POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Faith is not the simple intellectual approval by man of truths concerning God. It is an act in which I freely entrust myself to a God who is Father and who loves me... Having faith is above all about having a relationship with a God whose love is indestructible and who understands people’s problems. Christian faith entails giving up control and placing one’s life in God’s hands. It’s this liberating and reassuring certainly of faith that helps people live without fear, proclaiming and living out the Gospel message with courage.”
The Council of Trent condemned Martin Luther’s teachings, rejecting his ideas of salvation by faith alone (“sola fide”) and Scripture as the sole authority (“sola scriptura”). It affirmed the necessity of good works, upheld Church tradition, and maintained all seven sacraments, countering Luther’s reduction to two. The Council also confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation, opposing Luther’s views on the Eucharist. These actions aimed to refute Protestant reforms and reinforce Catholic doctrine.
IMHO, Lutheranism view of the Eucharist was to acknowledge the Real Presence, but certainly his followers did not accept his sentiment but tended to follow the teaching of Calvin.in making the presence depend on the will of the worshipper.
I loved this clip from Bishop Barron on Martin Luther. Martin Luther’s writings, certainly helped change the course of history, from strict authoritarian hierarchies… to a breaking up and redefining of the individual as having a more independent identity . A relationship with God and Jesus, that is personal and not so dependent on ‘middlemen’..be it church or secular entities. To me, that was the gift of Martin Luther. And …..read scripture(Bible). ♥️✝️
Ego. Which is what the Protestant reformation truly pushed. Ask any Protestant Christian who comes out of church how it was? They’ll say “it made me feel good. The music really resonated with me. The message hit me.” It’s never about the actual worship of God. It’s always about me me me. Smh they don’t want to do the hard work of actually living their life for God. The sacrifice. The surrender. Ruminating on Christ’s sacrifice, love, and grace. It’s what can I get out of it. Communion? Naw maybe twice a year when it specifically states taking the Eucharist is necessary for worship hence we Catholics take it sometimes DAILY and the only way you can is by being in a state of grace hence the sacrament of confession but by dumbing down the Christian faith, removing all these beautiful sacraments that God gave to us and making it seem like there’s a fast lane to God, you take away the seriousness and difficulty it truly is to live a life for God. Research all the early church fathers and you will see.
@ hey. Bc ego, self-importance, and personal gain puts yourself above God. Humility is where you find true peace, love, and strength in Him. The goal is to find that and surrender your problems to Him. Have you ever noticed whenever you try to do things YOUR way? I want this career, I want to be successful. Make this kind of money. Etc.? Many times it does not work out. Or it’s not enough. You keep wanting more. Bc Christ is not the center. You are. Find Humility. You will find peace.
@ yes that’s another discussion. The religion/church cannot be to blame for human error. Just bc you’re a priest doesn’t make you perfect or a saint. It’s like saying if I have cut on my finger I should cut my entire arm off. God can redeem all and does.
@ you seem like an intellectual. I suggest you do your own research. Find all the fault you see with Catholicism and try to realllyyyyyyy look into it from a non bias perspective. See where it takes you. 😏 this coming from a former southern Baptist. You will see why there’s so much division and discourse and the 30k denominations since the Protestant reformation. Zero authority = unlimited interpretations and chaos and false teachings.
Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who broke his priestly vows and married a nun. He made some valid points regarding needed reform, but rather than wait for the Catholic Church to issue them from within-which did happen-Luther called for protest, which ignited the Reformation. Luther had many physical ailments, and also multiple psychological problems, including OCD, scrupulosity and a fecal fetish…hardly a man one would put in charge of faith formation.
I can’t get over some of the things that Luther said. He said in response to wives being reluctant to have sex with their husband that the husband should have it off with the maid instead. That one sentence should be enough to cause any Lutheran to leave their church and to dissuade anyone from joining it.
Deuteronomy says that if a man rapes a girl who is "un-betrothed", he is required to marry her and payoff her father. Deuteronomy essentially says you can rape your way into having a wife. Is this filthy teaching enough to cause you to turn your back on Christianity?
If Luther was arguing or trying to clarify what God's position on man would be or would, ,,better,, be, in contrast to the impression given by the Catholic position on the matter, which he thought comes up short, I am not sure what he accomplished or did not accomplish. How far is it possible for us to be free, although sure, we seem to love the idea of tweaking the truth or notching things up to suit our satisfaction, like getting a greater emotional, intellectual, or aesthetic return on investment, or to arrange the above three factors in better proprortions to provide a spiritual experience from a sort of foreplay that works to overall, better effect. If God is any higher than us, he can probably see that these ,, temptations,, are floating about, and its a matter of how people learn, or do not learn, how to respond. At least, in theory, so that we would imagine that he had a point in making us in his image, because if so, it would make sense if we could at least see what that image might be, rather than remaining blind, or as Luther suspected, in danger of ,,losing the plot,,. Being only a man, that meant having to go up against God, plus getting charged with heresy and excommunicated by men, for doing so. So, the fear must have been that man, plural, i.e., the faithful, would be doomed if one man is fearless enough to stand up and challenge the sovereignty of what the Pope was calling the true word of God. The Pope held his feet to the fire but it seems he became a popular hero, none the less. Well, since the true ,,word of God,, is supposed to bear on the nature of man, but is also about the being of God and that God's will apparently is ,,Love,, ...then is it that the definition of love began to shift, radically, at that point in history, and that was the impetus that spurred the reformation, as if the church had fallen behind the times and needed to catch up, whether God had much ,,say,, or not🤔. Its strange, because now we have gotten so far out in front and ahead of God, we believe he has to catch up to us, essentially reshaped to fit a more progressive view of progress, if only we could adapt to its all-seeing, AI, algorithmic vantage point which promises that ,,we will have nothing and be happy,,. It sounds quite monastic or admirably spartan and at least the planet will be saved. God must be scratching his head, wondering at what point the other shoe will drop. Being free and free speech seems a very good thing but can be very dangerous depending on one's definition of freedom. There seems a big difference in peoples' discernment since some believe that freedom and the rights that safeguard our freedom are God given but they come with a price, in that they are an application of Biblical knowledge and wisdom and love for those values. That is a far cry from being hooked on ,,feeling free,, as if freedom is a feeling or an emotional state that one is entitled to if the purpose is to define ones identity as an asset to the state, for instance, or that would definately change the definition of the state, itself. Freedom can feel like a feeling, but freedom doesn't disappear because you may not be ,,feeling it,,. Freedom would be a nuisance to people, if that were the case, plus a nuisance to one another.
Trent doubled down on the new changes; e.g., The Lateran Councils which culminated in the sacrifice of the mass in transubstantiation, (IV Lateran Council, 1215.) To pretend that those things had always been in place would be to ignore 1,000 years of church history. None of the ancient liturgies had those sacrificial elements in them. The complete refusal of Luther to abandon the doctrine of the true presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper made him repugnant to the other reformers but the denial of the "new doctrine" as he called it; transubstantiation, or the disappearance of the elements of bread and wine, facilitating the un-bloody, mystic sacrifice at the moment of consecration made him repugnant to Rome. Luther had so much to say on that issue, calling the mass the "abomination of desolation" and the sacrificing of the Body and Blood of our Lord not only superfluous but blasphemous. It is an unpopular place to stand with no allies but Luther had a great one in the word of God, because the reformed view, that the Body and Blood are only a symbol can not be found scripturally but only by subjecting scripture to reason. The Roman view of a sacrifice was also not scriptural, but anti scriptural if we read Hebrews, and much like the reformed view was built on deductive reason, (and Aristotelian philosophy mixed with scholastic theology.) Luther had the temerity to keep to the word alone so we shouldn't wonder that Rome would deny the solas. For Bishop Barron to try to paint Trent and the Reformation as reconcilable "truths" in the ambiguous love fest of his imagination is a well intentioned olive branch, but a good look at the Lutheran Confessions and the edicts of Trent will quickly tell you; They are not reconcilable. They are night and day from each other. Either Luther or Rome has taught a damnable heresy. We will all find out soon enough and I would say, our love should extend to praying for each other, but not dismissing our differences as reconcilable.
Wrong. The reason why Muslims loath the Cross refusing even to accept that Jesus died on the cross, is because they denied the sacrificial implications. of his death. Plus their origins in Arian Christianity which rejected the divinity of Jesus, finally to the point of making him no more than a miracle making prophet more or less like Elijah.
Who is not against church unity - wouldn't it be great to have one united church. But I fail to follow Barrows arguments. For every description of Luther, a similar saint, mystic, "God lover" ....... can also be found within the R C Church, which is great of course. What needs to be discussed here, and what Barrow's touched on is church power ie The Council of Trent ....... The counter Reformation. Luther wanted a simpler God centred faith, not a man controlled one from Rome with the Pope at its centre. I am not anti-Rome, but it is important to see and recognise that the Counter Reformation is still very much alive. For all of Barrows respect for Luther, he dismisses him as a sort of lightweight, in the end of this video.
Barron’s romanticized views and humanist tones sound nice yet still do not echo the one gospel of Christ. “Who is not against us is for us.” Luther and protestantism is most assuredly against the church.
how can one love but hate his brother. he was anti semitic. those that hate their brother are not with love and far from my father. He called to set fire to their synagogues. and also said safe conduct to jews on highways to be aboloshed More seriously, Luther’s attacks have been seen as paving the way for Hitler. racism has no place in my fathers kingdom. of course he would want to believe saved by faith alone. he was racist. but only the father knows all.,
@@asdfasdf3989yes. I’m still not convinced though. I’m after the truth, there are parts of Protestantism that bother me and parts of Catholicism that perplex me. If I believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church believes I will become Catholic.
A Protestant response. Luther was in part a product of his age which no doubt figured into some of his anti-Semitic comments. However, I noticed that Bishop Barron, who thought it was important to highlight Luther’s foray into anti-Semitism, made no mention of the popes who were anti-semites from the Middle Ages onwards. There is a sizable list of Popes who were anti-semites. Here is information on a pope from the modern era who was anti-Semitic. Pope Pius IX writes to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Leopold II, to protest the Grand Duke’s decision to give levels of emancipation to the Jews in the Grand Duchy. Leopold II had succeeded his father as Grand Duke in June 1824 and continued many of the liberal policies that his father had implemented. These included education, judicial and administrative reforms. Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti would become Pope Pius IX in 1846 and was regarded by many at the outset of his papacy as being someone who would bring progress and reform to the Papal States and the papacy. The first few years of his papacy provided promise to the Jews of Italy as he introduced a series of reforms which included measures aimed at ameliorating Jewish life in Rome, such as ordering an end to mandatory attendance at conversionary sermons, allowing a number of Jewish families to reside outside the ghetto and even providing public subsidies as charity to large Jewish families. While the Pope was willing to introduce limited reforms in the political arena, his belief about full Jewish emancipation was that it was contrary to Christian dogma. Jews’ rights constantly tilted between acceptance and rejection; it depended upon who was making the decision and where. In early 1848, in the Piedmont area, full civil rights to the Jews were granted, while others such as the Rome area stipulated that profession of Catholicism was needed for full political rights. In April 1948, Pius IX sanctioned the tearing down of Rome’s ghetto walls in April 1848. A year later, after a confrontation with Austria, the Pope placed some blame on the Jews for the unrest for agitating against the Church and its rule, and he reversed many of his earlier reforms. On February 21, 1852, the Pope wrote to King Leopold II: “Your Highness is not unaware of the fact that the spirit of the Church, expressed in many dispositions and decrees … has always been to keep Catholics as much as possible from having any contact with the infidels … Otherwise, it will open the way to requests for other civil rights for the Jews and for other non-Catholics” (Kertzer, David, The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, New York: Vintage Books, 2001, p. 116). These events in the Italian areas highlighted the precarious nature of Jewish rights in Western Europe during a time of political progress and liberalization. These events pointed to why some Jews were considering a state of their own to prevent uncertainty and precariousness in their lives. In 1904, Pope Pius IX would refuse to offer recognition or assistance to Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement.
nobody reads long rambling tracts. Clearly you have never learnt of paragraphs. Basic stuff. Oh btw refusing to recognise Zionism is not anti semitic. Zionism is evil. Period. And the holy father appreciated that early. The Catholic church also saved 750,000 European Jews during WW2. Fact. Its on wikipedia if you care to check. How many did your lot save????
@ Too bad they don’t. They might learn something and not remain ignorant. If you chose to remain ignorant of the fact that there were popes who were anti-semites, that’s on you. Your attempt to spin away Pius IX’s anti-semitism is unfortunate but not surprising. Protestants saved Jews too. So what.
@paulsmallwood1484 I have no problem identifying anti semitic popes from history. And also the witchhating Jewhatimg King Jamee of your bible fame. They were all wrong. My whole point is that the Catholic Church is a bit more complex than your silly ranting suggests. And for WW2 numbers count. Protestants saved a mere handful. The Catholic Church saved 70% of all Jews saved. Actions speak louder than words. You talk a lot but you and yer kind have never done a thing when there might have been an even slight cost involved. The Church risked all in WW2. And all the top anti Hitler German plotters were Catholics. And in touch with the Pope. Not a coincidence.
The popes were hostile to Judaism. Modern anti-Semites are generally also hostile to Catholicism. Both sentiment are tragic, of course, But let us not forget that from the beginnings, the Leaders of the Jew were hostile to the followers of Christ. This continued up to the time of Constantine. The Christians had just suffered a savage persecution of the Christians, during which the Jews took the side of the Romans. against their rivals. The Jews were numerous enough in the Empire to comedy got the attention of Constantine as as possible spiritual anchor for his rule, but probably because ho other was Christian, finally chose to go to war as protect of the Christians. Once in power the Church began to persecution the Jews along with the Pagans. There after hostility between Jews and Christians continued down to modern times, with the Jews being on the side of the side of the Muslims during the hundreds of years when the Muslim were far stronger than the Christians
you’re right except I was being sarcastic to the man in the video, that is why I used a lower case c. His channel is Daily Dose of Christ ans all he shows is Barron, who is a heretic wolf in sheep clothing
We can talk theology all night - but I did not hear a word about the hard facts, why Luther split from Rome. The paying of money for the forgiveness of sins. Indulgences. The Papacy wanted lots of money to build their huge palace in Rome, St Peters. When Martin Luther heard that the Dominican Friar Johann Tetzel was visiting churches and promising forgiveness of sins for money Luther was outraged. One church Tetzel visited was in Jüterbog, 50Km from Wittenberg Germany where Luther nailed his 95 theses. I visited the church in Jüterbog, the huge chest the R C Church used to collect money for sins forgiven is still there! Go and visit. What ever about fancy theology, let's not forget the basic hard reason(s) for the Reformation. Luther also helped 12 nuns escape from a convent in Brehna, he married one of them - Katharina von Bora.
Most of the money going to Rome had nothing to do with Indulgence but for the Crusades. The German princes got to keep their money and NOT go on Crusade, Our history books manage to ignore the Threat that the Turks posed toward Europe. How many Europeans forget this threat because of their opposition to the Hapsburgs, who alone in the West stood opposition to the Turks.But even Charles V was so engrossed as Emperor with the Empire’s opposition to the Papacy that he let Lutheran mercenaries sack Rome.
Contrary to the belief of some, indulgences were/are never sold; they were offered in lieu of the very severe penances that were typically given during a certain time in history. The concept of charitable contributions as a means of off-setting such intense and long-term penances was introduced, and St. Peter’s Basilica was built and many great works of art were created with those monies. The practice of connecting indulgences with a financial transactions-not indulgences themselves-was outlawed at the Council of Trent, but the topic is still frequently raised in anti-Catholic arguments.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous modernist clap trap I've ever heard. I apologize to you for this Catholic Bishop who, like Luther, spends all too much of his time leading souls astray.
Fiddle faddle. Let's talk about how the RCC would have treated MT had they had their way. This lip service stinks. But then free speech, of which Jesus of Nazareth was the most original and heroic proponent, was always the bane of the RCC.
No, Jesus was not "the most original and heroic proponent" of free speech. That's anachronistic. Jesus and those who wrote about him and his movement, i.e., the New Testament writers, were very much proponents of keeping the tongue in its proper place. Your comment is ill-focused. You begin by saying, "Let's talk about how the RCC....." and then you jump to the topic of free speech, then Jesus' support of it and then how it was "always the bane of the RCC." So.....nothing else about "how the RCC would have treated MT (whoever that is) had they had their way."??? Focus, focus, focus.
One has the "right" to free speech. One does not have the "right" to unilaterally toss Sacred Tradition and rewrite Scripture moving books that subsequently were removed (the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical texts.)
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Faith is not the simple intellectual approval by man of truths concerning God. It is an act in which I freely entrust myself to a God who is Father and who loves me... Having faith is above all about having a relationship with a God whose love is indestructible and who understands people’s problems.
Christian faith entails giving up control and placing one’s life in God’s hands. It’s this liberating and reassuring certainly of faith that helps people live without fear, proclaiming and living out the Gospel message with courage.”
Luther was a heretic
You mean St. Martin of Wittenberg.
@@carlosjennings7707
No, he meant exactly what he said. Luther absolutely was a heretic. Stop being in error.
The Karl of his day..... an iconoclast who decided a name an entire religion...after himself
The Council of Trent condemned Martin Luther’s teachings, rejecting his ideas of salvation by faith alone (“sola fide”) and Scripture as the sole authority (“sola scriptura”). It affirmed the necessity of good works, upheld Church tradition, and maintained all seven sacraments, countering Luther’s reduction to two. The Council also confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation, opposing Luther’s views on the Eucharist. These actions aimed to refute Protestant reforms and reinforce Catholic doctrine.
That's okay,God condemned council of Trent. Acts 15:4,5. But he confirmed the council Vatican council 😊 Acts 19:6,2.
IMHO, Lutheranism view of the Eucharist was to acknowledge the Real Presence, but certainly his followers did not accept his sentiment but tended to follow the teaching of Calvin.in making the presence depend on the will of the worshipper.
More Bishop Barron brilliance.
I loved this clip from Bishop Barron on Martin Luther. Martin Luther’s writings, certainly helped change the course of history, from strict authoritarian hierarchies… to a breaking up and redefining of the individual as having a more independent identity . A relationship with God and Jesus, that is personal and not so dependent on ‘middlemen’..be it church or secular entities. To me, that was the gift of Martin Luther. And …..read scripture(Bible).
♥️✝️
Ego. Which is what the Protestant reformation truly pushed. Ask any Protestant Christian who comes out of church how it was? They’ll say “it made me feel good. The music really resonated with me. The message hit me.” It’s never about the actual worship of God. It’s always about me me me. Smh they don’t want to do the hard work of actually living their life for God. The sacrifice. The surrender. Ruminating on Christ’s sacrifice, love, and grace. It’s what can I get out of it. Communion? Naw maybe twice a year when it specifically states taking the Eucharist is necessary for worship hence we Catholics take it sometimes DAILY and the only way you can is by being in a state of grace hence the sacrament of confession but by dumbing down the Christian faith, removing all these beautiful sacraments that God gave to us and making it seem like there’s a fast lane to God, you take away the seriousness and difficulty it truly is to live a life for God. Research all the early church fathers and you will see.
@ hey. Bc ego, self-importance, and personal gain puts yourself above God. Humility is where you find true peace, love, and strength in Him. The goal is to find that and surrender your problems to Him. Have you ever noticed whenever you try to do things YOUR way? I want this career, I want to be successful. Make this kind of money. Etc.? Many times it does not work out. Or it’s not enough. You keep wanting more. Bc Christ is not the center. You are. Find Humility. You will find peace.
@ yes that’s another discussion. The religion/church cannot be to blame for human error. Just bc you’re a priest doesn’t make you perfect or a saint. It’s like saying if I have cut on my finger I should cut my entire arm off. God can redeem all and does.
@ you seem like an intellectual. I suggest you do your own research. Find all the fault you see with Catholicism and try to realllyyyyyyy look into it from a non bias perspective. See where it takes you. 😏 this coming from a former southern Baptist. You will see why there’s so much division and discourse and the 30k denominations since the Protestant reformation. Zero authority = unlimited interpretations and chaos and false teachings.
And it alllll goes back to ego.
Bishop Barron is a wonderful Catholic Bishop
Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who broke his priestly vows and married a nun. He made some valid points regarding needed reform, but rather than wait for the Catholic Church to issue them from within-which did happen-Luther called for protest, which ignited the Reformation. Luther had many physical ailments, and also multiple psychological problems, including OCD, scrupulosity and a fecal fetish…hardly a man one would put in charge of faith formation.
I can’t get over some of the things that Luther said. He said in response to wives being reluctant to have sex with their husband that the husband should have it off with the maid instead. That one sentence should be enough to cause any Lutheran to leave their church and to dissuade anyone from joining it.
Deuteronomy says that if a man rapes a girl who is "un-betrothed", he is required to marry her and payoff her father. Deuteronomy essentially says you can rape your way into having a wife. Is this filthy teaching enough to cause you to turn your back on Christianity?
Or join 😂
If Luther was arguing or trying to clarify what God's position on man would be or would, ,,better,, be, in contrast to the impression given by the Catholic position on the matter, which he thought comes up short, I am not sure what he accomplished or did not accomplish.
How far is it possible for us to be free, although sure, we seem to love the idea of tweaking the truth or notching things up to suit our satisfaction, like getting a greater emotional, intellectual, or aesthetic return on investment, or to arrange the above three factors in better proprortions to provide a spiritual experience from a sort of foreplay that works to overall, better effect.
If God is any higher than us, he can probably see that these ,, temptations,, are floating about, and its a matter of how people learn, or do not learn, how to respond.
At least, in theory, so that we would imagine that he had a point in making us in his image, because if so, it would make sense if we could at least see what that image might be, rather than remaining blind, or as Luther suspected, in danger of ,,losing the plot,,.
Being only a man, that meant having to go up against God, plus getting charged with heresy and excommunicated by men, for doing so.
So, the fear must have been that man, plural, i.e., the faithful, would be doomed if one man is fearless enough to stand up and challenge the sovereignty of what the Pope was calling the true word of God. The Pope held his feet to the fire but it seems he became a popular hero, none the less.
Well, since the true ,,word of God,, is supposed to bear on the nature of man, but is also about the being of God and that God's will apparently is ,,Love,, ...then is it that the definition of love began to shift, radically, at that point in history, and that was the impetus that spurred the reformation, as if the church had fallen behind the times and needed to catch up, whether God had much ,,say,, or not🤔.
Its strange, because now we have gotten so far out in front and ahead of God, we believe he has to catch up to us, essentially reshaped to fit a more progressive view of progress, if only we could adapt to its all-seeing, AI, algorithmic vantage point which promises that ,,we will have nothing and be happy,,.
It sounds quite monastic or admirably spartan and at least the planet will be saved.
God must be scratching his head, wondering at what point the other shoe will drop.
Being free and free speech seems a very good thing but can be very dangerous depending on one's definition of freedom.
There seems a big difference in peoples' discernment since some believe that freedom and the rights that safeguard our freedom are God given but they come with a price, in that they are an application of Biblical knowledge and wisdom and love for those values.
That is a far cry from being hooked on ,,feeling free,, as if freedom is a feeling or an emotional state that one is entitled to if the purpose is to define ones identity as an asset to the state, for instance, or that would definately change the definition of the state, itself.
Freedom can feel like a feeling, but freedom doesn't disappear because you may not be ,,feeling it,,.
Freedom would be a nuisance to people, if that were the case, plus a nuisance to one another.
Trent doubled down on the new changes; e.g., The Lateran Councils which culminated in the sacrifice of the mass in transubstantiation, (IV Lateran Council, 1215.) To pretend that those things had always been in place would be to ignore 1,000 years of church history. None of the ancient liturgies had those sacrificial elements in them. The complete refusal of Luther to abandon the doctrine of the true presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper made him repugnant to the other reformers but the denial of the "new doctrine" as he called it; transubstantiation, or the disappearance of the elements of bread and wine, facilitating the un-bloody, mystic sacrifice at the moment of consecration made him repugnant to Rome. Luther had so much to say on that issue, calling the mass the "abomination of desolation" and the sacrificing of the Body and Blood of our Lord not only superfluous but blasphemous. It is an unpopular place to stand with no allies but Luther had a great one in the word of God, because the reformed view, that the Body and Blood are only a symbol can not be found scripturally but only by subjecting scripture to reason. The Roman view of a sacrifice was also not scriptural, but anti scriptural if we read Hebrews, and much like the reformed view was built on deductive reason, (and Aristotelian philosophy mixed with scholastic theology.) Luther had the temerity to keep to the word alone so we shouldn't wonder that Rome would deny the solas. For Bishop Barron to try to paint Trent and the Reformation as reconcilable "truths" in the ambiguous love fest of his imagination is a well intentioned olive branch, but a good look at the Lutheran Confessions and the edicts of Trent will quickly tell you; They are not reconcilable. They are night and day from each other. Either Luther or Rome has taught a damnable heresy. We will all find out soon enough and I would say, our love should extend to praying for each other, but not dismissing our differences as reconcilable.
Wrong. The reason why Muslims loath the Cross refusing even to accept that Jesus died on the cross, is because they denied the sacrificial implications. of his death. Plus their origins in Arian Christianity which rejected the divinity of Jesus, finally to the point of making him no more than a miracle making prophet more or less like Elijah.
Luther was primarily DRUNKEN and VULGAR. Bishop Barron (like Bergoglio)tells you what you want to hear
Did u drink with him?
Who is not against church unity - wouldn't it be great to have one united church. But I fail to follow Barrows arguments. For every description of Luther, a similar saint, mystic, "God lover" ....... can also be found within the R C Church, which is great of course. What needs to be discussed here, and what Barrow's touched on is church power ie The Council of Trent ....... The counter Reformation. Luther wanted a simpler God centred faith, not a man controlled one from Rome with the Pope at its centre. I am not anti-Rome, but it is important to see and recognise that the Counter Reformation is still very much alive. For all of Barrows respect for Luther, he dismisses him as a sort of lightweight, in the end of this video.
Barron’s romanticized views and humanist tones sound nice yet still do not echo the one gospel of Christ. “Who is not against us is for us.” Luther and protestantism is most assuredly against the church.
Why focus on Luther and bishop Barron. More better examples than Luther. At least he did not see himself as a infallible authority over all people's.
I totally thought you were Catholic
Luther was a crazy crude individual with a non Biblical teaching....salvation, by faith, alone....
how can one love but hate his brother. he was anti semitic. those that hate their brother are not with love and far from my father. He called to set fire to their synagogues. and also said safe conduct to jews on highways to be aboloshed More seriously, Luther’s attacks have been seen as paving the way for Hitler. racism has no place in my fathers kingdom. of course he would want to believe saved by faith alone. he was racist. but only the father knows all.,
The problem with Luther is that he didn't take his criticisms of the church far enough. What was needed was a complete reformation, not a partial one.
Zzzz
He fought to reform what needed to be reformed. He saw no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Reform man, but not the faith.
You're not Catholic??
No, I love Catholics and Catholicism. I am still Evangelical.
@tjseaney_ >still
Are you interested in converting?
@@asdfasdf3989yes. I’m still not convinced though. I’m after the truth, there are parts of Protestantism that bother me and parts of Catholicism that perplex me. If I believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church believes I will become Catholic.
@@tjseaney_ What are some of the parts of Protestantism bother you and what are some of the parts of Catholicism that perplex you?
@@tjseaney_ Have you participated in a Catholic Mass?
A Protestant response. Luther was in part a product of his age which no doubt figured into some of his anti-Semitic comments. However, I noticed that Bishop Barron, who thought it was important to highlight Luther’s foray into anti-Semitism, made no mention of the popes who were anti-semites from the Middle Ages onwards. There is a sizable list of Popes who were anti-semites. Here is information on a pope from the modern era who was anti-Semitic. Pope Pius IX writes to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Leopold II, to protest the Grand Duke’s decision to give levels of emancipation to the Jews in the Grand Duchy. Leopold II had succeeded his father as Grand Duke in June 1824 and continued many of the liberal policies that his father had implemented. These included education, judicial and administrative reforms. Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti would become Pope Pius IX in 1846 and was regarded by many at the outset of his papacy as being someone who would bring progress and reform to the Papal States and the papacy. The first few years of his papacy provided promise to the Jews of Italy as he introduced a series of reforms which included measures aimed at ameliorating Jewish life in Rome, such as ordering an end to mandatory attendance at conversionary sermons, allowing a number of Jewish families to reside outside the ghetto and even providing public subsidies as charity to large Jewish families. While the Pope was willing to introduce limited reforms in the political arena, his belief about full Jewish emancipation was that it was contrary to Christian dogma. Jews’ rights constantly tilted between acceptance and rejection; it depended upon who was making the decision and where. In early 1848, in the Piedmont area, full civil rights to the Jews were granted, while others such as the Rome area stipulated that profession of Catholicism was needed for full political rights. In April 1948, Pius IX sanctioned the tearing down of Rome’s ghetto walls in April 1848. A year later, after a confrontation with Austria, the Pope placed some blame on the Jews for the unrest for agitating against the Church and its rule, and he reversed many of his earlier reforms. On February 21, 1852, the Pope wrote to King Leopold II: “Your Highness is not unaware of the fact that the spirit of the Church, expressed in many dispositions and decrees … has always been to keep Catholics as much as possible from having any contact with the infidels … Otherwise, it will open the way to requests for other civil rights for the Jews and for other non-Catholics” (Kertzer, David, The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, New York: Vintage Books, 2001, p. 116). These events in the Italian areas highlighted the precarious nature of Jewish rights in Western Europe during a time of political progress and liberalization. These events pointed to why some Jews were considering a state of their own to prevent uncertainty and precariousness in their lives. In 1904, Pope Pius IX would refuse to offer recognition or assistance to Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement.
nobody reads long rambling tracts. Clearly you have never learnt of paragraphs. Basic stuff.
Oh btw refusing to recognise Zionism is not anti semitic. Zionism is evil. Period. And the holy father appreciated that early.
The Catholic church also saved 750,000 European Jews during WW2. Fact. Its on wikipedia if you care to check. How many did your lot save????
@ Too bad they don’t. They might learn something and not remain ignorant. If you chose to remain ignorant of the fact that there were popes who were anti-semites, that’s on you. Your attempt to spin away Pius IX’s anti-semitism is unfortunate but not surprising. Protestants saved Jews too. So what.
@paulsmallwood1484 I have no problem identifying anti semitic popes from history. And also the witchhating Jewhatimg King Jamee of your bible fame. They were all wrong.
My whole point is that the Catholic Church is a bit more complex than your silly ranting suggests. And for WW2 numbers count.
Protestants saved a mere handful. The Catholic Church saved 70% of all Jews saved.
Actions speak louder than words. You talk a lot but you and yer kind have never done a thing when there might have been an even slight cost involved.
The Church risked all in WW2. And all the top anti Hitler German plotters were Catholics. And in touch with the Pope. Not a coincidence.
The popes were hostile to Judaism. Modern anti-Semites are generally also hostile to Catholicism. Both sentiment are tragic, of course, But let us not forget that from the beginnings, the Leaders of the Jew were hostile to the followers of Christ. This continued up to the time of Constantine. The Christians had just suffered a savage persecution of the Christians, during which the Jews took the side of the Romans. against their rivals. The Jews were numerous enough in the Empire to comedy got the attention of Constantine as as possible spiritual anchor for his rule, but probably because ho other was Christian, finally chose to go to war as protect of the Christians. Once in power the Church began to persecution the Jews along with the Pagans. There after hostility between Jews and Christians continued down to modern times, with the Jews being on the side of the side of the Muslims during the hundreds of years when the Muslim were far stronger than the Christians
🛐🕍💝🌹💞🙏🙏🙏😇🕯️🕊️✝️
Here’s my daily dose of my beloved Barron, my christ
Only Jesus is Christ
"That's heresy, bro."
you’re right except I was being sarcastic to the man in the video, that is why I used a lower case c.
His channel is Daily Dose of Christ ans all he shows is Barron, who is a heretic wolf in sheep clothing
We can talk theology all night - but I did not hear a word about the hard facts, why Luther split from Rome. The paying of money for the forgiveness of sins. Indulgences. The Papacy wanted lots of money to build their huge palace in Rome, St Peters. When Martin Luther heard that the Dominican Friar Johann Tetzel was visiting churches and promising forgiveness of sins for money Luther was outraged. One church Tetzel visited was in Jüterbog, 50Km from Wittenberg Germany where Luther nailed his 95 theses. I visited the church in Jüterbog, the huge chest the R C Church used to collect money for sins forgiven is still there! Go and visit. What ever about fancy theology, let's not forget the basic hard reason(s) for the Reformation. Luther also helped 12 nuns escape from a convent in Brehna, he married one of them - Katharina von Bora.
Most people already know that. Robert Barron always goes much deeper than what is already common knowledge.
Most of the money going to Rome had nothing to do with Indulgence but for the Crusades. The German princes got to keep their money and NOT go on Crusade, Our history books manage to ignore the Threat that the Turks posed toward Europe. How many Europeans forget this threat because of their opposition to the Hapsburgs, who alone in the West stood opposition to the Turks.But even Charles V was so engrossed as Emperor with the Empire’s opposition to the Papacy that he let Lutheran mercenaries sack Rome.
Contrary to the belief of some, indulgences were/are never sold; they were offered in lieu of the very severe penances that were typically given during a certain time in history. The concept of charitable contributions as a means of off-setting such intense and long-term penances was introduced, and St. Peter’s Basilica was built and many great works of art were created with those monies. The practice of connecting indulgences with a financial transactions-not indulgences themselves-was outlawed at the Council of Trent, but the topic is still frequently raised in anti-Catholic arguments.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous modernist clap trap I've ever heard. I apologize to you for this Catholic Bishop who, like Luther, spends all too much of his time leading souls astray.
Fiddle faddle. Let's talk about how the RCC would have treated MT had they had their way. This lip service stinks. But then free speech, of which Jesus of Nazareth was the most original and heroic proponent, was always the bane of the RCC.
MT?
No, Jesus was not "the most original and heroic proponent" of free speech. That's anachronistic. Jesus and those who wrote about him and his movement, i.e., the New Testament writers, were very much proponents of keeping the tongue in its proper place.
Your comment is ill-focused. You begin by saying, "Let's talk about how the RCC....." and then you jump to the topic of free speech, then Jesus' support of it and then how it was "always the bane of the RCC." So.....nothing else about "how the RCC would have treated MT (whoever that is) had they had their way."???
Focus, focus, focus.
Where did Jesus mention free speech?
One has the "right" to free speech. One does not have the "right" to unilaterally toss Sacred Tradition and rewrite Scripture moving books that subsequently were removed (the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical texts.)
Many of Rome’s traditions were not sacred, which is why so many of that era became Protestant.