voices and great minds like Fr. Barron on board? Id like to hear from him!

Did Christ already come back? Because if he didn't then why are acting like the Church that Christ started, which he said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against you" is in heresy? I'm confused by traditionalist.

Not so! What Jesus says in John 15:26 is that he and the Father will together send the spirit: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father..." And if the economic missions iconically represent the immanent processions, then it is altogether correct (and Biblical) to say that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.

Very instructive! He “came of age” when all the church teachings were “up for grabs.” So, “What do we believe?” Etc. Now I get it, it finally has sunk in. For faithful Catholics like Barron, “belief” is not personal, not something one comes to after long arduous self seeking contemplation. But, rather, something that the Church tells you to believe. Even to the extent thaatt as a faithful Catholic you could “believe”one thing today, yet “believe” the exact opposite tomorrow simply because the Church has changed its official position. Now I see that faithful Catholics have a different definition of “belief” than do I. No Church, no organization, no officials are ever going to dictate what I “believe.” I will come to my own beliefs, thank you very much!

Not so! The son, precisely as begotten, does not share utterly in the ungenerated quality of the Father. Even as he spirates the Spirit with the Father, the Son is other than the Father.

Now it's the year 2023, almost 2024, and it's Interesting to see and read comments' developing respectively from 11 years ago through each year, to the present date, It also shows how differently people's reasoning has been influenced by the social media.

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-researched reply. I will check into these matters for myself, following the direction in which you have pointed me.

Not so! The Spirit would be subordinated if and only if he did not share utterly in the Godhead, but this is not the case. The act by which the Father and Son love one another is God, just as the act by which the Father others himself is God. In point of fact, it is the Eastern tradition, with its roots in Origen's subordinationism, that is in real danger of teaching that the Spirit is not fully divine.

This is obviously another incredibly insightful video by Fr. Barron. Is it more "academic" and theological than some of the others? Sure. But wouldn't a little more theology and a raising of the academic bar be good for everyone? I think so. Fr. Barron, keep up the great work!

Vatican 2 is basically like trying to fix something that’s not even broken and actually breaking it, ruining it in the process. Once I discovered the TLM, I just never desired to go back to the novus ordo, just not the same really.

Well, sure he is, since he gives rise to the Son, and without the Son, there is no Spirit. The problem with your reading is that it breaks the link between the economic and immanent Trinity. The former should always be seen as the iconic representation of the latter, and Jesus clearly says that he and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. That economic mission represents the immanent procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

You should talk about the practice of communion in the hand. I thought Thomas Aquinas himself said that only the hands of the CONSECRATED could touch the Eucharist. Now people are dropping the host and not caring for the particles left to be stepped upon and forgotten. The patton and the communion kneelers have become obsolete. The loss of respect for Christ in the real prescience has had devastating effects on the church. Father Barron, this needs to be talked about.

Ahh that old 'Spirit of Vatican II'.... everyone says it... few are awake enough to even ask "What Spirit is this" the spirit of revolt? destruction? division? et al....ad nauseum... seems so.

Come on, friend; this is absolute nonsense and utterly unfair to Thomas Aquinas. Ipsum esse must be in possession of any and all ontological perfection; therefore, God is personal, intelligent, free, etc. And your last comment is just beneath contempt. I thought we had a chance to engage in a serious theological conversation, but you've just resorted to the crudest kind of propaganda.

So your friend's theory stands against the entire Catholic tradition! The relevant term in Latin is "voto," which means, according to my dictionary, "by wish" or "by desire." Don't see the ambiguity.

Well, the operative word is "as!" To say that the Father and the Son together spirate the Spirit is by no means to confuse Father and Son in regard to origin.

I think this comment illustrates the problems that I have with the Catholic Church. I read Thomas Aquinas and what stays with me is his statement ‘Ipse Actus Essendi subsistens,’ that God is the act of being itself. While others, with much louder and more hardline voices, read Thomas Aquinas and somehow the one thing they take away from him is the fact that touching the Eucharist with your hands should be forbidden.

so the catechism agrees with augustine when it says:Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" 1260-1261, 1281, 1283

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

We all are the church. Please let Jesus guide us for the future as always. Don't forget to pray for all our bishops, they need our spiritual energy to avoid the evil.

We're kind of just picking nits now, aren't we? God bless you, friend.

"Faith and Reason"? I only see emotion. VII was a masonic robber council that created a new religion. The religion you see today where Muslims and Jews are praised and sent on their ways. Let's look one case. Vatican II taught that the Jews are not rejected by God. The problem is, the Catholic Church declared as a infallible Dogma, that all who hold a different opinion on the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Church rejects, they are rejected by God. Jews reject the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Any Mass that is approved by the Catholic Church, any Mass that is valid and licit is the one Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And when I am attending those, I am as much in the presence of the angels and saints and Our Holy Mother at Our Lord Jesus' Sacrifice as I ever was in any other valid or licit Mass

There was no doctrinal confusion... No council should have been called. I was born in 1960....never a good pope from rme

I'm 24 years old and I've already heard of Yves Congar. I was a theology major in college. I think David Tracy mentions him alot in one of his books.

I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that I think mysticism is anything less than an indispensable part of the life of the Church. One of the things that the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas points out is that it is the intellect that first grasps the goodness of a thing (like mysticism), and the will--assuming all is well--dutifully follows the higher faculty. Eastern Orthodox chant follows this pattern as well, subordinating the ison--the "heart"--to the melody--the "head".

So a Council that contained language that promoted secular humanism and secular utopianism wihich implicitlly denied original sin is indisputably traditional Barron?

Augustine cont: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’.I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart if, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism"

Catechism of the Council of Trent p 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, -- the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.” "The "negative list"? You'll have to forgive me, where is Trent's "the negative list"?

I apologize if I offended anyone by my comment that the video is a bit too academic for Fr. Barron's Word on Fire audience. What I meant was that many of his subscribers are smart people, but just aren't quite theologically developed enough to discuss theology at this level quite yet. I enjoyed the video, btw. Thank you for your service to the Church, Fr. Barron.

Is the word "alone" actually in the Creed? Is this not analogous to Martin Luther's insistence on "justification by faith alone" (except that the word "alone" in not in any known text of St. Paul)?

A great pope will condemn new mass, v2. Will consecrate Russia to Immaculate Heart of Mary.

"It is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." -St Alphonsus Liguori so there you have it, a saint who saw trent to be saying what i stated..

... Trent does not say anything about "Baptism of Desire." There is a half of a sentence that people attempt to construct "Baptism of Desire" from, but "Baptism of Desire" is never even mentioned. Maybe you could show us in Trent where "Baptism of Desire" was DEFINED, like the Immaculate Conception. It wasn't. You are only taking a half of a sentence and twisting it to your own liking.

I feel Vatican II affected the Nuns more than anything else.

The Vatican 2 documents really are wonderful. Dei Verbum and Lumen Genitum are two of my favourites.

The Bishop of Krakow : "Please to tell, how to uninstall upgrade?"

Father Barron is this part of a longer series that you produced? I would like to learn more about what you said here. Thank you.

What was discussed during the council sessions was not exactly what was in the constitutions. So although the overwhelming majority of bishops signed off on the constitutions, what was implemented by the post conciliar committees was unrecognizable to the Church fathers.

The split would be the right and left massonic formula, born with the concilium ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of Christ? I disagree. That doesn't mean non-Christians can't be saved, but that salvation can only be achieved through Christ. I think that saying there is no salvation outside the Church is a matter of deep meaning. What is 'the Church'? What is the role of the Church in salvation? Can salvation be attained through 'the Church' without being a member of 'the Church'? I think you're both using the same words with different meanings....

Catholicism is confusing now. So much conflict between modernists and traditionalists. Its difficult to know the truth now because of the spouting of heresies (i wont say a side since i honestly don’t know). Its a confusing for the church right now

The Church is the very Body of Christ, you cannot have one without the other.

friend, the Dogma you keep citing does not exclude the Baptism of Desire as i pointed out. "OR" in the trent document doesnt make sense as you try to frame it. Baptism was well defined by the time of Augustine; he certainly would not make an error in faith on one of the Sacraments, as you seem to imply. but my point is that I am not making up this argument.

Nor, I should add, did the Pope deny that the Nestorianism was also a heresy; he simply didn't want to be forced by the Emperor and his ecclesiastical colleagues into doing something contrary to his pastoral instinct. The fact that he eventually capitulated may speak of his weakness as a man, but really doesn't make him a heretic, nor should it distract us from the fact that the emperor and bishops of the Council obviously believed that the Pope's concurrence in their undertaking was vital.

That is the historic Roman Catholic Faith, and I just wish that, somehow, someway, within the lifetimes of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, Roman Catholics will come to discover the truth that you don't have to sacrifice your identity in order to forge unity with the Eastern Orthodox Christians and other Christians, nor do you have to in order to ignite a spirit of evangelism in the Church. In fact, any attempt that sacrifices Latin identity for the sake of unity leads to false unity.

Mary, the context of the cannon you are quoting is from the 'negative' list. it was written as a response to some people's beliefs at the time that people could be christians with or without baptism. No one said in this entire chain of conversation, that it is 'optional' to be baptised or not. that isnt even the question. the question is whether someone who desires baptism, but cant be baptised due to extreme circumstances (martydom is one example) can be saved. the same council (trent) says yes

I've studied the history of Vatican II to a degree and I don't think it has much to do with any of the theology described here. Vatican II is a reconstitution of the Church's political structure. It's aim was to undue the perceived damage done by the first Vatican council, which defined Papal infallibility, by "emphasizing the role of the bishops and particular Church's"...that is, to side step Papal intrusion and grant independence to national colleges. Everything else is mostly decorative.

I'm fairly aware of how many splinter groups feel about the church after vatican 2. the church has not done away with any doctrine from earlier than V2, so what is your basis for suggesting the catholic church 'no longer' teaches the catholic faith? i'd make the argument that since the catholic church is alive and organic, that what it teaches "is" the catholic faith.

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.

The meaning of Vatican II will be missed if philosophy is discarded as capable of elaborating and explaining theological doctrine.. That is precisely what happened with Vatican II. Instead, the likes of Congar, Rahner, Kung, De Lubac , and not the least Marie Dominique Chennu and their philosophy shaped and determined Vatican II. It should be noted that the above philosophers cum theologians came after Immanuel Kant who, with his a priori categories, exerted enormous influence on Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Derrida whose turn it was to influence Congar et al. In fact, so tremendous was the effect on Chennu that the book he published found its way to the Index of Forbidden Books. Clearly, St. Thomas Aquinas was cast aside for Kantian philosophy for even Benedict XVI acknowledged that St. Thomas Aquinas was best relegated during his time. Objectivity has been cast aside for a priori categories, which is the root cause of religious freedom, liberation theology, relativity of morals and ecumenism. If one has to look for a meaning of Vatican II, one must have to look for the the philosophies of the men who crafted Vatican II and its documents.

I was just demonstrating that councils and personal disputes are not alien to the text of the Gospels. The Acts of the Apostles, since it covers the history of the early church, contains richer data in this area. I wonder if you would write the same things had you been listening to someone talk about the dynamics of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15...

And the western approach does something different? I don't understand your point and what has any of this to do with Vatican II?

you did not address the full comment made by Benedict; i assume that is because you either did not read it, or you do not understand it. if you read it, you'll see that Benedict 16 is not embracing the 'protestant' notion of faith alone at all. if you want, i'll give you the link to the full quote.

He did prove you wrong. What matters is the Magisterial Pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Augustin also denied the Immaculate Conception. That is why Catholics trust in the keys given to St. Peter. Here is an infallible statement. Remember, Dogma admits of no exceptions. Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

> "The gospels are not filled with Jesus' instruction about how to navigate churches and their councils" "...If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector...Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[b] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" -Matthew 18:16-18

Would you please provide the source of this quotation? My research indicates that Pope Virgilius was an old and weak man who had been subjected to 6 months of harsh imprisonment before he finally capitulated, and that Emperor Justinian was his main nemesis in this whole sordid affair. Furthermore, the Pope's motivations could be construed as not entirely unworthy, for while he did not deny the heretical nature of monophysitism, he resented unnecessary dissent and division through provocation.

I think the reasons we Westerners tend to take a more scholastic approach is because we have the impression that divine revelation is necessary because our *capacity* to experience God has a definite limit. After all, why have scriptures or traditions at all if the "key", so to speak, is found in prayer and ascetic struggle?

Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

There is no doubt that every General Council since at least St. Thomas Aquinas has been marked by the very "old-fashioned" Roman Catholicism that you dismiss and the men you highlight fought against. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the text of Vatican II. It's an Ecumenical Council, and it's a blessing to the whole Catholic Church and the particular Churches besides the Roman Church especially.

Thank you fro you response and clarification! Forgive my assumption; many, many Clergy and laity in our day would say something similar to that particular quote and mean to question not merely the development of a pseudo-scholastic mentality, but to frown upon any and all Latin Catholic thought originating earlier than the mid-twentieth century. God bless!

I am not a Catholic. I was interested in liberation theology, I wanted to learn about Vatican 2 and all I got was Church politics.. It certainly doesn't make me want to be a Catholic..

Bishop! Love your work as always and my growth in the faith is always helped by ur ministry. Would love you to revisit this topic as u know we are getting inwardly attacked heavily by the radical traditionalists! I spend a lot of my time defending VII 🤦🏽‍♂️instead of focusing on the universal call to holiness etc

"They would have represented that somewhat, you know, old fashioned, very scholastic, defensive form of Catholicism" Father, I enjoy about 90% of what you teach. You are a powerful speaker, and a great Priest, and I have no doubt that God is using you powerfully. But to speak in such a dismissive, disrespectful way toward the character of some 900 years of Latin Catholic Sacred Tradition is just endemic in the Roman Catholic Church.

The exposition on the Concilium - Communio divide is enlightening, goes to show how guided a lot of the councilmen were not to proceed with a "Vatican III", and how Vat II itself has been the subject of wild and far-fetched misinterpretations. I can understand how some people wanna blame the council for the disciplinary and catechetical crisis of the Church. That's fine and valid. Of course, implementation of Vat II has always been evolving under each pope. But that's not the whole story, or even the main issue, especially considering the faithful worldwide, Catholics in Christian-minority regions, developing countries, those with diverse participation of the laity. All of Catholicism has been under attack by various ideologies and forces, even before the 1960s, left AND right, authoritarian AND liberal. It's not just the "council's fault." Ordinations and baptisms are still on the rise. Please brothers and sisters, we are the Church too, read the documents! Engage our bishops, priests, deacons, and nuns!

Right. The main issue for a "BODist" in the formulation is that it says "state of grace is NOT possible without baptism or the desire for it". If it did say it "IS POSSIBLE without baptism or desire for it" or - with less ambiguity - "IS POSSIBLE WITH baptism or desire for it" they would have a valid point, even though then Trent would have taught heresy of course. Which it didn't - thank God!

As always great info, thank you

the big "but" here friend is that a council in union with the Pope also taught exactly what St. Alphonsus said. in fact, i cited the council's very words. you cant just decide to pick and choose what words from a council are meaningful.

I'm what you would probably call a protestant, so excuse me if this is just something I wouldn't get, but what is mysterious about Latin? I mean, people don't usually speak it now, but didn't they speak it quite often before? Back then should they have used another slightly unfamiliar language? How does it show any nire devotion to Chris than in english? And how does it show reverence?

Bishop, speaking of Congar's journals, have you had a chance yet to read through Henri de Lubac's journals from the council, recently released from Ignatius Press? If so, was wondering what your thoughts on them were - perhaps even a topic for a future video?