Saint Irenaeus was the first (non biblical) Saint that knocked on my door. Little did I know that letting him in would desolate my superficial understanding of Sacred Scripture. Needless to say, when I became a Catholic (over 3 years ago) I took this Saint to be my patron Saint. Irenaeus, pray for us.
Don't know much about Irenaeus but i do intend to read as much as i can now. Not 100% sure about a God who is Love, created everything - including each one of us - and yet doesn't "need" us? Am i mixing up needs and wants? Is this not the heart of Thérèse of Lisieux's philosophy, her "little way"? And she is also a doctor of the Church. We are little, unimportant - and yet we matter to God! He has counted every hair on our head, He CARES about us! Why would He not be hurt/ bothered if we reject Him, deliberately disobey what we know to be right and not care that He loves us? He wants us to be happy - He needs us to be happy (for our own sakes) if we turn our back on Him - and it doesn't affect Him one way or the other - why, then, did Christ portray Himself as the Good Shepherd who seeks out the Lost Sheep? If our behaviour doesn't affect / upset/ influence God, how/ why should we ever have a relationship with Him?
@@marypower1261 Hi Mary, I am unsure if you are just thinking aloud or if you actually want some interaction on your questions. Here are my thoughts. The proposition we are prying into is as follows: “God doesn’t need us.” Saint Irenaeus isn’t in the boat alone on this proposition. In fact, it has been declared at Ecumenical Councils as well and by all the Fathers. When we pry into the idea of God “needing” us we run across some hiccups. Here are some things that necessarily follows if we hold a proposition opposite from what Irenaeus said. 1.) God needs creation thus making creation necessary and not via His free will. 2.) The effect, creation, is moving the cause, God, instead of the other way around. 3.) God plus creation would be a different God then God without creation. For if creation changes God (happy to sad etc) then God is changeable. This would mean He is moveable through Passions. But “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” “I am the Lord I change not.” “Before Abraham was I AM.” 4.) God gives Existence to all things but creatures give nothing to God. God spreads the table for His creation and not vice versa. “I own all the cattle’s on the hill, what can you give to Me oh Jacob”? “Heaven and the earth is mine.” If we say that God “needs us” we are implying that there is something given from mankind to God that necessitates His creating of us. 5.) Love of concupiscence vs Love of benevolence. Love of concupiscence is a love for what I can get. Love of benevolence is a love that wills the Good of the other AS OTHER. Not for “my good” but for “your” good. God already has His Good in as much as He has His rest (which is the inner Trinitarian communion). He invites others to RECEIVE His Rest and His Goodness (I swore in my wrath they shall not enter MY REST). He doesn’t RECEIVE anything from us but graciously gives to all. But instead He tells us “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.” God told Saint Augustine “Eat Me and you will change into Me and not I into you.” Now, just because God doesn’t “need” us doesn’t mean we are not important to Him. On the contrary, all of His creatures are reflections of and proceed from His Inner Trinitarian Love. It is from God that all things created came from. And it is to God that all things return. He desires that all things return to Him who is the source and summit of their goodness and that it return for its own goodness and not His. Not that they return by giving Him something He needs, but rather they return by Him giving them something they need. Grace, Faith, Hope, Charity. “Participation in the Divine Nature.” Not for His Good do we do anything. But rather, for our Good He gives to us. Augustine said it like this “you crown your own gifts you placed in us.” We are raised up because He wills our good, being, Himself. Now, our behavior has no effect on God anymore then a rock thrown up to the sky can hit the clouds. The only person effected by the ill behavior is the one who threw the rock and it falls back upon their own head. God is Good. All the time. All the time, God is Good. “I am the Lord and I change not.” So then what does change? Man, who are on a spinning earth that at one time is in the light and the next is in the darkness. The light never stops shining and being the light, but it is the man who’s ways spin like the earth turning their back on the unchanging light. In the ways above, I hope this shines a little “light” on the mystery. Though, it’s always hard to pry into the intelligibility of what is unseen.
I really appreciate Bishop Barron. He’s been a wonderful influence on me along my spiritual journey. God bless him and everyone at Word on Fire ministries.
"The Glory of God is the human being made fully alive" - St. Iraneus, Against the Heresies. This has the quote that I've lived by since the start of the pandemic. It has kept me spiritually vigilant and faithful throughout 2020. I wouldn't have understood him fully without you, Bishop. Thank you so much, Iraneus and Bishop Barron!
@@loveandmercy9664 In all things we are putting our trust in Jesus our Master and Lord, aren't we? Let's keep doing it without giving in to fear of any kind. Thank you for your valuable presence☆ Stay blessed☆☆
Bishop Barron - THANK YOU for all your thought-provoking content. Your online presence kept me from despair throughout the pandemic from 2020 to the present- including the negative Catholic UA-cam influencers who constantly put down Pope Francis, disparage your ministry, while chasing division/drama & cashing in.
" It is not you that shapes God ,it is God that shapes you If you are the work of God ,await the hand of the Artist Who does all things in due season. Offer him your heart , soft and tractable and keep the form , in which the artist has fashioned you. Let your clay be moist,lest you grow hard and lose the imprint of his fingers." ( St. Irenaeus , Bishop of Lyon ) Love this Saint, whose " Against Heresies". Looking forward to this show , Bishop.
I finally discovered God and I am ravenously devouring all of this material. There is so much depth, so much to learn, so much to ponder, so much room to grow. God truly is infinite good. Nearly every night I want to cry with joy when I think about the unlimited depth of God. I am just scratching the surface. I feel like there will never be enough time in my life to satisfy my thirst for what God can offer...I guess that it is a good thing we have an afterlife :)
Bishop. I’m new to your channel let alone introduced to catholicism. The heritage of my family birthing Mormonism is huge and my parent who proclaims heresy is extremely difficult to move up as an individual. I just want to confirm I believe the Catholic Church is the true church. Not because of every building the church is, but because her people have been the church since the beginning and dawn of time. The heresy I fight and the fake conditions I am embedded to can only celebrate this saint as a doctor of the church. Thanks for the heroic efforts you provide and God bless. I also reject Mormonism as I have had a 17 year long battle of schisms.
For those looking for an entry into Irenaeus, I can highly recommend _The Scandal of the Incarnation_ from Ignatius Press. Selected and introduced by Hans Urs von Balthasar, these texts (largely pulled from Against Heresies) make it clear why Irenaeus deserves the title Doctor of the Church, and why he's so relevant for us all to read today. Coming in at just over 100 pages, it is the perfect guide into his genius.
"But there are certain doctores /teachers that are so insightful, penetrating, so rich that the whole church should sit up and listen.” Hmmmmmmm.... I wonder who else that can also apply to???? Anyone?? :-). We are certainly blessed to be witnessing a future doctor of the church! God Bless you, Bishop!
His complete writings are on the web. Also, St Ignatius, from the same time period. Also, Justin Martyr and Polycarp, who wrote on the way to the lions. Very enlightening to see how the very early Christians worshipped, and their beliefs.
From my experience THE COURSE IN MIRACLES, a present day New Age writing has a Gnostic tone. I have lost friends to the Course, folks who were local Catholic leaders. It saddens me greatly. Thank you for this discussion on Irenaeus.
When I was dabbling in the New Age stuff all I kept thinking is that Jesus, the real Jesus, was like the being that they wanted to be, but that they didn't want to acknowledge. Oh, that great deception of being spiritual, but not religious. Today, I will say that the reality is more like Satanic, but not honest about it. Then I eased back to Christianity through an ELCA Lutheran church. Or at least I thought. . . But, except for the appearance, it's still the same lie. Then I read the Bible... I very quickly went back to the Catholic Church and the confessional.
"Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen" My beautiful sweet Jesus, my eternal love, please bless Bishop Robert Barron and keep him safe.
I am an ex-Mormon. There is a lot of Gnosticism in Mormonism, and they tend to turn to Gnostic works to justify their beliefs and to "prove" that their teachings existed in early Christianity.
I am an ex mormon, and i don't know what you to what you are referring. I've literally never heard a Mormon leader quote a Gnostic text. Can you clarify?
Thank you for an excellent addition to your word on fire ministry! I am currently reading an introductory book on the founding church fathers and the two that really speak to me so far are St Polycarp and St Irenaeus. What perfect timing for this video to be released!
Congratulations to you Brandonr with the new cow . You chose the best. May your homesteading flourish and all your animals around your family. Thank you for sharing this very telling detail. A real and very good suprise.
Wonderful discussion. So happy to hear about Iranaeus. In the modern world this does make a difference. Philosophically the age old dualism of body and spirit is resolved from an organic approach that recognizes the significance of the body without having to postulate ύλη or some underlying substrate or "matter". AN Whitehead takes this view, reminding us that it is a construct, useful for science but not "real"! Trees are real, things are real without requiring a substrate. His Organic process approach also resolves the difficulties mentioned about 2 gods with the consideration of a primordial and consequent nature of God -- consequent not so much after or because of the fall but after the incarnation. Good to go back to reading Iranaeus with some of these concepts and difficulties for resolving the age old philosophical problems.
Very much enjoyed this interview... always learning more and more from the bishop's wisdom. And yes, as Saint John Paul II said... "we breathe from both side of the lungs", and also about the evolution of the Christian faith... they are insightful people that have visions... visions of cosmic importance that do and could do more to contribute, to the Glory of God. Thanks Brandon Vaught and Bishop Barron.
For Catholics, Irenaeus is still as much a living part of the Church as we are and the guy sitting next to us in the pew.. One body. One Lord. The Body of Christ. As one with us as the Lord Himself.
Teilhard de Chardin and Richard Rohr's cosmic Christ is deeply rooted in st. Irenaeus recapitulation theory. "Did the Divinity need to wait for Ethnic Orthodox, Roman Catholics, European protestants, and American evangelicals to appear before the divine love affair could begin? I cannot imagine" Fr. Richard Rohr
@33:00 Without the one who is, I am not. 'I am your life, the Lord says, Those who walk with me abide in me.' My certainty is in the Almighty, whose light shines the path out of every uncertainty.
Erasmus of Rotterdam published the first edition of St. Irenaeus's writings in 1526 at the beginning of the rise of the Protestant Reformation. He tried to point the Church to its sources.
your crass ignorance of Chyrch history, biased and blind fanaticism have made you a miserable being!!!! Saint Irenaeus is a Catholic Saint, the Church does have the writings from the very momennt he wrote those!!!!! how do you say it was done after 15 centuries???? who kept those manuscripts????idiot!!!the church does not swerve or change!!! 20 centuries and continues guided by the Holy Spirit!!!can you mention just a single Doctrinal error?????
'Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself'. - Philippians 3:21.
Thank you so much Bishop Barron for your very informative and interesting facts about St. Ireneus. He is my patron saint because I was born on June 28 also
Thank you Bishop, for explaination about St. Iraneus.Maybe one day would you explain the mysticism and gnosticism in catholicism. Or maybe list the book that explain is a simple way. Thank you Bishop.
At the risk of being labeled a heretic myself .... I'm listening to a lot of Rudolf Steiner these days (REALLY not easy to follow: the linguistic traps from his German heritage compounded by the post world war ONE timeline are huge and easy to fall into) and I actually hear in Bishop Barron's speech, here, a good reconciliation with many of Steiner's complaints.
I have always loved Iraneus. I was asking for a very long time why he isn't a doctor yet. As far as I remember, he was the one who coined the term "Orthodox". I agree that if Iraneus was not able to combat Gnosticism, we would not have been the same. Among the Church Fathers, he is one of my favourite go-to.
Orthodox is only an accessory name invented in the 4th century....Catholic has always been the Divine name of the Church that has supremacy and still retained even today.... ST. AUGUSTINE "The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion." -----ST. AUGUSTINE, CHAPTER 4, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANI.
I am not sure what you are trying to arrive at with the comment. The word "orthodox" means the "correct teaching". It was meant to combat gnosticism. What it means is if you are a heretic, you are not an orthodox. Obviously, there was a need for the term in the 4th century. People are being martyred for following Jesus. So, if you are risking yourself to be killed, you might as well die for the orthox faith. And even now, I am sure you would rather be martyred than profess anything but the orthodox faith.
@@nasugbubatangas the correct name of the church is CATHOLIC..... this is the SUPERIOR name of the Church.... ST. PACIAN " But under the Apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic. Be it thus. It shall have been so. Allow even that. When after the Apostles heresies had burst forth, and were striving under various names to tear piecemeal and divide the Dove and the Queen of God, did not the Apostolic people require a name of their own, whereby to mark the unity of the people that were uncorrupted, lest the error of some should rend limb by limb the undefiled virgin of God? Was it not seemly that the chief head should be distinguished by its own peculiar appellation? Suppose, this very day, I entered a populous city. When I had found Marcionites, Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Novatians, and others of the kind who call themselves Christians, by what name should I recognise the congregation of my own people, unless it were named Catholic?" ----ST. PACIAN OF BARCELONA, LETTER 1, 390 A.D.
@@pinoysarisari7374 Was there a claim in my post saying otherwise? The word "orthodox" refers to the teaching. And any Catholic should be claiming that they are following the orthodox faith. Because if the teaching you are following is not the orthodox faith, it only means one thing, it is not correct.
I'm discoverying this great Father of the Church, whose importance these days are tremendous! Mother Veronica Berzosa also speaks about him a lot! Thanks Bishop Barron!
The fact that Jesus spoke about that He must return to the Father in order for the Comforter to come to you demonstrates in a subsequent back door way that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. And all correct Christians ✝️ know that all sin and that nothing unclean enters heaven that along with Maccabees and the new testament points definitively towards Purgatory 🙄 Thank you very much
Thank you for this book review! I wonder how the believers in Gnosticism would interpret the bible passage 1 Cor. 15:45 far more often in comparison to how someone like St. Irenaeus would interpret it. Would they for example understand the name Adam in both the old testament and the new testament in 1 Cor 15:45 to be closer in meaning or farther apart in meaning only while understanding the meaning of that passage which reminds how different Jesus Christ's relationship with his father has always been like compared to what the first Adam's relationship to his creator was like after his fall when then he alongside his wife Eve too both were in need of salvation as we are reminded as being a fact in 1 Cor 15:45? I don't understand how anyone calling themselves Christian could believe that the Lord in the old testament was any less than during new testament in our living bible.
To you reading this, you are one prayer away from an amazing turnaround of all your problems, the storms in your life is only temporary but the blessings and power of God is everlasting. Amen
Teilhard de Chardin and Richard Rohr's cosmic Christ is deeply rooted in st. Irenaeus recapitulation theory. "Did the Divinity need to wait for ethnic Orthodox, Roman Catholics, European protestants, and American evangelicals to appear before the divine love affair could begin? I cannot imagine" Fr. Richard Rohr
@Dan Carmen The sticking point is still the 'filioque' clause in the Niceno-Constatinopolitan version of the creed. Orthodox theologians have no apparatus for 'the development of doctrine', claiming 'Rome changed the historic faith' with the addition of the 'filioque' clause [that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" (filioque)]. The Catholic Church has issued a statement that the Catholic and the Orthodox understandings are more similar than dissimilar and have showed an openness that the Catholic Church's position is virtually same as the Orthodox statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "THROUGH the Son". But full ecumenical relations regarding these developments has yet to be achieved. "J B"'s comment below that it has something to do with 'nouvelle theologie' is completely unfounded'. THAT issue is a purely CATHOLIC internecine squabble between two camps within Catholicism: traditional Thomists (historically represented by Father Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange) and the 'nouvelle theologie' theologians (Yves Congar, Marie Dominique Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Maurice Blondel, etc). That has NOTHING to do with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecumenical relations, which mostly center around the 'filioque' clause in the Nicene creed and the role of the papacy in the Church.
@@QuisutDeusmpc thanks for the nuanced reply :) Personally, even though I am a member of the Catholic Church, I prefer to say I am “Christian” rather than “Catholic” when speaking with non-Christians. It seems to me that emphasising the difference between the two is less important than our common identity as Christians in these moments. I don’t want to undermine the differences, they matter, but surely in these times what makes us one must be prioritised. I may be wrong , but I don’t think I’m “ a Catholic” Rather I am “ a Christian”…who belongs to the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church.
@@dancarmen9994 I see your point. The western, secular world has become bizarrely unmoored from anything that resembles its Judeo-Christian origins. As far as I am concerned observant Hebrews, faithful Catholics, eastern Orthodox and believing Protestants should be joining together and celebrating what they hold in common, rather than fighting over what still separates them. I do the same thing When I am talking to Protestants, particularly rabid fundamentalists or fervent evangelicals, I call myself a "Christian" in order to avoid a conversation which would usually devolve into defending the fact that Catholics don't "worship" Mary, Sacred Tradition doesn't contradict Sacred Scripture, Apostolic succession and the papacy are biblical, etc. Out of curiosity, do you attend a Latin rite or eastern rite Catholic Church?
How can the two be unified when we Orthodox are not unified ourselves. The Eastern Orthodox are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox and Moscow no longer recognizes Constantinople.
Another interesting episode, thank you Bishop Barron, and Brandon! Questioner: Nothing in current science proves there is no God (and there continues to be lots of evidence), so why not?
I was taught by (St.) Polycarp who was taught by (St.) John the Evangelist (a.k.a. John the Apostle, who in turn was created and taught by His Imperial Universal Majesty, Jah Jesus Christus! ......the rich tradition of apostolic succession). - St. Irenaeus.
I wonder what Bishop Barron would have to say about the current craze of non-duality (derived from the Upanishads, mostly), which had me in its spell for about fifteen years, and how it relates to Gnosticism. It seems that non-duality, of which the basic tenet is "the world doesn't exist -- it only appears, and never becomes real," is Gnosticism to a T. Non-duality is so destructive to the human spirit, as I can attest, because it says that "there is no person," there is only this consciousness here in which a fictional person "appears." It's a really easy out, if one is looking for an escape from the pain of being human. Unfortunately, joy and love get thrown out with the bathwater, too. Along with hope, beauty, striving, and all the other goodies that make human life so precious and rich. Thank you for the great episode!
I have been noticing a trend of these (Basic tenet concept of the world) does not exist increasing and I see multiplying both in popularity and kind. I happened unhappily upon solipsism during an episode of bad anxiety when I attempted to turn to philosophy to help me better reason my way out. Bad philosophy and panic mix about as well as one would expect. It is strange that I happened to read about it again on a whim and this and related topics have been showing up in Catholic media I have been watching. If I can contribute at all, I am happy that the Lord makes use of my suffering for good. Over time it has made me see that at least on a spiritual level this trend is not surprising in a culture and society that makes every effort to remove God and put human reason on the throne of truth. It is unsurprising that when put on a higher station than it is meant for that it starts failing and things falling apart under it. Does this make sense or am I grasping for causes?
@@LostArchivist "Bad philosophy and panic mix about as well as one would expect." LOL. Yes, I found that out the hard way, too. What you say makes sense. Beliefs that evolved for an Eastern mindset and culture don't translate well in the West, where we immediately turned them into a way to escape from reality, and a way to deny the existence of God.
@@annette4660 It is because the Lord wishes to tell us what it is we are leaning on our own understanding without Him. We are nothing, nothing exists to hold fast to, nothing secures us, all fades away and darkens. Without Him, we, become blind, question the foundation of all things, come apart, wither, disintegrate, fade away, and ultimately die. This is why these holes in logic are now appearing among those who think themselves learned and those decieved by their constructs. Atheism, solipsism, nondualism, nihlism, moral relativism. All is questioned for the academy has lost the Divine Logos, without Our Blessed Lord, espescially now after He has been known, only privations can come ultimately.. Pride blinds the eye of the soul. The ancients did not suffer this as we see now because they could not commit the great sin of knowing for certain the Truth and rejecting Him for their own machinations. They could know at best in vague shapes, espescially outside of Israel. Now, there is no such excuse, save for those caught up in the obscuring by others, and those we have failed to inform. The closer one is to the Light of Light and withdraws, the deeper penetrates the void within where He once shined. Thus as the Lord is escorted out of the lives of the nation, He withdraws His benefits as warning.
The Latin Church and many Protestant Churches have embraced Pelagianism. However, until the Jansenist, Rome affirmed the idea adopted by Calvinists, of irresistible grace and unconditional election. So, if Rome is infallible how does one explain this shift in doctrine?
excuse me , but Pelagianism is rejected by West....Rome follows the Council of Orange 529 A.D. , which settles the matter on PElegianism and Semi- Pelegianism and Rome REJECTS the Extreme Augustinian position of Calvin.... Rome affirms SEMI- Augustinian position, where Grace of God INITIATES , while Human Free- Will simply responds to the Initiation of God's grace....
I LOVE your explanation of this St. Irenaeus, Bishop But strangely, as I was listening to you and Brandon talking about the 30 plus Doctors of the church, the Holy Spirit within me interrupted and revealed.......They were judged just like you and all the least of your sisters and brothers. That they were esteemed so highly and placed them in the high Pedestal according to the category this world wanted to place them, but they were all judge like ALL human beings/like us.He continued.....what human praised and approved is not final , for what i praise and approve will be according to what's written in the Book of life. Personally, I like how you spoke about the Gnosticism in this generation and compare them to the way Irenaeus understood during his days. I guess, we could say that ....Unlike those who are the " work of God/ those who let god be their Artist "", who let God's artistic hands mold and shape them, those who practice and define gnosticism made themselves as their own " Artist" . They shaped, molded and traced themselves according to how they wanted themselves shaped, traced and molded and sadly, the result , very unpleasant in God's sight and can not be displayed in his heavenly temple. I wished i could help the caller's friend whose doubting God's existence.Listening to so many people who are Christians, even Catholics, who are still doubting God's presence ( esp. the Eucharist ) can be frustrating , because I wanted so much to tell EACH of them how REAL and ALIVE he really is. Thank you so much, Bishop and Mr.Vogt for another great discussion. I watched this right after coming home from work.A show worth coming home, for sure. Thankfully, Linda Worsham
At the start of this day i discovered Gnosticism. I asked to myself and to God: "Is this true? What if this is true?" At the end to this day i ask: Who would ever belive in this thing?
Irenaeus as doctor of the church is needed today. The reformed theologian Dr Peter Jones also warns us about gnosticism. *Peter Jones: A Gnostic Gospel* + *Unscrambling the new world view: Dr Peter Jones*.
I mean, Irenaeus is ok, but Ludwig Ott in his book on Catholicism says that this saint's theology of soteriology is problematic, I think he calls it "physicalist". Doctor of the church had previously meant that a person was reliable on everything for teaching. There are notes of error in this early church father, so I would not be in favour of him as a doctor. Just as an update: the distinction between a father and a doctor is important. The doctors aren't apostolic witnesses or early speculative theologians, doctors are fully immersed in the mature edifice of Christian doctrine and teach this faithfully. The speculation of Irenaeus and his early witness makes him a father and not a doctor.
I'm unclear on this. The Biblical Canon was only officially established in approximately 400 AD. So how can Iranaeus be considered 'biblical'? Was the canon already mostly decided upon in the 2nd century?
@@michellebryan8148 we should all try our best on earth to live the way what shall be accepted into heaven, try and always do right and when done wrong repent and always try to be better
@@Deto4508 You sure have wisdom, UNLIKE what most PROTESTants Pastors say....how we're born sinners, how we're just like filthy rags and all the EXCUSES they could think of just to justify their sinfulness, that is far from the RUTH!
@@Deto4508 IF a Pope, the President or ANY Famous / Elite person stays in our house for a week, we would have that BORN AGAIN character, for sure, which shows , We can have a NEW Creation self and it's very doable! We can change into a BETTER person of ourselves now and have that better NEW creation self.
@@Deto4508 If the Pope or President Biden stays in our house for 1 week, First, we would be telling our entire family members, from kids to our spouses to be on our BEST BEHAVIOR !! which means, we become a NEW person/a nEW creation/ ahve that NEW self and leaving behind our OLD self/Become CHRIST-like in the way we live, speak, act and DO things in our live for a WEEK !!!. We become NEW because we do not do the following things that our OLD self used-to do.......... No more fighting! No more arguing! No more eating junk food! No more drinking No more reading junk magazine and replaced it with the Bible No more watching junk on TV and would probably replaced it with Godly shows. No more going or staying out late! No more cussing /saying mean things to each other In other words....we become a REAL BORN AGAIN and we're doing all these changes for a NORMAL/ORDINARY PERSON!!!( for a Pope , President, Governor etc !) Imagine doing it for JESUS! That's what REAL FaITH can do , but sadly, MILLIONS claim they believe but in thier lips/mouths only and not from the ehart, otherwise, they would all be BORN aGAIN, the REAL way and not just in Words! is it doable to become a real BORN AGAIN? Yes, it is very doable. I just laid out here how easy it is!! It is the desire and LOVE for jesus that cna make us CLEAN RAGS and not filthy ones.
Absolutely if you look at society today. Many believe they are spiritual but they say don't practice material religion. They also think they are a spirit trapped in a body, not a body-soul composite. The sexual revolution and the rise of Gender Fluid Ideology are products of Gnosticism, compounded with secularism's endarkening aspects and distortions of the Enlightenment. And on a final note: the desire for seeking of hidden knowledge, the Red Pilled, and the like are today's seeking of the Gnosis (forgive me for misspelling, especially if I did so) which the Gnostics prided themselves on. On a personal note: I can see my borderline to Gnosticism as I look forward to expanding my knowledge. But I really must desire God, wisdom, and be humble and contrite. Those two things and three Persons are a must to avoid heresy and pride before a mighty fall.
In people who still claim to be Catholic, yes. There are a lot of Catholics and some very popular Catholic teachers who ascribe to ideas that come from Gnosticism even if they are not completely gnostic in their beliefs. Richard Rohr is an example of this. This is a problem because they are teaching such things in the name of the Catholic Church. Also it’s something that the Catholic Church hierarchy can and should address. Meanwhile Lutherans/Protestants etc don’t accept or use the title of Catholic and have already split with Catholic hierarchy. No Catholic reads a book by John McArthur or James White and thinks they are reading a book about or by Catholics. Like I said they are long separated from the Catholic hierarchy and beyond their reach. However the Catholics embracing Gnosticism light both carry the name Catholic thus deceiving others and could be appropriately rebuked by the hierarchy.
@Prasanth Thomas Lutheranism as defined by The Church, that is Protestantism, no. I use the term Lutheranism to properly name the heresy. Gnosticism is problematic, no doubt, but there are more Lutherans than gnostics.
@Prasanth Thomas they are all Lutherans because they all understand the relationship between The Catholic Church and the individual in the same way. They deny the legitimacy of the Papacy and assert an individualistic and sola scriptura basis for salvation. Because they have no authority they create a legion of sects with minute details, that’s true, but they are all of the heresy of Lutheranism.
If st ireneaus were alive today , he wouldn’t believe how the faith has been trashed, sanctuaries sacked, priests corrupted, and even bishops filled with scandal. God help us all.
I completely agree with you.Judases have multiplied in a very rapid rate and it's influencing and affecting in a spiritually negative manner.Let's keep in mind all the remaining good....AndrewS, PeterS, JohnSJameS and the rest of the " good disciples" of Jesus church.
Dear Bishop, do a lecture on Hamlet's soliquies ,please , in which the King must be a warrior/ strongman to keep peace while the philosophical prince bungles woefully in a ghastly, stale world of his own imagining. The Psalms praise the glorious world God made. But Which world? Jehovah destroyed it in the flood. Over and over he rains destruction on a fallen people. Moses leads the Hebrew slaves to the brink of the land of milk and honey, and Joshua, the executioner, clears the place of -every living thing! and every structure. Jehovia comes off as those Indian triune gods, with one aspect as destroyer, one, creator, one who maintains. The Trinity in Catholicism includes resurrection, inclusion, a wedding, through Christ - with the Church.
Teilhard de Chardin and Richard Rohr's cosmic Christ is deeply rooted in st. Irenaeus recapitulation theory. "Did the Divinity need to wait for ethnic Orthodox, Roman Catholics, European protestants, and American evangelicals to appear before the divine love affair could begin? I cannot imagine" Fr. Richard Rohr
New to Christianity, so forgive me if this question is dumb, but I was wondering why doing God’s will is the highest good if he doesn’t need us. I have always felt that by doing his will I am helping win some great cosmic battle between good and evil. Perhaps this was a childish fantasy 😆
Jesus' words come to mind: "I have said these things so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete." God created man such that God could dwell in man, and man could experience God's life and joy. This act of creation was purely gratuitous. God didn't have to do it. Nor does he need anything from us. The gift of his life is a gift he gives us from pure grace. He invites us to participate out of the infinite goodness of His own impeccable heart. Yet we have to accept, consent, say Yes. God created us with free will. He does not force his light upon us. As Irenaeus points out, it is by knowing both good and evil that we come to taste the sweetness of obedience to God. Then we know to reject disobedience as evil. We discover that obedience and goodness are intimately tied together, since God is the good and wants the good for us. To obey God is to realize what we're made for: God's eternal life and joy. That is the highest good - what could be higher? Jesus' obedience to the Father shows us that it is through obedience to God that humanity is fulfilled and perfected. To do God's will, rejecting selfish/sinful motives and accepting to live according to his Word, means being molded by God into the creature he wants to make of us. Likewise, by doing his will the Kingdom of God grows and matures, so that earth moves heavenward. Our obediential relation to God allows him to give us the highest good and greatest gift: Himself. For God's will is to perfect us and make us holy like Him. 1 Cor 2:9. So yes, you are helping win a cosmic battle when you choose for God over sin! For then you are participating in Christ's victory over sin and death, through the power of love. Your salvation and progress in holiness will bear fruit, by the grace of Christ. When we act responsibly before God in our own lives, it redounds as responsibility for all humanity. Jesus is the pledge 🙏
@@marianweigh6411 How do you reconcile with the idea of a God who watches from the sidelines when children get raped and then killed? Or when people starve to death?
@@JD-ro7xe Low chance any answer from me will satisfy, but I would say this. Fundamentally, we are created free. We are created responsible. Not only accountable but "we reap what we sow." We are not puppets where God will just pull the leash and control us like dogs. We feel the full weight of what happens because of our evil ways. We suffer the consequences of our sinful, selfish actions. Even if we don't see those consequences immediately or directly, they affect the whole. When our desires are disordered, a reprehensible and corrupt world results. It's the world that results from a particular use of our freedom. We're responsible for it. What are we to do, blame God for our problems? Blame God for our doings? Shirk our responsibility to each other and ourselves? What excuses us for watching from the sidelines? Why are we not focused on that question? A human being who freely chooses to rape - that is sin and hated by God. An economic system that makes some live in the lap of luxury while millions of others starve - that is sin and hated by God. Just read Isaiah to see how much God hates all of it. But we are not puppets on a string. We can't be forced to love, coerced into being good. And nothing can free us from the cage of selfishness, if we don't want to be. Freedom is the greatest burden, and its good use our greatest responsibility. To work for good, for healing, for reconciliation, for charity, that is God acting in the world. But it passes through our freedom - we have to choose to "walk in his ways." The way of selfless love, self-giving, self-sacrifice for others, even unto death - that is the way of the Cross. God does not just watch from the sidelines; he tells us and shows us exactly what to do. But God cannot make us listen to his word and respond to it. We must do it.
@@marianweigh6411 Firstly, thanks for taking time to respond. My question is not why there is misery. Even if I agreed it's all because we are sinners, and due to the free will that God wants us to have at any cost, what I don't understand is how can God watch when a child gets raped brutally, slowly? Or when children or for that matter adults or even any living creature die slowly from starvation and still claim to be a 'kind and loving' God?
@@JD-ro7xe God doesn't just watch. Each moment, he desires those victims to be consoled by Him, to unite their sufferings with His and be strengthened as a result. Everything happens either because God wills or allows it. I recommend reading the book of Job in the Bible.
"Gloria Dei est vivens homo" Not just Prometheus, contrast also with the stories of Chronos devouring his children, and Zeus' rebellion. Also bring in the Prodigal Son. This is (among other things) God showing fathers how to be good fathers.
At 12:44 - "Iranaeus was a man of the Bible" - not all of it - the gnostic scriptures that he decided to chuck out were also part of the Bible until he vilified them. He was a MAN - not a god - who decided that parts of the Bible were not true - but if anybody suggests now, that parts of the Bible are not true, he should be ready for a fight. I have just been involved in a UA-cam argument with somebody whose interpretation of the Bible is that at the time of the flood, 4500 years ago (?), there had been *no rain* since the birth of Adam, more than 1000 years before (the Bible actually says that), and that Australia did not exist!
A) Since Pope Francis is planning to proclaim St. Irenaeus of Lyon a Church Doctor of Unity, does mean that he accepts the chronology of gospel authorship that the saint articulated in his work Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter One? "For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. MATTHEW also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, MARK, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. LUKE also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, JOHN, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (quoted from the New Advent website) B) Also testifying to this same chronology of gospel authorship from antiquity are: (1) first century Bishop Papias, (2) early third century theologian Origen and (3) late third century church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. C) Is there any testimony from antiquity asserting that MARK wrote the first gospel?
@Charles Buxton What I hear you saying is, 'the order of the Gospels in the New Testament is evidence of their chronological order of composition'. I believe the order of the Gospels is a reflection of Jesus's charge to the Apostles to preach the Gospel first in Jerusalem (the Gospel of Matthew, as St. Irenaeus wrote, was to the Hebrew community. It is full of Hebraic references to the Temple, the liturgical / sacrificial system, etc), THEN in Judea (St. Irenaeus points out Mark is a disciple of Peter (who was from Galilee in Judea) who wrote what Peter taught), THEN in Samaria (St. Irenaeus points out Luke was the companion of Paul and wrote down Paul's Gospel. St. Paul was uniquely situated as a Pharisaic Hebrew who was ALSO a Greco-Roman citizen (and therefore was versed in the Gentile rhetorical school of the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium') He is able to speak to both Jew and Gentile of the things of God. Remember the Samaritans were aware of the Hebrew Torah, but falsely claimed God had transferred His locus of authority from Jerusalem to Mount Gerizim where the Samaritans lived, so Luke's Gospel, oriented as it is to a more non-specifically Jewish and more of a Gentile one, would be directed to them. Finally Christ taught that the Gospel (after first being preached in Jerusalem, Judea, and to Samaria), should be preached to the 'uttermost parts of the earth'. St. John's Gospel has long been considered the most personal / mystical and most universal of the Gospels. It seems to me the order of the Gospels in the NT canon is not so much an indication of the order in which they were written, but an answer to Jesus's command to the Apostles to preach the Gospel 'first in Jerusalem (the Gospel of Matthew), then in Judea (the Gospel of Mark - Peter lived in Judea, in Galilee), then in Samaria (the Gospel of Luke - Paul being a Jew who was simultaneously a Roman citizen and therefore a bridge figure to those who knew the Old Testament (the Samaritans) but were mistranslating it), and then to the uttermost parts of the earth (the Gospel of John).
@@QuisutDeusmpc I don't disagree with your commentary on the four gospels. The order that was passed down from antiquity went unchallenged until the 19th century when some Protestants, who were erroneously attempting to 'demythoIogize the gospels', challenged the traditional ordering. I was simply quoting second century St. Irenaeus on the chronological order he presents in Against Heresies, which is corroborated previously by Bishop Papias in the first century and afterwards by Origen and Eusebius in the third century. No one from antiquity has articulated that Mark wrote the first gospel and yet that opinion has been passed around in various Catholic circles by hedging it using the wording 'Mark PROBABLY wrote the first gospel'. Previously Pope Francis has used this formula and it is also included in the bible commentary on the USCCB website. Again I ask, does Pope Francis now accept St. Irenaeus' chronological order of the gospels in Against Heresies through his proclaiming him as Church Doctor of Unity?
@@annakimborahpa I believe he does. I believe sometimes comments like this are made by Pope Francis or the USCCB in order to reach out to non-Catholic, Christian ecclesial communities or secular scholars in dialogue. If they simply led with the Catholic position and insisted this was the ONLY one, all avenues of dialogue are closed. 'Roma locuta est, causa finita est': (Rome has spoken, the matter is decided) isn't accepted by most Catholics nowadays, much less Protestants. The argument from authority falls on deaf ears nowadays and so, I think we need to be a bit more understanding and discerning as Catholics. I don't believe Pope Francis and the USCCB are challenging the traditional order, so much as they are engaging in dialogue / evangelization with liberal Protestant scholarship and secular, 'higher criticism' scholarship. They are meeting THEM right where they are at, in order to present the Catholic position. I think there is an awful lot of Catholic hand-wringing by orthodox Catholics (those who firmly maintain the Nicene creed and its Catholic understanding) who believe ecumenical gestures are going to change the 2,000 year history of the Faith in order to 'modernize' it (whether it be to reach out to disaffected Catholics who are out of communion or on the margins because of the way they live their lives (with regards to divorce and remarriage); or attempting to reach out to South American Stone Age indigenous peoples and looking for areas of commonalities to bring them further along on their road to full participation in the Church's faith and life (for example, that 'Pachamama' statue, to me, looked an awful lot like medieval depictions in carvings, paintings and statuary of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Christ child). These things were traditionally regarded as the means to reach out and evangelize others, and yet, nowadays, those already firmly within the fold seem to view it with trepidation as giving away the faith. I think people need to chill out and see it for what it is: evangelistic outreach.
Always doctrine never living the teachings of Jesus. You have heard thou shall not commit adultery, BUT I SAY TO YOU. " If a man looketh at a woman and lusts after her has already committed adultery in his heart already" anyone ever done that in their everyday life??? Saints of the past what about now!!!!
I always though Nietzsche was a “new Irenaeus”. I think Nietzsche’s philosophy-specifically in Beyond Good and Evil & The Joyful Wisdom-is very deviating to Gnosticism. The first [real] book I read was by Carl Jung. And so though I love Jung, I had very Gnostic tendencies. But after I read Nietzsche, Gnostics just seemed like bitter, life hating people. Although, I also appreciate Jungs criticism of Nietzsche. That man has no creative power for meaningful.
This is why I don't like Gnosticism exactly. They claim to be true Christians, BUT they actually defy this by being bitter, selfish to the extreme, and hating existence for what it is. The material world might be flawed, but it's full of wonders too, and Gnostics hate it for no reason besides parading some gigantic egos that are almost unbearable. These bozos remind me a lot of the Elves from "Dwarf Fortress", a group of cannibalistic, tree-loving hippies who are a real pain in the butt, acting like deplorable jerks towards the player for no reason when it comes to trading wood... yet they hypocritically use equipment and stuff made from what they overzealously protect, eat live individuals (typically of their own race), and parade bloated egos around. No wonder players hate elves so much in that game.
Saint Irenaeus was the first (non biblical) Saint that knocked on my door. Little did I know that letting him in would desolate my superficial understanding of Sacred Scripture. Needless to say, when I became a Catholic (over 3 years ago) I took this Saint to be my patron Saint. Irenaeus, pray for us.
Congrats. 👍🙏
SAINT IRENAEUS AND ALL THE REST OF SAINTS BELONG IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THE ONLY UNFINISHED BOOK IN THE BIBLE.... DO YOU KNOW WHY?....
Don't know much about Irenaeus but i do intend to read as much as i can now.
Not 100% sure about a God who is Love, created everything - including each one of us - and yet doesn't "need" us? Am i mixing up needs and wants? Is this not the heart of Thérèse of Lisieux's philosophy, her "little way"? And she is also a doctor of the Church. We are little, unimportant - and yet we matter to God! He has counted every hair on our head, He CARES about us! Why would He not be hurt/ bothered if we reject Him, deliberately disobey what we know to be right and not care that He loves us? He wants us to be happy - He needs us to be happy (for our own sakes) if we turn our back on Him - and it doesn't affect Him one way or the other - why, then, did Christ portray Himself as the Good Shepherd who seeks out the Lost Sheep? If our behaviour doesn't affect / upset/ influence God, how/ why should we ever have a relationship with Him?
@@marypower1261 Hi Mary,
I am unsure if you are just thinking aloud or if you actually want some interaction on your questions. Here are my thoughts.
The proposition we are prying into is as follows: “God doesn’t need us.” Saint Irenaeus isn’t in the boat alone on this proposition. In fact, it has been declared at Ecumenical Councils as well and by all the Fathers.
When we pry into the idea of God “needing” us we run across some hiccups. Here are some things that necessarily follows if we hold a proposition opposite from what Irenaeus said.
1.) God needs creation thus making creation necessary and not via His free will.
2.) The effect, creation, is moving the cause, God, instead of the other way around.
3.) God plus creation would be a different God then God without creation. For if creation changes God (happy to sad etc) then God is changeable. This would mean He is moveable through Passions. But “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” “I am the Lord I change not.” “Before Abraham was I AM.”
4.) God gives Existence to all things but creatures give nothing to God. God spreads the table for His creation and not vice versa. “I own all the cattle’s on the hill, what can you give to Me oh Jacob”? “Heaven and the earth is mine.” If we say that God “needs us” we are implying that there is something given from mankind to God that necessitates His creating of us.
5.) Love of concupiscence vs Love of benevolence. Love of concupiscence is a love for what I can get. Love of benevolence is a love that wills the Good of the other AS OTHER. Not for “my good” but for “your” good. God already has His Good in as much as He has His rest (which is the inner Trinitarian communion). He invites others to RECEIVE His Rest and His Goodness (I swore in my wrath they shall not enter MY REST). He doesn’t RECEIVE anything from us but graciously gives to all. But instead He tells us “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.”
God told Saint Augustine “Eat Me and you will change into Me and not I into you.”
Now, just because God doesn’t “need” us doesn’t mean we are not important to Him. On the contrary, all of His creatures are reflections of and proceed from His Inner Trinitarian Love. It is from God that all things created came from. And it is to God that all things return. He desires that all things return to Him who is the source and summit of their goodness and that it return for its own goodness and not His. Not that they return by giving Him something He needs, but rather they return by Him giving them something they need. Grace, Faith, Hope, Charity. “Participation in the Divine Nature.” Not for His Good do we do anything. But rather, for our Good He gives to us. Augustine said it like this “you crown your own gifts you placed in us.” We are raised up because He wills our good, being, Himself.
Now, our behavior has no effect on God anymore then a rock thrown up to the sky can hit the clouds. The only person effected by the ill behavior is the one who threw the rock and it falls back upon their own head. God is Good. All the time. All the time, God is Good. “I am the Lord and I change not.” So then what does change? Man, who are on a spinning earth that at one time is in the light and the next is in the darkness. The light never stops shining and being the light, but it is the man who’s ways spin like the earth turning their back on the unchanging light.
In the ways above, I hope this shines a little “light” on the mystery. Though, it’s always hard to pry into the intelligibility of what is unseen.
@@MountAthosandAquinas This is what I like with converts to Catholicism, such deep thinkers. Thank you for this. May GOD be praised!
I really appreciate Bishop Barron. He’s been a wonderful influence on me along my spiritual journey. God bless him and everyone at Word on Fire ministries.
"The Glory of God is the human being made fully alive" - St. Iraneus, Against the Heresies. This has the quote that I've lived by since the start of the pandemic. It has kept me spiritually vigilant and faithful throughout 2020. I wouldn't have understood him fully without you, Bishop. Thank you so much, Iraneus and Bishop Barron!
God bless you heaps☆
Is against the heresies a great place to start reading iraneus?
That's so good!👍
@@Owbly Yep, but you can skip over book 1, which explains the heresies in very great detail!
@@JR-nr5rr Hey thanks for the info!
*I pray God will bless Bishop Barron to be a NEW Irenaeus for our times in the Church☆*
Well said Mary. I second your sentiments exactly.
@@ronnestman4696
Thanks so much☆ Huge God Bless☆
Aren't Trads the new Gnostics? they talk as if they are remnants of the true church.
@@loveandmercy9664
In all things we are putting our trust in Jesus our Master and Lord, aren't we? Let's keep doing it without giving in to fear of any kind.
Thank you for your valuable presence☆ Stay blessed☆☆
Amen to that 🎉
Bishop Barron - THANK YOU for all your thought-provoking content. Your online presence kept me from despair throughout the pandemic from 2020 to the present- including the negative Catholic UA-cam influencers who constantly put down Pope Francis, disparage your ministry, while chasing division/drama & cashing in.
Stay blessed☆☆☆
Hmmmm Taylor marsh
@@gabemelgoza2709 Guessed right.
Exactly
The balanced catholic’s who really listen to Pope Francis are very gracious. They understand him in context.
When I discovered for myself Irenaeus, I rediscovered the Church and my faith.
" It is not you that shapes God ,it is God that shapes you
If you are the work of God ,await the hand of the Artist
Who does all things in due season.
Offer him your heart , soft and tractable
and keep the form , in which the artist has fashioned you.
Let your clay be moist,lest you grow hard and lose the imprint of his fingers."
( St. Irenaeus , Bishop of Lyon )
Love this Saint, whose " Against Heresies".
Looking forward to this show , Bishop.
That’s beautiful thank you
Beautiful, thank you
@@robertgallino2968 I thought so too.You're welcome.
@@nufaa5313 I thought the same.You're welcome.
I finally discovered God and I am ravenously devouring all of this material. There is so much depth, so much to learn, so much to ponder, so much room to grow. God truly is infinite good. Nearly every night I want to cry with joy when I think about the unlimited depth of God. I am just scratching the surface. I feel like there will never be enough time in my life to satisfy my thirst for what God can offer...I guess that it is a good thing we have an afterlife :)
Bishop. I’m new to your channel let alone introduced to catholicism. The heritage of my family birthing Mormonism is huge and my parent who proclaims heresy is extremely difficult to move up as an individual.
I just want to confirm I believe the Catholic Church is the true church. Not because of every building the church is, but because her people have been the church since the beginning and dawn of time.
The heresy I fight and the fake conditions I am embedded to can only celebrate this saint as a doctor of the church.
Thanks for the heroic efforts you provide and God bless.
I also reject Mormonism as I have had a 17 year long battle of schisms.
Hey i also just left LDS to become Catholic again bless you I all the angels help you
God bless you
God bless you.
Thanks A Million for sharing the great beautiful experience and true story☆ God bless you heaps☆
read the church fathers, then you will see!!! Come and see...
For those looking for an entry into Irenaeus, I can highly recommend _The Scandal of the Incarnation_ from Ignatius Press. Selected and introduced by Hans Urs von Balthasar, these texts (largely pulled from Against Heresies) make it clear why Irenaeus deserves the title Doctor of the Church, and why he's so relevant for us all to read today. Coming in at just over 100 pages, it is the perfect guide into his genius.
thank you
"But there are certain doctores /teachers that are so insightful, penetrating, so rich that the whole church should sit up and listen.” Hmmmmmmm.... I wonder who else that can also apply to???? Anyone?? :-). We are certainly blessed to be witnessing a future doctor of the church! God Bless you, Bishop!
His complete writings are on the web. Also, St Ignatius, from the same time period. Also, Justin Martyr and Polycarp, who wrote on the way to the lions. Very enlightening to see how the very early Christians worshipped, and their beliefs.
"The glory of God is the human person
fully alive." - ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS
*St. Irenaeus, destroyer of heresy,*
*Pray for us☆*
From my experience THE COURSE IN MIRACLES, a present day New Age writing has a Gnostic tone. I have lost friends to the Course, folks who were local Catholic leaders. It saddens me greatly. Thank you for this discussion on Irenaeus.
What is the course and what is Gnostic about it?
When I was dabbling in the New Age stuff all I kept thinking is that Jesus, the real Jesus, was like the being that they wanted to be, but that they didn't want to acknowledge. Oh, that great deception of being spiritual, but not religious.
Today, I will say that the reality is more like Satanic, but not honest about it.
Then I eased back to Christianity through an ELCA Lutheran church. Or at least I thought. . . But, except for the appearance, it's still the same lie.
Then I read the Bible... I very quickly went back to the Catholic Church and the confessional.
@@44esta44 New Age stinks. It's a disservice to true spiritualism.
Bishop Barraon is amazing! Way beyond my realm of expertise
"Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen"
My beautiful sweet Jesus, my eternal love, please bless Bishop Robert Barron and keep him safe.
I am an ex-Mormon. There is a lot of Gnosticism in Mormonism, and they tend to turn to Gnostic works to justify their beliefs and to "prove" that their teachings existed in early Christianity.
Fasting rituals to level up. Fasting is good no doubt but I met an ex Mormon who thought he had psychic powers from Mormon rituals he did.
I am an ex mormon, and i don't know what you to what you are referring. I've literally never heard a Mormon leader quote a Gnostic text. Can you clarify?
READ THE BOOK OF MORONI AND COMPARE IT WITH GALATIANS 1:8, FREEMASON JOSEPH SMITH CAME IN THE 1800S....
@@tenor79 THEIR DOCTRINE IS GNOSTICISM!!!! THEIR BAPTISM IS INVALID, COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
Informative and I always love the way Bishop Barron explains.... God bless you.
Regards,
Fr. Onasis D'Cruz ( Goa, India)
Thank you for an excellent addition to your word on fire ministry! I am currently reading an introductory book on the founding church fathers and the two that really speak to me so far are St Polycarp and St Irenaeus. What perfect timing for this video to be released!
Congratulations to you Brandonr with the new cow . You chose the best. May your homesteading flourish and all your animals around your family. Thank you for sharing this very telling detail. A real and very good suprise.
Lovely comment☆ Stay blessed☆
Thank you Bishop for your insight, Glory to God.
Thanks for your explanation of Gnosticism Bishop. Much appreciated.
"G" FREEMASONRY IS GNOSTICISM AMONG US, THEY RULE THE WORLD!!!
@@davido3026 Well. They're the epitome of bad, pretty much.
I'm currently reading his book "Demonstration of apostolic preaching". I must say, i love this guy
As always, thank you Bishop Barron.
Execellent espisode Brandon! It's been a long time since I tuned in, but I learned a lot of relevent info, even from the Question of the day.
Please help buy the 3 new books of Bishop Barron. Im from the Philippines. I admire the good Bishop for his insights and ideas
Thank you Bishop. I'm in seminary and this was illuminating. Thank you.
Very informative and educational. Thank you both- God's blessings on both of you and your ministry.
Wonderful discussion. So happy to hear about Iranaeus. In the modern world this does make a difference. Philosophically the age old dualism of body and spirit is resolved from an organic approach that recognizes the significance of the body without having to postulate ύλη or some underlying substrate or "matter". AN Whitehead takes this view, reminding us that it is a construct, useful for science but not "real"! Trees are real, things are real without requiring a substrate. His Organic process approach also resolves the difficulties mentioned about 2 gods with the consideration of a primordial and consequent nature of God -- consequent not so much after or because of the fall but after the incarnation. Good to go back to reading Iranaeus with some of these concepts and difficulties for resolving the age old philosophical problems.
🖤 from Galveston-Htown archdiocese 🙌🏿
Very much enjoyed this interview... always learning more and more from the bishop's wisdom. And yes, as Saint John Paul II said... "we breathe from both side of the lungs", and also about the evolution of the Christian faith... they are insightful people that have visions... visions of cosmic importance that do and could do more to contribute, to the Glory of God. Thanks Brandon Vaught and Bishop Barron.
For Catholics, Irenaeus is still as much a living part of the Church as we are and the guy sitting next to us in the pew..
One body. One Lord. The Body of Christ. As one with us as the Lord Himself.
Bishop Barron is truly a brilliant disciple of Jesus Christ!
St. Irenaeus i entrust the care of my body to you. Improve the body that God has given me in all aspects. St. Irenaeus pray for me.
This was good. Love the recapitulation point!
Teilhard de Chardin and Richard Rohr's cosmic Christ is deeply rooted in st. Irenaeus recapitulation theory.
"Did the Divinity need to wait for Ethnic Orthodox, Roman Catholics, European protestants, and American evangelicals to appear before the divine love affair could begin? I cannot imagine"
Fr. Richard Rohr
I watch many anti TRINITY videos on UA-cam.
I hope the Bishop makes more videos on
The TRINTY. God Bless
@33:00 Without the one who is, I am not. 'I am your life, the Lord says, Those who walk with me abide in me.'
My certainty is in the Almighty, whose light shines the path out of every uncertainty.
Erasmus of Rotterdam published the first edition of St. Irenaeus's writings in 1526 at the beginning of the rise of the Protestant Reformation. He tried to point the Church to its sources.
UNFORTUNATELY HE WAS A HERETIC!!!!THERE WAS NO A REFORMATION; LUTHER STARTED A REVOLT, 70,000 SECTS IN THE WORLD TODAY!!!!!
your crass ignorance of Chyrch history, biased and blind fanaticism have made you a miserable being!!!!
Saint Irenaeus is a Catholic Saint, the Church does have the writings from the very momennt he wrote those!!!!! how do you say it was done after 15 centuries???? who kept those manuscripts????idiot!!!the church does not swerve or change!!!
20 centuries and continues guided by the Holy Spirit!!!can you mention just a single Doctrinal error?????
Beautiful, thank you very much.
Please pray for my church. Our father has officially left the priesthood.
😭😭
Just did.
Where ? I’m in Coleman Tx
The next Doctor of the Church will no doubt be Bishop Barron.
'Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself'.
- Philippians 3:21.
Very good content, Your Excellency! Love the history of the early fathers, esp. Irenaeus & Origen.
I think it was St Irenauas who wrote that Christ was the " Perfect Bread " of life.
JESUS PERFECT BREAD FOR THE BODY, MIND AND SOUL!!!!
Always a riveting and inspirational message. Thank you 🙏🙏❤️
Great interviewing and really clear teaching. Thank you !
Thank you so much Bishop Barron for your very informative and interesting facts about St. Ireneus.
He is my patron saint because I was born on June 28 also
Thank you Bishop, for explaination about St. Iraneus.Maybe one day would you explain the mysticism and gnosticism in catholicism. Or maybe list the book that explain is a simple way. Thank you Bishop.
son buenísimos los dos, muchas gracias
Thank to Bishop and Brandon
Nice message, thanks.
Thank you!
At the risk of being labeled a heretic myself .... I'm listening to a lot of Rudolf Steiner these days (REALLY not easy to follow: the linguistic traps from his German heritage compounded by the post world war ONE timeline are huge and easy to fall into) and I actually hear in Bishop Barron's speech, here, a good reconciliation with many of Steiner's complaints.
I have always loved Iraneus. I was asking for a very long time why he isn't a doctor yet. As far as I remember, he was the one who coined the term "Orthodox". I agree that if Iraneus was not able to combat Gnosticism, we would not have been the same. Among the Church Fathers, he is one of my favourite go-to.
Orthodox is only an accessory name invented in the 4th century....Catholic has always been the Divine name of the Church that has supremacy and still retained even today....
ST. AUGUSTINE
"The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion."
-----ST. AUGUSTINE, CHAPTER 4, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANI.
I am not sure what you are trying to arrive at with the comment.
The word "orthodox" means the "correct teaching". It was meant to combat gnosticism. What it means is if you are a heretic, you are not an orthodox.
Obviously, there was a need for the term in the 4th century. People are being martyred for following Jesus. So, if you are risking yourself to be killed, you might as well die for the orthox faith.
And even now, I am sure you would rather be martyred than profess anything but the orthodox faith.
@@nasugbubatangas the correct name of the church is CATHOLIC.....
this is the SUPERIOR name of the Church....
ST. PACIAN
" But under the Apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic. Be it thus. It shall have been so. Allow even that. When after the Apostles heresies had burst forth, and were striving under various names to tear piecemeal and divide the Dove and the Queen of God, did not the Apostolic people require a name of their own, whereby to mark the unity of the people that were uncorrupted, lest the error of some should rend limb by limb the undefiled virgin of God? Was it not seemly that the chief head should be distinguished by its own peculiar appellation? Suppose, this very day, I entered a populous city. When I had found Marcionites, Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Novatians, and others of the kind who call themselves Christians, by what name should I recognise the congregation of my own people, unless it were named Catholic?"
----ST. PACIAN OF BARCELONA, LETTER 1, 390 A.D.
@@pinoysarisari7374 Was there a claim in my post saying otherwise? The word "orthodox" refers to the teaching. And any Catholic should be claiming that they are following the orthodox faith. Because if the teaching you are following is not the orthodox faith, it only means one thing, it is not correct.
Really appreciate this video.
I'm discoverying this great Father of the Church, whose importance these days are tremendous! Mother Veronica Berzosa also speaks about him a lot! Thanks Bishop Barron!
The fact that Jesus spoke about that He must return to the Father in order for the Comforter to come to you demonstrates in a subsequent back door way that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. And all correct Christians ✝️ know that all sin and that nothing unclean enters heaven that along with Maccabees and the new testament points definitively towards Purgatory 🙄
Thank you very much
Thank you for this book review! I wonder how the believers in Gnosticism would interpret the bible passage 1 Cor. 15:45 far more often in comparison to how someone like St. Irenaeus would interpret it. Would they for example understand the name Adam in both the old testament and the new testament in 1 Cor 15:45 to be closer in meaning or farther apart in meaning only while understanding the meaning of that passage which reminds how different Jesus Christ's relationship with his father has always been like compared to what the first Adam's relationship to his creator was like after his fall when then he alongside his wife Eve too both were in need of salvation as we are reminded as being a fact in 1 Cor 15:45? I don't understand how anyone calling themselves Christian could believe that the Lord in the old testament was any less than during new testament in our living bible.
To you reading this, you are one prayer away from an amazing turnaround of all your problems, the storms in your life is only temporary but the blessings and power of God is everlasting. Amen
I claim it.
Teilhard de Chardin and Richard Rohr's cosmic Christ is deeply rooted in st. Irenaeus recapitulation theory.
"Did the Divinity need to wait for ethnic Orthodox, Roman Catholics, European protestants, and American evangelicals to appear before the divine love affair could begin? I cannot imagine"
Fr. Richard Rohr
What would it take for Catholic\Orthodox reunification to be achieved ? Is it a reasonable hope ?
When the church returns to tradition, and abandons it’s worldly desires and it’s modernist nouvelle theologie infiltration. There is hope I pray.
@Dan Carmen
The sticking point is still the 'filioque' clause in the Niceno-Constatinopolitan version of the creed. Orthodox theologians have no apparatus for 'the development of doctrine', claiming 'Rome changed the historic faith' with the addition of the 'filioque' clause [that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" (filioque)]. The Catholic Church has issued a statement that the Catholic and the Orthodox understandings are more similar than dissimilar and have showed an openness that the Catholic Church's position is virtually same as the Orthodox statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "THROUGH the Son". But full ecumenical relations regarding these developments has yet to be achieved.
"J B"'s comment below that it has something to do with 'nouvelle theologie' is completely unfounded'. THAT issue is a purely CATHOLIC internecine squabble between two camps within Catholicism: traditional Thomists (historically represented by Father Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange) and the 'nouvelle theologie' theologians (Yves Congar, Marie Dominique Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Maurice Blondel, etc). That has NOTHING to do with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecumenical relations, which mostly center around the 'filioque' clause in the Nicene creed and the role of the papacy in the Church.
@@QuisutDeusmpc thanks for the nuanced reply :) Personally, even though I am a member of the Catholic Church, I prefer to say I am “Christian” rather than “Catholic” when speaking with non-Christians. It seems to me that emphasising the difference between the two is less important than our common identity as Christians in these moments. I don’t want to undermine the differences, they matter, but surely in these times what makes us one must be prioritised. I may be wrong , but I don’t think I’m “ a Catholic” Rather I am “ a Christian”…who belongs to the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church.
@@dancarmen9994
I see your point. The western, secular world has become bizarrely unmoored from anything that resembles its Judeo-Christian origins. As far as I am concerned observant Hebrews, faithful Catholics, eastern Orthodox and believing Protestants should be joining together and celebrating what they hold in common, rather than fighting over what still separates them.
I do the same thing When I am talking to Protestants, particularly rabid fundamentalists or fervent evangelicals, I call myself a "Christian" in order to avoid a conversation which would usually devolve into defending the fact that Catholics don't "worship" Mary, Sacred Tradition doesn't contradict Sacred Scripture, Apostolic succession and the papacy are biblical, etc. Out of curiosity, do you attend a Latin rite or eastern rite Catholic Church?
How can the two be unified when we Orthodox are not unified ourselves. The Eastern Orthodox are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox and Moscow no longer recognizes Constantinople.
🙏✝
Another interesting episode, thank you Bishop Barron, and Brandon!
Questioner: Nothing in current science proves there is no God (and there continues to be lots of evidence), so why not?
You may not know how many souls you ve blessed
I was taught by (St.) Polycarp who was taught by (St.) John the Evangelist (a.k.a. John the Apostle, who in turn was created and taught by His Imperial Universal Majesty, Jah Jesus Christus! ......the rich tradition of apostolic succession). - St. Irenaeus.
I wonder what Bishop Barron would have to say about the current craze of non-duality (derived from the Upanishads, mostly), which had me in its spell for about fifteen years, and how it relates to Gnosticism. It seems that non-duality, of which the basic tenet is "the world doesn't exist -- it only appears, and never becomes real," is Gnosticism to a T. Non-duality is so destructive to the human spirit, as I can attest, because it says that "there is no person," there is only this consciousness here in which a fictional person "appears." It's a really easy out, if one is looking for an escape from the pain of being human. Unfortunately, joy and love get thrown out with the bathwater, too. Along with hope, beauty, striving, and all the other goodies that make human life so precious and rich. Thank you for the great episode!
I have been noticing a trend of these (Basic tenet concept of the world) does not exist increasing and I see multiplying both in popularity and kind. I happened unhappily upon solipsism during an episode of bad anxiety when I attempted to turn to philosophy to help me better reason my way out. Bad philosophy and panic mix about as well as one would expect. It is strange that I happened to read about it again on a whim and this and related topics have been showing up in Catholic media I have been watching. If I can contribute at all, I am happy that the Lord makes use of my suffering for good.
Over time it has made me see that at least on a spiritual level this trend is not surprising in a culture and society that makes every effort to remove God and put human reason on the throne of truth. It is unsurprising that when put on a higher station than it is meant for that it starts failing and things falling apart under it.
Does this make sense or am I grasping for causes?
@@LostArchivist "Bad philosophy and panic mix about as well as one would expect." LOL. Yes, I found that out the hard way, too. What you say makes sense. Beliefs that evolved for an Eastern mindset and culture don't translate well in the West, where we immediately turned them into a way to escape from reality, and a way to deny the existence of God.
Truth be told, I am very curious about what Bishop Barron thinks of it as well.
@@annette4660 It is because the Lord wishes to tell us what it is we are leaning on our own understanding without Him. We are nothing, nothing exists to hold fast to, nothing secures us, all fades away and darkens. Without Him, we, become blind, question the foundation of all things, come apart, wither, disintegrate, fade away, and ultimately die. This is why these holes in logic are now appearing among those who think themselves learned and those decieved by their constructs. Atheism, solipsism, nondualism, nihlism, moral relativism. All is questioned for the academy has lost the Divine Logos, without Our Blessed Lord, espescially now after He has been known, only privations can come ultimately..
Pride blinds the eye of the soul. The ancients did not suffer this as we see now because they could not commit the great sin of knowing for certain the Truth and rejecting Him for their own machinations. They could know at best in vague shapes, espescially outside of Israel. Now, there is no such excuse, save for those caught up in the obscuring by others, and those we have failed to inform. The closer one is to the Light of Light and withdraws, the deeper penetrates the void within where He once shined. Thus as the Lord is escorted out of the lives of the nation, He withdraws His benefits as warning.
Non duality is at the heart of Christianity. Read Richard Rohr and his commentary on the Trinity.
The trinity doesn't make sense without Non Duality.
The Latin Church and many Protestant Churches have embraced Pelagianism. However, until the Jansenist, Rome affirmed the idea adopted by Calvinists, of irresistible grace and unconditional election. So, if Rome is infallible how does one explain this shift in doctrine?
excuse me , but Pelagianism is rejected by West....Rome follows the Council of Orange 529 A.D. , which settles the matter on PElegianism and Semi- Pelegianism and Rome REJECTS the Extreme Augustinian position of Calvin.... Rome affirms SEMI- Augustinian position, where Grace of God INITIATES , while Human Free- Will simply responds to the Initiation of God's grace....
I LOVE your explanation of this St. Irenaeus, Bishop
But strangely, as I was listening to you and Brandon talking about the 30 plus Doctors of the church, the Holy Spirit within me interrupted and revealed.......They were judged just like you and all the least of your sisters and brothers.
That they were esteemed so highly and placed them in the high Pedestal according to the category this world wanted to place them, but they were all judge like ALL human beings/like us.He continued.....what human praised and approved is not final , for what i praise and approve will be according to what's written in the Book of life.
Personally, I like how you spoke about the Gnosticism in this generation and compare them to the way Irenaeus understood during his days. I guess, we could say that ....Unlike those who are the " work of God/ those who let god be their Artist "", who let God's artistic hands mold and shape them, those who practice and define gnosticism made themselves as their own " Artist" .
They shaped, molded and traced themselves according to how they wanted themselves shaped, traced and molded and sadly, the result , very unpleasant in God's sight and can not be displayed in his heavenly temple.
I wished i could help the caller's friend whose doubting God's existence.Listening to so many people who are Christians, even Catholics, who are still doubting God's presence ( esp. the Eucharist ) can be frustrating , because I wanted so much to tell EACH of them how REAL and ALIVE he really is.
Thank you so much, Bishop and Mr.Vogt for another great discussion. I watched this right after coming home from work.A show worth coming home, for sure.
Thankfully,
Linda Worsham
At the start of this day i discovered Gnosticism.
I asked to myself and to God: "Is this true? What if this is true?"
At the end to this day i ask: Who would ever belive in this thing?
Interesting
Beautiful Doctor of Church. God is outside of time and Jesus entered time. If If we never si ned not sure why Jesus would enter as a suffering Savior.
Irenaeus as doctor of the church is needed today. The reformed theologian Dr Peter Jones also warns us about gnosticism.
*Peter Jones: A Gnostic Gospel* + *Unscrambling the new world view: Dr Peter Jones*.
A Question: is Bhuddhism to be seen as a Gnostic religion in Christian eyes?
Nope. To the contrary. Gnosticism is an incomplete and heavily flawed version of Buddhism.
I mean, Irenaeus is ok, but Ludwig Ott in his book on Catholicism says that this saint's theology of soteriology is problematic, I think he calls it "physicalist". Doctor of the church had previously meant that a person was reliable on everything for teaching. There are notes of error in this early church father, so I would not be in favour of him as a doctor. Just as an update: the distinction between a father and a doctor is important. The doctors aren't apostolic witnesses or early speculative theologians, doctors are fully immersed in the mature edifice of Christian doctrine and teach this faithfully. The speculation of Irenaeus and his early witness makes him a father and not a doctor.
I'm unclear on this. The Biblical Canon was only officially established in approximately 400 AD. So how can Iranaeus be considered 'biblical'? Was the canon already mostly decided upon in the 2nd century?
Mary of Jesus is a Doctor of our church.
IS!!!
What is the way you were taught to preach? What is the way you preach now?
Maccabees and the new testament and the fact that we all sin and nothing unclean enters heaven point definitely toward Purgatory
Agree . Only few will find Life/Heaven.
@@michellebryan8148 we should all try our best on earth to live the way what shall be accepted into heaven, try and always do right and when done wrong repent and always try to be better
@@Deto4508 You sure have wisdom, UNLIKE what most PROTESTants Pastors say....how we're born sinners, how we're just like filthy rags and all the EXCUSES they could think of just to justify their sinfulness, that is far from the RUTH!
@@Deto4508 IF a Pope, the President or ANY Famous / Elite person stays in our house for a week, we would have that BORN AGAIN character, for sure, which shows , We can have a NEW Creation self and it's very doable!
We can change into a BETTER person of ourselves now and have that better NEW creation self.
@@Deto4508 If the Pope or President Biden stays in our house for 1 week, First, we would be telling our entire family members, from kids to our spouses to be on our BEST BEHAVIOR !!
which means, we become a NEW person/a nEW creation/ ahve that NEW self and leaving behind our OLD self/Become CHRIST-like in the way we live, speak, act and DO things in our live for a WEEK !!!.
We become NEW because we do not do the following things that our OLD self used-to do..........
No more fighting!
No more arguing!
No more eating junk food!
No more drinking
No more reading junk magazine and replaced it with the Bible
No more watching junk on TV and would probably replaced it with Godly shows.
No more going or staying out late!
No more cussing /saying mean things to each other
In other words....we become a REAL BORN AGAIN and we're doing all these changes for a NORMAL/ORDINARY PERSON!!!( for a Pope , President, Governor etc !)
Imagine doing it for JESUS!
That's what REAL FaITH can do , but sadly, MILLIONS claim they believe but in thier lips/mouths only and not from the ehart, otherwise, they would all be BORN aGAIN, the REAL way and not just in Words!
is it doable to become a real BORN AGAIN? Yes, it is very doable. I just laid out here how easy it is!!
It is the desire and LOVE for jesus that cna make us CLEAN RAGS and not filthy ones.
Who can prove which interpretation of Christianity is orthodox and which is heresy?
Please, make the outro music quieter. It goes over the voices.
Gnosticism is prevalent Bishop, but is it more prevalent than Lutheranism?
FREEMASONRY "G"!!!
Absolutely if you look at society today. Many believe they are spiritual but they say don't practice material religion. They also think they are a spirit trapped in a body, not a body-soul composite.
The sexual revolution and the rise of Gender Fluid Ideology are products of Gnosticism, compounded with secularism's endarkening aspects and distortions of the Enlightenment.
And on a final note: the desire for seeking of hidden knowledge, the Red Pilled, and the like are today's seeking of the Gnosis (forgive me for misspelling, especially if I did so) which the Gnostics prided themselves on.
On a personal note: I can see my borderline to Gnosticism as I look forward to expanding my knowledge.
But I really must desire God, wisdom, and be humble and contrite. Those two things and three Persons are a must to avoid heresy and pride before a mighty fall.
In people who still claim to be Catholic, yes. There are a lot of Catholics and some very popular Catholic teachers who ascribe to ideas that come from Gnosticism even if they are not completely gnostic in their beliefs. Richard Rohr is an example of this. This is a problem because they are teaching such things in the name of the Catholic Church. Also it’s something that the Catholic Church hierarchy can and should address. Meanwhile Lutherans/Protestants etc don’t accept or use the title of Catholic and have already split with Catholic hierarchy. No Catholic reads a book by John McArthur or James White and thinks they are reading a book about or by Catholics. Like I said they are long separated from the Catholic hierarchy and beyond their reach. However the Catholics embracing Gnosticism light both carry the name Catholic thus deceiving others and could be appropriately rebuked by the hierarchy.
@Prasanth Thomas Lutheranism as defined by The Church, that is Protestantism, no. I use the term Lutheranism to properly name the heresy. Gnosticism is problematic, no doubt, but there are more Lutherans than gnostics.
@Prasanth Thomas they are all Lutherans because they all understand the relationship between The Catholic Church and the individual in the same way. They deny the legitimacy of the Papacy and assert an individualistic and sola scriptura basis for salvation. Because they have no authority they create a legion of sects with minute details, that’s true, but they are all of the heresy of Lutheranism.
If st ireneaus were alive today , he wouldn’t believe how the faith has been trashed, sanctuaries sacked, priests corrupted, and even bishops filled with scandal. God help us all.
I completely agree with you.Judases have multiplied in a very rapid rate and it's influencing and affecting in a spiritually negative manner.Let's keep in mind all the remaining good....AndrewS, PeterS, JohnSJameS and the rest of the " good disciples" of Jesus church.
Michelle Bryan - agreed
Love is the law, love under will. ❤
I see what you did there...
@@sebastienzarate9408 Awe don't worry I don't bite . 😆
@@Babylon2060 Right...🧐 I'll just pretend like I believe you.
He's a counter-balance to Augustine?
Dear Bishop, do a lecture on Hamlet's soliquies ,please , in which the King must be a warrior/ strongman to keep peace while the philosophical prince bungles woefully in a ghastly, stale world of his own imagining. The Psalms praise the glorious world God made. But Which world? Jehovah destroyed it in the flood. Over and over he rains destruction on a fallen people. Moses leads the Hebrew slaves to the brink of the land of milk and honey, and Joshua, the executioner, clears the place of -every living thing! and every structure. Jehovia comes off as those Indian triune gods, with one aspect as destroyer, one, creator, one who maintains. The Trinity in Catholicism includes resurrection, inclusion, a wedding, through Christ - with the Church.
Recapitulation theory helps understand the creation of Adam and Eve.
Teilhard de Chardin and Richard Rohr's cosmic Christ is deeply rooted in st. Irenaeus recapitulation theory.
"Did the Divinity need to wait for ethnic Orthodox, Roman Catholics, European protestants, and American evangelicals to appear before the divine love affair could begin? I cannot imagine"
Fr. Richard Rohr
New to Christianity, so forgive me if this question is dumb, but I was wondering why doing God’s will is the highest good if he doesn’t need us. I have always felt that by doing his will I am helping win some great cosmic battle between good and evil. Perhaps this was a childish fantasy 😆
Jesus' words come to mind: "I have said these things so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete." God created man such that God could dwell in man, and man could experience God's life and joy. This act of creation was purely gratuitous. God didn't have to do it. Nor does he need anything from us. The gift of his life is a gift he gives us from pure grace. He invites us to participate out of the infinite goodness of His own impeccable heart.
Yet we have to accept, consent, say Yes. God created us with free will. He does not force his light upon us. As Irenaeus points out, it is by knowing both good and evil that we come to taste the sweetness of obedience to God. Then we know to reject disobedience as evil. We discover that obedience and goodness are intimately tied together, since God is the good and wants the good for us.
To obey God is to realize what we're made for: God's eternal life and joy. That is the highest good - what could be higher? Jesus' obedience to the Father shows us that it is through obedience to God that humanity is fulfilled and perfected. To do God's will, rejecting selfish/sinful motives and accepting to live according to his Word, means being molded by God into the creature he wants to make of us. Likewise, by doing his will the Kingdom of God grows and matures, so that earth moves heavenward. Our obediential relation to God allows him to give us the highest good and greatest gift: Himself. For God's will is to perfect us and make us holy like Him. 1 Cor 2:9.
So yes, you are helping win a cosmic battle when you choose for God over sin! For then you are participating in Christ's victory over sin and death, through the power of love. Your salvation and progress in holiness will bear fruit, by the grace of Christ. When we act responsibly before God in our own lives, it redounds as responsibility for all humanity. Jesus is the pledge 🙏
@@marianweigh6411
How do you reconcile with the idea of a God who watches from the sidelines when children get raped and then killed? Or when people starve to death?
@@JD-ro7xe Low chance any answer from me will satisfy, but I would say this. Fundamentally, we are created free. We are created responsible. Not only accountable but "we reap what we sow." We are not puppets where God will just pull the leash and control us like dogs. We feel the full weight of what happens because of our evil ways. We suffer the consequences of our sinful, selfish actions. Even if we don't see those consequences immediately or directly, they affect the whole. When our desires are disordered, a reprehensible and corrupt world results. It's the world that results from a particular use of our freedom. We're responsible for it. What are we to do, blame God for our problems? Blame God for our doings? Shirk our responsibility to each other and ourselves? What excuses us for watching from the sidelines? Why are we not focused on that question? A human being who freely chooses to rape - that is sin and hated by God. An economic system that makes some live in the lap of luxury while millions of others starve - that is sin and hated by God. Just read Isaiah to see how much God hates all of it. But we are not puppets on a string. We can't be forced to love, coerced into being good. And nothing can free us from the cage of selfishness, if we don't want to be. Freedom is the greatest burden, and its good use our greatest responsibility. To work for good, for healing, for reconciliation, for charity, that is God acting in the world. But it passes through our freedom - we have to choose to "walk in his ways." The way of selfless love, self-giving, self-sacrifice for others, even unto death - that is the way of the Cross. God does not just watch from the sidelines; he tells us and shows us exactly what to do. But God cannot make us listen to his word and respond to it. We must do it.
@@marianweigh6411
Firstly, thanks for taking time to respond.
My question is not why there is misery.
Even if I agreed it's all because we are sinners, and due to the free will that God wants us to have at any cost, what I don't understand is how can God watch when a child gets raped brutally, slowly? Or when children or for that matter adults or even any living creature die slowly from starvation and still claim to be a 'kind and loving' God?
@@JD-ro7xe God doesn't just watch. Each moment, he desires those victims to be consoled by Him, to unite their sufferings with His and be strengthened as a result. Everything happens either because God wills or allows it. I recommend reading the book of Job in the Bible.
Forgive me I could not help myself: Go Brandon!
❤
Anyone know how to find a link to the painting shown at the beginning of the video?
"Gloria Dei est vivens homo"
Not just Prometheus, contrast also with the stories of Chronos devouring his children, and Zeus' rebellion. Also bring in the Prodigal Son.
This is (among other things) God showing fathers how to be good fathers.
Stanley Hauerwas is an arresting writer.
A safe-ness?
At 12:44 - "Iranaeus was a man of the Bible" - not all of it - the gnostic scriptures that he decided to chuck out were also part of the Bible until he vilified them. He was a MAN - not a god - who decided that parts of the Bible were not true - but if anybody suggests now, that parts of the Bible are not true, he should be ready for a fight. I have just been involved in a UA-cam argument with somebody whose interpretation of the Bible is that at the time of the flood, 4500 years ago (?), there had been *no rain* since the birth of Adam, more than 1000 years before (the Bible actually says that), and that Australia did not exist!
Davis Helen Wilson Richard Hernandez Brian
A) Since Pope Francis is planning to proclaim St. Irenaeus of Lyon a Church Doctor of Unity, does mean that he accepts the chronology of gospel authorship that the saint articulated in his work Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter One?
"For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. MATTHEW also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, MARK, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. LUKE also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, JOHN, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (quoted from the New Advent website)
B) Also testifying to this same chronology of gospel authorship from antiquity are: (1) first century Bishop Papias, (2) early third century theologian Origen and (3) late third century church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea.
C) Is there any testimony from antiquity asserting that MARK wrote the first gospel?
@Charles Buxton
What I hear you saying is, 'the order of the Gospels in the New Testament is evidence of their chronological order of composition'. I believe the order of the Gospels is a reflection of Jesus's charge to the Apostles to preach the Gospel first in Jerusalem (the Gospel of Matthew, as St. Irenaeus wrote, was to the Hebrew community. It is full of Hebraic references to the Temple, the liturgical / sacrificial system, etc), THEN in Judea (St. Irenaeus points out Mark is a disciple of Peter (who was from Galilee in Judea) who wrote what Peter taught), THEN in Samaria (St. Irenaeus points out Luke was the companion of Paul and wrote down Paul's Gospel. St. Paul was uniquely situated as a Pharisaic Hebrew who was ALSO a Greco-Roman citizen (and therefore was versed in the Gentile rhetorical school of the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium') He is able to speak to both Jew and Gentile of the things of God. Remember the Samaritans were aware of the Hebrew Torah, but falsely claimed God had transferred His locus of authority from Jerusalem to Mount Gerizim where the Samaritans lived, so Luke's Gospel, oriented as it is to a more non-specifically Jewish and more of a Gentile one, would be directed to them. Finally Christ taught that the Gospel (after first being preached in Jerusalem, Judea, and to Samaria), should be preached to the 'uttermost parts of the earth'. St. John's Gospel has long been considered the most personal / mystical and most universal of the Gospels. It seems to me the order of the Gospels in the NT canon is not so much an indication of the order in which they were written, but an answer to Jesus's command to the Apostles to preach the Gospel 'first in Jerusalem (the Gospel of Matthew), then in Judea (the Gospel of Mark - Peter lived in Judea, in Galilee), then in Samaria (the Gospel of Luke - Paul being a Jew who was simultaneously a Roman citizen and therefore a bridge figure to those who knew the Old Testament (the Samaritans) but were mistranslating it), and then to the uttermost parts of the earth (the Gospel of John).
@@QuisutDeusmpc I don't disagree with your commentary on the four gospels. The order that was passed down from antiquity went unchallenged until the 19th century when some Protestants, who were erroneously attempting to 'demythoIogize the gospels', challenged the traditional ordering. I was simply quoting second century St. Irenaeus on the chronological order he presents in Against Heresies, which is corroborated previously by Bishop Papias in the first century and afterwards by Origen and Eusebius in the third century. No one from antiquity has articulated that Mark wrote the first gospel and yet that opinion has been passed around in various Catholic circles by hedging it using the wording 'Mark PROBABLY wrote the first gospel'. Previously Pope Francis has used this formula and it is also included in the bible commentary on the USCCB website. Again I ask, does Pope Francis now accept St. Irenaeus' chronological order of the gospels in Against Heresies through his proclaiming him as Church Doctor of Unity?
@@annakimborahpa
I believe he does. I believe sometimes comments like this are made by Pope Francis or the USCCB in order to reach out to non-Catholic, Christian ecclesial communities or secular scholars in dialogue. If they simply led with the Catholic position and insisted this was the ONLY one, all avenues of dialogue are closed. 'Roma locuta est, causa finita est': (Rome has spoken, the matter is decided) isn't accepted by most Catholics nowadays, much less Protestants. The argument from authority falls on deaf ears nowadays and so, I think we need to be a bit more understanding and discerning as Catholics. I don't believe Pope Francis and the USCCB are challenging the traditional order, so much as they are engaging in dialogue / evangelization with liberal Protestant scholarship and secular, 'higher criticism' scholarship. They are meeting THEM right where they are at, in order to present the Catholic position.
I think there is an awful lot of Catholic hand-wringing by orthodox Catholics (those who firmly maintain the Nicene creed and its Catholic understanding) who believe ecumenical gestures are going to change the 2,000 year history of the Faith in order to 'modernize' it (whether it be to reach out to disaffected Catholics who are out of communion or on the margins because of the way they live their lives (with regards to divorce and remarriage); or attempting to reach out to South American Stone Age indigenous peoples and looking for areas of commonalities to bring them further along on their road to full participation in the Church's faith and life (for example, that 'Pachamama' statue, to me, looked an awful lot like medieval depictions in carvings, paintings and statuary of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Christ child). These things were traditionally regarded as the means to reach out and evangelize others, and yet, nowadays, those already firmly within the fold seem to view it with trepidation as giving away the faith. I think people need to chill out and see it for what it is: evangelistic outreach.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Yes and thank you!
Always doctrine never living the teachings of Jesus. You have heard thou shall not commit adultery, BUT I SAY TO YOU. " If a man looketh at a woman and lusts after her has already committed adultery in his heart already" anyone ever done that in their everyday life??? Saints of the past what about now!!!!
I always though Nietzsche was a “new Irenaeus”. I think Nietzsche’s philosophy-specifically in Beyond Good and Evil & The Joyful Wisdom-is very deviating to Gnosticism. The first [real] book I read was by Carl Jung. And so though I love Jung, I had very Gnostic tendencies. But after I read Nietzsche, Gnostics just seemed like bitter, life hating people.
Although, I also appreciate Jungs criticism of Nietzsche. That man has no creative power for meaningful.
This is why I don't like Gnosticism exactly. They claim to be true Christians, BUT they actually defy this by being bitter, selfish to the extreme, and hating existence for what it is. The material world might be flawed, but it's full of wonders too, and Gnostics hate it for no reason besides parading some gigantic egos that are almost unbearable.
These bozos remind me a lot of the Elves from "Dwarf Fortress", a group of cannibalistic, tree-loving hippies who are a real pain in the butt, acting like deplorable jerks towards the player for no reason when it comes to trading wood... yet they hypocritically use equipment and stuff made from what they overzealously protect, eat live individuals (typically of their own race), and parade bloated egos around. No wonder players hate elves so much in that game.
The "G" symbol for Freemasinry stands for Gnosticism !!!
And they're appearing to be recruiting more and more people.
Please read the primary sources for yourself, dont let people paint a pretty picture of something that is not.