Catholic Bishop's BRILLIANT Take on Martin Luther | @tjseaney reacts

This is an exciting video where Bishop Barron seeks to color Luther in a different light. He wants to advance a different perspective of Trent and Luther for the sake of ecumenical dialogue. Fascinating clip.

[@marksmale827]

More Bishop Barron brilliance.

[@BeholdAndLo-f4v]

POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Faith is not the simple intellectual approval by man of truths concerning God. It is an act in which I freely entrust myself to a God who is Father and who loves me... Having faith is above all about having a relationship with a God whose love is indestructible and who understands people’s problems. Christian faith entails giving up control and placing one’s life in God’s hands. It’s this liberating and reassuring certainly of faith that helps people live without fear, proclaiming and living out the Gospel message with courage.”

[@Edward-ng8oo]

I agree with this statement on faith. It doesn't appear to be in conflict with justification through faith alone. God counts us righteous in His sight through faith alone. Paul teaches this in his letters and Luther elaborated on this in his writings. However Catholicism rejects this and teaches that justification happens through works as well as faith which is false. Good works are merely the result of faith and not a means to be justified and saved.

[@BeholdAndLo-f4v]

@@Edward-ng8oo MATTHEW 25:41-46: Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”

[@BeholdAndLo-f4v]

@@Edward-ng8oo 1 JOHN 4:7: Beloved, let us love one another because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten of God and has knowledge of God.

[@BeholdAndLo-f4v]

@@Edward-ng8oo 1 COR 13:1-7: Now I will show you the way which surpasses all the others. If I speak with human tongues and angelic as well, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal. If have the gift of prophecy and, with full knowledge, comprehend all mysteries, IF I HAVE FAITH GREAT ENOUGH TO MOVE MOUNTAINS, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give everything I have to feed the poor and hand over my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind. Love is not jealous, it does not put on airs, it is not snobbish. Love is never rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not prone to anger; neither does it brood over injuries. Love does not rejoice in what is wrong but rejoices with the truth. There is no limit to love’s forbearance, to its trust, its hope, its power to endure.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@BeholdAndLo-f4v These Scripture verses are entirely in harmony with justification through faith alone. God counts us righteous because we accept the gift of eternal life through believing in His Son who atoned for our sins on the cross. This faith alone justifies and saves us, However this faith always causes us to love others and do them good and if it doesn't result in this it isn't genuine faith. So we're judged by our works because they reveal whether we have true faith or not, and it's this faith which saves us before we love and do good works.

[@josephgonzales1815]

Happy to hear an evaluation of Luther that recognizes the light in the man. No one is entirely evil or wholly good. Tenebrism characterizes the human person.

[@vickersonp]

I can’t get over some of the things that Luther said. He said in response to wives being reluctant to have sex with their husband that the husband should have it off with the maid instead. That one sentence should be enough to cause any Lutheran to leave their church and to dissuade anyone from joining it.

[@quinn-tessential3232]

Deuteronomy says that if a man rapes a girl who is "un-betrothed", he is required to marry her and payoff her father. Deuteronomy essentially says you can rape your way into having a wife. Is this filthy teaching enough to cause you to turn your back on Christianity?

[@matthewashman1406]

Or join 😂

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther wasn't meaning that it was legitimate to commit adultery. He was meaning that if the wife was denying the husband his marital rights then that was grounds for divorce and remarriage.

[@williamkean7200]

This man is such a true lover of Christ, he says such truth in such loving ways

[@GarthDomokos]

I am always awed by how respectful Bishop Barron is towards others. He, like so many others in the faith, really challenges me to be a more loving person.

[@frankk.777]

Luther was a heretic

[@carlosjennings7707]

You mean St. Martin of Wittenberg.

[@cheifhog2552]

@@carlosjennings7707 No, he meant exactly what he said. Luther absolutely was a heretic. Stop being in error.

[@fiachramaccana280]

The Karl of his day..... an iconoclast who decided a name an entire religion...after himself

[@carlosjennings7707]

‘Lutheran’ is not what they historically called themselves. They prefer the term Evangelicals. ‘Lutheran’ was the designation levelled by Papists.

[@fiachramaccana280]

@carlosjennings7707 there are worse names

[@jmj5388]

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who broke his priestly vows and married a nun. He made some valid points regarding needed reform, but rather than wait for the Catholic Church to issue them from within-which did happen-Luther called for protest, which ignited the Reformation. Luther had many physical ailments, and also multiple psychological problems, including OCD, scrupulosity and a fecal fetish…hardly a man one would put in charge of faith formation.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Celibacy vows are unchristian. Many people were forced by life circumstances to become monks and nuns and take such vows which are against nature. God blessed marriage and most of the apostles were married including Peter, and for the popes to impose celibacy rules on the clergy is demonic (1 Timothy 4:1-4). Such vows should be broken. If people wish to remain unmarried that should only be a personal decision which they're free at any time to change. There was no way that the Catholic church would ever agree to justification through faith alone, reject the Papacy and purgatory, stop praying to Mary and the saints, and repudiate the sacrifice of the mass etc so it was necessary that Luther and those who agreed with him separated themselves from the papists as they'd corrupted Christianity with false teachings. Luther didn't have any fetishes, and his psychological problems were caused by the false teachings of Catholicism. When he realised that we're justified through faith alone and that good works merely flow from faith and don't cause salvation he was mentally healed and from then on lived a good Christian life with his wife and children.

[@jmj5388]

@@Edward-ng8oo Why do people get bent out of shape about priests not being allowed to marry? It’s their personal choice with a biblical basis, and celibacy is a gift, not a punishment. Men with a religious calling who are married can become deacons in the Roman Catholic Church or priests in an Eastern Rite Catholic Church; however, if they become widowed, they may not remarry. Priests do not marry for various practical, as well as spiritual, reasons. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and priests are spiritually “married” to it; for them to marry women would constitute a sort of bigamy. Do some research into the experiences of the small number of married Catholic priests (mostly converted Anglican priests) or, let’s say, ministers of all denominations; they frequently have to make choices like attending one of their children’s graduation ceremonies versus rushing to the bedside of a dying parishioner. Married priests are continually challenged by trying to dedicate themselves fully to both vocations. 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different. To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@jmj5388 The point is that there shouldn't be a blanket rule against clergy being able to marry. It should only be an individual clergyman’s personal choice whether to remain unmarried, and he should be free to get married anytime he wants without having to cease being a member of the clergy. Also this prohibition against marriage is a teaching of demons (as Paul says) and has resulted in many priests indulging in illicit affairs, and more shockingly in sexual abuse of minors. Many men might enter the Catholic priesthood thinking that they can maintain a celibate lifestyle but reality sooner or later asserts itself and they realise they can't. By nature most people need to be married to avoid living in sin and priests are no different. This clergy celibacy rule was only brought in the 11th century and seems to be little more than a means to accumulate wealth by the church seeing as priests who aren't married didn't need to support a wife and children and didn't need to provide them with any inheritance. Before this many priests were married. More broadly I don't accept there is a separate priesthood in Christianity. All Christians are priests as Peter says, and the clergy aren't a separate caste of people but simply those who are selected to fill a particular role from which they can be deposed if they prove unfaithful. The whole hierarchical structure of popes, cardinals, bishops and priests with the laity at the bottom I reject as man-made and not Biblical.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

The point is that there shouldn't be a blanket rule against clergy being able to marry. It should only be an individual clergyman’s personal choice whether to remain unmarried, and he should be free to get married anytime he wants without having to cease being a member of the clergy. Also this prohibition against marriage is a teaching of demons (as Paul says) and has resulted in many priests indulging in illicit affairs, and more shockingly in sexual abuse of minors. Many men might enter the Catholic priesthood thinking that they can maintain a celibate lifestyle but reality sooner or later asserts itself and they realise they can't. By nature most people need to be married to avoid living in sin and priests are no different. This clergy celibacy rule was only brought in the 11th century and seems to be little more than a means to accumulate wealth by the church seeing as priests who aren't married don't need to support a wife and children and don't need to provide them with an inheritance. Before the 11th century many priests were married. More broadly I don't accept there is a separate priesthood in Christianity. All Christians are priests as Peter says, and the clergy aren't a separate caste of people but simply those who are selected to fill a particular role from which they can be deposed if they prove unfaithful. The whole hierarchical structure of popes, cardinals, bishops and priests with the laity at the bottom I reject as man-made and not Biblical.

[@blueglassdave]

@@jmj5388 Why didn't you include the next verse, even given Paul's narrow appraisal of marriage? 9 "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." How easily you insist that celibacy is a gift yet follow it up with a text which makes it clear that it isn't a gift for everyone and that's perfectly fine. "a sort of bigamy"? You're not explaining, you're rationalizing. People get bent out of shape because the decision to force celibacy on the clergy is antithetical to to the clear direction of scripture, not simply claiming to define something unexplained by scripture, like some other doctrines and dogmas.

[@HartponderJr]

The Council of Trent condemned Martin Luther’s teachings, rejecting his ideas of salvation by faith alone (“sola fide”) and Scripture as the sole authority (“sola scriptura”). It affirmed the necessity of good works, upheld Church tradition, and maintained all seven sacraments, countering Luther’s reduction to two. The Council also confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation, opposing Luther’s views on the Eucharist. These actions aimed to refute Protestant reforms and reinforce Catholic doctrine.

[@matthewashman1406]

That's okay,God condemned council of Trent. Acts 15:4,5. But he confirmed the council Vatican council 😊 Acts 19:6,2.

[@johnschuh8616]

IMHO, Lutheranism view of the Eucharist was to acknowledge the Real Presence, but certainly his followers did not accept his sentiment but tended to follow the teaching of Calvin.in making the presence depend on the will of the worshipper.

[@fantasia55]

Luther had psychological problems.

[@jmj5388]

@@fantasia55 Among his various physical and psychiatric ailments, Luther had a lifelong fixation with feces, and wrote extensively about excrement. He allegedly had his revelation of Sola Fide while evacuating. In 1531, he documented, in disgusting language, a conversation he had with $atan while he was on the toilet. The poor fella was troubled, to say the least, and simply was not a person who should have placed himself in leadership over others, particularly where religion was concerned.

[@GustAdlph]

Bishop Barron attributed Luther's Sola's to exuberance, akin to falling in love, not to reason.

[@eriktopolsky8531]

Jesus have commanded St Peter the Apostole to lead his Church, he didnt command Luther to destroy his church but that is what Luther did 😢😢

[@janeproctor5542]

Not to argue over exactly whose church it is, or was...but,... to be continued...its governance was always going to be the bigger problem, as in anything that grows bigger and bigger. Ideas about absolutism, monarchy, kingship, were changing and breaking down, all across Europe yet the Vatican was based upon a that kind of model or medium. Now we are at another crossroads, I guess, for Christianity as a whole.

[@imnotanalien7839]

I loved this clip from Bishop Barron on Martin Luther. Martin Luther’s writings, certainly helped change the course of history, from strict authoritarian hierarchies… to a breaking up and redefining of the individual as having a more independent identity . A relationship with God and Jesus, that is personal and not so dependent on ‘middlemen’..be it church or secular entities. To me, that was the gift of Martin Luther. And …..read scripture(Bible). ♥️✝️

[@Jimmylimmy3939]

Ego. Which is what the Protestant reformation truly pushed. Ask any Protestant Christian who comes out of church how it was? They’ll say “it made me feel good. The music really resonated with me. The message hit me.” It’s never about the actual worship of God. It’s always about me me me. Smh they don’t want to do the hard work of actually living their life for God. The sacrifice. The surrender. Ruminating on Christ’s sacrifice, love, and grace. It’s what can I get out of it. Communion? Naw maybe twice a year when it specifically states taking the Eucharist is necessary for worship hence we Catholics take it sometimes DAILY and the only way you can is by being in a state of grace hence the sacrament of confession but by dumbing down the Christian faith, removing all these beautiful sacraments that God gave to us and making it seem like there’s a fast lane to God, you take away the seriousness and difficulty it truly is to live a life for God. Research all the early church fathers and you will see.

[@Jimmylimmy3939]

@ hey. Bc ego, self-importance, and personal gain puts yourself above God. Humility is where you find true peace, love, and strength in Him. The goal is to find that and surrender your problems to Him. Have you ever noticed whenever you try to do things YOUR way? I want this career, I want to be successful. Make this kind of money. Etc.? Many times it does not work out. Or it’s not enough. You keep wanting more. Bc Christ is not the center. You are. Find Humility. You will find peace.

[@Jimmylimmy3939]

@ yes that’s another discussion. The religion/church cannot be to blame for human error. Just bc you’re a priest doesn’t make you perfect or a saint. It’s like saying if I have cut on my finger I should cut my entire arm off. God can redeem all and does.

[@Jimmylimmy3939]

@ you seem like an intellectual. I suggest you do your own research. Find all the fault you see with Catholicism and try to realllyyyyyyy look into it from a non bias perspective. See where it takes you. 😏 this coming from a former southern Baptist. You will see why there’s so much division and discourse and the 30k denominations since the Protestant reformation. Zero authority = unlimited interpretations and chaos and false teachings.

[@Jimmylimmy3939]

And it alllll goes back to ego.

[@eriktopolsky8531]

There is famost painting where Lucifer is wispering something into ear of his disciple, none other than Marting Luther writing his theses…

[@philipbuckley759]

Luther was a crazy crude individual with a non Biblical teaching....salvation, by faith, alone....

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Justification (i.e. being accounted righteous by God) is through faith alone. That's what Paul teaches throughout his letters. Catholics are blind to the truth. Good works are only the fruit of faith, and only necessary in the sense that for faith to be genuine they must follow. Luther wasn't crazy or crude.

[@fantasia55]

​@Edward-ng8oo The only place the Bible mentions "saved by faith alone" it is preceded by the word "not".

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@fantasia55 James is often understood to be meaning that we're not justified before men by faith alone and that works vindicate us before the world, but I'm not convinced by that and I'm in agreement with Luther that James was actually contradicting Paul and that the book of James shouldn't rightly be accepted as part of the canon of Scripture. It wasn't universally accepted in the early church and I also don't accept it.

[@robbourassaguitarist]

Trent doubled down on the new changes; e.g., The Lateran Councils which culminated in the sacrifice of the mass in transubstantiation, (IV Lateran Council, 1215.) To pretend that those things had always been in place would be to ignore 1,000 years of church history. None of the ancient liturgies had those sacrificial elements in them. The complete refusal of Luther to abandon the doctrine of the true presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper made him repugnant to the other reformers but the denial of the "new doctrine" as he called it; transubstantiation, or the disappearance of the elements of bread and wine, facilitating the un-bloody, mystic sacrifice at the moment of consecration made him repugnant to Rome. Luther had so much to say on that issue, calling the mass the "abomination of desolation" and the sacrificing of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the mass not only superfluous but blasphemous. It is an unpopular place to stand with no allies but Luther had a great one in the word of God, because the reformed view, that the Body and Blood are only a symbol can not be found scripturally but only by subjecting scripture to reason. The Roman view of a sacrifice was also not scriptural, but anti scriptural if we read Hebrews, and much like the reformed view was built on deductive reason, (and Aristotelian philosophy mixed with scholastic theology.) Luther had the temerity to keep to the word alone so we shouldn't wonder that Rome would deny the solas. For Bishop Barron to try to paint Trent and the Reformation as reconcilable "truths" in the ambiguous love fest of his imagination is a well intentioned olive branch, but a good look at the Lutheran Confessions and the edicts of Trent will quickly tell you; They are not reconcilable. They are night and day from each other. Either Luther or Rome has taught a damnable heresy. We will all find out soon enough and I would say, our love should extend to praying for each other, but not dismissing our differences as reconcilable.

[@johnschuh8616]

Wrong. The reason why Muslims loath the Cross refusing even to accept that Jesus died on the cross, is because they denied the sacrificial implications. of his death. Plus their origins in Arian Christianity which rejected the divinity of Jesus, finally to the point of making him no more than a miracle making prophet more or less like Elijah.

[@robbourassaguitarist]

@@johnschuh8616 I don't think that you have a grasp of the theology involved in the slightest. Of course, Christ was sacrificed on the cross. Historically, He was not sacrificed in the mass. That is what I was speaking of. His sacrifice is the essence of our salvation.

[@janeproctor5542]

If Luther was arguing or trying to clarify what God's position on man would be or would, ,,better,, be, in contrast to the impression given by the Catholic position on the matter, which he thought comes up short, I am not sure what he accomplished or did not accomplish. How far is it possible for us to be free, although sure, we seem to love the idea of tweaking the truth or notching things up to suit our satisfaction, like getting a greater emotional, intellectual, or aesthetic return on investment, or to arrange the above three factors in better proprortions to provide a spiritual experience from a sort of foreplay that works to overall, better effect. If God is any higher than us, he can probably see that these ,, temptations,, are floating about, and its a matter of how people learn, or do not learn, how to respond. At least, in theory, so that we would imagine that he had a point in making us in his image, because if so, it would make sense if we could at least see what that image might be, rather than remaining blind, or as Luther suspected, in danger of ,,losing the plot,,. Being only a man, that meant having to go up against God, plus getting charged with heresy and excommunicated by men, for doing so. So, the fear must have been that man, plural, i.e., the faithful, would be doomed if one man is fearless enough to stand up and challenge the sovereignty of what the Pope was calling the true word of God. The Pope held Luther's feet to the fire but it seems he became a popular hero, none the less. Well, since the true ,,word of God,, is supposed to bear on the nature of man, but is also about the ,,being of God,, and that God's will apparently is ,,Love,, ...then is it that the definition of love began to shift, radically, at that point in history, and that was the impetus that spurred the reformation, as if the church had fallen behind the times and needed to catch up to the Zeitgeist, whether God had much ,,say,, or not🤔 about his ideas about love being changed to suit the times. Its strange, because now we think we have gotten so far out in front and ahead of God, we believe he has to catch up to us, essentially reshaped to fit a more progressive view of progress, in whose not very godly image, we are supposedly being recreated, if only we can adapt to its all-seeing, AI, algorithmic vantage point, 👀 promising that ,,we will own nothing and be happy,,. It sounds quite monastic or admirably spartan and at least the planet will be saved, or at least the plants, if not the meatier lot of specimens, higher up on the food chain, that we lot have depended on for fat and protein, or at least for Sunday dinners, once a week. God must be scratching his head, wondering at what point the other shoe will drop. Being free and free speech seems a very good thing but can be very dangerous depending on one's definition of freedom. There seems a big difference in peoples' discernment since some believe that freedom and the rights that safeguard our freedom are God given, but they come with a price, in that they are an application of Biblical knowledge, wisdom and love for those values, i.e., born out of reverence for those values. That is a far cry from being hooked on ,,feeling free,, as if freedom is a feeling or an emotional state that one is entitled to, if the purpose is to define ones identity, as an asset to the state, for instance, and that would definately change the definition of the state, in terms of our individual freedom. Freedom can ,,feel like a feeling,,... Joy, apparently, if you are Kamala Harris, but freedom doesn't disappear because you may not be ,,feeling it,,. Freedom would be a nuisance to people, if that were the case, plus a nuisance to one another.

[@helenrabbitt8780]

Bishop Barron is a wonderful Catholic Bishop

[@giacomocaruso3635]

Luther was primarily DRUNKEN and VULGAR. Bishop Barron (like Bergoglio)tells you what you want to hear

[@matthewashman1406]

Did u drink with him?

[@giacomocaruso3635]

@@matthewashman1406 he was drunk everyday,and he had a very trashy way of talking..Ghetto.he had more vices that a pimp.Bishop Barron ( like Bergoglio) is being a ruffian to the protestans

[@justindutcher1300]

Luther and Barron are not worth my precious time. Repent, stay in a state of sanctifying Grace and receive the Eucharist…become Holy or die trying.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Why focus on Luther and bishop Barron. More better examples than Luther. At least he did not see himself as a infallible authority over all people's.

[@SterlingJames]

I totally thought you were Catholic

[@otgoffthegrid3972]

how can one love but hate his brother. he was anti semitic. those that hate their brother are not with love and far from my father. He called to set fire to their synagogues. and also said safe conduct to jews on highways to be aboloshed More seriously, Luther’s attacks have been seen as paving the way for Hitler. racism has no place in my fathers kingdom. of course he would want to believe saved by faith alone. he was racist. but only the father knows all.,

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther wasn't antisemitic he was only opposed to Judaism which rejected Christ as the Messiah. His opposition to the Jews was prompted when he learnt from Jewish converts to Christianity that they reviled Christ and Christians in their synagogues and that the Jewish “holy book” the Talmud blasphemed Christ and Mary by saying that He was in excrement in hell and that she was a whore etc. Given this situation Luther didn't think it was right that the authorities should tolerate this and allow it to continue. This is why he advised them to demolish the synagogues. It was tough love. He desired that the Jews be converted to Christianity and be saved, but since they completely rejected Christ he didn't think they should be allowed to carry on cursing Him unhindered. Justification (i.e. being accounted righteous by God) is through faith alone. That's what Paul teaches throughout his letters. Catholics are blind to the truth. Good works are only the fruit of faith, and only necessary in the sense that for faith to be genuine good works must follow.

[@randycummings8012]

Tell the bishop to get a real job!!!!😢😢😢😢

[@paulsmallwood1484]

A Protestant response. Luther was in part a product of his age which no doubt figured into some of his anti-Semitic comments. However, I noticed that Bishop Barron, who thought it was important to highlight Luther’s foray into anti-Semitism, made no mention of the popes who were anti-semites from the Middle Ages onwards. There is a sizable list of Popes who were anti-semites. Here is information on a pope from the modern era who was anti-Semitic. Pope Pius IX writes to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Leopold II, to protest the Grand Duke’s decision to give levels of emancipation to the Jews in the Grand Duchy. Leopold II had succeeded his father as Grand Duke in June 1824 and continued many of the liberal policies that his father had implemented. These included education, judicial and administrative reforms. Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti would become Pope Pius IX in 1846 and was regarded by many at the outset of his papacy as being someone who would bring progress and reform to the Papal States and the papacy. The first few years of his papacy provided promise to the Jews of Italy as he introduced a series of reforms which included measures aimed at ameliorating Jewish life in Rome, such as ordering an end to mandatory attendance at conversionary sermons, allowing a number of Jewish families to reside outside the ghetto and even providing public subsidies as charity to large Jewish families. While the Pope was willing to introduce limited reforms in the political arena, his belief about full Jewish emancipation was that it was contrary to Christian dogma. Jews’ rights constantly tilted between acceptance and rejection; it depended upon who was making the decision and where. In early 1848, in the Piedmont area, full civil rights to the Jews were granted, while others such as the Rome area stipulated that profession of Catholicism was needed for full political rights. In April 1948, Pius IX sanctioned the tearing down of Rome’s ghetto walls in April 1848. A year later, after a confrontation with Austria, the Pope placed some blame on the Jews for the unrest for agitating against the Church and its rule, and he reversed many of his earlier reforms. On February 21, 1852, the Pope wrote to King Leopold II: “Your Highness is not unaware of the fact that the spirit of the Church, expressed in many dispositions and decrees … has always been to keep Catholics as much as possible from having any contact with the infidels … Otherwise, it will open the way to requests for other civil rights for the Jews and for other non-Catholics” (Kertzer, David, The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, New York: Vintage Books, 2001, p. 116). These events in the Italian areas highlighted the precarious nature of Jewish rights in Western Europe during a time of political progress and liberalization. These events pointed to why some Jews were considering a state of their own to prevent uncertainty and precariousness in their lives. In 1904, Pope Pius IX would refuse to offer recognition or assistance to Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement.

[@fiachramaccana280]

nobody reads long rambling tracts. Clearly you have never learnt of paragraphs. Basic stuff. Oh btw refusing to recognise Zionism is not anti semitic. Zionism is evil. Period. And the holy father appreciated that early. The Catholic church also saved 750,000 European Jews during WW2. Fact. Its on wikipedia if you care to check. How many did your lot save????

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@ Too bad they don’t. They might learn something and not remain ignorant. If you chose to remain ignorant of the fact that there were popes who were anti-semites, that’s on you. Your attempt to spin away Pius IX’s anti-semitism is unfortunate but not surprising. Protestants saved Jews too. So what.

[@fiachramaccana280]

@paulsmallwood1484 I have no problem identifying anti semitic popes from history. And also the witchhating Jewhatimg King Jamee of your bible fame. They were all wrong. My whole point is that the Catholic Church is a bit more complex than your silly ranting suggests. And for WW2 numbers count. Protestants saved a mere handful. The Catholic Church saved 70% of all Jews saved. Actions speak louder than words. You talk a lot but you and yer kind have never done a thing when there might have been an even slight cost involved. The Church risked all in WW2. And all the top anti Hitler German plotters were Catholics. And in touch with the Pope. Not a coincidence.

[@johnschuh8616]

The popes were hostile to Judaism. Modern anti-Semites are generally also hostile to Catholicism. Both sentiment are tragic, of course, But let us not forget that from the beginnings, the Leaders of the Jew were hostile to the followers of Christ. This continued up to the time of Constantine. The Christians had just suffered a savage persecution of the Christians, during which the Jews took the side of the Romans. against their rivals. The Jews were numerous enough in the Empire to comedy got the attention of Constantine as as possible spiritual anchor for his rule, but probably because ho other was Christian, finally chose to go to war as protect of the Christians. Once in power the Church began to persecution the Jews along with the Pagans. There after hostility between Jews and Christians continued down to modern times, with the Jews being on the side of the side of the Muslims during the hundreds of years when the Muslim were far stronger than the Christians

[@Edward-ng8oo]

​@@paulsmallwood1484 Luther wasn't antisemitic he was only opposed to Judaism which rejected Christ as the Messiah. His opposition to the Jews was prompted when he learnt from Jewish converts to Christianity that they reviled Christ and Christians in their synagogues and that the Jewish “holy book” the Talmud blasphemed Christ and Mary by saying that He was in excrement in hell and that she was a whore etc. Given this situation Luther didn't think it was right that the authorities should tolerate this and allow it to continue. This is why he advised them to demolish the synagogues. It was tough love. He desired that the Jews be converted to Christianity and be saved, but since they completely rejected Christ he didn't think they should be allowed to carry on cursing Him unhindered.

[@peterroberts4509]

The problem with Luther is that he didn't take his criticisms of the church far enough. What was needed was a complete reformation, not a partial one.

[@steveelliott77]

Zzzz

[@sarco64]

He fought to reform what needed to be reformed. He saw no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[@kathleenwalker7982]

Reform man, but not the faith.

[@SamanthaOrtiz-g1c]

🛐🕍💝🌹💞🙏🙏🙏😇🕯️🕊️✝️

[@asdfasdf3989]

You're not Catholic??

[@tjseaney_]

No, I love Catholics and Catholicism. I am still Evangelical.

[@asdfasdf3989]

@tjseaney_ >still Are you interested in converting?

[@tjseaney_]

@@asdfasdf3989yes. I’m still not convinced though. I’m after the truth, there are parts of Protestantism that bother me and parts of Catholicism that perplex me. If I believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church believes I will become Catholic.

[@asdfasdf3989]

@@tjseaney_ What are some of the parts of Protestantism bother you and what are some of the parts of Catholicism that perplex you?

[@CIST3]

@@tjseaney_ Have you participated in a Catholic Mass?

[@johnpower-m5o]

Who is not against church unity - wouldn't it be great to have one united church. But I fail to follow Barrows arguments. For every description of Luther, a similar saint, mystic, "God lover" ....... can also be found within the R C Church, which is great of course. What needs to be discussed here, and what Barrow's touched on is church power ie The Council of Trent ....... The counter Reformation. Luther wanted a simpler God centred faith, not a man controlled one from Rome with the Pope at its centre. I am not anti-Rome, but it is important to see and recognise that the Counter Reformation is still very much alive. For all of Barrows respect for Luther, he dismisses him as a sort of lightweight, in the end of this video.

[@johnpower-m5o]

We can talk theology all night - but I did not hear a word about the hard facts, why Luther split from Rome. The paying of money for the forgiveness of sins. Indulgences. The Papacy wanted lots of money to build their huge palace in Rome, St Peters. When Martin Luther heard that the Dominican Friar Johann Tetzel was visiting churches and promising forgiveness of sins for money Luther was outraged. One church Tetzel visited was in Jüterbog, 50Km from Wittenberg Germany where Luther nailed his 95 theses. I visited the church in Jüterbog, the huge chest the R C Church used to collect money for sins forgiven is still there! Go and visit. What ever about fancy theology, let's not forget the basic hard reason(s) for the Reformation. Luther also helped 12 nuns escape from a convent in Brehna, he married one of them - Katharina von Bora.

[@CIST3]

Most people already know that. Robert Barron always goes much deeper than what is already common knowledge.

[@johnschuh8616]

Most of the money going to Rome had nothing to do with Indulgence but for the Crusades. The German princes got to keep their money and NOT go on Crusade, Our history books manage to ignore the Threat that the Turks posed toward Europe. How many Europeans forget this threat because of their opposition to the Hapsburgs, who alone in the West stood opposition to the Turks.But even Charles V was so engrossed as Emperor with the Empire’s opposition to the Papacy that he let Lutheran mercenaries sack Rome.

[@jmj5388]

Contrary to the belief of some, indulgences were/are never sold; they were offered in lieu of the very severe penances that were typically given during a certain time in history. The concept of charitable contributions as a means of off-setting such intense and long-term penances was introduced, and St. Peter’s Basilica was built and many great works of art were created with those monies. The practice of connecting indulgences with a financial transactions-not indulgences themselves-was outlawed at the Council of Trent, but the topic is still frequently raised in anti-Catholic arguments.

[@Keith-qj5dp]

Here’s my daily dose of my beloved Barron, my christ

[@rosaharris4750]

Only Jesus is Christ

[@NicSupreme]

"That's heresy, bro."

[@Keith-qj5dp]

you’re right except I was being sarcastic to the man in the video, that is why I used a lower case c. His channel is Daily Dose of Christ ans all he shows is Barron, who is a heretic wolf in sheep clothing

[@playdoh4all]

This video is content theft

[@gbnessdot96]

Barron’s romanticized views and humanist tones sound nice yet still do not echo the one gospel of Christ. “Who is not against us is for us.” Luther and protestantism is most assuredly against the church.

[@growtocycle6992]

What makes protestants "against the church?" As a protestant myself, i line Catholics and believe the Church is one i disagree about elements of doctrine. I don't believe in the primary of the Pope. I don't believe that Mary was without sin. I do believe in the eucharist and in confession and in the deuterocanonical books. God bless you

[@gbnessdot96]

@ people like you are unbelievable. I can line you up with those who say “we’re not anti-maga. We just hate Trump and don’t believe in the “wall”. But we love maga, we love blah blah blah”.

[@gbnessdot96]

@ why is protestantism anti-church? You said it. You are anti papacy, anti marian doctrines, and you are Luther-bred. But you can have the progressive Barron if you like.

[@growtocycle6992]

​@gbnessdot96 are you claiming that these things are necessary for salvation? Heresy!

[@gbnessdot96]

@ if they negatively influence a persons ability to hold to the truth and fall into sin, yes. And there are more of this kind in hell than there are heretics.

[@stephenmcguire7342]

This is perhaps the most ridiculous modernist clap trap I've ever heard. I apologize to you for this Catholic Bishop who, like Luther, spends all too much of his time leading souls astray.

[@johnbadminton5713]

Fiddle faddle. Let's talk about how the RCC would have treated MT had they had their way. This lip service stinks. But then free speech, of which Jesus of Nazareth was the most original and heroic proponent, was always the bane of the RCC.

[@yep3410]

MT?

[@grantsmythe8625]

No, Jesus was not "the most original and heroic proponent" of free speech. That's anachronistic. Jesus and those who wrote about him and his movement, i.e., the New Testament writers, were very much proponents of keeping the tongue in its proper place. Your comment is ill-focused. You begin by saying, "Let's talk about how the RCC....." and then you jump to the topic of free speech, then Jesus' support of it and then how it was "always the bane of the RCC." So.....nothing else about "how the RCC would have treated MT (whoever that is) had they had their way."??? Focus, focus, focus.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Where did Jesus mention free speech?

[@CIST3]

One has the "right" to free speech. One does not have the "right" to unilaterally toss Sacred Tradition and rewrite Scripture moving books that subsequently were removed (the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical texts.)

[@carlosjennings7707]

Many of Rome’s traditions were not sacred, which is why so many of that era became Protestant.