What Was the Enlightenment?

[@coldforgedcowboy]

This was the best episode yet of the Word on Fire Show yet. Nice job guys!

[@marypinakat8594]

Bishop Barron, Your enthusiasm is hugely inspiratonal. 'You raise us up to more than we can be.' This video is certainly educative for anyone who 'dares to know.' Thank you!

[@michaelslattery9931]

may GOD bless Brandon and bishop Barron . I pray for you guys all the time. Love your work!

[@sashadence6409]

Thank you for commenting on how positive the Enlightenment has been. I find it in so many ways destructive that I needed this marked corrective. I wish Bishop Barron had focused a bit more on some things that trouble me about it. Because he wanted to make sure he was setting the record straight about it's benefits, he focused less than I'd have liked on some of that shadow he also mentioned. I would argue that the arts and even the sense of meaning that impoverished by scientism and self-invention were not the worst fall-out, or maybe more accurately related to something more basic. I'd argue that what got lost was the Truth, the very thing it is supposedly identified with. Because the kind of truth that the Enlightenment focused on was material and political -- obvious choices given that survival is mostly about economics and power -- the real truth -- Reality that is -- got overlooked. What i mean to say is that it was a myopic movement. It flattened the world. It deprived it of a dimension. This dimension happens to be the most important when it comes to discerning what is Real. I.e., of course, God, who is the source of Reality -- who is reality. The misery the Enlightenment caused is the result. Not just the two world wars that could arguably be attributed to the logical conclusion of primary Enlightenment ideas and ideals, but the Industrial Revolution which beggared and diseased, in all senses of that word, huge swaths of the British population and also the release of social darwinism, still alive today, and the belief that this world is all there is -- is so unbelievably dangerous spiritually and morally as to be almost worth preventing at any cost, whatever is here-and-now obvious benefits. It's like we gained the whole world, but lost our soul. It is deadly to believe this world can give you the happiness we all crave or the fulfillment we yearn for. As C.S.Lewis would put it, the blue flower isn't here. But more than that -- it unleashed the anti-Mary, the anti-family, anti-home, anti-child, anti-mother, anti-life spirit that I would argue is so destructive it could be the spiritual equivalent of the h-bomb. Without believing that there is something bent within the human spirit that no amount of social engineering can prevent, theories of utopias which inevitably become dystopias, are inevitable. And for many contemporary 'families' this world is a dystopia indeed, however prosperous. The 45% or whatever children without fathers -- the numerous girls/women spiritually murdered by the sexual revolution -- the destruction of childhood -- this shadow is real black. THat isn't touching our abuse of animals and earth -- God's art -- and the suffering we've imposed there with the (bad) use of technology. The latest finding of the university of Jerusalem about male infertility and the quiet apocalypse of future global sterility. I kind of see the Enlightenment as a 2nd Fall - a renewal of the Faustian contract, so scathingly depicted by Christopher Marlowe -- or in the continued popular appeal of Frankenstein and Dracula figures -- of modern men living forever as psychotic killers never having had a childhood, a "Mary" in their lives -- never having had a mother -- or a home -- born adult forever. The Enlightenment has lately produced a culture of cognitive elites who see human flourishing exclusively in terms of I.Q. The western world is dependent now on a kind of intelligence the Enlightenment celebrates. I think it is killing us -- in all senses of that word, both here, and hereafter.

[@eurodelano]

Everything you said is true.

[@geraldinetoughey9622]

There are also men who have been spiritually killed by the sexual revolution. The normalisation of porn and prostitution since 1990 when the internet was invented

[@CatholicBeardReviews]

God bless bishops Barron where praying for you bishop god bless

[@Ghost_Electricity]

Overly enthusiastic views of the enlightenment also conveniently overlook how it is pretty much the ideological cause of the ecological crisis we now face. Over consumption of finite resources, viewing everything as a commodity, utilitarianism, emphasis on material wealth above all else, etc.

[@LostArchivist]

Exactly. We might be better now...but the bill has to be paid.

[@Kivlor]

@@LostArchivist To quote a previous business partner of mine "yeah, well it doesn't have to be paid in my lifetime. I want to get mine, and if my great grandkids have to pay it that's their problem."

[@alexk48]

The Enlightenment was a looting operation and the 1st woke revolution. They sacked Catholic churches, destroyed great art, impoverished the masses with enclosure by throwing them off church property, took away peoples rights by abolishing the court of equity, allowed men to discard their wives and remarry, execute Thomas Moore for not going along with the king's debauchery. Really enlightened. Seems more woke to me.

[@edgarledezma1]

Really? The ideological cause of the ecological crisis? Let me just point out that without the enlightenment (modern science) you wouldn’t know we’re in an ecological crisis let alone how to solve it.

[@Ghost_Electricity]

@@edgarledezma1 are you gonna address my points or just be Steven Pinker over here? I was not discounting the advances of modern science, but critiquing the philosophy and ethic that makes these advances ultimate goods in and of themselves.

[@jerryg3524]

so good! most (if not all) of Brandon's questions are excellent, as are Bishop Barron's answers

[@paulnolan1941]

However Brandon came to be head hunted for his role in Word on Fire, the chemistry here is the work of the Holy Spirit.

[@kubrox91]

The Jung quote about light reminded me of a line from one of my favorite movies "Night of the Demon" in which one psychologist confronts his skeptical peer by saying: "I'm a scientist also, Dr. Holden. I know the value of the cold light of reason, but I also know the deep shadows that light can cast, the shadows that can blind men to truth."

[@nicksibly526]

Thank God for the fact that the Enlightenment has given me the skills to use my reason to discover the truth of Jesus Christ🌻

[@nicksibly526]

23:30 excellent points Bishop Barron. Great points for religious argument. It is easy to assume that the great scientific advancements have walked hand in hand with the advances of moral/philosophical/artistic/poetic thinking where this may not actually true. Thanks for enlightening me!

[@ramirocjunior]

A brilliant presentation and program with clear explanations of bishop Barron. Congratulations for Word on Fire, great job.

[@user-pc8dl4cy3i]

Absolutely brilliant. What more can I say? Thank you, Bishop Barron.

[@nellahashimoto1342]

Thank you Bishop Barron and Brandon. Very helpful and interesting. God bless you both.

[@villiestephanov984]

I love You Father Barron. I really, really do.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

How many 'really' are needed to convince the receiver that the original statement is not a lie? Only two would certainly not convince me! ... In fact, sincere honest people need none.

[@pachulin2001]

Bishop Barron, what do you have against monarchy? Do you know the difference between monarchy and absolutism? Could you name one democratic ruler who has been a saint? Kings there are a lot.

[@LostArchivist]

There is also a much longer history of monarchy and democracy does not have one set ruler. Besides, Christ is the King Who should be on the throne.

[@TofeldianSage]

One thing I've learned about people who strive for Utopia is that they implicitly believe that Utopia is a terminal state. They believe we are on our way to Utopia and that once we get there we will stay there. There is little or no appreciation for the forces that would tend to knock us off that pinnacle, once achieved. I think Pinker's book is a glimmer of recognition from a humanist Utopian that there are forces afoot which are acting to undo the Enlightenment. He may be starting to realize that Utopia is at best a transitory state, and that the very forces propelling mankind toward Utopia might also continue to propel us beyond into some other state, less Utopian and possibly hellish.

[@vilicus77]

Name one thinker on the left who conceives of a utopian state. This is a straw man. Pinker is certainly no utopian thinker--did you even read his book Enlightenment Now? He is optimistic about the future--that's all. What's this about implicitly--are you channeling Platonic ideals?

[@TofeldianSage]

@@vilicus77, who said the Utopian thinkers were on the Left? That's your contribution, and rather answers your own question too.

[@vilicus77]

@@TofeldianSage It's a natural assumption when discussing politics and utopian ideals. Has there ever been a thinker on the political left accused of being utopian? Religious theocrats are something else.

[@TofeldianSage]

@@vilicus77, again you've answered your own question. You are the one who linked Utopian ideals with the Left. You are a better judge of why that is than I would be. You must be relying on some kind of evidence to support your assessment.

[@vilicus77]

@@TofeldianSage Utopian ideas ARE linked with the left. That's common knowledge. Why are you focused on this point? What point are you making?

[@Mary-ye9bu]

Thank you for sharing your wisdom to us, Bishop Barron! From the day I first watched your video, I am now allotting time to watch it everyday. And I am always learning new things. This is also why I am sharing your videos. May God always bless you good health! 😁

[@williamcrawford7621]

Bishop Barron, you have been an excellent teacher to me for many years. You inspired me during a crisis of faith; your pastoral kindness has been a gift for which I will be forever thankful. That said, I do wish you had been more critical of the Enlightenment which produced such horrors as the French Revolution. You rightly praise Aquinas, who lived in pre-Enlightenment Europe. Surely you know that Aquinas defended monarchy as the best form of government in his letter to the King of Cyprus. King Louis IX, who was a contemporary of Aquinas, has been beatified by the Church. The oldest continuously running diocese in America is San Fernando Cathedral, named after another sainted King, Fernando III of Castile. The famous song of the "Good King Wenceslas" is about a real character from history who was a Duke of Bohemia. Even besides all of these, Christ Himself is a King. Blessed Emperor Karl von Hapsburg, and his Empress Zita, is perhaps the most contemporary example of a good King. Yet, he was effectively martyred for not going along with the Enlightenment project.

[@williamcrawford7621]

@Prasanth Thomas There were forms of democracy in Aquinas' day, like the republic of Venince. Aquinas himself was Italian, so he would be aware of it. And in pointing out that Aquinas' Patron was a monarch, you seem to be accusing him of lying for the sake of flattery. Do you not think he truly believed monarchy was the best form of government? Also, God endorses monarchy in Scripture. The last words of the book of Judges imply that having no king made Israel worse. And even though in Samuel it seems like God barely tolerates monarchy, He clearly planned it from the beginning since even Moses established rules for the monarchy of Israel, many generations before Samuel.

[@williamcrawford7621]

@Prasanth Thomas 1) Any pre-Enlightenment democracy would, by your standards, be an "aristocracy." Just because the ancient Roman republic had multiple classes of citizens, including an aristocracy in ghe equestrians and other classes, does not mean that it was not a true democracy too. Also, you are accusing Aquinas of being biased in his day simply because most nations were monarchies. By that same standard though, wouldn't that predispose you to be biased in favor of democracy? As well as the modern Thomist you cited. 2) I never said that the Bible as a whole condemns monarchy, but rather only the book of Samuel. The reason why the people are rebuked for wanting a king is that they wished to be like the pagan nations around them. So it is not that monarchy is bad, per se. Otherwise Moses would not have established a procedure for monarchy in Israel, as you admit. In Samuel, monarcy is only rebuked because of the intent of the people. And the book of judges may not explicitly say that the people did whatever they pleased because there was no king, but that is the obvious implication. And even before they had a monarchy, it isn't like Israel had some sort of pristine democracy, as Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Paine falsely seem to believe. Rather, they had the judges, which was a type of theocracy. This is why Aquinas teaches, in line with Aristotle, that polities (democracies), aristocracies, and monarchies can all be either good or bad, but that the best is the form of government chosen by God for Himself, which is monarchy. And if you are Catholic, you must recognize that the Church herself is a monarchy. Obviously Jesus is our King of Kings, but our Popes are also Kings. Even Pope Francis is the King of Vatican city. He is the last remaining absolute monarch on the continent. As for Hitler, he was no monarch. He hated Kaiser Wilhelm and the old aristocracy of Germany. His heroes were the heroes of the Enlightenment, like Voltair. He believed in a warped form of democracy based on the "general will" as articulated by Rousseau. So don't try to stick monarchists or opponents of the Enlightenment with him. He was as much a product of the Enlightenment as Robespierre.

[@williamcrawford7621]

@Prasanth Thomas 1) Even in the twilight years of the Roman republic, there was still a disparity between the classes, based on how much voting power each class had. For example, the first class of citizens had way, way more voting power than the plebians despite the plebians being a far larger percentage of the population. The upper classes got to vote first too and if they managed to get a certain number of votes for a candidate, the voting would end before the lower classes even had a chance to vote. So while they had a sort of universal suffrage, it certainly was not equal and the lower classes would often never even get to vote, so you exaggerate if you claim that the Roman republic was anything like a post-Enlightenment republic. And class, of course, was based on a combination of birth and wealth. Even in many modern republics, citizenship is based on blood, so decrying monarchies for doing the same is just a little silly. 2) 1 Samuel 8:19-20 literally says, "But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us.THEN WE WILL BE LIKE ALL THE OTHER NATIONS, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.'" So it is not just my own little pet theory. It is the explicitly stated reason. And you cannot escape the fact that Vatican City remains the only absolute monarchy in Europe. But even if I conceded and said that it was different, it wouldn't change the fact that the Church has long supported the institution of Catholic monarchy. As to democracy, it certainly does not make for better leaders. It makes for better politicians, yes, but not better leaders. I can name half a dozen sainted monarchs: St. King Louis IX, St. King Fernando III, St. King Stephen of Hungry, St. King Alfred the Great, St. Abgar V of Osroene, and St. Emperor Constantine the Great. There are more too. On the contrary, how many sainted presidents can you name? How many sainted prime ministers (Democratically elected, so St. Thomas More, who was a monarchist, wouldn't count)? I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. Democracy, contrary to the theory you put forward, evidently does not produce good Christian rulers as well as monarchy, because it only produces politicians who are good at giving speeches. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, "Democracy is no more than an aristocracy of orators." Indeed, dangerous demagogues can easily rise to power in democracies, as Hitler did in the Weimar Republic. You can claim that Hitler was a monarch simply because he was a one man ruler, but he still came to power democratically, and moreover, you didn't even try to deny that Nazism was based on Enlightenment ideas. So if he was a monarch, he was an Enlightenment monarch. And while I think democracy has become an idol to people today, it is not democracy I oppose so much as the Enlightenment, which idolizes it.

[@williamcrawford7621]

@Prasanth Thomas I forgot to respond to your portion on judges. The judges were definitely not democratically elected. They were "elected" by God in the same sense that Calvinist use the word "elect." It is nothing like the election of a democratic representative. They were theocratic leaders chosen (elected) by God to save Israel in time of crisis before the monarchy.

[@williamcrawford7621]

@Prasanth Thomas 1) No, you are missing the point. You are saying it was all egalitarian by the late republic while I'm saying that in practice the lower classes rarely got to vote, and their right to do so usually remained purely theoretical. But this argument about the Roman republic is somewhat irrelevant, except inasmuch as Aquinas, being a well educated man during the Renaissance of the high middle ages, would have known about the classical systems of democracy, like Rome and Athens. Aristotle had recently been rediscovered and there was something of a craze for the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers in his day amongst scholars. Yet, he rejects these, as well as more aristocratically minded republics like Novgorad, Florence, and Venice, in favor of monarchies. Also, no, monarchies are not tyrannical by default. If you accept Aquinas, who accepted Aristotle, then you have to agree that democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy can all be valid, good forms of government. You even said earlier that you accepted this position! The only problem is that aristocracy can become oligarchy; monarchy can become tyranny; and of course, democracy can become mob rule, i.e. what the American founders called the "tyranny of the majority." Afterall, in the southern United States, the white majority democratically passed laws that oppressed racial minorities. It was what "the people" wanted. Yet, democracy had clearly become tyrannical. Not every democracy is a tyranny though, just as not every monarchy is a tyranny. God, who is a King, is not a tyrant. David, a man after God's own heart, was not a tyrant. St. King Fernando III, a holy Spanish King, was not a tyrant. 2) Nowhere does God ever say in the Bible that monarchy is bad. The only place it even sounds like he is saying that is Samuel because of the intention of the people, as I just pointed out. The prophet Samuel warns the people of the cost of kingship, but he still annoints Saul and David, which God ultimately approves of. As for me not citing Hobbes simply because he was an anti-democraric thinker, that is ridiculous. Aquinas was an anti democratic thinker too, as we both know. Also, why can I not cite anti democratic thinkers, while you get to cite some random Thomist I've never heard of before just because he likes pro democratic? Meanwhile I cite St. Thomas Aquinas himself. And while I admit my not knowing that Thomist is a fault on my part, the most famous Thomist of the last century was Lagrange in my opinion. Anyways, I digress. Hobbes had become anti democratic because he saw how democracy ended in England during he English Civil War: disaster. It lead to the rise of a real tyrant: Olivar Cromwell. By your definition, Cromwell was a monarch in all but name. But it was the attempt of Parliament to seize royal power for itself that lead to Cromwell's rise. This is easily predicted in the theory of "anacyclosis," i.e. the "cycle of regimes." This is a theory, supported by the likes of Plato and Aristotle (the latter of whom lived in Democratic Athens) that monarchy is established to bring order to chaos (as happens from the end of judges to 1 Samuel), but that the kings then become corrupt, and so aristocracy takes charge to restore ancient liberties. For example, think of the baron's revolt against King Richard when they established Magna Carta. After this, the aristocracy also becomes corrupt, and democracy triumphs. But democracy easily degenerates, leading to more chaos (like the late Roman republic), which necessitates the restoration of a monarchical form of government. This is why English Civil War ended with the rise of Cromwell, and the restoration of Kings. Its why the French revolution ended with rise of Napoleon, followed by the restoration of the monarchs. And speaking of Plato, he lived in democratic Athens. Yet, he was unbiased in his opinion of it. Democracy had actually been the reason that his mentor, Socrates, had been forced to commit suicide. Instead, Plato favored aristocracy. Likewise, as I have said before, the people also wanted Jesus hanged on a cross while Pontious Pilate, the representative of the Emperor, tried to get Jesus released. Also, democracy dates back to ancient Athens. It is older than Christianity, and yet you cannot name a single, sainted democratic ruler? That is a problem if you are arguing that democracy makes for better rulers. Sure, there were bad kings (although there were holy ones too as I pointed out), but there were also terrible Democratic rulers (and you cannot name a single holy one). For example, during the first word war, the U.S. had Woodrow Wilson as president. Wilson had played the KKK film "Birth of a Nation" in the Whitehouse as the first movie ever played there. He segregated the federal government for the first time, and did a myriad of other wicked things. Meanwhile, in Austria Hungry, Blessed Karl of Austria and his wife, Servant of God, Empress Zita, sat on the throne. Which system produced a better leader? As I said before, democracy doesn't produce better leaders. It's like the old joke of two hikers who run into a bear. One starts to run away. The others yells out "you know you can't outrun it!" The one who is running responds "I only need to outrun you." Likewise, democratic politicians don't actually need to be good leaders. They only need to be good at making people think they are good leaders. So they dress nice, they smile, they take photo ops, and all this makes them popular enough to stay in power without actually improving anyone's lives. Worse, the constant popularity contest means that politicians, who always try to please the people, are often afraid of following their conscience lest they lose an election. By contrast, a monarch, like a justice of the Supreme Court, cannot be removed from power lawfully, and is thus free to follow his conscience. Further, he must hand his country to his children as an inheritance, so for their sake he will keep it in good condition. Also, a monarch does not need to live in an ivory tower. Many monarchs, usually the best ones, have been very down to earth. The aforementioned Blessed Karl, for example, was the only leader during World War I who actually fought in the war personally. Ironically, he was less in an ivory tower than the likes of Woodrow Wilson, who, coming from an academic background, quite literally came from an ivory tower. Also, you misunderstood my point on Hitler. For the purpose of argument (even though neither Hitler nor the Nazi's ever identified as "monarchists" and actually oppressed monarchists) I will concede that Hitler was a monarch of sorts. But that doesn't matter, because before he was the Fuherer, Hitler was the democratically elected Chancellor, i.e. Prime Minister of Germany. Yes, once he came to power, he dismantled the system that got him there, but that doesn't change the fact that he came to power democratically. If this is true, then obviously democracy can produce monstrous leaders too. 3) God is the one who elected the judges. That the people followed God's will does not make this system democratic. By this absurd standard for "direct democracy" (which it definitely is not, since direct democracy involves the people directly voting on legislation, not appointing leaders to legislate), King Saul was "democratically elected." Actually, the "election" of Saul was far more democratic since it is literally what the people wanted, while in judges they merely consented to what God had ordained.

[@mk4091]

As amazing as ever! Thanks so much, Bishop Barron!

[@stcolreplover]

I am very surprised by Bishop Barron’s liberalism. The so called “Enlightenment” to me is just a Protestant black legend. I think a much more sober look at history would see that progress in a real sense (that is technologically speaking) has been very much linear since the time of Christ. Every liberal “invention” has been a bane upon society. It strikes me odd (especially as someone part of the of the commonwealth) that Bishop Barron speaks so ill of the Monarchy. Monarchy as Thomas Aquinas argued is very much apart of the natural order and I increasingly agree with our modern order. I have a great love for Father Barron as I credit a lot of my reversion to his KZbin ministry but it alarms me his embrace of alot of liberal presumptions.

[@stcolreplover]

@Prasanth Thomas you seem to be a boomer or some sort of libt@*d. How is the “Enlightenment” a Protestant black legend? It’s right there in the name, “Enlightenment”. As if the scholastics were some dummies. Actually they were far superior in their wisdom and intellect as they gave respect to the ones who came before them. Aquinas didn’t know democracies? There was democracies before Aquinas and republics at the time. They tend (and still to this day) to be incredibly unstable and tend place monetary value over the commonwealth of the people. Your last point is the most insincere and easily refutable. The sun didn’t set on English Empire, The Roman Empire lasted as long as the Roman Republic and was bigger, Charlemagne was the saviour of Christendom and HRE lasted a thousand years.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

While not one bit surprised, i am fully with you. The Catholic Church is notoriously socialist, and our dear Bishop here is no exception. Still, one must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our Bishop ought to be reminded, though, that God is KING, and consequently, the universe is not a so-called democracy (a deceptive system in which you have no say anyway, and wherein they do with you as they please, as we see only too plainly), but that the universe is indeed itself a monarchy, and with an absolute King at that!

[@fredblahblah.6352]

Do not be surprised. The Catholic Church is deeply leftist. Our Bishop is a genius, but he is also a Bishop of the Church.

[@thanksanyway.3330]

The Catholic Church is an institution of the left. Don't be surprised, it is nothing new. Our Bishop is a philosophical and theological genius, but he is also a Bishop of the Church!

[@michaelgiffin2621]

This is wonderfully enlightening Bishop Robert. Thank you.

[@andiamolireforexcrypto]

How is the French Revolution a breakthrough of the Holy Spirit?

[@fredblahblah.6352]

It is not. Thousands of people killing one another in the name of "fraternity", what kind of spirit do you think was behind that? Most certainly not the Holy Spirit. And what kind of spirit do you think was behind the so-called Enlightment, which did prepare the way for the French Revolution?

[@fredblahblah.6352]

@Prasanth Thomas Are you joking? Where else have you seen slaughter in the name of fraternity? And i'm afraid you're very wrong indeed; the ruled still need to live in obedience and servitude to the ruling classes, every bit as much as prior to the Revolution ... and today perhaps more than ever before!

[@fredblahblah.6352]

@Prasanth Thomas No war but that one has ever been fought in the name of fraternity, though. That in itself betrays its absurdity. As for the rest, dream on, genius. As long as you toe the line you'll likely be given some bone to chew on. But nothing more. You have no say in anything that matters; your role is to obey. Or else ...

[@hyperouranios_topos]

How is "living infinitely more comfortably & succesfully" is a breakthrough of the Holy Spirit? 12:50

[@RachrainLove5]

Bishop Barron is really great! This really helped me understand the negative and positive effects of the Enlightenment era. Really made me see how people think like celebrities and other people can think that they can be in control of their lives and be self destructive. Here's some of what I transcribed from his video. Read! Really good! "What's the bright light shining on something? That's the enlightenment, the century of light. Light is great. I love light but often the brighter the light, the darker the shadow and the two ways you put it there are often what I argue. We love the sciences, but we don't love scienticism and that's the shadow of the enlightenment. Namely the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. What's real and true is now reduced to what we can know through the scientific method. Now, now look a long time ago, not just today, to early critics of the Enlightenment, making exactly that argument. We stumble when we are so enthusiastic about the sciences that we overlook non-scientic but also non rational ways of knowing, when we tend to marginalize, bracket or reduce the arts, humanity, poetry, literature, philosophy, religion, maybe above all, but the great argument of enlightenment thinking is religion, you know we have to overcome all superstitions. That's a shadow side of enlightenment. We want to prove everything that's positive about it... what's the limit to equality and freedom. I so valorize freedom and equality that I become the arbortor of good and evil. I am free to determine who I am. I'm free to determine the meaning of my life. I'm free to determine all moral value. And don't press me because we're all equal...That's the culture of self invention."

[@LaPropiaYolaPildoras]

DEAR BISHOP I want you to know I am in medellin Colombia and enjoy al,l your videos, I am also reading your book ARGUING RELIGION .. and I agree with your strategy to teach the faith not just as a supersticious thing in life. .Christ lives and he acts through all his followers. The problem is that many dont see Jesus so we have a tough work in this secularist environment ... I like your style and gratefull there are bishops like you...God bless you

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Thanks Brandon and Bishop Barron. God bless, Proverbs 31

[@WalterGirao]

13:15 - I respectfully think it's a big mistake to attribute all the technological breakthroughs that happened on the last centuries to the enlightenment. That's just the nature of exponential growth. In other words I'm certain we would be using cell phones and flying in airplanes with or without the enlightenment.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

Finally an intelligent lad!!!! ... I salute you, oh boy, on my knees and hat in hand!!! Please, do write more. Or do tell where to read more of your work and ideas. I am so starved of people who think independently and so clearly!

[@jamilacharles5485]

God give you Victory powerful Honnuer give you father and sisters blessed you and your country Amén Hallelujah

[@garygrant6987]

I liked the old format of the show- Bishop Barron in his Library. Everything was better. The sound was warmer and so was the video. This audio sounds like a bathroom. It shouldn’t- that’s a really good microphone. Nothing person Brandon.

[@BishopBarron]

Don't worry, don't worry. We're still producing the classic videos. We're simply filming the podcast show, which was formerly just audio-recorded.

[@Kivlor]

It is beyond charity to claim that without the Enlightenment we wouldnt have modern technological advancements. By claiming this, you assume the position of your enemies, who you tried to refute just a few sentences earlier. The industrial and technological revolutions wouldnt have been prevented, as the church was not opposed to science or technology. Many of the advancements were made by Catholics, and further the ground for it was all laid by the Church.

[@LostArchivist]

You need to read your history, it is not that simple that way either. That time period was no more made up of ideal humans than we are today. Of course their was struggle. And the Church was running to decent extent on Counter-Reformation modalities. So even if it was not formally against science, that did not stop it from appearing that way in some cases or from it being hijacked for those erroneous ends. Also consider that deism was very prevalent in some Enlightenment circles of thought and the Church naturally will not be a fan of those movements, especially if running on a Counter-Reformation cautious mindset.

[@Kivlor]

@@LostArchivist To be clear, I dont think it is all that simple, which was my point. The "Enlightenment" vs Counter Reformation cant be summed up as "well we just wouldnt have science or industry then." We really dont know how it would've turned out, but that is an overly simplistic view. Science and industry would have developed, but the question is how differently.

[@hungvu2774]

I love you, greeting from Vietnam!!!!!

[@metanoia1122]

Thank you, Bishop Barron. Looking forward to the day when we can address you as, "Your Eminence." And I adore our Holy Father, Pope Francis, but in time, how about the first American Pope and the second one from the Americas?

[@lightkirsche]

Love Bishop Barron's passion.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@christophersnowden5316]

Bishop Barron, Thank you for your thoughts on the Enlightenment. I appreciate the way you avoided any either/or conclusions on the Enlightenment. It reminds me of a quote from an intellectual hero of mine, George Grant. He said: "Those who criticize our age must at the same time contemplate pain, infant mortality, crop failures in isolated areas, and the sixteen-hour day. But on the other side, other facts must be remembered: the increasing outbreaks of impersonal ferocity, genocide, the banality of existence in our concrete prisons, the pursuit of expansion as an end in itself." I think the necessity of such approach cannot be overstated. However, I still struggle with finding a unity in thinking the enlightenment (as modern science/technology) and thinking Christianity (as the ancient tradition) together. For example, Christianity would place limits on our activity in the natural world (we are called to be stewards of the earth). Modern science/technology has continuously developed new ways to utilize the earth as resource for our unlimited willing. What we know (physically) about the world as object is almost immediately brought into how we can use it for what we want. I have a hard time reconciling these two theories. In your opinion, is it just a matter that we use science/technology in a manner that is guided by moral principles? Or, does the objectification of reality (which is the method of modern science/technology) impose a way of thinking that limits our ability to use it morally? What I cannot reconcile/what I am concerned about is: it seems to me that the conception of the world as object instrumentalized to a good will (technology used for good purpose) accepts fundamentally that the world is neutral and that we ought to use it for "good." This, in my opinion, inevitably leads to Nietzsche's will to power. Those are likely not the only two possibilities. I am just struggling with how to meaningfully affirm the good of modernity while at the same time not accepting reality as object. If you have any thoughts on this or if you know a good reference to look up I would greatly appreciate it and thank you for all the work you do!!

[@NeonShadowsx]

“The Enlightenment” is what the Church condemns as modernism, liberalism, Americanism, &c.

[@NeonShadowsx]

@Prasanth Thomas yeah those revolutionaries killing kings, burning churches, fornicating with prostitutes on the altars, forcing nuns to marry, exiling priests, etc were very similar to us morally because they weren’t gay

[@NeonShadowsx]

@Prasanth Thomas killing an unjust might be acceptable or excusable under certain circumstances, but it is not an absolute “good”. The early Christians did not fail to do good by not murdering Nero or Diocletian.

[@NeonShadowsx]

@Prasanth Thomas Liberalism is a sin

[@tinman1955]

Very enlightening.

[@HLHi13]

Would enjoy to hear more on Robert Knox and "Enthusiasm" !!

[@sonicallenjosh2514]

I view enlightenment era as great success in west that made world a better place

[@charlesl.sinclair1670]

Wise advice about emotions in religious activities.

[@ep_med7822]

Two words: A mistake! Restore monarchy Respect Aristotle Resurrect Christendom

[@BishopBarron]

Good luck with that program...

[@ep_med7822]

@@BishopBarron thank you ever so kindly Lordship. Much of your theology and philosophy is high caliber but your social and political takes are ice cold. There's more of us monarchists out there then you'd think even in the mainstream. You should have a sit down with Charles Coulombe!

[@LostArchivist]

Monarchy looks great in a book, but if you are there, unless yoy happen to be in the upper castes, it tends to be a dreary life.

[@LostArchivist]

Besides, Christ is the only proper King, that is why I am fine with democracy, He transcends nations and governments. There is room for both. He is afterall, the grounding subsistence of all things, not a being within Creation.

[@ep_med7822]

@@LostArchivist Funny how the Bible only ever endorses monarchy and theocracy. In fact it was democracy in action that killed Jesus. Define dreary existence? Serfdom was not slavery, they got 100+ days off for Holy Days, were able to raise large families and ate quite well. Yes they worked hard and many were not literate but then again most people in history have not been literate because the majority of people were needed in producing food. Education as a universal right is a very novel, post industrial concept that has turned many young adults into giant children in a sense. People then were materialy poor by our standards, but we are in such spiritual impoverishment that it recalls what Jesus once said "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul?" This is the question of our nihilistic and decadent consumerist culture.

[@richardlopez6226]

The issue with Humanists holding the Enlightenment as a trophy of Atheism is that the key representatives were all religious people.

[@mandril1]

All these metrics about material quality of life are improving, no doubt. But, ¿what about mental health and drug abuse? These are also going up... This should tell us that "men not live on bread only"

[@someguy779]

You could say that this self invention/worship is the logical conclusion of the enlightenment. Another point you could make is that Communism and fascism were also products of the enlightenment.

[@Regis596]

Basically, freemasonry and secularism

[@villiestephanov984]

The book of Psalms was included in the Bible due to your enlightment. Sadly with no profit to that effect.

[@nitimurinvetitum_]

@Prasanth Thomas Did you mean that communism and fascism are postmodern philosophies? Or were you referring to the self invention/worship thing?

[@nitimurinvetitum_]

@Prasanth Thomas Yes I know that both Marxism and fascism are inherently opposed to the postmodern viewpoints that's why i was confused about your comment. Thanks for the detailed response.

[@nitimurinvetitum_]

@Prasanth Thomas But don't postmodernists reject any kind of metanarratives? Marxism is a metanarrative,this doesn't seem consistent to me. And so far in my exploration of Marxism it doesn't seem to be based on any kind of morality, rather on dialectic materialist analysis. It's more of a method than anything else

[@johnstewart7025]

It seems consistent that if Jesus gave anything to the apostles, besides a message, then that has been passed down an unbroken chain through priests to me and everyone baptised.

[@ThomasMusings]

Amen to that!

[@joncardenas3203]

I appreciate the Bishops camera being stable, it was very distracting to me a couple months ago when it was moving so much. :)

[@jimluebke3869]

Sola Scriptura still gives you some insight into which parts of the Old Testament still obtain. 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?[b] 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

[@timh1179]

Hello everybody at Word on Fire, I enjoyed this video and always have felt the need to know more what the Enlightenment is about. With the celebration of the Solemnity of Pentecost upon us a thought occurred to me. I apologize if this has been commented on, but I would like to hear what people have to say about this- That God saw the Tower of Babel as an enemy which He stopped from being built (Gen 11:1-9). I once heard in a bible study that Pentecost was God's way of undoing of the Tower of Babel. Is the "Enlightenment" man's attempt of the undoing the Tower of Babel?

[@alexk48]

Enlightenment built a new tower of babel.

[@QuestwithJack]

Bishop Barron, I agree with some points on this topic but I think there is some glaring issues to the Enlightenment that are not touched on. As far as I can tell, every revolution that has been guided by Enlightenment thought and political theory, has been opposed the Catholic Church and it's authority- viewing it as authoritarian in nature and not allowing true progress. Specifically I'm thinking of the American, French, Mexican, and Spanish Revolutions. The American Revolution never openly killed priests in the streets like the others but the anti-Catholic bias has long been in our history. Does this not indicate that there is something in Enlightenment thought and expression that is opposed to Catholicism?

[@BishopBarron]

Friend, take another listen to the video. I clearly articulate what I think are the dangers and limitations of the Enlightenment.

[@vejeke]

@@BishopBarron Do you know The Clergy Project?

[@joaohej.301]

The enlightenment did improve things concerned with the sensible word, but AT WHAT COST? It was the sensitive, anti-religious, cosmovision at its highest. I definitely wouldn't thank Our Lord for this dark and atheistic period. By its fruits we see clearly what it was.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

@@prasanththomas3130 Nope. He is watching this thanks to the natural advancement of technology.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

Jo, as a matter of fact the 'cost' was their primary goal, and to 'improve things concerned with the sensible world' was the means to impose the ruse on the masses.

[@darrylbatchem8985]

The enlightenment did some stuff like name themselves. They also did some other stuff like naming the dark ages, not the dark age but plural the dark ages. Dark light dark light dark light hmmmm. They then assigned ownership. The dark ages were owned by the Catholic Church and the age of enlightenment was owned by scientism. Fast forward 300 years and I go to University and the first thing they show me is a video on how "science" triumphed the Church. Since then I have found the Catholic Church to be more open to science objectively than the branch of "science" which is offended by the slightest question.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

Brilliant! Do stay on your guard, rationally, against the barrage of fallacy, heresy, and anti-Christian diatribe that they are about to begin launching at you. Stay firm ... and reap the rewards. All of us Christians are with you in the same boat.

[@LuzianJ]

The “Enlightenment” is really an ideological construct that does not capture the diversity and complexity of the historical reality. I would like to see it as a period of great human achievement but also great degradation of society. Just like most periods in history.

[@sonicallenjosh2514]

Me neither bishop Barron I don’t want to go back before declaring independence and bill of rights or back to 1600’s agree bishop Barron awesome talk

[@connerymartin2952]

Comments on Lord's Prayer & the Pope next week please!

[@markwaldron8954]

Bishop Barron, if the Logos is Divine Reason, and if the Enlightenment is the Age of Reason, could this time period then be viewed as one in which the Logos has become predominant? An Age of the Logos? The penultimate expression of the Age of Reason, after all, is the rise of the digital computer, which embodies formal logic (or one branch of that discipline, namely Boolean Algebra).

[@Kivlor]

Yeah, just because they called it"The Enlightenment" does not make it based on Logos. It was a rebellion against the Logos.

[@Kivlor]

@@peterthehermit679 Good post, but I'm not certain the 100 years is up. I pray it is, or that it comes to an end soon if it isnt though. It certainly appears that it is up, or coming to a close, as the forces of Satan seem to be moving as rapidly as possible, as though they know time is running out.

[@LostArchivist]

@@peterthehermit679 I get the 100 years part, but where do you get the three days being in those time spans?

[@LostArchivist]

It is human reason, but it is unfortunately warped to try to make it take the place of God's Wisdom, so as with many things the things are not bad in and og themselves, but humanity took them from their proper place un the natural order and so things have run amuck. Humanity needs to learn to accept that it does not know best and God does.

[@Mark-fv8vt]

Very interesting historical show

[@LostArchivist]

Finally someone else sees that these things do not need to be an OR statement but open so si many pathways and wonderful things as an AND statement. Why should we limit ourselves to picking arbitrarily constructed sides that do not come into conflict if we do not put them in conflict? Not to mention all of the time and efforts wasted to keep up ab avoidable fight. Sure it was needed, we learned alot, but it is time I think to let this ghost of the colonial period to be laid to rest, it is holding us back not moving us forward anymore, it is an.obstacle now to where we could be, everything under Heaven has its time, I believe this wall needs to come down before it starts destroying things we can not replace.

[@tdquark]

When is the Jordan Peterson conversation coming out?

[@BishopBarron]

June 23

[@Regis596]

@@BishopBarron Your Exscelllency, that's good to know since i thought that Doctor was going to cover the whole thing. Facing truth of christianity that is the catholic church would require him to "reinspect" pretty much all that he said.

[@joshuacecugh6795]

You are doing a great job.

[@OriginalBonJovi]

Joshua Cecugh they’re both right. In Latin, the translation is “Sancte Spiritus.” In German, it is “Heiliger Geist.” As you can see the English translations take the German “Heiliger” (Holy) and either “Spiritus” (Spirit) or “Geist” (Ghost). I’m no linguist, but I expect the Latin derived word comes to us from the French version, “Esprit.”

[@monktyson2793]

Holy Ghost is a fairy tale. The entire Judeo-Christian Religion is a collection of fake News and myths.

[@IDontLiveTodayJH]

GasconyKid Wrong, English is a Germanic language and most of the common words we use in everyday talk have a Germanic root as can be seen in the term Holy Ghost/Heiliger Geist

[@joshuacecugh6795]

@GasconyKid 75% of English is Latin so, Holy spirit should be the best translation right?

[@joshuacecugh6795]

@@monktyson2793 Thanks for the fake typing as well 😅

[@hyperouranios_topos]

12:50 Live infinitely more comfortably... is this a Bible commandment? What about democracy? The next pope shall be elected by a popular vote?

[@etienne-victordepasquale668]

Bishop Barron wards off Brandon's compliment on his greatness; that's a good sign of his true nature as a servant of God. May God bless you and protect you, beloved Bishop. You are in my prayers.

[@MissingTheMark]

It is disappointing that Bishop Barron does not distinguish between science and engineering. Engineering is what has brought us great technological progress, not science, whose job has in no small part been explaining how engineers were able to do what they could do. (The major exception I know of is radio; that was actually predicted in theory before it was done in practice.) One can of course make an argument that engineering is an enlightenment value, but it was also a pre-enlightenment value. Technology had been progressing before the enlightenment, and much of our modern wealth and comfort comes not even so much from advances in engineering, per se, as from the industrial revolution, which was itself largely the story of the steam engine (which made use, incidentally, of the continuous refinements in metallurgy which had gone on for the preceding millennia since steam engines were first created). It's also, in no small part, the story of the discovery of coal and other fossil fuels in abundant supply. (Modern political arrangements are largely the story of gunpowder and mechanized warfare. Aristocracies are fairly natural outgrowths of armies fighting in hand-to-hand combat, while professional, industrial government is a natural outgrowth of industrial warfare. We can't go back to monarchy because monarchy does not fit industrial society.)

[@williamcrawford7621]

Another example would be nuclear technology, which existed in theory before practice. The space program was also predicated upon theory first since there was little room for error. So I have to disagree with you on this one, but love your channel!

[@amschelmayer.7092]

Do you mean to say that Great Britain, as well as Canada, Australia, Spain, Japan, Sweden, etc, are not industrial societies? .... The tzar Nicholas Romanov of Russia was not killed by industry, was he ... he was killed by a communist bullet.

[@fredblahblah.6352]

Are you implying that Japan, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, are not industrial societies? It was not industry which killed Nicholas II, but the Bolsheviks.

[@thanksanyway.3330]

Do you mean to imply that Japan, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia are not industrial nations? Was it industry that killed Nicholas II or the Bolsheviks?

[@MissingTheMark]

@@thanksanyway.3330 those nations all have parliamentary governments with popularly elected members of parliament having the power.

[@Ritastresswood]

Using statistics to interpret how ‘better off’ we are in the present is simplistic. Input and output without understanding the process, correlation without understanding causality. Social life is much more complicated then that. In the process of moving towards betterment, many have lost and many have gained. Industrialisation puts pressure on mobilisation. Many people are scattered and dislocated. Whether it is a voluntary or coerced, for economic or political reasons, families are slitting up. Many are alienated, not only themselves, but the psycho-social effects of scattering created long-term (generations) sickness of belonging. Pinker just needs to look at the mental health statistics and drug use of all kinds of both US and UK, to reconsider his thesis.

[@mariomusicmadness]

What are your thoughts on Christians being called "homo/transphobic" for calling on Christians to not support LGBT activities, such as the pride parade, pride month, etc.?

[@edlabonte7773]

Bishop Barron, I was disturbed to hear you misuse the term "begs the question". It is a personal crusade of mine to salvage the correct meaning of the term. As you know, "begs the question" does not mean "raises the question" or "poses the question". Instead it means implying the conclusion of an argument in its premises. I would "beg" you not to abuse this term. I am a devout Catholic and enjoy your talks very much.

[@edlabonte7773]

@BVale It has a long history in English. If your point is that its meaning isn't obvious, it also isn't obvious that "begging the question" should mean "raising the question". Beg and raise are not synonymous. If you know about logic and informal fallacies, you know what it means. The average person probably wouldn't use it often anyway. Just don't make it meaningless by misusing it.

[@edlabonte7773]

@BVale The comment was for Bishop Barron. I'm really not interested in discussing why you don't like the phrase's real meaning. Maybe you should complain to Merriam-Webster or the OED.

[@cmtengineeringservices8068]

Enlightenment got no relationship with religion. It is the subject of knowing and understanding the truth of nature and mind 100%. In other words, know the correct immaterial science when talking about the amazing mind. The Law of nature is also a part of it.

[@jimluebke3869]

Pinker is patting himself on the back, just like the Edwardian British, who could have said the same of their time. Does he completely ignore the instability that the Enlightenment can cause? Or the excesses of stability? Remember, the ideal Enlightenment ruler is the Enlightened Despot. The avatar of that archetype was Frederick the Great, arguably the founder of Prussian Militarism that would shatter the Edwardian world and cost the British their empire.

[@GerardoGarcia98218]

Honest and humble

[@kathymanning1847]

6y

[@burkeingraffia]

Thank you

[@johnpalmer474]

Nick from RI asked about Old versus New Testament morality, but Bishop Barron avoided what seemed to be his underlying question concerning the Church's treatment of homosexuality. Nick implies that homosexuality is only an Old Testament prohibition, and this notion goes unchallenged, or at least, 'unenlightened.'

[@johnpalmer474]

Yes, the Early Church Fathers thought so... I'm just tired of public figures in the Church tip-toeing around the subject, especially when they're asked directly in a public forum to teach clearly on the subject. Everything else in the video was beautifully elucidated, but this 'sticky' subject was ignored. The real question was ignored.

[@rachelbartlett1970]

Scientism wouldn't be so damaging if we hadn't sacrifized civics to it.

[@lukehall8151]

A M D G I heard somewhere that an older meaning of enlightenment is essentially "lightening up". It is written in various places that demons are full of weight and gravity, whereas angels are full of lightness and levity. Idk. A M D G

[@jimluebke3869]

If you "dare to know" and do not accept the forms, essences, and telos from authorities, are you condemned to believe that existence precedes essence? I can't help but think there's a relationship (even an essential one!) between inductive, evidence-based thinking (as opposed to deductive, principle-based thinking) and existentialism.

[@jimluebke3869]

@Prasanth Thomas Aren't there a lot of forms that are described in the Bible? Authorities can be as subtle as language or as nebulous as "the culture".

[@jimluebke3869]

@Prasanth Thomas Where do our ideas of essence come from? Essences from the Bible: man, woman, father, son, nation, house -- I could go on.

[@iain5615]

The enlightenment was pretty much based on Britain that was generations ahead of any other country in ideas of freedom and personal rights. The Bill of Rights was fundamentally based on the English Bill of Rights written 100 years earlier when England became a constitutional monarchy. The improvements in the US Bill of Rights beliefs held by the British 100 years after the original English Bill of Rights. This is held true for most other enlightenment ideas of the 19th century too. The British were showing these beliefs before they were expressed in enlightenment writings.

[@lisacardenas6148]

This is off topic, but can Bishop Barron review NPR’s podcast Think episode “How to Fix the Catholic Church” interview with ex priest Joseph Carroll. Feels like much said is incorrect but would love feedback from Someone we trust...

[@lisacardenas6148]

Michael O'Connor maybe actually listen to or read the topic matter before responding. Doh!

[@outofoblivionproductions4015]

Good.

[@phillipgreene2564]

Through science We are able to break bread and to court the word span from the A to the Z by this way not to lust are the multitudes best fed. By the measure of scale from the without to with In God We Trust.

[@chrismccarthy2321]

Yeah I’d drop “the great”. We all love Bishop Barron but that sounds a bit much.

[@dragonhold4]

The catholic church propping up hierarchical structures in emulation of Greek emperors held back a covenantal structure like the protestant American Revolution from coming sooner. - Declaration of Independence: _We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies_ - Exodus 19: _So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the Lord had commanded him to speak. 8 The people all responded together, “We will do everything the Lord has said.” So Moses brought their answer back to the Lord._

[@byron8657]

I think therefore i exist! Rene Descartes Renaissance period! K

[@jkgn4656]

Are you Episcopalian???

[@noxvenit]

Great talk, right up until the question about the law. It was disappointing to hear you both caricature 'sola scriptura' as "just me and my Bible" and 'no need for a teaching magisterium or other interpretative body'. I often think, listening to the Bishop, "Almost thou persuadest me," but then he can't even express the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' correctly.

[@BishopBarron]

How would you express it?

[@noxvenit]

@@BishopBarron First, allow me to reiterate my high regard for you. It's a sincere pleasure to interact with you, as I'm sure it was for Dr Craig. As to the issue at hand, I express it, paraphrasing, as I find in the Westminster Confession Faith: Scripture alone is the supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined. Chapter 31 of the Confession acknowledges the need for councils, synods and so forth, but also acknowledges that they may err and therefore must be reviewed and judged against the scriptures.

[@BishopBarron]

@@noxvenit I do get that. Kevin Vanhoozer's explanation of it is perhaps the clearest that I've read from a Protestant perspective. Catholics indeed hold that the Bible is the "soul of theology," but we also hold that it is not a self-interpreting text. What is required, as J.H. Newman said, is a living voice of authority to clear up doctrinal and practical disagreements that arise from various readings of the Bible. This is why, even as we affirm the centrality of the Word of God, we don't think that the Bible, in itself, can be "the supreme judge."

[@noxvenit]

@@BishopBarron Thank you for this reply. I'm not surprised you get that; Vanhoozer's explanation certainly clarifies a great many things. But with all due, and sincere respect, this isn't the way you put it in the video. You understand the proper formulation of the doctrine of 'sola scriptura', but in this video you present (what I call) the vulgar formulation of it: me-and-my-bible-no-teaching-magisterium. The reason it's worth mentioning, is that 'sola scriptura', properly formulated, is not the reason Protestants don't understand the continuing aspects of the law. The vulgar (incorrect) expression of 'sola scriptura' is the problem. That said, still a good video; I would just like to see you discuss Protestant doctrines in their most accurate, rather than vulgar, expressions. This is the first time I've heard you NOT do so. If you'll permit me a bit of rejoinder: My copy of the catechism is on my nightstand and I read from it regularly (and refer to it, and quote from it in teaching). I point that out, because I note, as I read, that while Catholics do not believe the text to be self-interpreting, they engage the text as if it is so, comparing passages against one another, engaging in lexical studies and grammatical analysis - in a word, exegesis. So then, Cardinal Newman may be correct: we need this living authoritative voice. But that does not alter how texts are approached. Nothing about this voice means the voice does not search out the meaning of a self-interpreting text - depending, of course, on what is meant by 'self-interpreting'. I have no doubt you understand 'scriptura scripturae interpres' infinitely better than Michael Voris. Again, thank you for engaging me on this. Peace be with you.

[@noxvenit]

@@michaeloconnor6280 I don't know about Bishop Barron, but I feel the same way about you and your own superstitions.

[@okumaa122]

“Thank God for the enlightenment” = v2 errors. Love listening to modernist !

[@paulbenedict4080]

Excellent show! I really appreciate the conversation here! Speaking of conversation, why interrupt it with those crazy sound bumpers? Why not just change the topic? Thanks again! kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5DEmnR3r7eFmZY

[@annette4660]

Wow.

[@alliepostan1702]

Hi bishop barron. I dont know if you'll read this or not but i was confused at about the 20 min mark when you said that "scientism reduces all knowledge to scientific version of knowledge, truth becomes what we can know and control." Im confused because isnt that correct? Dont you have to be able to know something before you say its true? Not that one personally has to know it but that it has to be knowable by some means available to us. Without some method to test the validity of a claim, the claim becomes unfalsifiable. What is our method for things like God and heaven and our doctrine? I used to when people ask me is God real always say of course i know hes real and he loves me. Now i hesitate because, well do i acfually know that? How do i know that? Everyone in my family thinks so, lots of people think so, but most people in the world either dont think so or think a different sort of God and heaven is real. How do i make sense of this and what do we know in the literal sense of the word as catholics? Thanks and i hope you read this Allie😊

[@iwattguitar]

Personally, I find the historical view of things helpful here, as assessments of what actually happened at a particular time rely of evidence that cannot necessarily be put under a microscope, although it may occasionally help. With religion, God seems to have decided to rely on the testimony of men, so that when God became a man, He personally entrusted doctrine to His followers to pass on to others through the ages with the promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail'. We know this because of the testimony of those followers. How do we know if they believed the doctrines themselves and hadn't simply made them up? By the fact they were willing to die rather than deny them. The process goes on like this. Of course, this choice of God's (to use the testimony of human beings) only makes sense in light of faith as gift from God, therefore enabling someone to accept the truth of the doctrine which has been handed on. Does this approach help at all? Of course, there are many ways to approach this topic and one could, I suppose, in theory just decide to reject all history as unknowable because it cannot be scientifically verified, but taken to its logical conclusion, you would have to reject things like the testimony of your parents about details of their childhood etc.

[@alliepostan1702]

I get partly what you're saying, but are we relying on the testimony of men to tell us that the testimony of men is reliable? That alone seems circular. Yes there is faith, but faith is not unique to Catholics. Neither are martyrs. Marytrs only reinforce that they believed a claim to be true, not that it actually was. Isnt there anything objectively proven that we can say "God is this not that" without having to rely on faith? I understand faith is a virtue, but for one struggling with it its doesnt exactly help.

[@iwattguitar]

@@alliepostan1702 I don't think it is necessarily circular. It is a spoken or written testimony confirmed by a testimony of blood (that is the testimony of blood confirms the testimony of one's word). I accept your point about martyrs confirming only their own beliefs rather than what is objectively true to be a fair one generally, but in the case of the Apostles, they were in a position to know one way or the other, in the sense of having witnessed earthly events, and yet they still gave their lives. I think your question, is there any way to know 'objectively' what God is like, is tricky because it depends on what you mean by 'objective'. That word may well often be used to mean 'scientifically', in the sense of natural science which of course is the study of matter and necessarily cannot deal with the existence of non-matter. The fact that God is Love is something I think we can only get from God telling us (revelation). Have you tried looking at the issue through philosophy?

[@alliepostan1702]

I mean objective in the sense that is exclusively concordant with the evidence. Truth cannot be two conflicting claims simultaneously, that violates the definition of truth. God cannot be Yahweh and also Vishnu at the same time. Somebody is wrong, or maybe we're all wrong. Without using a method(like science though not necessarily) to falsify hypotheses(proposed religions) what do we actually know? We believe things, we trust people(bishop barron) who tell us what to believe, but what do we know? What can we know about something that is defined as fundamentally not subject to any observation or measurement? Its like saying theres a dragon in my garage, but you cant see it, touch it, or in any way interact with it, instead it will reveal itself to you only if you have enough faith. It was put this way to me by a friend. So really im going back to my original question, what is our method? There has to be some objective fact why Catholicism is true and everyone else is delusional, otherwise its not truth but merely an assertion, a claim. Maybe even a probable assertion, but if theres a fact(s) i want to know what it is and how it was determined whether through science, philosophy, some form of reason that shows the claims made by the church are exclusively concordant with reality. Bit of ramble but hopefully you get what im after, im not sure even i know. I know my mind isnt satisfied

[@iwattguitar]

@@alliepostan1702 I get to where you are coming from, but - speaking as a former atheist - I don't think truth can be reduced to something which fits a method. Of course, trust is involved, but that is the case with anything. Even the scientific method. I certainly have to trust the competence of the scientists, because - frankly - I wouldn't know what I was looking at if you handed me a microscope. There isn't a method which proves to me that when, say, 90% of scientists tell me something is true that it is so. I think your friend's dragon analogy is in no way comparable with something like religion. What evidence is there that there is a dragon in your garage? Zero. What evidence is there that God really did become a man? In addition to the apostles as discussed above, there is written documentation, there is the fact the Church has for 2000 years continued to proclaim the same truths, often despite the wickedness and of Her governors, the fact billions today still believe the evidence is persuasive enough and billions more throughout 2000 years, the incredible Eucharistic miracles still taking place in our own days etc, the witness of saints (Mother Teresa, for example) who make no sense apart from grace, and much more besides. I don't say this evidence proves Christianity, but it amounts to far more than the evidence for a dragon in your garage. With your question about how to determine the truth of Catholicism vs other faiths, I think there is a danger of over simplification. Most other faiths, particularly pre-Christian, are mankind's attempts to reach God, to understand Him. Natural religion which - by Christian standards - will likely have elements of truth or distortions of truth etc. Obviously with such religion, there is no way of determining what is true and what isn't. The Christian claim is that God has reached out to man, thereby offering mankind religion (a relationship with Him) based on solid ground. I know this is off point, but I thought worth mentioning. Keep going, keep searching! Whatever your doubts, we have 2000 years of the greatest minds who have already, somewhere, both shared these specific doubts and answered them! Have you looked at Pascal at all?

[@adamnorris9646]

Was Hegel really an enlightenment figure?

[@maxxs2]

Yes

[@Regis596]

Hegel was more of a pantheist/ pagan figure.

[@adamnorris9646]

Regis596 right that’s what I thought. He’s the founder of German idealism which is not keen on the enlightenment

[@normaodenthal8009]

Dare to know is a good injunction, but I would add: dare to admit when you don’t know, and that there will always be knowledge just beyond are intellectual horizon. We may have outgrown the divine right of kings, but unfortunately we are still in our intellectual kindergarten when it comes to the ordination of women.

[@alexk48]

You are in kindergarten if you think women will be " liberated" by aping men. We'll have true women's liberation when we have as much respect for teachers and nurses as we have for lawyers and doctors.

[@normaodenthal8009]

@@alexk48 I thoroughly agree with you. I’m certainly not advocating that women ape men, merely advocating that they be given the dignity that they are due, which they definitely will not get by aping men. However, given that Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ and the apostle to the apostles, the ordination of women is long overdue. They would not be aping men, but merely following in Mary’s footsteps. I’m definitely not in intellectual kindergarten, if only! The world looks is so much lighter and brighter without the prolonged serious study, as well as the experience of the vicissitudes of many decades of life.

[@paulkiernan3256]

I was told I could not become a priest because I want to uphold all de fide dogmas and because I would insist in following catechism and cannon law in sacramental stewardship.

[@amschelmayer.7092]

Can you explain a tad further? Was that the Jesuits by any chance? Why did you not approach a different congregation that might have given you a different answer?

[@paulkiernan3256]

@Amschel Mayer. no I refer to a chat U had with a bishop. In short he suggested I might con siderer priesthood. I explained that I would not be accepted as I would insist on not providing illicit dacramentse5cetc. He was shocked. Jaw dropped. He realised I was right. He agreed.

[@fredblahblah.6352]

@@paulkiernan3256 Illicit sacraments? Are you referring to the changes brought about by Vatican II?

[@teresabaker-carl9668]

Hello Enlightenment; goodbye Catholic Faith, because who needs faith when everything worth knowing can be seen with the eyes. Thus, my children, the children of friends, have become modernists without a need for faith. You have missed that most important point.

[@teresabaker-carl9668]

@Maria López ????

[@jgmrichter]

“And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

[@mememagician97]

Long story short: A mistake

[@SacrumImperiumRomanum]

The political comments especially sound like modernist heresy to me. I'm sorry that monarchy sounds so awful to you, Fr., as Christ is Himself a king.

[@Regis596]

Lets pray, and fast for Bishop.

[@robertpoetprince7362]

Please refrain from using the word "guys" when referring to men who are about todedicate their lives to the Lord. Perhaps "men"?? Maintain the dignity which is naturallyyours; please don't become one of the boys. I offer this advice respectfully.

[@robertpoetprince7362]

My point is that the bishop shouldn't resort to using slang like "guys"or "cool" which he often uses, to demonstrate that he's in tune with thepop world out there.

[@robertpoetprince7362]

My final words: I'll pray for you.

[@vilicus77]

The fact touted by apologists is that early scientists and thinkers were Christian and derived their education an ideas at Christian institutions is a sneaky fact. There was no separation between the state and church nor universities and the church. Who could oppose the church as a non-believer and succeed. If someone wanted an education or work in the developing sciences, they HAD to be a Christian. They HAD to attend religious services and maintain piety. This is no fact in support of science as a uniquely religious development. Scientific inquiry happened in spite of the suppression of the church--nearly at every point. There is much scholarship on this point.

[@vilicus77]

@Prasanth Thomas No. The damn church was all encompassing and dictatorial; there were no institutions outside of it capable of producing a scientific community. However, the scientific method arose from observation an even though it regularly contradicted religious texts and dogma, a common ity developed until it ultimately fractured from those religious institutions and became the secular university. Even older established universities, like Harvard, no longer identify with their early theological statements of purpose. Science does not need a god hypothesis.

[@vilicus77]

@Prasanth Thomas It is a completely irrelevant point to say that the scientific methods was developed in a Christian context--who cares. So was modern pornography; so were abortion rights. The fact that a thing occurs in a particular context says nothing about whether or not a god exists. We don't need to continue religious traditions simply because it is tradition. We are outgrowing it.

[@vilicus77]

@Prasanth Thomas Then I’m not sure what your actual argument is. What you have written so far can be summarized as Christianity used to be the dominant cultural force in which our many institutions arose. That is irrelevant to my interests. Our modern language and numerical system were formed under conditions which were not Christian.

[@SpiritualFox]

23:24 "I'm not going to go back to 'tal-la-may' to figure out how the planets are situated" Then you won't understand Roman Catholicism.

[@elke4646]

The sexual revolution thanks to Science .. Sexual revolution -> Pornography. Enlightenment was darkening of morality. Or rather Scientism was darkening of morality. Sexual morality being the most foundational because it has great portent for the family.

[@alancouvillion6320]

I am giving ya'll two pinocho's , I don't believe you believe a word of that horse manure.

[@ivoandrijasevic2826]

Oh my Lord!! Bill Gates??? We all need to pray for Bill, Soros, Klaus Schwabb, Joe Biden and so on

[@filthyswit]

@22:05 Yeah, well it took long enough! Couldn't have done it 100,000+ years ago?