The Eucharist is wonderful and a treasure here on earth. What peace, power, strength, and closeness to God that we receive at the Eucharist. Once you realize the importance of the Eucharist, your life will change. You will want to receive it daily. Once you get away from all forms of sin, receive the Eucharist daily, you will be at peace with inner happiness even as you go through life's storms. Wow!! I LOVE IT. PRAISE BE KESUS...

@lcringo3498

5 жыл бұрын

I read somewhere that the "effects " of the Eucharist lasts only 15 minutes. Is that true? What the what is THAT about?? ANYONE? 😏😏😏

Everything is so helpful for my oral exams. it adds up to my knowledge, easy to grasp the concept which is actually very important in understanding Eucharist better. So when i come across the books, it gives me an awe...Thank you Lord. Thank you St. Thomas. Thank you Bishop Barron.

Bravo. Thank you Father. Very inspirational - we needed this.God bless him and us.

What a concrete and beautiful explanation. Thank you Bishop. I wish I understood this so clearly sooner.

I love this. The distinction between the priestly robes and the doctoral robes. Prayers for our reunification as one body of Christ.

Thanks for this, Fr. Barron. I'm a parishioner at a church very devoted to and very focused on the sacrifice of the Mass. We're also very blessed to have 24-hr perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It's not just a "part of" our faith, or an aspect of it. The true presence of Jesus, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Blessed Sacrament IS our faith, i.e., without it, we have nothing. I pray we Catholics receive the gift of faith given by grace through the Holy Spirit to believe this.

my mind was blown! THANK YOU SO SO MUCH!!! CAN'T WAIT TO GO TO MASS TOMORROW!

How little have I achieved and done for God compared to this man. I personally regard him as a prophet. He casts ray of light into the deepening darkness of this world.

Thank you Bishop, may God bless with you. You changed my life. See you at the Seminary.

What a teacher. Reading the jewish roots of the eucharist was a great tool to understanding how early jewish christians viewed the eucharist. I am reading jesus of navareth by B16 and he ties in the Baptism in the Jordan with the consumation of all our sin that foreshadows his sacrifice on the cross. Simply awesome.

Reminded me of Ratzinger's The Spirit of the Liturgy. Awesome!

Great opening with the Credo from Mozart's Mass in C minor. Because of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, it is all of the more reason to receive communion on the tongue to ensure that even the tiniest crumb of Jesus may not be tarnished.

I remember as a kid we got a new priest at our church. He was a redempterist priest. He always started the mass by calling it “the holy sacrifice of the mass”

They ARE their WORSHIP of THEMSELVES.

From Tradition to Truth The Testimony of Former Roman Catholic Priest, Richard Bennett. The Early Years Born Irish, in a family of eight, my early childhood was fulfilled and happy. My father was a colonel in the Irish Army until he retired when I was about nine. As a family, we loved to play, sing, and act, all within a military camp in Dublin. We were a typical Irish Roman Catholic family. My father sometimes knelt down to pray at his bedside in a solemn manner. Most evenings we would kneel in the living room to say the Rosary together. No one ever missed Mass on Sundays unless he was seriously ill. By the time I was about five or six years of age, Jesus Christ was a very real person to me, but so also were Mary and the saints. I can identify easily with others in traditional Catholic nations in Europe and with Hispanics and Filipinos who put Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and other saints all in one boiling pot of faith. The catechism was drilled into me at the Jesuit School of Belvedere, where I had all my elementary and secondary education. Like every boy who studies under the Jesuits, I could recite before the age of ten five reasons why God existed and why the Pope was head of the only true Church. Getting souls out of Purgatory was a serious matter. The often quoted words, "It is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins," were memorized even though we did not know what these words meant. We were told that the Pope as head of the Church was the most important man on earth. What he said was law, and the Jesuits were his right-hand men. Even though the Mass was in Latin, I tried to attend daily because I was intrigued by the deep sense of mystery which surrounded it. We were told it was the most important way to please God. Praying to saints was encouraged, and we had patron saints for most aspects of life. I did not make a practise of that, with one exception: St. Anthony, the patron of lost objects, since I seemed to lose so many things. When I was fourteen years old, I sensed a call to be a missionary. This call, however, did not affect the way in which I conducted my life at that time. Age sixteen to eighteen were the most fulfilled and enjoyable years a youth could have. During this time, I did quite well both academically and athletically. I often had to drive my mother to the hospital for treatments. While waiting for her, I found quoted in a book these verses from Mark 10:29-30, "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Not having any idea of the true salvation message, I decided that I truly did have a call to be a missionary. Trying to Earn Salvation I left my family and friends in 1956 to join the Dominican Order. I spent eight years studying what it is to be a monk, the traditions of the Church, philosophy, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and some of the Bible from a Catholic standpoint. Whatever personal faith I had was institutionalized and ritualized in the Dominican religious system. Obedience to the law, both Church and Dominican, was put before me as the means of sanctification. I often spoke to Ambrose Duffy, our Master of Students, about the law being the means of becoming holy. In addition to becoming “holy,” I wanted also to be sure of eternal salvation. I memorized part of the teaching of Pope Pius XII in which he said, “...the salvation of many depends on the prayers and sacrifices of the mystical body of Christ offered for this intention.” This idea of gaining salvation through suffering and prayer is also the basic message of Fatima and Lourdes, and I sought to win my own salvation as well as the salvation of others by such suffering and prayer. In the Dominican monastery in Tallaght, Dublin, I performed many difficult feats to win souls, such as taking cold showers in the middle of winter and beating my back with a small steel chain. The Master of Students knew what I was doing, his own austere life being part of the inspiration that I had received from the Pope's words. With rigor and determination, I studied, prayed, did penance, tried to keep the Ten Commandments and the multitude of Dominican rules and traditions. Outward Pomp - Inner Emptiness Then in 1963 at the age of twenty-five I was ordained a Roman Catholic priest and went on to finish my course of studies of Thomas Aquinas at The Angelicum University in Rome. But there I had difficulty with both the outward pomp and the inner emptiness. Over the years I had formed, from pictures and books, pictures in my mind of the Holy See and the Holy City. Could this be the same city? At the Angelicum University I was also shocked that hundreds of others who poured into our morning classes seemed quite disinterested in theology. I noticed Time and Newsweek magazines being read during classes. Those who were interested in what was being taught seemed only to be looking for either degrees or positions within the Catholic Church in their homelands. One day I went for a walk in the Colosseum so that my feet might tread the ground where the blood of so many Christians had been poured out. I walked to the arena in the Forum. I tried to picture in my mind those men and women who knew Christ so well that they were joyfully willing to be burned at the stake or devoured alive by beasts because of His overpowering love. The joy of this experience was marred, however, for as I went back in the bus I was insulted by jeering youths shouting words meaning “scum or garbage.” I sensed their motivation for such insults was not because I stood for Christ as the early Christians did but because they saw in me the Roman Catholic system. Quickly, I put this contrast out of my mind, yet what I had been taught about the present glories of Rome now seemed very irrelevant and empty. One night soon after that, I prayed for two hours in front of the main altar in the church of San Clemente. Remembering my earlier youthful call to be a missionary and the hundredfold promise of Mark 10:29-30, I decided not to take the theological degree that had been my ambition since beginning study of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. This was a major decision, but after long prayer I was sure I had decided correctly. The priest who was to direct my thesis did not want to accept my decision. In order to make the degree easier, he offered me a thesis written several years earlier. He said I could use it as my own if only I would do the oral defense. This turned my stomach. It was similar to what I had seen a few weeks earlier in a city park: elegant prostitutes parading themselves in their black leather boots. What he was offering was equally sinful. I held to my decision, finishing at the University at the ordinary academic level, without the degree. On returning from Rome, I received official word that I had been assigned to do a three year course at Cork University. I prayed earnestly about my missionary call. To my surprise, I received orders in late August 1964 to go to Trinidad, West Indies, as a missionary. Pride, Fall, and a New Hunger On October 1, 1964, I arrived in Trinidad, and for seven years I was a successful priest, in Roman Catholic terms, doing all my duties and getting many people to come to Mass. By 1972 I had become quite involved in the Catholic Charismatic Movement. Then, at a prayer meeting on March 16th of that year, I thanked the Lord that I was such a good priest and requested that if it were His will, He humble me that I might be even better. Later that same evening I had a freak accident, splitting the back of my head and hurting my spine in many places. Without thus coming close to death, I doubt that I would ever have gotten out of my self-satisfied state. Rote, set prayer showed its emptiness as I cried out to God in my pain. In the suffering that I went through in the weeks after the accident, I began to find some comfort in direct personal prayer. I stopped saying the Breviary (the Roman Catholic Church's official prayer for clergy) and the Rosary and began to pray using parts of the Bible itself. This was a very slow process. I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map. When assigned to a new parish later that year, I found that I was to work side-by-side with a Dominican priest who had been a brother to me over the years. For more than two years we were to work together, fully seeking God as best we knew in the parish of Pointe-a-Pierre. We read, studied, prayed, and put into practise what we had been taught in Church teaching. We built up communities in Gasparillo, Claxton Bay, and Marabella, just to mention the main villages. In a Catholic religious sense we were very successful. Many people attended Mass. The Catechism was taught in many schools, including government schools. I continued my personal search into the Bible, but it did not much affect the work we were doing; rather it showed me how little I really knew about the Lord and His Word. It was at this time that Philippians 3:10 became the cry of my heart, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection....” About this time the Catholic Charismatic movement was growing, and we introduced it into most of our villages. Because of this movement, some Canadian Christians came to Trinidad to share with us. While much of what I learnt centered on pretended signs and wonders, which I have later renounced, the use of the Scriptures was truly a blessing to me. The love the Canadian Christians had for the Bible got me deeply into it as an authority source. I began to compare scripture with scripture and even to quote chapter and verse! One of the texts the Canadians used was Isaiah 53:5, “...and with his stripes we are healed.” Yet in studying Isaiah 53, I discovered that the Bible deals with the problem of sin by means of substitution. Christ died in my place. It was wrong for me to try to expiate or try to cooperate in paying the price of my sin. “If by grace, it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace..” Romans 11:6. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). One particular sin of mine was getting annoyed with people, sometimes even angry. Although I asked forgiveness for my sins, I still did not realize that I was a sinner by the nature which we all inherit from Adam. The scriptural truth is, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10), and “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The Catholic Church, however, had taught me that the depravity of man, which is called “original sin,” had been washed away by my infant baptism. I still held this belief in my head, but in my heart I knew that my depraved nature had not yet been conquered by Christ. “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...” (Philippians 3:10) continued to be the cry of my heart. I knew that it could be only through His power that I could live the Christian life. I posted this text on the dashboard of my car and in other places. It became the plea that motivated me, and the Lord who is Faithful began to answer. The Ultimate Question First, I discovered that God's Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned. Now I began to understand that the Bible could, in fact, be trusted. With the aid of Strong's Concordance, I began to study the Bible to see what it says about itself. I discovered that the Bible teaches clearly that it is from God and is absolute in what it says. It is true in its history, in the promises God has made, in its prophecies, in the moral commands it gives, and in how to live the Christian life. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (II Timothy 3:16-17). This discovery was made while visiting in Vancouver, B.C., and in Seattle. When I was asked to talk to the prayer group in St. Stephen's Catholic Church, I took as my subject the absolute authority of God's Word. It was the first time that I had understood such a truth or talked about it. I returned to Vancouver, B.C. and in a large parish Church, before about 400 people, I preached the same message. Bible in hand, I proclaimed that “the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith and morals is the Bible, God's own Word.” Three days later, the archbishop of Vancouver, B.C., James Carney, called me to his office. I was then officially silenced and forbidden to preach in his archdiocese. I was told that my punishment would have been more severe, were it not for the letter of recommendation I had received from my own archbishop, Anthony Pantin. Soon afterwards I returned to Trinidad. Church-Bible Dilemma While I was still parish priest of Point-a-Pierre, Ambrose Duffy, the man who had so strictly taught me while he was Student Master, was asked to assist me. The tide had turned. After some initial difficulties, we became close friends. I shared with him what I was discovering. He listened and commented with great interest and wanted to find out what was motivating me. I saw in him a channel to my Dominican brothers and even to those in the Archbishop's house. When he died suddenly of a heart attack, I was stricken with grief. In my mind, I had seen Ambrose as the one who could make sense out of the Church-Bible dilemma with which I so struggled. I had hoped that he would have been able to explain to me and then to my Dominican brothers the truths with which I wrestled. I preached at his funeral and my despair was very deep. I continued to pray Philippians 3:10, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection....” But to learn more about Him, I had first to learn about myself as a sinner. I saw from the Bible (I Timothy 2:5) that the role I was playing as a priestly mediator -- exactly what the Catholic Church teaches but exactly opposite to what the Bible teaches -- was wrong. I really enjoyed being looked up to by the people and, in a certain sense, being idolized by them. I rationalized my sin by saying that after all, if this is what the biggest Church in the world teaches, who am I to question it? Still, I struggled with the conflict within. I began to see the worship of Mary, the saints, and the priests for the sin that it is. But while I was willing to renounce Mary and the saints as mediators, I could not renounce the priesthood, for in that I had invested my whole life. Tug-Of-War Years Mary, the saints, and the priesthood were just a small part of the huge struggle with which I was working. Who was Lord of my life, Jesus Christ in His Word or the Roman Church? This ultimate question raged inside me especially during my last six years as parish priest of Sangre Grande (1979-1985). That the Catholic Church was supreme in all matters of faith and morals had been dyed into my brain since I was a child. It looked impossible ever to change. Rome was not only supreme but always called “Holy Mother.” How could I ever go against “Holy Mother,” all the more so since I had an official part in dispensing her sacraments and keeping people faithful to her? In 1981, I actually rededicated myself to serving the Roman Catholic Church while attending a parish renewal seminar in New Orleans. Yet when I returned to Trinidad and again became involved in real life problems, I began to return to the authority of God's Word. Finally the tension became like a tug-of-war inside me. Sometimes I looked to the Roman Church as being absolute, sometimes to the authority of the Bible as being final. My stomach suffered much during those years; my emotions were being torn. I ought to have known the simple truth that one cannot serve two masters. My working position was to place the absolute authority of the Word of God under the supreme authority of the Roman Church. This contradiction was symbolized in what I did with the four statues in the Sangre Grande Church. I removed and broke the statues of St. Francis and St. Martin because the second commandment of God's Law declares in Exodus 20:4, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image....” But when some of the people objected to my removal of the statues of the Sacred Heart and of Mary, I left them standing because the higher authority, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, said in its law Canon 1188: “The practise of displaying sacred images in the churches for the veneration of the faithful is to remain in force.” I did not see that what I was trying to do was to make God's Word subject to man's word. My Own Fault While I had learned earlier that God's Word is absolute, I still went through this agony of trying to maintain the Roman Catholic Church as holding more authority than God's Word, even in issues where the Church of Rome was saying the exact opposite to what was in the Bible. How could this be? First of all, it was my own fault. If I had accepted the authority of the Bible as supreme, I would have been convicted by God's Word to give up my priestly role as mediator, but that was too precious to me. Second, no one ever questioned what I did as a priest. Christians from overseas came to Mass, saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvelous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church was all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery. The Turning Point One day, a woman challenged me (the only Christian ever to challenge me in all my 22 years as a priest), “You Roman Catholics have a form of godliness, but you deny its power.” Those words bothered me for some time because the lights, banners, folk music, guitars, and drums were dear to me. Probably no priest on the whole island of Trinidad had as colorful robes, banners, and vestments as I had. Clearly I did not apply what was before my eyes. In October 1985, God's grace was greater than the lie that I was trying to live. I went to Barbados to pray over the compromise that I was forcing myself to live. I felt truly trapped. The Word of God is absolute indeed. I ought to obey it alone; yet to the very same God I had vowed obedience to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. In Barbados I read a book in which was explained the biblical meaning of Church as “the fellowship of believers.” In the New Testament there is no hint of a hierarchy; “Clergy” lording it over the “laity” is unknown. Rather, it is as the Lord Himself declared “...one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matthew 23:8). Now to see and to understand the meaning of church as “fellowship” left me free to let go of the Roman Catholic Church as supreme authority and depend on Jesus Christ as Lord. It began to dawn on me that in biblical terms, the Bishops I knew in the Catholic Church were not biblical believers. They were for the most part pious men taken up with devotion to Mary and the Rosary and loyal to Rome, but not one had any idea of the finished work of salvation, that Christ's work is done, that salvation is personal and complete. They all preached penance for sin, human suffering, religious deeds, “the way of man” rather than the Gospel of grace. But by God's grace I saw that it was not through the Roman Church nor by any kind of works that one is saved, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). New Birth at Age Forty-eight I left the Roman Catholic Church when I saw that life in Jesus Christ was not possible while remaining true to Roman Catholic doctrine. In leaving Trinidad in November 1985, I only reached neighboring Barbados. Staying with an elderly couple, I prayed to the Lord for a suit and necessary money to reach Canada, for I had only tropical clothing and a few hundred dollars to my name. Both prayers were answered without making my needs known to anyone except the Lord.From a tropical temperature of 90 degrees, I landed in snow and ice in Canada. After one month in Vancouver, I came to the United States of America. I now trusted that He would take care of my many needs, since I was beginning life anew at 48 years of age, practically penniless, without an alien resident card, without a driver's license, without a recommendation of any kind, having only the Lord and His Word. I spent six months with a Christian couple on a farm in Washington State. I explained to my hosts that I had left the Roman Catholic Church and that I had accepted Jesus Christ and His Word in the Bible as all-sufficient. I had done this, I said, “absolutely, finally, definitively, and resolutely.” Yet far from being impressed by these four adverbs, they wanted to know if there was any bitterness or hurt inside me. In prayer and in great compassion, they ministered to me, for they themselves had made the transition and knew how easily one can become embittered. Four days after I arrived in their home, by God's grace I began to see in repentance the fruit of salvation. This meant being able not only to ask the Lord's pardon for my many years of compromising but also to accept His healing where I had been so deeply hurt. Finally, at age 48, on the authority of God's Word alone, by grace alone, I accepted Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross alone. To Him alone be the glory. Having been refurbished both physically and spiritually by this Christian couple together with their family, I was provided a wife by the Lord, Lynn, born-again in faith, lovely in manner, intelligent in mind. Together we set out for Atlanta, Georgia, where we both got jobs. A Real Missionary with a Real Message In September 1988, we left Atlanta to go as missionaries to Asia. It was a year of deep fruitfulness in the Lord that once I would never have thought was possible. Men and women came to know the authority of the Bible and the power of Christ's death and resurrection. I was amazed at how easy it is for the Lord's grace to be effective when only the Bible is used to present Jesus Christ. This contrasted with the cobwebs of church tradition that had so clouded my 21 years in missionary garments in Trinidad, 21 years without the real message. To explain the abundant life of which Jesus spoke and which I now enjoy, no better words could be used than those of Romans 8:1-2: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” It is not just that I have been freed from the Roman Catholic system, but that I have become a new creature in Christ. It is by the grace of God, and nothing but His grace, that I have gone from dead works into new life. Testimony to the Gospel of Grace Back in 1972, when some Christians had taught me about the Lord healing our bodies, how much more helpful it would have been had they explained to me on what authority our sinful nature is made right with God. The Bible clearly shows that Jesus substituted for us on the cross. I cannot express it better than Isaiah 53:5: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (This means that Christ took on himself what I ought to suffer for my sins. Before the Father, I trust in Jesus as my substitute.) That was written 750 years before the crucifixion of our Lord. A short time after the sacrifice of the cross, the Bible states in I Peter 2:24: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” Because we inherited our sin nature from Adam, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. How can we stand before a Holy God, except in Christ, and acknowledge that He died where we ought to have died? Only through faith we can see, understand and grasp Christ as our substitute. It was Christ who paid the price for our sins: sinless, yet He was crucified. This is the true Gospel message. Is faith enough? Yes, born-again faith is enough. That true faith, engendered by God, will inevitably show good fruit, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). In repenting, we put aside, through God’s strength, our former way of life and our former sins. It does not mean that we cannot sin again, but it does mean that our position before God has changed. We are called children of God, for so indeed we are. If we do sin, it is a relationship problem with the Father which can be resolved, not a problem of losing our position as a child of God in Christ, for this position is irrevocable. In Hebrews 10:10, the Bible says it so wonderfully: “...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” The finished work of Christ Jesus on the Cross is sufficient and complete. As you trust solely in this finished work, a new life which is born of the Spirit will be yours -- you will be born again. The Present Day My present task: the good work that the Lord has prepared for me to do is as an evangelist situated near Austin in the central Texas U.S.A. What Paul said about his fellow Jews I say about my dearly loved Catholic brothers: my heart's desire and prayer to God for Catholics is that they may be saved. I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based in God's Word but in their church tradition. If you understand the devotion and agony that some of the men and women in the Philippines and South America have put into their religion, you may understand my heart’s cry: “Lord, give us a compassion to understand the pain and torment of the search that devout Catholics have made to please You”. In understanding their pain we will have the desire to show them the Good News of Christ’s finished work on the Cross. My testimony shows how difficult it was for me as a Catholic to give up Church tradition, but when the Lord demands it in His Word, we must do it. The “form of godliness” that the Roman Catholic Church has makes it most difficult for a Catholic to see where the real problem lies. Everyone must determine by what authority we know truth. For Papal Rome the ultimate authority lies in the decisions and decrees of the reigning Pope. In her own words, “The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 749). Yet according to the Bible, it is God's Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known. It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand “the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory.” The Reason Why I Share I share these truths with you now so that you can know God's way of salvation. Our basic problem as Catholics was that personal worth and dignity was ingrained into us. We believed that could respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, “Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons....” With that mindset, we were unknowingly holding to a teaching that the Bible continually condemns. Such a definition of grace is man's careful fabrication, for the Bible consistently declares that the believer's right standing with God is “without works” (Romans 4:6), “without the deeds of the Law” (Romans 3:28), “not of works” (Ephesians 2:9), “It is the gift of God,” (Ephesians 2:8). To attempt to make the believer's response part of his salvation and to look upon grace as “a help” is to flatly deny biblical truth, “...if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace...” (Romans 11:6). The simple biblical message is that “the gift of righteousness” in Christ Jesus is a gift, resting on His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross, “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17). So it is as Christ Jesus Himself said, He died in place of the believer, the One for many (Mark 10:45), His life a ransom for many. As He declared, ...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). This is also what Peter proclaimed, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God...” (I Peter 3:18). Paul’s preaching is summarized at the end of II Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him..” (II Corinthians 5:21). This fact, dear reader, is presented clearly to you in the Bible. Acceptance of it is now commanded by God, “...Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of “meriting,” “earning,” “being good enough,” simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul's time, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” (Romans 10:3) Repent and believe the Good News! Richard Bennett If there is something on your heart that you wish to share, please email me at: rmbennett@yahoo.com Thank you.

@wjm5972

8 жыл бұрын

+Stephen Meehan Thick

Another wonderful video Father, thank you! I wondered when you were talking about the Temple sacrifices if the sorrow from man is linked to having bred the animal and the emotional bond we often have with our animals? People who don't know much about farming would assume that the farmers just see the animals as cash, and their welfare concerns the farmer only on that level, but that isn't the case. Every farmer I know cares deeply about them and mourns their loss, even when they're sold.

Bravo... Adoration of the Real Presence of the Lord exceeded by the most complete prayer of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Mahalo Nui Father Barron.

The words of St Cyril below. Who should we believe, those those who the apostles taught and their descendants? Or men 1,600 years later who said that Christ was speaking symbolically? What authority did these men have to change what the Church had always professed, no matter where one found a Christian Church? "Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

Mike was here

Great explanation. Thanks.

That was beautiful

Prayer for Priests by St. Therese of Lisieux O Jesus, eternal Priest, keep your priests within the shelter of Your Sacred Heart, where none may touch them. Keep unstained their anointed hands, which daily touch Your Sacred Body. Keep unsullied their lips, daily purpled with your Precious Blood. Keep pure and unearthly their hearts, sealed with the sublime mark of the priesthood. Let Your holy love surround them and shield them from the world’s contagion.

You're in my prayers.

Thanks Father Robert Barron

Fr. Barron, would love for you to expand on this in light of verses in Hebrews, specifically chapter 9 and 10. It's so, so, so hard to reconcile the verses making explicit the fact that Jesus doesn't offer himself up again and again (9:26, 10:11 etc.) I pray would please allow some time in your schedule for a more detailed look on this; I have a few family members who would benefit greatly from it.

@religiouseducation4799

2 жыл бұрын

amndemo, Jesus does not "offer Himself up again again and again." The Sacrifice of the Mass is the RE-PRESENTATION of Jesus death on the cross by the priest. Remember, although we are constrained by time and space with past, present and future, God exists in the ever present NOW. The Mass transcends time as we are supernaturally brought back to Jesus' actual crucifixion on Calvary. A muted but approximate analogy would be to think of the Mass as a "time machine' which transports us back in time to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

AMEN have a blessed day.

Very nice Father. Thank you.

At the end of the series, can you do one on common misunderstandings people make, such as explaining that receiving the Body of Christ isn't cannibalism, please?

Great video!

This is good sound explanation, up to around the 8.45 mark, then it all goes "base over apex" as by old Dad was wont to say. Either Jesus IS the faithful high priest intercessor who takes away all our sins-or he ISNT-in which case you are compelled to fall back on pseido lleglaistic ritual "I come out in the robes of a temple priest because I am going to be performing a sacrifice" Why on earth do you need to do that, when Jesus has accomplished your salvation already-before even you were conceived and born? "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do". (Ephesians 2:1-10)

You're right! One should not receive the Eucharist if one is not in communion with the Church or if one's heart has grown cold to God's grace. This is what I was forwarding that not even the Eucharist is efficacious if the person thinks or uses the Sacrifice of the Mass skipping over the very gist but that is conversion, turning away from sin. Otherwise our participation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a complete sacrilege, a blasphemy, if we're using the Mass for an apparatus as Pharisees.

Folks, this video succinctly stresses the Eucharistic nature of "sacrifice" in our Divine Liturgy. Amen, Thanks be to God!

Amen it is in the Lords hands and your prayers will accomplish that.

You watched it good for you. Have a blessed day.

Fr Barron, will you do a commentary on Kick Ass 2? Beware the violence, though!

Father! As a priest you took the same self sacrificial vow of Jesus, the vow of the new covenant. You VOWED to follow Jesus and die with Him for the salvation of miserable and fallen souls and to assist in His Sacrifice. No other explanation is needed or possible. Your identity as priest is self sacrificial victim in the service of Jesus Christ and at his very command "Do this in remembrance". Do what? Break bread? or follow Him and die with Him to save others? You are a priest!

Imagine if PETA went back in time to the ancient world.

Would BISHOP Barron change any of his wording on this subject? The comparison to the sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple was fine as sacrifice, but the sacrifice at the time of Jesus in the temple had become corrupt as the cleansing of the temple by Jesus demonstrates. Just a thought...

Love it! Proud to be Catholic

The best definition of "sacrifice" I have heard came from Dr. Robert Hickson who explained, "Sacrifice is the exchange of a good for a higher good." Today a visiting priest said his graduate school mentor taught, "we think too much about problem and not understanding them.: That is, we try quick fixes, not systemic analysis. Why the lose of the sense of sacrifice? "As you pray, so shall you believe." The Altar of Sacrifice has been replaced by a table. The offerring has become a meal. Thank you for your wonderful efforts, Father.

Allelujah, brother/sister.

Roman Catholicism: The One True Church? By Steve Meehan For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true Church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass, while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of 2nd through 7th grade; during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation; and while attending CCD classes all the way through high school (the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children). It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be a member of the correct Church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn't quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church. After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the One True Church? Look at what Rome has to offer: it has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Christ physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions - which appear mainly to Roman Catholics; and they have the Vatican - where the Vicar of Christ (Christ's representative on Earth) governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be The One True Church? No other organization on the face of the Earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful. But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me." He also professed in John 8:31-32: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, 'If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free'." It is clear then, by just these two verses, that Jesus Christ has described Himself as Truth, and that those who adhere to His Word and practice what He taught, will be living and worshipping truthfully, and that only His truth will set us free; not in anything else that detracts or subtracts from His truth. In fact, the verse is worded in a way ("you shall know the truth") that suggests that it is imperative to know His Word, to know His Truth, by studying the scriptures, in order to avoid any false doctrine being taught by some other source that may later try to establish itself as the bearer of truth but is actually offering a false truth. Jesus also proclaimed that it is only possible to worship Him correctly in spirit and in truth: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" John 4:23, 24 So for a person or an organization to call themselves true, they must teach his Word correctly and abide by His Word. Unless one is doing that, the above verse says, that they are not true worshippers. Another purveyor of Truth is the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised His disciples, that when He would depart from them and return to Heaven, that He would send in His stead the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's role in the world - and who indwells those who have accepted Christ's free gift of salvation - is to point us to Jesus Christ and not to anything or anyone else as the sole means of salvation. "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells within you, and shall be in you." John 14:17 It takes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit into the believer to be able to discern what is written in God's Word and to be able to understand and to apply His truth in our Christian walk. Without His assistance, it is too easy to be lead astray and to accept false doctrine. The Holy Spirit, after all, inspired the Jewish scribes and later the Apostles, to write the books of the Holy Bible and it takes His discernment in our lives for us to properly comprehend the Word and understand it correctly. It also stands to reason, that if one is not aware of what is contained in the Scriptures, then they can easily accept doctrines of men that may be inspired by another source. Growing up as a Roman Catholic, I was completely ignorant of what was contained in the Bible - regarding Jesus, salvation and His gospel of grace. Like most Catholics, the Holy Bible was in the home, but just collected dust and was never read. We accepted all that was taught us by the priests, the nuns, the lay teachers in the CCD classes, and in their catechism. Whatever they told us had to be correct, as they assured us that they were the One True Church. Why would they ever steer us wrong? This was the mindset of my siblings, my parents, grandparents, and going back generations of all past family members who trusted in and were raised in the Roman Catholic system. We were ignorant of anything else but their plan of salvation. The Roman Catholic Church tells their members that only they, through their Magisterium - the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, as exercised by the bishops or the pope - can properly interpret scripture for their faithful. So, while they say they encourage the reading of the Holy Writ, it is only by their guidance and authority can one fully understand what the verses are meant to convey. They are not open to private interpretation, and must be filtered through their teachings to understand their version of the truth. It wasn't until my early 20s, that the Lord led me to start reading His Word. At that point of my life, I wasn't even a marginal Catholic. I stopped going to Mass, stopped going to the normally required weekly confessions to a priest, and had pretty much given up on their version of the faith. I got tired of the repetitiveness of the Mass: the rote prayers; genuflecting before the figure on the cross; the lighting of votive candles before a statue - usually of Mary; dipping my hand in the "Holy Water" and making the 'sign of the cross'; receiving the Eucharist wafer and giving my assent when the priest said "the Body of Christ" that I was consuming the physical body of Jesus; and the whole bit. It was all very ritualistic, legalistic, lacking any real passion and completely devoid of the presence of Christ. But in reading the Word, I began to see that what God has revealed to us through the scriptures doesn't completely mirror the teachings of Rome; in fact, most of it doesn't. You would think that the One True Church would certainly follow what Christ and the Apostles taught. Why would they teach something different? If they are in fact the One True Church, wouldn't they follow and teach all that scripture reveals to us and they wouldn't deviate from the Truth? Have they got the ultimate authority to change God's Word or trump His commandments? For instance, Exodus 20:4 - the second commandment - forbids us from worshipping graven images, and yet Rome has deleted this commandment and subdivided the last one, which tells us not to covet our neighbor's belongings. How can they delete a commandment? Christ said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" - not delete them (John 14:15). Is it that important for Rome to disregard a commandment, so that the parishioners can dress up, light candles before, and parade behind statues or graven images, as the Bible calls them? Was the prohibition of worshipping before a graven image only meant for the Jews, but Christians are free to do so? Over and over throughout the Word, we are told that God detests that kind of activity. Rome calls the pope the Vicar of Christ (Christ's representative on Earth) but that title is more befitting the Holy Spirit: He is the Comforter that Christ promised; He is the one who indwells each believer; and He is the one who seals us, points us to Jesus Christ, and gives us discernment in reading the Word. Rome calls the pope the Holy Father, but Jesus used this term only once in scripture referring to God the Father as the Holy Father: "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom thou has given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:14 Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles would ever use that term in addressing a man; only God the Father is the Holy Father. In fact, Christ even told His followers not to refer to any man as our father (spiritual father): "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" - Matthew 23:9 If Christ told us not to do it, why does Rome give that title to their priests? Is this something that a One True Church should be doing - flaunting God's Word? Are they exempt from this restriction and can override Christ's teachings? It doesn't add up. If we are truly Christians, we should be following Christ's examples and His admonitions. If they are truly the One True Church, shouldn't they be abiding by His Word instead of disregarding it? There are countless other examples of where the teachings of Rome fly in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus and His disciples. Perhaps the biggest is the question of our salvation. Repeatedly in the gospels and in the other books of the New Testament are verses telling us that Christ's Gospel is a gospel of grace and is freely given - to all those who would accept it. It is not by works and it cannot be earned. Grace is God's unmerited favor; it is impossible to work for it, neither can one ever be good enough to attain it: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God Not of works, lest any man should boast" - Ephesians 2:8, 9 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" - Titus 3:5 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" - Romans 6:23 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved..." - Acts 16:31, 32 Why would Rome insist that we have to work along with God's grace (what they refer to as "cooperating grace") in order to be saved? The very expression of cooperating grace or cooperating with grace is a contradiction in terms. If Grace is unmerited favor and is freely given by God, how can one then co-operate or work alongside with it to receive it? Co-operating with grace would nullify grace; it wouldn't be freely received. Their works for attaining salvation include: going to weekly Mass; partaking of the sacraments; paying a penalty or Penance for one's sins (which denies the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross to cover all sins); and then finally spending time in a fictitious place called Purgatory, to purge away any leftover sins that Christ's blood couldn't cover, or not enough Penance was performed. Purgatory is just another means of denying the sufficiency Christ's atonement for our sins; it is the ultimate declaration that his agonizing crucifixion on a wooden cross - the plan of salvation that was established before the foundation of the world was laid - was not enough to pay the cost of all of our sins. In other words, when Christ uttered those final words "It is finished" - signifying that He had satisfied the wrath of God against us for the sins we have committed and that all our sins were "paid in full", Rome declares that no it is not finished and the paying of penances and time spent in Purgatory is required. It is a rejection of what Christ accomplished. Their gospel is a complete distortion of the gospel of grace, and is in fact another gospel - as the Apostle Paul warned against: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:6-9 Why would Rome teach another gospel? They are leading their followers astray and the gospel they teach can't possibly save anyone. A gospel of works nullifies God's free gift of grace: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" Romans 11:6 "Who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" - 2 Timothy 1:9 It should be clear that a true church would never teach a false gospel. Along with the aforementioned false teachings - and there are many others - Rome has taken upon itself to invent new teachings over the centuries that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught. Here is a brief list of some of their "infallible" doctrines that they have implemented: * Prayers for the Dead and the Sign of the Cross - 300ad * Veneration of Angels and Dead Saints - 375ad * The Mass, as a daily celebration adopted - 394ad * The worship of Mary, and the use of the term "Mother of God" - 431ad * Priests begin to dress differently from the laity - 500ad * Extreme Unction or Last Rites as a sacrament - 526ad * Doctrine of Purgatory established (denies Christ's sufficiency) - 593ad * Latin language used in prayer and worship in churches (not all Catholics understood Latin, rendering the words meaningless) - 600ad * Prayers directed to Mary (even though Jesus taught to pray to the Father) - 600ad * Title of Pope bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome - 610ad * Kissing of the Pope's feet - 709ad * Temporal power of the Popes - 750ad * Worship of the Cross, Images and Relics (idolatry) - 788ad * Holy Water instituted - 850ad * Veneration of St. Joseph begins - 890ad * Baptism of Bells - 965ad * Canonization of Dead Saints (ALL Christians are saints!) - 995ad * Fasting on Fridays and during Lent - 998ad * The Mass is an ongoing sacrifice of Jesus and attendance mandatory - 1079ad * Celibacy of Priesthood - 1079ad * Praying the Rosary introduced (vain repetitions, Christ warns against) - 1090ad * Inquisition of Heretics (Bible believing Christians who didn't bend the knee to Rome) - 1184ad * Selling of Indulgences to lessen time spent in Purgatory (denies Christ's atonement) - 1190ad * Transubstantiation priest can transform a wafer into Jesus Christ - 1215ad * Confession of sin to a priest - 1215ad * Adoration of the wafer (blasphemy, idolatry) - 1220ad * Bible forbidden to be read or owned by laymen (Bibles deny Rome's teachings) - 1229ad * Scapular of Mary worn frees a person from Purgatory (nonsense) - 1287ad * Cup of Blood of Christ forbidden to be touched by laymen - 1414ad * Doctrine of Purgatory proclaimed to be Dogma of the Faith - 1439ad * Doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed (works that must be done along with grace) - 1439ad * Ava Maria instituted (Prayer/hymn to Mary) - 1508ad * Tradition of Rome equal with Scripture (free license for popes in declarations) - 1545ad * Apocryphal Books added to Rome's Bible - 1546ad * Immaculate Conception of Mary (they declare she was born without sin Romans 3:23) - 1834ad * Papal Infallibility (pope can declare anything and their faithful must believe) - 1870ad * Modern Science "Modernism" condemned by pope - 1907ad * Condemnation of public schools (Rome couldn't teach kids their doctrines) - 1930ad * "Mother of God" title to Mary reaffirmed - 1931ad * Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Mary bodily arose to Heaven - not in Bible) - 1950ad Along with these doctrines that Rome has established over the years for their faithful to adhere to and further one's bondage to their system, they have also leveled condemnations or "anathemas" on all bible believing Christians who would not submit to the papacy or their system. Here is a sampling of 100 or so anathemas that the papacy has declared over the years: - If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...let him be anathema . - If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. - If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema. [1 John 5:13 tells us that we can be assured of our salvation. Either John, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is lying to us, or Rome is] - If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. [The Bible declares that Rome's doctrine is in error] - If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema. [The sacraments are works and nullify grace] - If anyone...denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood - which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema. [Worshipping a wafer is both idolatrous and blasphemous] Whether they realize it or not, they have not only bestowed these condemnations on all Bible believing Christians, but on Christ and His Apostles as well - including Peter, who they claim was the first pope. They would never teach the things that Rome claims nor would they have any part in their false religious system. Is Roman Catholicism, as they contend, the One True Church? Not hardly, if they teach doctrines of men, instead of the Word of God: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3 "Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." - Matthew 15:6 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:9 "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" - Mark 7:9 Dear Roman Catholic, there is no way that the Church of Rome can be The One True Church. They offer a false gospel and there is no truth in it. The true Church of Christ is the body of all believers who have put their complete faith and trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross - it is not just a particular denomination or any other man made religious system. Works are not a part of His salvation; neither is paying a penance for your own sins, or going to a purging place called Purgatory, or any of the other means of attaining salvation that Rome concocts. As a matter of fact, after a lifetime of being active in their system: being baptized as an infant; attending mandatory weekly mass (and should you miss one Sunday purposely, they claim you have committed a "mortal sin" and would go to hell if not confessed to a priest); confessed your sins to a priest and paid a penalty or Penance for those sins; receive Jesus Christ physically (instead of spiritually as the Bible attests) through their Eucharistic service; performing the other sacraments; and then ultimately, after death, spend an undetermined amount of time suffering in Purgatory to purge away any remaining sins that Christ couldn't cover because His plan of redemption obviously came up short, one can still never claim that they have any assurance of salvation. According to Rome, one commits the "sin of Presumption" if they believe they can claim to know for sure that they have secured salvation through Christ; an anathema will be directed your way if you claim that you know that you are saved. Even though the Apostle John - the one whom Christ entrusted with the care of His earthly mother to after Jesus' death on the cross - assured us regarding salvation: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." - 1 John 5:13 All of the so-called works that the Catholic must do to try to attain salvation, only furthers one's commitment to their religion to try to appease God and ends up increasing their bondage to this false system. Their "Holy Mother Church" can only save us; the priests are needed for absolving our sins; their Mass has to be attended; the sacraments are needed; and on and on it goes. Even the erroneous doctrine of Purgatory is presented with the caveat that one's time can be lessened there by buying Mass cards, donating money to the Church, etc. It is all about their system and not Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church. Their system offers really no hope. It is a counterfeit Christianity and they present a corrupted version of the truth. On the surface, they appeal to the flesh in all their displays of piety, ritualism, relics, images, incense, candles, acts of contrition, shrines usually dedicated to Mary mainly, as well as other dead saints, and for the most part, Christ is left out in all of their regalia - unless, of course, He is depicted as a baby or still hanging on the cross. All of that is a substitute for real thing but is attractive to those who have no clue as to what God's Word says about sin, atonement, salvation or a gospel of grace. They don't waste an opportunity to diminish what Christ has performed for us on the cross, or who Christ really is. Instead of rightly pointing to the Creator for salvation, they point to the created - the priests; the popes; the statues; the wafer; Mary, or their version of Mary; the dead saints; the "Holy Mother Church" as they refer to the Catholic Church; and anything else other than Jesus Christ. They really do teach another gospel and have another Jesus - who is received via transubstantiation, but was powerless to cover all of our sins; and another Mary (the Mary of the Bible doesn't reflect any of the attributes that Rome has ascribed to her: she wasn't sinless; didn't remain a virgin after the birth of Christ; she had other children; is not a co-redeemer or co-mediator; doesn't hear or answer prayer; etc.) They emphatically are not the true church, despite their proclamations otherwise. One day, we will all stand before Christ at His judgment. If you die as a Roman Catholic, Rome will not be there to defend you. If they can't even be entrusted with the safeguarding of its members children (speaking of the decades, may be centuries long molestation and raping of children by their clergy, and the cover-up and relocation of these criminals to other parishes by their bishops, cardinals and popes), how can you possibly trust them with your eternal security and salvation? The bottom line is: you can't....and you must not. Accept the One who WILL be there in front of you at His judgment. Don't be beguiled by the enemy and accept a false substitute plan of salvation. Accept His free gift of salvation, believe in Him and His Word, and His Truth will indeed set you free! "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." - Colossians 2:8 "There is a way which seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" - Proverbs 14:12

@floydfan82

9 жыл бұрын

Stephen Meehan Wow! I don't really know where to begin. Maybe just one question at a time. Concerning the 7 books "added" to the Bible in 1546 A.D, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren't in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?

@tm1830

7 жыл бұрын

floydfan82 I wonder how he refers to his own father? Maybe as dada? There is so much here that is stereotypical of old Prot arguments against the RCC that have been refuted time and time and time again. Instead of continuing in this vein, why not pick up a book like The Protestant's Dilemma, or Catholic and Christian, and come to truly understand what the RCC church teaches instead of continuing to perpetuate false notions?

@VideoMask93

7 жыл бұрын

Holy word vomit plagiarised from Lorraine Boettner, Batman!

@kadeshswanson3991

6 жыл бұрын

Oh wow I can't believe my eyes. You have just refuted 2000 years of doctrine and discredited some of the most brilliant catholic theologians the world has ever know with this comment....... Sarcasm

@joekosmack9642

6 жыл бұрын

Wow dude I can’t believe you typed that all out. You really had no idea of your Catholic faith. You show how little you know with you small ball call no man Father. In Matthew19:19 Jesus tells the rich man honor your father and mother. Some other scriptures that Paul John and Christ use the term Father and not referring to God the father. 1Cor4:15 James 2:21 Luke 18:18-22 1Thessalonians 2:11-12 Like 15:20-22 Exodus 20:12 Ephesians 6:2-4 Colossians 3:21 Luke 16:24 1john 2:13-14 So which is it are these apostles defying Christ if so then the Bible would be fallible and we know that’s not true. Look Christ was speaking in Hyperbole. A over exaggeration to make a point. Christ says in Luke you can not be his disciple unless you hate your father mother sister wife and children. Do you hate your family? Better not because Christ was again speaking in Hyperbole. He’s saying put your father in heaven above everything! I mean come on! If you can’t understand that then what else are you wrong interpretating about the Church. God Bless you! Love!

fr. Barron "the smell pleasing to the Lord" was/is the smell from in front of the temple were the kosher blood sacrifice was being smoked /cured so the priests were fed. After the blood sacrifice. The horns on the altar were were there to hold the sacrifice in place. Jesus said in John 6 "gnaw on my flesh" . The priests received after the blood sacrifice the remains of the day after they cured it. A priest now consumes Christ with those at Communion.

The one sacrifice on Calvary and the Eucharist are one action, and we are called to participate. That is the only way I have found to reconcile Jesus dying once for all and the texts in Romans 12:1 "I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship." ; Colossians 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church," and 1 Peter 2:5 "and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

Fr. Barron, would you please make a few comments on our Christian brothers and sisters in Egypt and Syria and the persecution they suffer? You have the audience to spread the message about the conditions they're living under.

The Protester Disciples who turned from Jesus when he told them to gnaw on his flesh. John 6,66 are the reason Jesus turned to Peter after the protesters to the faith left his real presence and asked him do you want to leave? Peter with God's help responded "Lord to whom shall we go. you have the word of eternal life."

0:32 _"we understressed sacrifice - it's a problem, a very serious problem"_ Monsignor Lefebvre would have agreed the problem was very serious indeed. _So_ serious he didn't want a liturgy created at that period. Why was the reception of Quo Primum so very different from the reception of "Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum"? I think it has to do with what you just called, "a very serious problem" ...

We each carry our own crosses in life, we unite them with Christ who suffered and died for humanity.

Jesus has sat down at the right hand of the Father on high, He is no longer on the cross, He gave one sacrifice, never to be repeated. "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" Hebrews 9:28, He was once offered, He can't be offered again.

@daniellelyman5118

6 жыл бұрын

the Mass is one and the same sacrifice as Calvary, just as Christ continues to be the intercessor he also jointures to be the propitiation of Sin.

Can a Catholic please tell me what this means? "Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, "the Work of GOD is this: to BELIEVE in the one he has sent"(John 6:29)

@timspangler8440

9 жыл бұрын

***** It isn't an evangelical response. It's a Jesus QUOTE.

@timspangler8440

9 жыл бұрын

***** "Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of the Lord lasts forever"

@timspangler8440

9 жыл бұрын

***** "Let God be true and every man a liar".

@timspangler8440

9 жыл бұрын

***** Have a great day Gary.

With AUDACITY to CONDESCEND ,accordingly.

Great Bishop Barron, since there is no greater gift in life.From your speach (and leaving out Jesus' Transfiguration), is Jesus "Divine" after his death??? (Since he reconciled humanity and divinity by his sacrifice on the cross???").[Afterall, Jesus was "human" in all things except sin.]Could you pease let me know."Thank you" in anticipation.

But how can Christ offer up sacrifices for our sin without our conversion of heart? Is it not a great blasphemy to try to use or abuse Sacrifice without firstly being converted in the soul, in the heart? How can we offer up sacrifices for sin without conversion of heart? The big mistake that the Scribes, Pharisees, and priests made in the time of Jesus was to think very much of Sacrifice & very little of conversion of heart. They used Sacrifice as an apparatus while continuing in sin.Blasphemy!

V

Catholic salvation: If you believe hard enough that God has given man the supernatural ability to turn man made material into God, and do this over and over again...you still have no idea if you are going to Heaven.

@floydfan82

9 жыл бұрын

Tim Spangler CORRECT CATHOLIC TEACHING ON SALVATION: "Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5-8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9-10, 1 Cor. 3:12-15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11-13)."

They INVENT AUDACIOUS

I thought we were saved by the the one great sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The ordinance of the Lords Table has nothing to do with sacrifice. Sacrifice is not required anymore. Our union with God comes from knowing the Lord, not from the repeated sacrifice albeit symbolic. Jesus said" do this in remembrance of me" not to declare Him resacrificed but to sup with him and and commune with him who was the one and only perfect sacrifice. SOLA SCRIPTURA!

How yes I remember John he baptized with water to cleanse us of the sins of this World. Now the baptism using the name of the FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT to exorcise/exorcism of original sin not consume.

Consider that it is Satan offering you the apples(trials) would you rather eat/gnaw on the apples or Christ. The smell of the temple was the priests smoking/incensing/curing(pun intended) the meat to preserve it to eat after the sacrifice of the people. You need to be fed with something that will give you life not death. Apples will pass pun intended. Life in gnawing on Christ is for ever. Have a blessed day.

As a so called christian priest, he should be aware of his holy bible teaching that his Saviour JESUS CHRIST was Sacrifice Once! Hope he should read The Holy Bible Book of Hebrews Chapter 10 Verses 10 to 14!!!

Fr. Barron mentions in this video "Fr. Barron comments on The Sacrament of the Eucharist as Sacrement" about "the smell of the Temple" it comes from the priests in front of the temple smoking the edible remains of the "blood sacrifice." which then feed the priests who lived by faith alone. Contrary to protesters to the faith who now treat Christ's flesh and blood as only symbolic. Kosher/Heath laws that we all adhere to now explain what is mistakenly called cannibalism.

Where is "unbloody sacrifice" for sin in Scripture? Who made this stuff up? "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"

@rlburton

9 жыл бұрын

Tim Spangler In the central Tabernacle of the old Temple, we see the Trinity; There was the Ark of the Covenant, which was overshadowed by God's Glory. There was the Lampstand covered in tongues of fire, illuminating the temple and foreshadowing the Holy Spirit. There was the golden table on which was kept the sacrificial Bread of the Presence with the wine; kept always before God, and consumed sacrificially regularly by the priests. Here we see Christ.

@timspangler8440

9 жыл бұрын

Rodney Burton All of that was a foreshadowing of Christ dying on the Cross. That is the singular mechanism for the payment of sins and entry into the Holy of Holies, which believers can now do. Christians can now "come boldly before the throne"

@rlburton

9 жыл бұрын

Tim Spangler Indeed yes; the Bread of the Presence is a foreshadowing of the Cross, because the Eucharist and the Cross are inseparable; one and the same sacrifice as Christ the Bridegroom weds Himself to His Church; hallelujah! Matthew 19 "...And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.'... " Matthew 26 "...While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.'..."

@timspangler8440

9 жыл бұрын

Rodney Burton You'll forgive me if I enter the Holy of Holies through the spirit of Jesus,instead of the Eucharist.

@rlburton

9 жыл бұрын

Tim Spangler Friend, does a man in love say "I will love this woman in spirit alone; I have no need of some ritualistic marriage ceremony." ?

He worships IT. ( shhh)

Eucharist: Helps the dead. Catechism, look up pg. 345,#1371 / pg.420,#1689. The Word of God, Romans 14:12 / Hebrews 9:27 / John 3:18 / John 3:36 / John 5:24 / Colossians 2:8. They do not agree.

So, Christ's Sacrifice was not sufficient on the cross, and he has to be sacrificed over and over again? How can people believe this cult?

@MatthewCaligari

10 жыл бұрын

Whatever Prottie! Go back to your invisible church.

@cmdaniels1986

10 жыл бұрын

Matthew Caligari "Go back to your invisible church." My church is the body of Christ. I have a simple question for you. Since you believe the Grace of God is given through the Sacraments, can I perform the Sacraments on my own, or do I need an ordained priest to do this?

@youngacal3

10 жыл бұрын

My brother, before you judge us, consider what the early christians did and the writings of the early church fathers. in regards to Jesus being sacrificed over and over again, Jimmy Aikins, I believe answers this eloquently as follows: " Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us. The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, "This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you." So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ-it is the work of Christ" May God Bless you and all whe search for truth here.

@mike-cc3dd

10 жыл бұрын

cult.. haha. your ignorance is showing.. you better hide it.

@jerrypoeschel4628

9 жыл бұрын

They believe because they have been duped. In their eyes, the sacrifice was not sufficient. Remember, we need no temple priest because Christ ALONE is our HIGH PRIEST. Our sacrifice should be our life.

Now, now Bishop. You certainly know that you, and other RC clergy are not alone in wearing the chasuble or using sacrificial language at the Eucharist. The Orthodox certainly do and so do many high church Lutherans and Anglicans. Indeed the Book of Common prayer calls this the sacred mysteries, and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, in which "we offer and present unto thee ourselves, our souls and bodies...all who partake of this Holy Communion worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood-----that He may dwell in us and we in Him" etc. As to a death sacrifice, Jesus did that once and perfectly on Calvary, and our sacrifice at the altar is sacramental, and not a do-over or actual repetition. As He himself said from the cross: "It is finished". In fact up to 8:58 of this video, many of us in the high church tradition would agree whole-heartedly, but then as an RC apologist talking to the historically and theologically illiterate on YT, you went on to claim a uniqueness of vestment and sacrificial belief that you knew was inaccurate. As a good man, you can do better, padre.

@mosesking2923

4 жыл бұрын

You are correct in terms of vestments, but incorrect in terms of the rest of your argument. The Anglicans have clearly denied the Mass as sacrifice as well as the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is clear in the 39 articles. Regardless, the Anglicans have invalid orders so they couldn’t get the Eucharist even if they tried.

the eucharist is a wicked ceremony, attempting to give the roman catholic church feigned authority to add faith and salvation by re-sacrificing Christ millions of times. it denies that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for salvation by itself. it denies God the Father's gift of faith by grace.