Bishop Barron on Vatican II and the Power of the Laity

[@Matt-vx3ow]

Bishop, you are an inspiration to me and the other students at the Newman Center at Texas A&M - Corpus Christi. Thank you for all that you do!

[@Ingrid0410]

+Matthew Anderson Hi Matthew! God Bless You in your studies dear! May God lead you every step of the way. I l also have a son at Uni! xo

[@Matt-vx3ow]

+ingrid Thank you! God bless you, too, and best of luck to your son!

[@exsandohhsify]

Happy Birthday Bishop Barron!

[@patrickbutler87]

Thank you, Bishop Barron, for your apostolate! You are an inspiration and you have my prayers.

[@JesusPedroza]

Great reflection Your Excellency! God bless you!

[@JTrace15]

Happy birthday Bishop Barron! I'm greatful to see you as a spiritual father. Excellent points, I want to mull over in prayer. By the way, the birds churping in the background was nice.

[@JTrace15]

+rosegarden23 Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment. May God bless you and your loved ones, and have a blessed Thanksgiving. Come Holy Spirit!

[@cinderblockstudios]

Bishop, I really love your concept of denying a question that is wrongly put. I often come across this in conversations with friends who are asking a question about the idea of the church that exits in their heads, rather than a question concerning what they have seen or heard. Many of my answers to these questions begin with a clarification of the question first asked.

[@crustyoldmetalhead]

It is a great time to be a Catholic. Thanks Bishop.

[@floydfan82]

+crustyoldmetalhead I concur. Persecution and all. I was just listening to Catholic Answers Live on EWTN radio and apologist Tim Staples was mentioning how there is a great welling up in the Catholic Church because many are recognizing the many things crumbling around us in our culture.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

I'm pretty liberal for a Catholic, and I have no issue with an all male priesthood. Only men can be fathers, only women can be mothers, and neither is superior or inferior to the other. If women are called to religious service, the Catholic Church offers them the roles of sisters and nuns, both of which are every bit as necessary and as holy as priests and brothers. I do believe that there are natural gender roles, and our families have suffered in our attempt to follow p.c. culture instead of what is rational. The priest is to serve in the mold of Christ who was a celibate male. Protestant pastors can be more open to women since they do not have transubstantiation and the emphasis on the sacraments that the Catholic Church does. But as we have seen, becoming more "gender neutral" has not helped the Anglican faith grow or even retain members. As parishioners see more and more doctrine discarded for politics, they find little reason to show up on Sunday. People can be secular humanists at home and sleep in on the weekends. Church needs to be more than a feel-good social club.

[@Ingrid0410]

+Cassandra'sCurse I agree Cassandra! Much of this is WHY I converted from Episcopalian to Catholic. We must not follow the culture but follow Christ. HIS truths are the same generation to generation. And did you know in the Anglican prayer book it says, the "Real Presence is Blasphemy"?????? This is appalling. No wonder I am now a Catholic! But, the Episcopal Church does have the best music! xo

[@Charlotte_Martel]

ingrid Thanks for posting, Ingrid. I had no idea that the prayer book stated that. It surprises me because the founder of the Anglican faith (Henry VIII) was quite insistent on the Real Presence and actually had those who insisted on the symbolic meaning put to death for heresy. I know that much has changed in the past 500 years, but to venture that far is surprising. For my taste in music, I love the Orthodox hymns. The beautiful a capella chants are quite ethereal. When I visited relatives in England, I attended an Anglican Mass, and it was quite lovely. It's a shame that so many of the great churches of Europe now function more as tourist attractions rather than as places of worship, but perhaps that will change. One thing that really struck me about the Anglican faith (in England, at least) was how fearful and suspicious it was of Catholics. I believe that if one is in the line of succession and converts to Catholicism, he/she must give up any claim to the throne. It's mind boggling. Anyway, welcome to the faith. I hope that your RCIA experience was pleasant and informative and that you'll continue to find truth within the Church. Pax!

[@Ingrid0410]

Hello and thank you for your lovely message! Are you a Catholic now? I was Anglican before I found the true Church. But I must say the music in the Anglican?Episcopal church is unsurpassed. They really know fine music! God Bless You!

[@Charlotte_Martel]

ingrid Yes, I'm one of those "cradle Catholics," born and bred. Catholic churches really vary in their music. I've seen some that use garage bands (cringe!) while others are more traditional and use choirs and organs. I've always found that it's good to explore the churches of one's parish in order to find the one whose worship-style best matches one's personal taste. I've seen a wide spectrum, so while attending Mass at the nearest church may be more convenient, one may enjoy and ultimately get much more out of attending a church a bit further away. I will have to check out the Anglican/Episcopalian music online. I don't remember it being much different from the Catholic standard, but your recommendation has intrigued me. God bless you as well and have a lovely Advent.

[@Ingrid0410]

Wow Cassandra! Thank you for your beautiful message! God Bless You!

[@Ingrid0410]

Amen Fr. Barron! Yes, sanctification of the world! Our purpose, whether married or religious! Thank you so much for the great explanation! God Bless You! Yes! You are a family man, and have children! Amen!!!!! How astute of you to know this! Please pass this on to other Priests!

[@rielleyduckworth6066]

You're absolutely right about the Vatican II documents, Bishop. It is far too commonplace to encounter people who haven't carefully read them and thus cling to a vague concept of the spirit of the council. Similarly, there are too many people who criticize or outright reject anything associated with the council because they haven't read the documents either. Keep these excellent videos coming.

[@dinhhoangtu311]

God bless you, bishop Robert Barron!

[@billyj32]

Great points. The fact that the future Pope went through the work of Vatican II with his flock is something I do not think happened in many dioceses in United States. Everyone seemed to take from the documents what they wanted and not a whole picture. Thank you for the talk.

[@jorgearaujorios6367]

Dear Bishop.. you have a new follower from Mexico.. I really enjoy all your videos.. Keep up illustrating us with your wisdom.. God Bless you

[@thoughtadventure100]

In the breviary today, there is a text from a sermon by St. Augustine. He makes reference to Jesus’ teaching “And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother (Mat 12:49-50)." Augustine said, “Now having said that all of you are brothers of Christ, shall I not dare to call you his mother? Much less would I dare to deny his own words. Tell me how Mary became the mother of Christ, if it was not by giving birth to the members of Christ? You, to whom I am speaking, are the members of Christ. Of whom were you born? “Of Mother Church,” I hear the reply of your hearts. You became sons of this mother at your baptism, you came to birth then as members of Christ. Now you in your turn must draw to the font of baptism as many as you possibly can. You became sons when you were born there yourselves, and now by bringing others to birth in the same way, you have it in your power to become the mothers of Christ.”

[@margarethhuapcent1270]

All baptized are laity . 😇😇😇👼🔥☄️🕊️💐💗 Thank you Mommy Mary! Thank you Bishop Barron! Thank you Jesús Christ!

[@dinovalente2947]

A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic. I leave you to draw the conclusions?

[@josephgoutier683]

In a commentary on Black Feet Indian history, the women, the grandmothers, were the ones who stayed home and raised the children while the men went hunting and/or fighting for the survival of the tribe; reasonably then, the women were the ones who chose the tribe's Chief, and allowed him to continue as long as he took good care of the tribe; that may account for the fact that the chief remained chief as long as he lived; but when a chief did what was not appropriate to the good of the tribe, the grandmothers found a way to depose him and replace him. That fact from ancient tradition may relate to the role of women in the history of the Church. The priest, the bishop, the pope, are to serve, not impose on the people.

[@Poopsmif06]

Dear Bishop Baron- I too deny the premise because there are priests who either through annulment or being widowed, HAVE children. Having watched the clip in question, and now this video, I very much would like to hear your thoughts on how formerly married priests with children fit into our Church. Many times being older, do they have the same opportunities to "promote," so to speak, and make a greater difference in the organization? Are there any notable such men in modern times we should all know about? Thank you!

[@Poopsmif06]

1/9 priests (and 1/1 transitional Deacons) in the Diocese of Juneau have kids; Seems a sizable percentage to me!

[@Adam0804]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Adam & Eve and how it fits into modern theories of human development i.e. evolution

[@ClassicPhilosophyFTW]

+Adam0804 Well of course I'm not the good Bishop, but I hope you'll let me answer your query. Check this link out, it's encellent and very thorough: edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html If you have questions feel free to get back to me. Benedicat Deus te.

[@robertdelrosario139]

Let us pray for both clergymen and the laity. Jesus, cover us with Your blood and fill us with Your Holy Spirit. Queen Mary, our Mother...pray for us. Bishop, how can us laity boldly evangelize and catechize the masses in our times? thank you. Please pray for me.

[@mariofsantana3952]

If one is a dermatologist with acne, it does not mean that they can not practice dermatology, if one is a priest or religious who is celibate it does not mean he does not know what the holy family of Nazareth is all about. I think that good advice flows from someone who is oriented towards God. Not some therapist who thinks he or she can provide advice based on world values. Priest and Religious can indeed advice married couples and families

[@dynamic9016]

Peace

[@WbFlees1]

Nice copies of the works of Melville and Shakespeare in the background!

[@Loreman72]

it seems to me that people who say, 'You don't play the game, you don't make the rules', wouldn't say that about banking. In the same way, we all pay the price of fatherlessness, just like we all pay the price of stupid financial risks.

[@MrBeastthing]

Your Excellency, can you give a brief comment about your views and the church views of the SSPX?

[@robertbarker8358]

"Led the people of that diocese in a careful study of the documents of Vatican II." So, I guess the true defenders of doctrine are NOT those who uphold its "amorphous spirit"?

[@DJIndy]

On the second point, I mostly expected you to simply point out that priests do not simply appear out of nothing, but all indeed do have families (at least a mother and a father, and many have brothers and sisters), many even have still living families, and I'd wager only few were orphans.

[@Ingrid0410]

+DJIndy Hi again! I would like to say, I do think the Lord instituted roles for a reason here. If men would Make the living, and women, stay home with the kids, our society would not be so screwed up IMO!

[@DJIndy]

***** I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make.

[@Ingrid0410]

Hummmmm. I think, roles here. The man is the provider, protector and spiritual leader, the woman the source of the home, etc. I do think this is what God intended for the family, not the other way around. and certainly not for the woman to do it all. If she does, something suffers and it's usually the family. BAD!!!!!! If a couple was given the gift from God of a child, the woman should stay home to raise him/her and the man provide.

[@Ingrid0410]

lol. Hope you're doing well Eric! Good discussion!

[@labrynianrebel]

It would have also been great if you pointed out that Eastern Catholic Priests can be married just to wash away another generalization.

[@brettneville2351]

+labrynianrebel And even a few Roman Catholic priests are permitted to be married when ordained...

[@stcolreplover]

I really wish somewhere on the intertubes I could see these exchanges, if someone has them, please send.

[@CallMeJAR1]

When is the next council?

[@crissy214]

Chris Matthews would be lucky to have 1000 viewers

[@victoriacarter5334]

John Smith, don't ask a Holy Bishop this question, ask yourself! Without the 7 sacraments and good work, you cannot be save. You will be judged by the work that you do here on earth. Bishop Barron job is to save souls. What do you do for mankind? You sounds like a protestant.

[@yosephklemensmau8513]

Do you think that celibacy is still relevant to the modern life? please learn the way the protestant church and Ortodox church thoughts which are more wise and logic.

[@ZiemniakZKosmosu]

This talk is to my ears totally secularized. In words both bishop Barron and tv hosts, the God Almighty which every man has duty to love, know and serve is missing and Church is reduced to a group of man, which primarily use is as a force to promote any world view the man want. ''Man without family decided what family is'', ''No priests are family's man'' this lines illustrates what I mean: view that Man not GOD is source of doctrine in the Church, which not descend from Lord Himself. Just as said, I less and less understand what is new in ''universal call for Holiness''. Does saint is not a someone who is in Heaven? Consider that when members of Church preach to all people to turn away from sins, otherwise you will be thrown into hell, what is just true, they in practice call for universal Holiness. In that light todays neglection of sins and calling sinners to repent, make ''universal call for Holiness'' just empty bumper sticker.

[@skjelver4]

The barring of females from the priesthood is not an issue of "power"; it is really an issue of inclusion and justice. How can a woman feel included in a church where she has to confess her sins to a person who has no possible way to identify with her experience? And what does she tell her daughters who ask her why there are no women priests? Does she tell her daughters that they could one day become saints, which would give them a much more powerful position in the Church than than that of priests? That's a totally absurd idea, isn't it? Her daughters probably aren't concerned with power at all; they probably just want to see one priest in their lifetime whom they can identify with. Almost equally absurd is the idea of priests being "married to the Church". The priest at the parish where I went through the RCIA program once showed me his bedroom while he was taking me on a tour of the rectory. He had a huge king sized bed with about ten pillows on it. I later heard stories about the guy's homosexual antics, and later still, while I was conversing with him, he moved his face to within inches of mine, straightened my shirt collar, and made an odd pass at me, that was very clever in it's subtlety. Was this priest just an oddball who didn't understand his role of being married to the Church? I suggest that people reflect on their own experiences and answer that question for themselves. I'm just trying to re frame this subject, so that people might look at it from a perspective that agrees with their own experience, more than the experience of the all male clergy who made up Vatican II.

[@DJIndy]

+skjelver one "How can a woman feel included in a church where she has to confess her sins to a person who has no possible way to identify with her experience?" This raises more questions: are women not human (or are men not human), so as to make it that there is no possible human connection to identify with each other? For that matter, does that mean Christ cannot identify and understand women because He is not a woman (this is not a random stretch either, as the work of Christ through the priest is very important here)? Does it even matter if the priest can identify with the experiences of the one confessing sins? How strong does their likeness have to be for their identification to be valid? Must a priest be a mass murderer, an adulterer, a rapist etc to hear the confession of one? Must a priest be from Manilla and have immigrated in his 20s to North Carolina to hear the confession of someone from Manilla who immigrated in their 20s? Must the priest be paralyzed from the neck down to hear the confession of one paralyzed from the neck down? And what are the further implications. If we allow women priests for this purpose, do we then segregate and split the whole Church in the confession line? Do we extend it and have different Masses for women and for men (remember too, the reason the priest hears confession is strongly connected to his primary duty to bring the Eucharist to the people)? Do we have different parishes? But again, why would the one administering the sacrament of reconciliation need to 'identify with the experience' of the one confessing sins? "And what does she tell her daughters who ask her why there are no women priests?" The same thing she would tell her sons, or the same things a father would tell his daughter or son, and the same thing anyone would tell anyone: there's no one with the authority to ordain women. St. John Paul II declared he did not have the authority, and if even the Pope does not have the authority, that leaves it to God, which really goes back to the further source of the matter simply that, as far as our best knowledge leads, Christ did not bestow the priestly or episcopal office on any women, despite having many prominent women followers who were of very important to Him, and the Tradition of the Church since then has not indicated this to be a trivial matter (you could argue about other differences they likely didn't have that we accept, but most of that is covered by the teachings of the Apostles and their actions in foreign lands, for instance). Bishop Barron brought up power because that was the concern of the ones he was addressing, not because that's a central matter (the point was rather to the contrary). Oddly, we don't hear many people asking why men can't be nuns. As for you objection to the idea of priests being married to the Church, I honestly fail to see how your explanation there relates really at all to the claim being absurd. At best, it seems you are trying to indicate he was not acting as a married man should, but rather as an adulterous man, but then you'd have the key to resolving the problem: just like any other married man, a priest can (has the ability, although not necessarily the right) be lecherous. As for the "all male clergy who made up Vatican II", it's rather fortunate that Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit, as all ecumenical councils are, rather than just the work of a group of men. If you reject that, and likewise if you reject the validity of Christ for women simply because He is a he (which, there are some theologians who do just that, and in wider regard than just confession), then what's the point of being Catholic at all? And once you step through that door, the questions are no longer meaningful.

[@Ingrid0410]

+skjelver one Hello friend! Wow that is really not that unusual as Priests are people too, with all their faults. Just like so are basketball coaches, boy scout leaders, trail guides, TV repairmen, phone operators, etc.....To expect anyone to be perfect is fooling yourself my dear. Yes, Priests SHOULD be a good example but sadly they aren't all like Fr. Baron, and he is not perfect either, he'd probably be the first to admit. They have their flaws too, just like we do. I think though do not throw the baby out with the bath water is a great philosophy to adhere to. I'm a Catholic convert and nothing could ever ever push me out of the church Jesus began. God Bless You Friend!

[@skjelver4]

DJIndy Wow this is very impressive: You've answered all of my assertions and told me that none of them are valid. It's odd that you felt compelled to answer me in this manner, since I clearly advised people to examine their own experience, and come to their own conclusions based on their experiences in the Church. Yet you felt compelled to ignore my invitation to self-examination; instead you wrote an apologetic treatise (backed up by thousands of years of dogma), in order to prove that the Church is (once again) 100% correct. It's this kind of arrogance and myopic thinking that has doomed the Church, regardless of how hip the new pope seems to be. OK? Now I am going to get back to living my life.

[@DJIndy]

skjelver one Strange that you feel it is valid for you to express your views and accusations in a public way, yet when you encounter someone else expressing their views, which address the issues brought up against the Church as someone who is a member of the Church (and thus issues brought up against me, as the Church and her members are one) it is somehow arrogance and myopic thinking. And then, instead of addressing my counterpoints with ones of your own, you did what? Resorted to snark and insult? Why is that?

[@Ingrid0410]

Dear kjelver: I'm so sorry you had this experience. You must know Priests, like us are not perfect. Yet they were ordained to be In Personna Christie. I urge you to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Becoming a Catholic was the best decision I ever made in my entire life! God Bless You sister!

[@winniesokolowski9102]

Bishop Barron, I do so appreciate your work, your videos and articles have saved me from leaving the Church on more than one occasion, however, I do take exception to this particular video. To me, I think you are being a bit disingenuous and perhaps touting the party line regarding women's ordination - I get it, you are a Bishop and so you must. We have to acknowledge the historical existence of an ordained - fully anointed - female Deaconate that was dismantled after centuries by Pope Siricius. Regarding women in the church in general, if I heard you message correctly, the only way women can have influence in the Church is by being Saints? Why would we have to be held to that high of a standard? Why don't we focus on the fact that Christ chose Mary Magdalene to witness his resurrection and the Holy Women who stayed with him throughout the crucifixion - (with the exception of John). And that Mary Magdalene perhaps anointed Jesus at the last supper so he could fulfill his mission?(I do realize I am leaving myself open here) I dare say that had women been in the conclave, the abuse of minors that has plagued our Church since the time of St Dominic would not have happened. Without women in decision making positions the Church is walking with one leg, limping along. Lastly, the fate of women religious (who take vows but are none-the-less considered laity) is still very sad today. I give you an example, a former seminary close to my home (I won't name it) that continued to run programs after no longer functioning as a seminary was closed down recently - a decision made by the order running the facility. The Priests who were still living at the seminary were taken care of, found new residences etc. The 30 + aged sisters were simply told they had to leave! No resources were provided, they had to fund their move, their new residence with no assistance whatsoever from the Church or the Order to which they belonged. Completely unconscionable! Fortunately, another order of sisters (of course) has provided for them. This has frequently been the case as well. Please Bishop, we need to move forward. Even St Paul recognized women in leadership despite his oft misused letters. He is probably hand-planting in heaven going, "I never meant THAT!". Have you ever preached what Paul actually meant in his letters? That his admonition was situational and not meant to address all women? Just those being overly enthusiastic shall we say? That he spoke highly of Lydia, for example, and her leadership role? Blessings to you always, none-the less. You are a saint in the making.

[@krdiaz8026]

Women can have influence in the church by being good mothers, good sisters, etc. too. I've always thought that God limited the priesthood to men because they can't give birth to new souls. If the world isn't hung up on what men have and women don't have, instead they think of what women have and men don't have, then the men will be jealous of women's ability to grow human beings inside their bodies, and will think that the all male priesthood is a consolation prize.

[@winniesokolowski9102]

+Katrina Rhoda Diaz I agree, but if they are called by God to do something different why shouldn't they be allowed? What about women religious who are not going to be mothers? What about women who feel God is calling them to do something in addition to being mothers? Your argument would need to apply to men too then, why shouldn't men be happy only as fathers? It's not what women don't have, it is the fullness of what they do have - not leaving part of themselves on the table. The Church will have to atone for preventing women from becoming priests who know God has called them, but so will women who just stood by and let it happen. And blind obedience just reduces us to following the pharisees - didn't Jesus come in part, to change that?

[@winniesokolowski9102]

+Eric Davenport ah, no

[@winniesokolowski9102]

interesting comment, I guess, not helpful, but clearly not your intention.

[@winniesokolowski9102]

+Eric Davenport ridiculous and solely inflammatory comment. I'm done responding to you.

[@billcummings6958]

mum is a woman =is greater than you -raise 8 with my mum

[@kimcheewee4]

Raising children is the closest thing you can get to immortality. Robert Barron gave that up for a gold ring.

[@sebmac24]

+allison hwang Did you marry your husband(if you're married) just to get the wedding ring? Exactly.

[@kimcheewee4]

***** If Robert Barron was a really happy person after a lifetime of dedication becoming a bishop, he wouldn't need to pretend he was a father he'd just be happy in his position. Subconsciously he's really upset he never got to consummate his life with anyone that's why he has to pretend he's a father instead of being happy he's celibate. After all 50% of priests aren't celibate according to Richard Sipe so maybe the Protestants are right.

[@sebmac24]

You should see the Vatican II documents

[@sebmac24]

allison hwang Where are your sources of evidence for that claim? Hmm?

[@floydfan82]

+allison hwang One cannot overlook the spiritual and missionary aspects of religious (both male and female) remaining celibate. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpiyZHWEl7-Wa7c

[@georgestone3922]

Bishop, ....... next time you speak to pope Francis "the taking mule". ask him about his statements he made captured on youtube , that "JESUS "is NOT a spirit he's just a man. Explain that to your laity.

[@djblast101]

he says," Jesus is not a spirit. he is a man with flesh like ours BUT full of Glory." his point here is to express that Jesus suffered truly like us. pope is speaking on Christ humanity. He goes on to speak about his wounds his sacrifice his continuous out pour of love. He was emphasizing that he isn't just a spirit! and he isn't just a man. but a man Filled with Glory.

[@cfreeman5343]

+george stone The ENTIRE point of Christ's incarnation is that he's not just a spirit. If Christ was only spirit and not man, then our faith is totally vain. If he was not a man, then his crucifixion could not possibly save us. Rejoice that Christ is fully God and fully man!

[@georgestone3922]

djblast101 you didn't see the youtube or an explanation any pharisees would approve

[@djblast101]

+george stone sigh.... rolls eyes. God Bless you man.

[@georgestone3922]

you've invested a lot in your beliefs.. the world is not what is presented. Jesus and the bible is are hope

[@alextopno332]

Word laity will be hated and will never be accepted in the Democratic principles world and dictatorship government. Jesus never used the word laity then why the word laity comes as division of higher... Lower.. More advantagious... Or less advantagious.. Why such gapes Christians, being children of God. God never divides his children. It is the Limited human for advantageous, profit, power divides the children of God.