The good thing about this page is that I see Orthodox, Protestant converts and a person who says he isn't Christian - all getting involved and rather than arguing against each other, seem to be all trying to pull together to dig deeper into the mysteries of God. The true meaning of "universal" I think. Credit to you Bishop Barron for your skill of being able to communicate to people in the way you do. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Bishop Barron : that was so helpful. I am not a Catholic but I have now watched quite a few of your videos, and I always enjoy them. You seem to have a gift in some ways similar to C.S.Lewis'.
Thank you, Bishop Barron, for explaining these things to me. It gives me a greater understanding of Jesus. I am trying to understand Him and what He did while amongst us. I read the Scriptures but don't fully comprehend the impact of all that took place when Our Lord walked the Earth and spoke to us. I always feel I am only understanding on a surface level. Your talks take me to a deeper level of understanding of Our Lord and the better we know Him the more we love Him. After listening to one of your talks I am just left contemplating Him in awe. I have no words. Just a silent awe of God.....all three persons. It also instills in me a great desire to be with this awesome God forever. And a desire to never sin so I do not lose that connection to Him!!!
I found your channel a few weeks ago from some homework, and I am really thankful for all of your videos on religion. It has really furthered my understanding of Catholicism and has really made me think more in depth about my religion. Thank you again!
Love this video Bishop Barron! Your UA-cam channel helped a lot with my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism. I would also like to add that God had to send Jesus to die on the cross because that is consistent of Him. Blood has always been required to atone for sin as we see in the Old Testament. If God simply said, "I forgive you." from heaven, than He would have shown Himself to have changed on what was required to atone for, as Anselm put it, "the weight of sin." God is not only unchanging, which He proves yet again through the Bloody sacrifice of Jesus, but in the Cross, He reveals to us a "development of doctrine" in the Cross. He has revealed more to us about His "justness" and His "Mercy". In the Cross we find no contradiction of Those two attributes of God. Rather a "heightening" of the two.
Welcome to our Catholic Church! 😊 I’m no expert but I believe the way you put it kind of flipped the logic the other way around. Every OT bloody sacrifice at the temple points to JC’s bloody sacrifice, not the other way around. You probably didn’t mean it that way anyway. Just thought the way you put it maybe misinterpreted 🙏🏼 God bless!
I've struggled with this issue for a long time, not understanding the nature of sin. However, upon rewatching this, I understand that God had to take the effects of sin (death) off of us and onto him. He, as man, not so much paid a price someone was charging but cleaned us of the filth we've put on ourselves, getting himself dirty in the process (but not a dirtiness of guilt, but of love). And the power of the holy spirit washed Jesus clean of death and brought him back to life. Thank you Bishop Barron for acting as a conduit for God to speak through you and teach the world. May God bless you!
Man, this video truly deepened my theological understanding of the utter depth to Christ's mission on Earth. His entrance is the most profound and cinematic event in all of existence. The ultimate climax of the story of humanity. Also, I wondering the titles/artists of the two paintings at 6:30 and 6:40? Beautiful works.
This is the single most cast-iron-pan-to-the-head shocking video I have seen you make, Bishop Barron! 🤯 Not because I disagree with Anselm, but because I was stunned to hear that so many people scoff at what is, in my church, considered the most "duh!" sort of obvious common sense. 🤨
Some of the critiques you call out in this video are really critiques of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, not necessarily Anselm's Satisfaction Theory. I think that, for engaging protestants especially, the distinction needs to be made. Thanks for everything you do!
I'm reading the book " The Crucifixion", and not only I'm fascinated , but I'm also trembling with the gravity of sin and my corporate responsibility .I just finished the chapter on "the gravity of sin". I'm catholic ( and living in Portugal) and I have been raised with an emphasis on the sacramental confession of personal venial sins. Excluding "mortal sin", what is the content of the sacrament of penance for an individual that recognizes venial sin?
This makes so much sense. When Jesus was crucified his followers only through this experience were able then to realize the seriousness of sin in themselves and the world.
He teach us to resist suffering and don't let You more than You can support and gives You the strong and fortress for stay to the end with him. So sick people ever is with him.😇😇😇
I like how you explain St. Anselm, but I think the view you express is far more in line with the Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement (which I share). The idea of the atonement being about healing humanity from sin and its fallenness rather than paying a price for guilt.
YES. St. Anselm is a holy man and there's a lot of merit to his work. However, I don't think we Catholics have to (exclusively) subscribe to his theories and are fine believing in non-heretic alternatives such as Christus Victor.
Isaiah 1, 10 Listen to the Word of the Lord, you leaders of the people of Sodom. Listen closely to the law of our God, O people of Gomorrah. 11 The multitude of your sacrifices, what is that to me, says the Lord? I am full. I do not desire holocausts of rams, nor the fat of fatlings, nor the blood of calves and of lambs and of he-goats. 12 When you approach before my sight, who is it that requires these things from your hands, so that you would walk in my courts? 13 You should no longer offer sacrifice vain. Incense is an abomination to me. The new moons and the Sabbaths and the other feast days, I will not receive. Your gatherings are iniquitous. 14 My soul hates your days of proclamation and your solemnities. They have become bothersome to me. I labor to endure them. 15 And so, when you extend your hands, I will avert my eyes from you. And when you multiply your prayers, I will not heed you. For your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash, become clean, take away the evil of your intentions from my eyes. Cease to act perversely. 17 Learn to do good. Seek judgment, support the oppressed, judge for the orphan, defend the widow.
@Bishop Robert Barron this was a good treatment. I think the reason people are resistant to Anselm's Satisfaction view and substitutionary theory of atonement generally is because substitutionary atonement has been viewed through it's more popularized form of Calvin's Penal Substitution which states that Christ did have to be sacrificed to satisfy God's wrath. Jonathan Edwards gives his famous treatment of this with his famous statement that we are "sinners in the hands of an angry God". Personally my views are closer to the Moral theory of the atonement and the Classical View of the Atonement(Christus Victor). If there was a form of substitutionary atonement I would pick though it would be Anselm's and especially Aquinas's treatment of it as well.
Love, brothers and sisters, love is almost always the ultimate answer to our questions. The Cross? Love. The Trinity? Love. Make cosmos? Love. Do not steal? Love (lack of love for neighbors) and so on. I constantly remind myself to see issues and questions in light of God's love for humanity and vice versa. The core of Christianity is God's love. Matt 22: 36-40. I pray to understand and practice God's love in spiritual and physical life, without love I'm just a noisy gong. God loves you.
Why so late then? Why, if this was such an important work, did God decide this ever-transforming spiritual sacrifice must take place about 100k years after homo sapiens came about? What about all the myriads of good homo sapiens who went before?
I'm 80 years old and have had several close calls with death. Once with a shark that bit me several times before I got away. Several times during the Vietnam war where my buddies were literally next to me and were KIA and I was only wounded. Thinking about these experiences I never thought about God, I was to busy trying to get out of the situation I was in. Sure one or two days later I prayed to God thanking him for sparing me and also praying for the soul of those who were killed. Bottom line had I been killed any of those times I was not in good standing with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Even now when I go to the store I see awesome looking girls dressed to send me to a place I don't want to go and it still takes a couple of seconds to get them out of my mind and ask Jesus for forgiveness for what, during that moment, I was thinking. Just wanted to get this out there and wondering if others had the same experiences.
There is a lot of holes in those arguments 1) If is not a “satisfaction” why do sinners are punished eternally on hell? why the punishment, it wouldn´t be more merciful just to disappear completely that human life? 2) About the immutability, is not Christ God? if so he can suffer hunger, rage, discontent, happiness, compassion… so he changes his state, so God changes his state. 3) Do Christ needed to suffer or only to die? is suffering is needed? why is that?
#1 We are punished because we can choose, through our own free will, to reject Jesus and live our own lives ruled by the sins that bind us. #2 Having emotions does not "Change" God's immutable state. Just like our emotions don't necessarily change us, but merely animate the human body. God is and always will be absolutely unchangeable, even though emotions may flow through him. #3 Jesus suffered for our sins, henceforth talking the punishment that belonged to us, giving us newness of life, though he himself was innocent.
@@soldierofchrist1117 that's not an answer to why jesus had to suffer. God commands us to forgive without a blood sacrifice so why can't "he" do the same? How is it moral to kill animals, children, babies in the bible? It's fine when God does it but if a human being was to do this like herod he would be called a monster. Sounds like do as I say rather than do as I do. Not inspiring or moral.
Interesting video. Although I honestly prefer the Christus Victor view of atonement. And nice use of the Christ Pantocrator icon of the Hagia Sophia :)
If the Offering of Christ is about healing human nature and not about satisfying God's justice - why is St. Anselm's theory called "satisfaction" not simply "healing"? Or did I get something wrong?
Thank you Jesús Christ by being my friend, my brother in law, my King, my loved Lord, the mostly Handsome from men, Thank you for save us by crox for your Kingdom for love us for ever and get out all temptation and renounce to the sin with you, our strong, our fortress, our divinity, our Love, our heart, our Life, our Breath, our last and eternal Home.😇😇😇
I'm one of those people who had trouble with Anselm. So now I'm going to pick up the book by Routledge to see the other side to it. But Your Eminence, I was wondering if you can also comment on the "infinite sin" that were mentioned by both Anselm and Aquinas. Does not this make sin equal to God? I always learned, as St. Athanasius taught, that sin moved us away from God, into non-existence, destroying our own existence. God incarnate fixes this creation through Himself. I find that a better understanding of soteriology than a juridical model.
Father, I love your videos. But in recent months, the sound quality has gone very poor. It does injustice to the good content. Please do talk to your editor.
Through suffering comes grace you don't need religion to understand that, it's a tottaly secular message. But our society did evolve out of religion and question of what we owe are neighbors, and what connects us, I feel that always has to be respected. No matter your religios belief our society and all arts and culture comes from our oneness and empathy.
I still do not get it fully. But that is okay. But I would mention the "ransom-theology" that is worked out beautifully by C.S.Lewis when Aslan gave his life to rescue one of the kids who betrayed him. Does Anselm even mention this?
An old friend basically once told me that he thought that Jesus survived the crucifixion. If I interpreted what he said correctly. No, that is truly a horrific, torturous death. It was intentionally designed so that nobody could survive that. Not just the cross but the flogging, the crown of thorns, humiliation, exhaustion, piercing of his side by the spear, the weight & exhaustion of carrying the cross to the execution site.
God the Son was born of the Father beyond the time. He received mission from the Father In this time, He incarnated, becoming fully human, remaining fully God; at that moment He was named Jesus. After living as a man a life of obedience to God, He voluntarily went to die for the human race, saying to the Father: "not as I want, but as You want". After His death and resurrection, He is glorified now not only as God, but also as a Man.
Does that make sense to you or do you merely accept it as an article of faith? I've been in and around Christianity for more than half a century, I've heard it explained countless times and it still don't make sense to me that killing the creator atones for the sin of the creatures. Or why a loving merciful creator requires the spilling of innocent blood in order to be loving and merciful. Do I use my son as a whipping boy if my neighbor ticks me off?
Thank you Father Barron, for all of these videos! You've massively contributed to my spiritual life and my faith as well. God bless you your Excellency! :)
We decided to make our own choices rather than depend on God to lead our lives (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the story of the fall). Naturally, this allowed sin to enter our lives since human beings were never great at making choices on their own. The consequence (not punishment) was death, because God is the source of all life and we were no longer able to be in the presence of God due to our sinful state. God can't just forgive us because it's not about forgiveness. God is absolute goodness and absolute perfection; you simply cannot have sin in the presence of God. Therefore after the fall, it has become literally impossible for us to go to God. Solution: He comes to us in our own nature, and brings us back to Him.
His followers could not gloss over their faults. They were confronted by a person whom they loved who was supposedly dying for their sins in the most horrific way. Jesus supreme sacrifice was necessary to wake people up to the awfulness of sin and to transform themselves into powers for goodness.
If God just forgive us what wo7ld that accomplish? People will just take it for granted. Jesus' mission was to take the sins of the world onto himself but not only that but to impart the Gospel.. he said no one comes to the father but by me, meaning we have to believe his words and his works ultimately through his crucifixion and that will bring about radical change into each individual rather than just saying God forgives you..
This made me realize that Christ is like the ultimate anode rod, the Sacrificial anode that attracts the corrosive elements within a water heater and dies to prolong the device. Christ entered humanity for one purpose: to die. He voluntarily took the punishment we deserve so that we could receive the reward He deserved. There's no great love.
People don't like the resurrection because it proves the seriousness of man's fallen nature. To quote Fulton Sheen: "As all men are touched by God’s love, so all are also touched by the desire for His intimacy. No one escapes this longing; we are all kings in exile, miserable without the Infinite. Those who reject the grace of God have a desire to avoid God, as those who accept it have a desire for God. The modern atheist does not disbelieve because of his intellect, but because of his will; it is not knowledge that makes him an atheist…The denial of God springs from a man’s desire not to have a God-from his wish that there were no Justice behind the universe, so that his injustices would fear not retribution; from his desire that there be no Law, so that he may not be judged by it; from his wish that there were no Absolute Goodness, that he might go on sinning with impunity. That is why the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion-he would be incapable of such a resentment if God were only a myth. His feeling toward God is the same as that which a wicked man has for one whom he has wronged: he wishes he were dead so that he could do nothing to avenge the wrong. The betrayer of friendship knows his friend exists, but he wished he did not; the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not."
Mister Magician The end game of Christianity is to be resurrected into an immortal body and live happily ever after in eternal paradise. Am I correct? It's a lovely image for sure and it's understandingly comforting to some people. But when some heretic dares mention that the evidence for this improbable scenario is a wee bit dodgy the Christian response is that he's just another blind sinner struggling to justify his wickedness. All due respect but this was tired old nonsense when Bishop Sheen used it and it hasn't improved with age.
I'm a little confused about the immutability of God. The Old Testament often seems to make reference to God being provoked to anger or moved to a state of anger. Exodus 22:22-24 "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. "If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. Numbers 11:1 Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. 2 Kings 21:6 He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him to anger.
I see what your getting at, and understand your confusion. I think it's crucial to understand that God is not literally "Being moved" by his emotions. Just like how our emotions don't necessarily move us, but animate our body's. And its also important to realize that God's emotions are perfect in every way, unlike how ours are fickle and imperfect, hence they do not have the same effect. He also does not preform them in a human fashion. Though they were perfected in Christ. The attributes of God are what make him enact in love on our behalf. Among those attributes are: Perfect Love, perfect Justice, perfect Patience, perfect Goodness, and perfect Being itself, in its most pure and unconditioned form. I highly encourage you to check out this website for further information: catholic.com I'm open for more discussion as well. :)
reknew.org/2016/10/classical-theology-gets-wrong/ I did not go looking for this, but merely stumbled upon it and remembered this video. To be honest I have never given the immutability of God much thought. I'm not sure how God can be immutable and be truly human in the person of Jesus Christ.
I did some research, and dug this up: www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/god-evil-and-metaphor If you have any more questions, feel free to let me know :)
I don't pretend to have the last word on this issue, but it seems to me God's immutability is grounded in His being and His love. God can never not be. In addition, as Fr. Barron sates, there is no potentiality in God that is going to move from potentiality to actuality. He is that He is ["I AM that I AM"; cf. Exodus 3: 14]. And finally, God's immutability is grounded in His being Love. In other words, God doesn't need anything from us: our sin doesn't take anything away from Him, and our praise or holiness doesn't add anything to Him. He is pure love, pure self sacrifice, pure going out of Himself to save the other, us. His being Himself, love, is immutable.
Fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. don't fear what people or the whole world think of you, we are all sinners. Jesus Christ is your only Lord and Judge, we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. save your soul and the soul of millions. come out of this Pagan Religious System, that will be destroyed by Jesus Christ himself on the day of his second coming. Again, ask Jesus Christ to give you the Holy Spirit to empower you with courage and conviction. FEAR NOT BROTHER!.
Crucifixion. I have to disagree again with the reverend. He represents the quest for justice as irrational seeking of vengeance. It is true that God wants to make it right and He does it out of love. God could have simply wiped out the sinners and created others. But He loves us and He wants to reconcile us. So, the reverend proposes that God had to make a work, a step, that forgiveness by itself is not able to fill. By doing that work of illustration of His love and compassion he moved men into a step forward toward repentance and acknowledgement of God's that they ignored in the first place. And this is what makes things right by changing their nature. To reword this. The bishop is saying that man was created with a defective element. Had God illustrated His act in the beginning, man would not have sinned. So, in other words, either God created man with the wrong nature, or He created him with a missing act that God had to accomplish earlier, but accomplished late, only after man sinned. That, in fact, gives an excuse for man's sin and makes it look as if God created man with a defective nature that needed further unaccomplished polishing work by God to be perfected. So, if one creature committed one sin, and then suddenly asked God for forgiveness, promising that it will never ever happen again, and the whole universe unanimously agrees that if that one sin should be forgiven that no one ever would sin again, do you think God should forgive? The answer would be found only in the question stating: why this sin happened in the first place? If God created man with a perfect nature, then why did he sin? if man sinned it is because he was given the choice to be perfect or defective, and unfortunately man made the choice of having a defective nature. Whoever sins once, there is no reason why he would not sin twice. And if two sins are committed, then why wouldn't the third happen as well? and so forth? if it is not God's deficiency then it should be man. and if man has freely decided to become defective by nature, then forgiveness would not solve the problem. But the bishop makes it appear as if God was missing an act of compassion that, if He performs on he cross, then man will change his nature. There is nothing that neither man can do nor that God, by His perfect nature, should be willing to do to change man's nature. Man is a free being that decides his own nature. God's act of creation was "good" and perfect from the beginning. If He allows one sin, it would be unfair not to allow the second, because what He is allowing is a defective nature that cannot change by itself. And if he allows sins for one person, it would be unfair not to allow it for the rest of the creatures in the whole universe. Thus, we fall into a defective chaotic universe, full of denatured creatures. So, what is the solution? There is only one solution. If God in His perfect wisdom announced from the very beginning that the souls that sins should die, then God would be imperfect in his laws, decision making capacities and creative power, by withdrawing His word. It is not an act of irrational vengeance to execute justice. It is a token of rational perfection in the work of creation. If God does not perform His promise of death he would contradict Himself and be exposed as an irrational scarecrow that was only bluffing and did not know what He was saying nor doing. He would also expose that His justice is not just enough and that it needs to be softened up. So, if the soul that sins must die then what shall happen to me poor sinner? The answer is that I must be recreated. How does this happen? If the same me is recreated then the same me will perform the same sins. Another me must then be recreated. The only person who can be me and perfect Himself at the same time is God Himself. God proposes that man with his imperfect nature should give away himself and let God take over the sinner's nature decision making capacity. Man must surrender, for if he resists this act of takeover cannot happen by force. Once man surrenders his nature to God’s nature, it is then that he becomes divinized. Because God now dwells in him. That does not mean that the man will not die. For the old man has sinned and must for sure die. But before he dies he surrenders all he has, his entity, His personality, his nature, his decision-making capacity, all to God to take over so that the latter and not man would make the decisions from now on. This is not in violation or a loss of individuality, for it is God that created our individuality and understands it better than us. That means that our individuality can be included in His and therefore it can persevere and continue as us while it is Him at the same time. On other words, God can be Himself and us at the same time. When man dies God continues our individuality taken over by His nature instead of ours. But our individuality can only be preserved if God becomes a man like us. He can only take our wages when inherits them from us. A man inherits his nature, his intelligences, his physical powers and psychological characteristics as well as his material resources from His parents by genetical as well as legal transfer. Christ must become a man so he could inherit our infirmities and make us inherit His divinity. By inheriting our infirmities, He had to go through our just punishment, that is the cross. By being blood related to Him we inherit His divinity and become divinized. That is why we could keep calling Him our Father and we are called His sons. Once God took over our nature, our inheritance, our bodies, and our will, He must then pay the price and die. But being God, He has conquered death and resurrected again and He does it in each one of us. It is very important that at this point that once the take-over happens, the divine heir decides not to continue with a defective luggage, the dirty laundry that he wears, but decides to wipe everything out and be recreate it again. Thus, a new man is born in Christ, with not defective luggage anymore. He is perfect with a perfected character, preserving his own individuality but wearing the will, character and personality of Christ in Him. That is why the incarnation was necessary and so was the cross. Not only for educational purpose, for the wicked have never and will never learn anything from it. It is only those that surrendered to this act of take over and amalgamation of divinity with humanity, of God’s presence in the individuality of man, that we can be saved. The act of executive justice is not an irrational act of vengeance, but a token of God’s perfect justice and man’s inexcusable sin. Salvation is a privilege, not a right. We do not deserve it. It has been granted for no other reason but inexplicable grace of God’s inexplicably loving nature.
I assure you no other man is good enough for god, to die so he could save his people, hey not saying it doesn't matter now, of course it does my friend, but he being the only begotten son of god meant that it was his duty to die and save his people, but if you still believe that his crucifixion is good enough now, you are mistaken, and fooled because you can try asking forgiveness in a number of ways to a Jesus you don't personally know and never receive anything, BELIEVE ME I'VE TRIED.
Si alguna acción humana está en contra del amor ínter-humano es el comercio, la obediencia a la ley de compra-venta está en contra del amor mismo; si el Cristo es Dios entonces es el Dios del Amor... por ende el comercio está en su contra pues el amor es gratuito, si alguien vende amor lo falsifica, si alguien compra amor lo hace falsificado; si el amor es gratuito lo es porque la verdad también lo es, la verdad no puede ni comprarse ni venderse. Si el Cristo está en contra del mercado los que estén a favor del mercado lo tendrán que ver como un criminal y comprarán su vida para vender su muerte; la resurrección del Cristo es la permanencia de la verdad en el amor que por definición es gratuito. Vivimos en la verdad cristiana que el mercantilismo no nos permite ver, nos impide tener conciencia de la gratuidad de todo lo que nos rodea, de la gratuidad del trabajo productivo que recibo de los demás y de la gratuidad de lo que (como instrumento) entrego a los otros... si el Cristo acepta entregar su vida lo hace para que tomemos conciencia de que las acciones mercantiles conducen hacia la muerte y no hacia cualquier muerte sino hacia la muerte del mismo Dios. Obtener ganancias propias implica perdidas ajenas ("la materia no se crea ni se destruye, sólo se transforma") El cúmulo de ganancias individuales crea las pérdidas que el planeta mismo está teniendo, etc. ¿serán lógicas estas reflexiones? ¿el voto de pobreza clerical es un voto de permanencia en la verdad cristiana?
Try coming to my protestant church where we believe in Jesus as God and fully human. It was necessary as the Bible declares it. And then John 3:17 so that the entire world might be saved. Welcome to Christianity through the Bible alone.
If, during the crucification and the torture leading up to it, Jesus was meant to take on the fullness of the world's sin, then why was he not raped? I am only interested in an answer to that question from Barron himself.
Come now - your "teaching" seems to be simply the use of language in an attempt to try and convince others of a similar persuasion to follow that "teaching". It's insideous and silly, and is no more valid than the "teaching" of such people as Immans, Gurus and Rabbis.
All he's doing is attempting to understand the meaning of the crucifixion. He's using language to express ideas sure, but he's not "simply" using language as if to say it's all rhetorical nonsense. What he's doing is theology (faith seeking understanding), the application of reason to doctrine in order to remove apparent contradictions. The only part of it that's apologetic in nature is his defense against the superficial charge that the crucifixion shows God's injustice in allowing an innocent man to suffer on behalf of the guilty.
+Ryan Slattery I get what you're saying, that he's trying to apply reason to doctrine in order to remove apparent contradictions, but do you really think he succeeds? I suggest that he lacks "reason" and the only people who would find his videos "reasonable" are those with similar viewpoints on the supernatural. That's why I mentioned Immans, Gurus and Rabbis. I suggest that those last 3 "teachers", who also hold supernatural points of view, will have a totally different slant on such events as the crucifixion. And I'm not quite sure how valid it is to apply reason to doctrine. I consider that to be an oxymoron.
Frank Dawkins In my view a theory that best makes sense of the widest amount of data is the theory that one should hold. This is true in science, history, and theology. I think that Fr Barron's view is a better theory about how Christians should understand how and why the crucifixion "works" than the view that it's basically a legal fiction where the Father is a cosmic child abuser. In my view, the view he's arguing against is the superficial one that isn't interested in using reason. The point you made on applying reason to doctrine being an oxymoron is important. Doctrine is a teaching accepted as true based on an authority and as such is nonrational (but not irrational). Applying reason to contents of that teaching is vital and possible. Think of a fantasy or sci-fi novel. Those stories aren't real, but we still understand the worlds by use of our reason and get annoyed if there are rational contradictions in the world-building. Why? Because we apply reason to everything. And I think it's right and proper to do that.
+Ryan Slattery Well Ryan as you say, it's YOUR view that Fr Barron 's take on the crucifixion is a better one than the view of a deity as a cosmic child abuser - it's obviously not everyone's. I can see as much reason in the latter (probably more actually) than the former. It's a shame that neither can really be substantiated beyond doubt - certainly not using a form of logic which dispenses with the supernatural as a prerequisite, and most certainly not with our current scientific knowledge (unless I've missed some recent irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary). But then again science simply investigates the universe and attempts to explain it, without recourse to the supernatural - that is left to the religions. Science in general (the widely accepted established ones such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, cosmology etc) as far as I'm aware don't concern themselves with the supernatural and I certain don't see why they should. But I digress - according to the Oxford English Dictionary (the book, not the internet version, although they do agree!), the definition of "doctrine" is..."a set of beliefs or principles held and taught by a religious, political or other group". You say that doctrine is..."accepted as true based on an authority...". You'll notice that your definition differs somewhat with the inclusion of the element of "truth". My big problem with people who present themselves as religious "teachers" such as Barron is that wherever they get their data from, however wide those data sources are, and however appealing their arguments may sound, they all base their conclusions on the underlying premise of a mystical presence. That is, by definition, intangible and philosophical. I suggest that all conclusions arrived at where a supernatural source is supposedly at work are all equally as valid and invalid as each other. One is of course entitled to one's own faith, but one person's set of beliefs and practices may well offend and indeed be classed as nonsense by someone of a different persuasion. This type of conflict has been prominent throughout history of course, and is obviously prominent currently. I do find it peculiar that people still hanker after mystical-based philosophies in the 21st century, particularly after all the mind-boggling discoveries of the last 100 years or so. Must be part of the human condition!
Fr B, as a long-time follower, I feel like your style is drifting towards the abstract and academic a bit too often. Maybe this just reflects my own spiritual.. position, but idk, I feel a lot less fed by your insights these days. They're nice stories from a long time ago, but they don't seem to help me much in the here and now, living with the precise realities and challenges of today. I feel like the fire has gone out of them. It seems so difficult to connect the freshness of the faith to the fragmentation/isolation/wounds and temptations of western life today. History lessons, ultimately, don't seem to cut it.
Lol. Theres certainly nothing academic about the Christian sky-daddy nonsense. Of course it can't cut it in western life today, because we don't believe in made up fairy tales anymore. We believe in Science. A better use of your time would be to go and learn from Richard Carrier, who has destroyed Christianity in every serious debate hes taken part in. When Jesus has been proven now to have been made up by greek scholars. Why still believe in this hilarious fictional nonsense? Atheism is on the rise massively. My whole country is virtually atheist in fact. About time you yanks joined us in the 21st century.
Nah, don't get me wrong. I'm not doubting. To me, Pope Benedict laid out all the problems of the western soul (for instance the problem of divorcing reason from faith and the emptiness of viewing yourself/feelings as the final arbitrator of truth) and offered solutions. He was really galvanizing; a life-raft to the aimless nihilism we're drowning in. Just seems like there's a bit of a leadership problem in Christianity atm. Seems like we need a comprehensive guide to how to literally live the Christian life today - free from the paralyzing division, disagreement and uncertainty that seems to rule. Need real authority, real answers.
Well friend, all I can tell you is this: if you think that Catholicism holds God to be a "sky-daddy," you have no idea what we mean by the term. And I'm fine with your saying that you believe in science, as long as you accept that that belief is not grounded in science!
The assertion that Christ was created by Greek scholars is perhaps the newest attempt at falsifying the New Testament that I've ever heard. And really the oddest. I wonder where you found this.
Half the time I don't know what to make of religion. I don't want more, I guess I know what I know, if I learn more cool. I'm always content to learn more don't always act on it but that's another story. But Jesus on the cross is real, who knows there very well might have been a guy named Jesus, all that bullshit about him being sinless I don't know, but I could buy he was sinless in reflection to his the tourted he paid on the cross. Anyway people died of tourted and still do, it a scence that does not need trifling with. Anyway look at places like Syria were people are consigned to horrific ways of life just because they were born into it. That very well could have been you or me if not the exampl shown on the cross, and a building of laws based on that. Think of our eight amendment cruel and unusual punishment, based on scene of the cross and countless scence before and after. We are lucky to have learned and built our civilization upon this. It could have been another way but it wasn't think of this and how we must expand our grace and our gaze to those who have not.
The good thing about this page is that I see Orthodox, Protestant converts and a person who says he isn't Christian - all getting involved and rather than arguing against each other, seem to be all trying to pull together to dig deeper into the mysteries of God.
The true meaning of "universal" I think.
Credit to you Bishop Barron for your skill of being able to communicate to people in the way you do. Keep up the good work.
Peter :\
I am Eastern Orthodox and this is indeed what we believe re the Crucifixion. Great fan of yours, Bishop Barron.
Hello and God Bless from a western Catholic to our eastern brothers and sisters.
Never thought of the Cross that way. thank you for sharing Father.
Thank you, Bishop Barron : that was so helpful. I am not a Catholic but I have now watched quite a few of your videos, and I always enjoy them. You seem to have a gift in some ways similar to C.S.Lewis'.
Thank you, Bishop Barron, for explaining these things to me. It gives me a greater understanding of Jesus. I am trying to understand Him and what He did while amongst us. I read the Scriptures but don't fully comprehend the impact of all that took place when Our Lord walked the Earth and spoke to us. I always feel I am only understanding on a surface level. Your talks take me to a deeper level of understanding of Our Lord and the better we know Him the more we love Him. After listening to one of your talks I am just left contemplating Him in awe. I have no words. Just a silent awe of God.....all three persons. It also instills in me a great desire to be with this awesome God forever. And a desire to never sin so I do not lose that connection to Him!!!
I found your channel a few weeks ago from some homework, and I am really thankful for all of your videos on religion. It has really furthered my understanding of Catholicism and has really made me think more in depth about my religion. Thank you again!
Thanks Bishop. So thankful for the awful work of His Divine Love!
Amazing! Thank you Bishop Baron!
Love this video Bishop Barron! Your UA-cam channel helped a lot with my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism. I would also like to add that God had to send Jesus to die on the cross because that is consistent of Him. Blood has always been required to atone for sin as we see in the Old Testament. If God simply said, "I forgive you." from heaven, than He would have shown Himself to have changed on what was required to atone for, as Anselm put it, "the weight of sin." God is not only unchanging, which He proves yet again through the Bloody sacrifice of Jesus, but in the Cross, He reveals to us a "development of doctrine" in the Cross. He has revealed more to us about His "justness" and His "Mercy". In the Cross we find no contradiction of Those two attributes of God. Rather a "heightening" of the two.
Does that sound Orthodox? Or am I mistaken somewhere? Please let me know.
Praise the Lord! Amen
Welcome to our Catholic Church! 😊 I’m no expert but I believe the way you put it kind of flipped the logic the other way around. Every OT bloody sacrifice at the temple points to JC’s bloody sacrifice, not the other way around. You probably didn’t mean it that way anyway. Just thought the way you put it maybe misinterpreted 🙏🏼 God bless!
Very informative, really enjoy your videos!
I've struggled with this issue for a long time, not understanding the nature of sin. However, upon rewatching this, I understand that God had to take the effects of sin (death) off of us and onto him. He, as man, not so much paid a price someone was charging but cleaned us of the filth we've put on ourselves, getting himself dirty in the process (but not a dirtiness of guilt, but of love). And the power of the holy spirit washed Jesus clean of death and brought him back to life. Thank you Bishop Barron for acting as a conduit for God to speak through you and teach the world. May God bless you!
Man, this video truly deepened my theological understanding of the utter depth to Christ's mission on Earth. His entrance is the most profound and cinematic event in all of existence. The ultimate climax of the story of humanity.
Also, I wondering the titles/artists of the two paintings at 6:30 and 6:40? Beautiful works.
I think the video really amps up at 4:30
Great Work Father.
This is the single most cast-iron-pan-to-the-head shocking video I have seen you make, Bishop Barron! 🤯 Not because I disagree with Anselm, but because I was stunned to hear that so many people scoff at what is, in my church, considered the most "duh!" sort of obvious common sense. 🤨
Very well said Bishop ! Thanks.
I forgot that I watched this already! I was thinking how these vids are homilies for those of us who are unable to hear the great Bishop in person
Hello Bishop, I am curious about "the crucifixion" but wonder if it is for lay people or more for religious scholars? thank you and God bless.
It's for the world
Some of the critiques you call out in this video are really critiques of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, not necessarily Anselm's Satisfaction Theory. I think that, for engaging protestants especially, the distinction needs to be made. Thanks for everything you do!
I'm reading the book " The Crucifixion", and not only I'm fascinated , but I'm also trembling with the gravity of sin and my corporate responsibility .I just finished the chapter on "the gravity of sin". I'm catholic ( and living in Portugal) and I have been raised with an emphasis on the sacramental confession of personal venial sins. Excluding "mortal sin", what is the content of the sacrament of penance for an individual that recognizes venial sin?
I never understood the Cross until I heard it interpreted by the Passover. Then it made sense.
This makes so much sense. When Jesus was crucified his followers only through this experience were able then to realize the seriousness of sin in themselves and the world.
An excellent explanation.
He teach us to resist suffering and don't let You more than You can support and gives You the strong and fortress for stay to the end with him. So sick people ever is with him.😇😇😇
I like how you explain St. Anselm, but I think the view you express is far more in line with the Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement (which I share). The idea of the atonement being about healing humanity from sin and its fallenness rather than paying a price for guilt.
YES. St. Anselm is a holy man and there's a lot of merit to his work. However, I don't think we Catholics have to (exclusively) subscribe to his theories and are fine believing in non-heretic alternatives such as Christus Victor.
Isaiah 1, 10 Listen to the Word of the Lord, you leaders of the people of Sodom. Listen closely to the law of our God, O people of Gomorrah.
11 The multitude of your sacrifices, what is that to me, says the Lord? I am full. I do not desire holocausts of rams, nor the fat of fatlings, nor the blood of calves and of lambs and of he-goats.
12 When you approach before my sight, who is it that requires these things from your hands, so that you would walk in my courts?
13 You should no longer offer sacrifice vain. Incense is an abomination to me. The new moons and the Sabbaths and the other feast days, I will not receive. Your gatherings are iniquitous.
14 My soul hates your days of proclamation and your solemnities. They have become bothersome to me. I labor to endure them.
15 And so, when you extend your hands, I will avert my eyes from you. And when you multiply your prayers, I will not heed you. For your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash, become clean, take away the evil of your intentions from my eyes. Cease to act perversely.
17 Learn to do good. Seek judgment, support the oppressed, judge for the orphan, defend the widow.
Well God needs nothing and the Crucifixion is to heal us. I think you are getting caught up on the semantics between "pay" and "heal."
@Bishop Robert Barron this was a good treatment. I think the reason people are resistant to Anselm's Satisfaction view and substitutionary theory of atonement generally is because substitutionary atonement has been viewed through it's more popularized form of Calvin's Penal Substitution which states that Christ did have to be sacrificed to satisfy God's wrath. Jonathan Edwards gives his famous treatment of this with his famous statement that we are "sinners in the hands of an angry God".
Personally my views are closer to the Moral theory of the atonement and the Classical View of the Atonement(Christus Victor). If there was a form of substitutionary atonement I would pick though it would be Anselm's and especially Aquinas's treatment of it as well.
Love, brothers and sisters, love is almost always the ultimate answer to our questions. The Cross? Love. The Trinity? Love. Make cosmos? Love. Do not steal? Love (lack of love for neighbors) and so on. I constantly remind myself to see issues and questions in light of God's love for humanity and vice versa. The core of Christianity is God's love. Matt 22: 36-40. I pray to understand and practice God's love in spiritual and physical life, without love I'm just a noisy gong. God loves you.
Why so late then? Why, if this was such an important work, did God decide this ever-transforming spiritual sacrifice must take place about 100k years after homo sapiens came about? What about all the myriads of good homo sapiens who went before?
I'm 80 years old and have had several close calls with death. Once with a shark that bit me several times before I got away. Several times during the Vietnam war where my buddies were literally next to me and were KIA and I was only wounded. Thinking about these experiences I never thought about God, I was to busy trying to get out of the situation I was in. Sure one or two days later I prayed to God thanking him for sparing me and also praying for the soul of those who were killed. Bottom line had I been killed any of those times I was not in good standing with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Even now when I go to the store I see awesome looking girls dressed to send me to a place I don't want to go and it still takes a couple of seconds to get them out of my mind and ask Jesus for forgiveness for what, during that moment, I was thinking. Just wanted to get this out there and wondering if others had the same experiences.
There is a lot of holes in those arguments
1) If is not a “satisfaction” why do sinners are punished eternally on hell? why the punishment, it wouldn´t be more merciful just to disappear completely that human life?
2) About the immutability, is not Christ God? if so he can suffer hunger, rage, discontent, happiness, compassion… so he changes his state, so God changes his state.
3) Do Christ needed to suffer or only to die? is suffering is needed? why is that?
#1
We are punished because we can choose, through our own free will, to reject Jesus and live our own lives ruled by the sins that bind us.
#2
Having emotions does not "Change" God's immutable state. Just like our emotions don't necessarily change us, but merely animate the human body. God is and always will be absolutely unchangeable, even though emotions may flow through him.
#3
Jesus suffered for our sins, henceforth talking the punishment that belonged to us, giving us newness of life, though he himself was innocent.
@@soldierofchrist1117 that's not an answer to why jesus had to suffer. God commands us to forgive without a blood sacrifice so why can't "he" do the same? How is it moral to kill animals, children, babies in the bible? It's fine when God does it but if a human being was to do this like herod he would be called a monster.
Sounds like do as I say rather than do as I do. Not inspiring or moral.
Bishop Barron, is your explanation, somehow, have a the Christus Victor model of Atonement
Interesting video. Although I honestly prefer the Christus Victor view of atonement. And nice use of the Christ Pantocrator icon of the Hagia Sophia :)
If the Offering of Christ is about healing human nature and not about satisfying God's justice - why is St. Anselm's theory called "satisfaction" not simply "healing"? Or did I get something wrong?
What is the painting of Christ that appears on the screen at 1:55? Anyone know? It never fails to affect me and want to find out more about it
If this is the one you're thinking of, it's a Rembrandt: www.wga.hu/html/r/rembrand/23portra/74portra.html
Thanks :)
Thank you Jesús Christ by being my friend, my brother in law, my King, my loved Lord, the mostly Handsome from men, Thank you for save us by crox for your Kingdom for love us for ever and get out all temptation and renounce to the sin with you, our strong, our fortress, our divinity, our Love, our heart, our Life, our Breath, our last and eternal Home.😇😇😇
I'm one of those people who had trouble with Anselm. So now I'm going to pick up the book by Routledge to see the other side to it.
But Your Eminence, I was wondering if you can also comment on the "infinite sin" that were mentioned by both Anselm and Aquinas. Does not this make sin equal to God? I always learned, as St. Athanasius taught, that sin moved us away from God, into non-existence, destroying our own existence. God incarnate fixes this creation through Himself. I find that a better understanding of soteriology than a juridical model.
Father, I love your videos. But in recent months, the sound quality has gone very poor. It does injustice to the good content. Please do talk to your editor.
Through suffering comes grace you don't need religion to understand that, it's a tottaly secular message. But our society did evolve out of religion and question of what we owe are neighbors, and what connects us, I feel that always has to be respected. No matter your religios belief our society and all arts and culture comes from our oneness and empathy.
Is the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church the ONLY religions that HONOR Our Virgin Mother Mama Mary?
picture of crucifixion at 6:30 ? artist ?
This is your best video
Awesome!
I still do not get it fully. But that is okay. But I would mention the "ransom-theology" that is worked out beautifully by C.S.Lewis when Aslan gave his life to rescue one of the kids who betrayed him. Does Anselm even mention this?
An old friend basically once told me that he thought that Jesus survived the crucifixion. If I interpreted what he said correctly.
No, that is truly a horrific, torturous death. It was intentionally designed so that nobody could survive that. Not just the cross but the flogging, the crown of thorns, humiliation, exhaustion, piercing of his side by the spear, the weight & exhaustion of carrying the cross to the execution site.
what does he mean by jesus accepting the mission,after he was born maybe but not before,to me he was before part of god or just god right?
God the Son was born of the Father beyond the time. He received mission from the Father In this time, He incarnated, becoming fully human, remaining fully God; at that moment He was named Jesus. After living as a man a life of obedience to God, He voluntarily went to die for the human race, saying to the Father: "not as I want, but as You want". After His death and resurrection, He is glorified now not only as God, but also as a Man.
If God couldn't atone for sin from the distance of heaven like the Bishop says, wouldn't that undermine His omnipotence?
+Nicholas But the problem of sin has not been fixed. The cross of Jesus hasn't even made a dent in the problem of sin.
But the Cross of Christ is not merely an atonement for sin; it is a joining of human nature with Divine nature.
+Rodney Burton How so? Wouldn't divine nature be without sin? If humans had divine nature wouldn't sin be abolished?
Tin Man He has made that possible
Does that make sense to you or do you merely accept it as an article of faith? I've been in and around Christianity for more than half a century, I've heard it explained countless times and it still don't make sense to me that killing the creator atones for the sin of the creatures. Or why a loving merciful creator requires the spilling of innocent blood in order to be loving and merciful. Do I use my son as a whipping boy if my neighbor ticks me off?
Thank you Father Barron, for all of these videos! You've massively contributed to my spiritual life and my faith as well. God bless you your Excellency! :)
Yes, we don't had option that stay to the last with Godself
We decided to make our own choices rather than depend on God to lead our lives (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the story of the fall). Naturally, this allowed sin to enter our lives since human beings were never great at making choices on their own. The consequence (not punishment) was death, because God is the source of all life and we were no longer able to be in the presence of God due to our sinful state. God can't just forgive us because it's not about forgiveness. God is absolute goodness and absolute perfection; you simply cannot have sin in the presence of God. Therefore after the fall, it has become literally impossible for us to go to God. Solution: He comes to us in our own nature, and brings us back to Him.
His followers could not gloss over their faults. They were confronted by a person whom they loved who was supposedly dying for their sins in the most horrific way. Jesus supreme sacrifice was necessary to wake people up to the awfulness of sin and to transform themselves into powers for goodness.
If God just forgive us what wo7ld that accomplish? People will just take it for granted. Jesus' mission was to take the sins of the world onto himself but not only that but to impart the Gospel.. he said no one comes to the father but by me, meaning we have to believe his words and his works ultimately through his crucifixion and that will bring about radical change into each individual rather than just saying God forgives you..
This made me realize that Christ is like the ultimate anode rod, the Sacrificial anode that attracts the corrosive elements within a water heater and dies to prolong the device.
Christ entered humanity for one purpose: to die.
He voluntarily took the punishment we deserve so that we could receive the reward He deserved.
There's no great love.
I as my self where was God before the earth was created
❤❤❤❤
Why hasn’t Fleming Rutledge become a Catholic? 🤔
Jesus Christ is a warrior that conquered death.
+Marco Rubio Jesus conquered death? Yet people still die. People also love to say that Jesus conquered sin yet sin is as popular as ever.
Tin Man He rose from the dead, that's how he conquered it.
+Marco Rubio So they say.
People don't like the resurrection because it proves the seriousness of man's fallen nature. To quote Fulton Sheen: "As all men are touched by God’s love, so all are also touched by the desire for His intimacy. No one escapes this longing; we are all kings in exile, miserable without the Infinite. Those who reject the grace of God have a desire to avoid God, as those who accept it have a desire for God. The modern atheist does not disbelieve because of his intellect, but because of his will; it is not knowledge that makes him an atheist…The denial of God springs from a man’s desire not to have a God-from his wish that there were no Justice behind the universe, so that his injustices would fear not retribution; from his desire that there be no Law, so that he may not be judged by it; from his wish that there were no Absolute Goodness, that he might go on sinning with impunity. That is why the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion-he would be incapable of such a resentment if God were only a myth. His feeling toward God is the same as that which a wicked man has for one whom he has wronged: he wishes he were dead so that he could do nothing to avenge the wrong. The betrayer of friendship knows his friend exists, but he wished he did not; the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not."
Mister Magician The end game of Christianity is to be resurrected into an immortal body and live happily ever after in eternal paradise. Am I correct? It's a lovely image for sure and it's understandingly comforting to some people. But when some heretic dares mention that the evidence for this improbable scenario is a wee bit dodgy the Christian response is that he's just another blind sinner struggling to justify his wickedness.
All due respect but this was tired old nonsense when Bishop Sheen used it and it hasn't improved with age.
I'm a little confused about the immutability of God. The Old Testament often seems to make reference to God being provoked to anger or moved to a state of anger.
Exodus 22:22-24
"You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. "If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.
Numbers 11:1
Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.
2 Kings 21:6
He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him to anger.
I see what your getting at, and understand your confusion. I think it's crucial to understand that God is not literally "Being moved" by his emotions.
Just like how our emotions don't necessarily move us, but animate our body's. And its also important to realize that God's emotions are perfect in every way, unlike how ours are fickle and imperfect, hence they do not have the same effect. He also does not preform them in a human fashion. Though they were perfected in Christ.
The attributes of God are what make him enact in love on our behalf. Among those attributes are: Perfect Love, perfect Justice, perfect Patience, perfect Goodness, and perfect Being itself, in its most pure and unconditioned form.
I highly encourage you to check out this website for further information:
catholic.com
I'm open for more discussion as well. :)
reknew.org/2016/10/classical-theology-gets-wrong/ I did not go looking for this, but merely stumbled upon it and remembered this video. To be honest I have never given the immutability of God much thought. I'm not sure how God can be immutable and be truly human in the person of Jesus Christ.
I did some research, and dug this up:
www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/god-evil-and-metaphor
If you have any more questions, feel free to let me know :)
I don't pretend to have the last word on this issue, but it seems to me God's immutability is grounded in His being and His love. God can never not be. In addition, as Fr. Barron sates, there is no potentiality in God that is going to move from potentiality to actuality. He is that He is ["I AM that I AM"; cf. Exodus 3: 14]. And finally, God's immutability is grounded in His being Love. In other words, God doesn't need anything from us: our sin doesn't take anything away from Him, and our praise or holiness doesn't add anything to Him. He is pure love, pure self sacrifice, pure going out of Himself to save the other, us. His being Himself, love, is immutable.
the people who don't know God will not be able to to heaven
How did you know about the dysfunctional, alcoholic father moving from state-to-state? Why did you compare the Holy Trinity in such a manner?
paid a price that was equal to the wages of sin ... justified the demands of the Father..
Fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. don't fear what people or the whole world think of you, we are all sinners. Jesus Christ is your only Lord and Judge, we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. save your soul and the soul of millions. come out of this Pagan Religious System, that will be destroyed by Jesus Christ himself on the day of his second coming. Again, ask Jesus Christ to give you the Holy Spirit to empower you with courage and conviction. FEAR NOT BROTHER!.
Crucifixion.
I have to disagree again with the reverend. He represents the quest for justice as irrational seeking of vengeance. It is true that God wants to make it right and He does it out of love. God could have simply wiped out the sinners and created others. But He loves us and He wants to reconcile us. So, the reverend proposes that God had to make a work, a step, that forgiveness by itself is not able to fill. By doing that work of illustration of His love and compassion he moved men into a step forward toward repentance and acknowledgement of God's that they ignored in the first place. And this is what makes things right by changing their nature. To reword this. The bishop is saying that man was created with a defective element. Had God illustrated His act in the beginning, man would not have sinned. So, in other words, either God created man with the wrong nature, or He created him with a missing act that God had to accomplish earlier, but accomplished late, only after man sinned. That, in fact, gives an excuse for man's sin and makes it look as if God created man with a defective nature that needed further unaccomplished polishing work by God to be perfected. So, if one creature committed one sin, and then suddenly asked God for forgiveness, promising that it will never ever happen again, and the whole universe unanimously agrees that if that one sin should be forgiven that no one ever would sin again, do you think God should forgive? The answer would be found only in the question stating: why this sin happened in the first place? If God created man with a perfect nature, then why did he sin? if man sinned it is because he was given the choice to be perfect or defective, and unfortunately man made the choice of having a defective nature. Whoever sins once, there is no reason why he would not sin twice. And if two sins are committed, then why wouldn't the third happen as well? and so forth? if it is not God's deficiency then it should be man. and if man has freely decided to become defective by nature, then forgiveness would not solve the problem. But the bishop makes it appear as if God was missing an act of compassion that, if He performs on he cross, then man will change his nature. There is nothing that neither man can do nor that God, by His perfect nature, should be willing to do to change man's nature. Man is a free being that decides his own nature. God's act of creation was "good" and perfect from the beginning. If He allows one sin, it would be unfair not to allow the second, because what He is allowing is a defective nature that cannot change by itself. And if he allows sins for one person, it would be unfair not to allow it for the rest of the creatures in the whole universe. Thus, we fall into a defective chaotic universe, full of denatured creatures. So, what is the solution? There is only one solution. If God in His perfect wisdom announced from the very beginning that the souls that sins should die, then God would be imperfect in his laws, decision making capacities and creative power, by withdrawing His word. It is not an act of irrational vengeance to execute justice. It is a token of rational perfection in the work of creation. If God does not perform His promise of death he would contradict Himself and be exposed as an irrational scarecrow that was only bluffing and did not know what He was saying nor doing. He would also expose that His justice is not just enough and that it needs to be softened up. So, if the soul that sins must die then what shall happen to me poor sinner? The answer is that I must be recreated. How does this happen? If the same me is recreated then the same me will perform the same sins. Another me must then be recreated. The only person who can be me and perfect Himself at the same time is God Himself. God proposes that man with his imperfect nature should give away himself and let God take over the sinner's nature decision making capacity. Man must surrender, for if he resists this act of takeover cannot happen by force. Once man surrenders his nature to God’s nature, it is then that he becomes divinized. Because God now dwells in him. That does not mean that the man will not die. For the old man has sinned and must for sure die. But before he dies he surrenders all he has, his entity, His personality, his nature, his decision-making capacity, all to God to take over so that the latter and not man would make the decisions from now on. This is not in violation or a loss of individuality, for it is God that created our individuality and understands it better than us. That means that our individuality can be included in His and therefore it can persevere and continue as us while it is Him at the same time. On other words, God can be Himself and us at the same time. When man dies God continues our individuality taken over by His nature instead of ours. But our individuality can only be preserved if God becomes a man like us. He can only take our wages when inherits them from us. A man inherits his nature, his intelligences, his physical powers and psychological characteristics as well as his material resources from His parents by genetical as well as legal transfer. Christ must become a man so he could inherit our infirmities and make us inherit His divinity. By inheriting our infirmities, He had to go through our just punishment, that is the cross. By being blood related to Him we inherit His divinity and become divinized. That is why we could keep calling Him our Father and we are called His sons.
Once God took over our nature, our inheritance, our bodies, and our will, He must then pay the price and die. But being God, He has conquered death and resurrected again and He does it in each one of us. It is very important that at this point that once the take-over happens, the divine heir decides not to continue with a defective luggage, the dirty laundry that he wears, but decides to wipe everything out and be recreate it again. Thus, a new man is born in Christ, with not defective luggage anymore. He is perfect with a perfected character, preserving his own individuality but wearing the will, character and personality of Christ in Him.
That is why the incarnation was necessary and so was the cross. Not only for educational purpose, for the wicked have never and will never learn anything from it. It is only those that surrendered to this act of take over and amalgamation of divinity with humanity, of God’s presence in the individuality of man, that we can be saved. The act of executive justice is not an irrational act of vengeance, but a token of God’s perfect justice and man’s inexcusable sin. Salvation is a privilege, not a right. We do not deserve it. It has been granted for no other reason but inexplicable grace of God’s inexplicably loving nature.
Parenial tradition?
I assure you no other man is good enough for god, to die so he could save his people, hey not saying it doesn't matter now, of course it does my friend, but he being the only begotten son of god meant that it was his duty to die and save his people, but if you still believe that his crucifixion is good enough now, you are mistaken, and fooled because you can try asking forgiveness in a number of ways to a Jesus you don't personally know and never receive anything, BELIEVE ME I'VE TRIED.
The
⁰⁰0
Si alguna acción humana está en contra del amor ínter-humano es el comercio, la obediencia a la ley de compra-venta está en contra del amor mismo; si el Cristo es Dios entonces es el Dios del Amor... por ende el comercio está en su contra pues el amor es gratuito, si alguien vende amor lo falsifica, si alguien compra amor lo hace falsificado; si el amor es gratuito lo es porque la verdad también lo es, la verdad no puede ni comprarse ni venderse. Si el Cristo está en contra del mercado los que estén a favor del mercado lo tendrán que ver como un criminal y comprarán su vida para vender su muerte; la resurrección del Cristo es la permanencia de la verdad en el amor que por definición es gratuito. Vivimos en la verdad cristiana que el mercantilismo no nos permite ver, nos impide tener conciencia de la gratuidad de todo lo que nos rodea, de la gratuidad del trabajo productivo que recibo de los demás y de la gratuidad de lo que (como instrumento) entrego a los otros... si el Cristo acepta entregar su vida lo hace para que tomemos conciencia de que las acciones mercantiles conducen hacia la muerte y no hacia cualquier muerte sino hacia la muerte del mismo Dios. Obtener ganancias propias implica perdidas ajenas ("la materia no se crea ni se destruye, sólo se transforma") El cúmulo de ganancias individuales crea las pérdidas que el planeta mismo está teniendo, etc. ¿serán lógicas estas reflexiones? ¿el voto de pobreza clerical es un voto de permanencia en la verdad cristiana?
Try coming to my protestant church where we believe in Jesus as God and fully human. It was necessary as the Bible declares it. And then John 3:17 so that the entire world might be saved. Welcome to Christianity through the Bible alone.
If, during the crucification and the torture leading up to it, Jesus was meant to take on the fullness of the world's sin, then why was he not raped? I am only interested in an answer to that question from Barron himself.
the cross is a curse
What a load of bollocks. It doesn't make any sense even within its own terms. The bible says the wages of sin is death, not crucifixion.
that and 2 bucks to get on the bus? These metaphors are hilarious.
Come now - your "teaching" seems to be simply the use of language in an attempt to try and convince others of a similar persuasion to follow that "teaching". It's insideous and silly, and is no more valid than the "teaching" of such people as Immans, Gurus and Rabbis.
surely, you are the man, and all wisdom resides with you!
All he's doing is attempting to understand the meaning of the crucifixion. He's using language to express ideas sure, but he's not "simply" using language as if to say it's all rhetorical nonsense. What he's doing is theology (faith seeking understanding), the application of reason to doctrine in order to remove apparent contradictions. The only part of it that's apologetic in nature is his defense against the superficial charge that the crucifixion shows God's injustice in allowing an innocent man to suffer on behalf of the guilty.
+Ryan Slattery I get what you're saying, that he's trying to apply reason to doctrine in order to remove apparent contradictions, but do you really think he succeeds? I suggest that he lacks "reason" and the only people who would find his videos "reasonable" are those with similar viewpoints on the supernatural. That's why I mentioned Immans, Gurus and Rabbis. I suggest that those last 3 "teachers", who also hold supernatural points of view, will have a totally different slant on such events as the crucifixion. And I'm not quite sure how valid it is to apply reason to doctrine. I consider that to be an oxymoron.
Frank Dawkins In my view a theory that best makes sense of the widest amount of data is the theory that one should hold. This is true in science, history, and theology. I think that Fr Barron's view is a better theory about how Christians should understand how and why the crucifixion "works" than the view that it's basically a legal fiction where the Father is a cosmic child abuser. In my view, the view he's arguing against is the superficial one that isn't interested in using reason.
The point you made on applying reason to doctrine being an oxymoron is important. Doctrine is a teaching accepted as true based on an authority and as such is nonrational (but not irrational). Applying reason to contents of that teaching is vital and possible.
Think of a fantasy or sci-fi novel. Those stories aren't real, but we still understand the worlds by use of our reason and get annoyed if there are rational contradictions in the world-building. Why? Because we apply reason to everything. And I think it's right and proper to do that.
+Ryan Slattery Well Ryan as you say, it's YOUR view that Fr Barron 's take on the crucifixion is a better one than the view of a deity as a cosmic child abuser - it's obviously not everyone's. I can see as much reason in the latter (probably more actually) than the former. It's a shame that neither can really be substantiated beyond doubt - certainly not using a form of logic which dispenses with the supernatural as a prerequisite, and most certainly not with our current scientific knowledge (unless I've missed some recent irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary). But then again science simply investigates the universe and attempts to explain it, without recourse to the supernatural - that is left to the religions.
Science in general (the widely accepted established ones such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, cosmology etc) as far as I'm aware don't concern themselves with the supernatural and I certain don't see why they should.
But I digress - according to the Oxford English Dictionary (the book, not the internet version, although they do agree!), the definition of "doctrine" is..."a set of beliefs or principles held and taught by a religious, political or other group". You say that doctrine is..."accepted as true based on an authority...". You'll notice that your definition differs somewhat with the inclusion of the element of "truth".
My big problem with people who present themselves as religious "teachers" such as Barron is that wherever they get their data from, however wide those data sources are, and however appealing their arguments may sound, they all base their conclusions on the underlying premise of a mystical presence. That is, by definition, intangible and philosophical. I suggest that all conclusions arrived at where a supernatural source is supposedly at work are all equally as valid and invalid as each other.
One is of course entitled to one's own faith, but one person's set of beliefs and practices may well offend and indeed be classed as nonsense by someone of a different persuasion. This type of conflict has been prominent throughout history of course, and is obviously prominent currently.
I do find it peculiar that people still hanker after mystical-based philosophies in the 21st century, particularly after all the mind-boggling discoveries of the last 100 years or so. Must be part of the human condition!
Fr B, as a long-time follower, I feel like your style is drifting towards the abstract and academic a bit too often.
Maybe this just reflects my own spiritual.. position, but idk, I feel a lot less fed by your insights these days. They're nice stories from a long time ago, but they don't seem to help me much in the here and now, living with the precise realities and challenges of today. I feel like the fire has gone out of them.
It seems so difficult to connect the freshness of the faith to the fragmentation/isolation/wounds and temptations of western life today. History lessons, ultimately, don't seem to cut it.
Lol. Theres certainly nothing academic about the Christian sky-daddy nonsense. Of course it can't cut it in western life today, because we don't believe in made up fairy tales anymore.
We believe in Science.
A better use of your time would be to go and learn from Richard Carrier, who has destroyed Christianity in every serious debate hes taken part in.
When Jesus has been proven now to have been made up by greek scholars. Why still believe in this hilarious fictional nonsense?
Atheism is on the rise massively. My whole country is virtually atheist in fact. About time you yanks joined us in the 21st century.
Nah, don't get me wrong. I'm not doubting. To me, Pope Benedict laid out all the problems of the western soul (for instance the problem of divorcing reason from faith and the emptiness of viewing yourself/feelings as the final arbitrator of truth) and offered solutions. He was really galvanizing; a life-raft to the aimless nihilism we're drowning in.
Just seems like there's a bit of a leadership problem in Christianity atm. Seems like we need a comprehensive guide to how to literally live the Christian life today - free from the paralyzing division, disagreement and uncertainty that seems to rule. Need real authority, real answers.
Well friend, all I can tell you is this: if you think that Catholicism holds God to be a "sky-daddy," you have no idea what we mean by the term. And I'm fine with your saying that you believe in science, as long as you accept that that belief is not grounded in science!
A modern error is to cut oneself off from history. The reasons are obvious, please don't ignore them.
The assertion that Christ was created by Greek scholars is perhaps the newest attempt at falsifying the New Testament that I've ever heard. And really the oddest. I wonder where you found this.
Half the time I don't know what to make of religion. I don't want more, I guess I know what I know, if I learn more cool. I'm always content to learn more don't always act on it but that's another story. But Jesus on the cross is real, who knows there very well might have been a guy named Jesus, all that bullshit about him being sinless I don't know, but I could buy he was sinless in reflection to his the tourted he paid on the cross. Anyway people died of tourted and still do, it a scence that does not need trifling with. Anyway look at places like Syria were people are consigned to horrific ways of life just because they were born into it. That very well could have been you or me if not the exampl shown on the cross, and a building of laws based on that. Think of our eight amendment cruel and unusual punishment, based on scene of the cross and countless scence before and after. We are lucky to have learned and built our civilization upon this. It could have been another way but it wasn't think of this and how we must expand our grace and our gaze to those who have not.