Glad you found the talk helpful. Merry Christmas!

Yes, simple questions, but reality is of course complex (that is, it entails many factors). A simple account is that everything was fine until Vatican II messed things up. But I would argue that that was not the case (see below for evidence that not everything was fine). In turn, the Church needed to articulate the faith anew for the new situation. Unfortunately, the true message of Vatican II was coopted (see Fr. Blake Britton's book, Reclaiming Vatican II, for an account of this) and, so, the successful implementation of Vatican II has been hindered to a large extent. As for evidence that not everything was well before Vatican II, consider the following. First, the traditional center of Catholicism, namely, Europe, had been declining in its adherence to Catholicism for the past four hundred years. There were the breaks from Catholicism in the form of Protestantism, the religious wars after that, and the growth of secular modernity (which produced rationalist philosophies and secular states that persecuted the Church). Then right before the council there were the two world wars, which evidenced anti-Catholic, and in general anti-religious, totalitarian states. Thus, Catholicism was dealing with serious problems in its traditional home base and an articulation of the faith's essentials was needed to address the new situation. Second, there was the growth of Catholicism in Africa, Asian, and the Americas due to missionary work outside of Europe. As Catholicism declined in Europe and was becoming less predominantly based on Europe, an articulation of the essentials of the faith was important to promote and sustain the faith not only in the new times (i.e., modern times) but in places where the faith was new. The tragedy is what the documents of Vatican II actually say is not dealt with. Instead, those wanting to dilute or to change what is essential to Catholicism mischaracterize the documents, to serve their agenda. And unfortunately, some who resist this diluting and misrepresenting of Catholicism also fail to look at what is in the documents themselves. If they did, they would find help in promoting the faith. Bishop Barron's talk was part of a series to look at what was actually in the documents of Vatican II.

Thanks for the concern. I'm doing well. Bad lighting or just my pale complexion ;-)

It is new

If you don't mind answering, what makes you think we are liberal community?

@@AustinOSB Absolutely.You can tell immediately a religious community’s leanings by the way mass is offered.The vestments worn…..no Latin is used by monks or nuns in the Divine Office.For example check out some videos of the Nashville Dominicans or Mother Angelica’s Poor Clares and see mass being offered in their convents.The difference is clear.Many monastic communities are still stuck in 1968 and it shows.

@@ryanscottlogan8459 Thanks for the reply. It gives me a better idea of what you mean by the term "liberal." I'm not sure that is the best term to describe us, though. Yes, there are elements in our life that reflect the 60s and 70s, such as the architecture of the abbey and some of our vestments. The abbey was completed in 1970 and we still have some vestments from decades ago. But for many the term "liberal" would mean dissenting from Church teaching rather than being orthodox. Yet we seek to be faithful to Church teaching. Also, there are traditional elements in our way of life, such as using the modes of Gregorian Chant, even if with English and with some simplifications, table reading during supper, periods of silence, and lectio divina. As for Latin, we do not use it much in our Divine Office and Mass, but we do at times.

Fr. Abbot you handled that in a very Christ like way.

Thank you@@allenmacneel1572 Have a blessed Easter season!

He does not claim that hell is empty. Follow this link from his organization, Word on Fire, for an explanation of what he holds with regard to hell: www.wordonfire.org/hope/

Thank you, Fr. Juan.