Bishop Barron on All Saints Day

Bishop Barron on All Saints Day

[Music] at the very beginning of the 20th century there were two young Parisian students intellectuals one was called Jacques Meryton and his girlfriend was called rasa and Raisa was a poet Jacques Maritain was a student of philosophy they were agnostics more or less and they decided that life was meaningless and one day in the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris they made a vow and they said unless we can discover by the end of the school year the meaning of life we will commit suicide and so during that period there’s something very you know Parisian and a little over-the-top about all that but while they were waiting for the school year to come to an end Jacques Maritain read a statement by Leon Bois who was a French spiritual writer they own bras said there’s only one real sadness in life not to be a saint and that had a huge impact on young jacques mary 10 bois was insinuating that there’s all kinds of sadness I mean I didn’t become the success I wanted to be I didn’t achieve this and that I didn’t get the money I wanted all kinds of sadnesses but they don’t matter at the end of the day there’s only one real sadness not to become a saint not to be the person that Christ wants you to be and see once you get that here’s I think what struck Mary 10 once you get that your whole life changes your whole attitude changes because most of us spend most of the time fussing about trivia and it might be something is you know becoming the president United States but from a spiritual standpoint it’s trivial if you accomplish that but don’t become a saint or to make all the money in the world boy that’s important in the common imagination but from a spiritual standpoint its trivia the only real sadness the only real failure is not to become a saint that woke Jacque merry Tanev and I think of it whenever this feast of All Saints rolls around one way to characterize sanctity is simply becoming a friend of Christ it’s becoming Christ’s friend better allowing Christ to live his life in you when Saint Paul says it’s no longer I who live its Christ who lives in me that’s what it means to be a saint that you allow Jesus so to dominate your life in every aspect that he’s your Lord of course Dominus and LAN just means Lord he’s the Lord of your whole life and here’s something because I’ve stressed a lot this non-competitive quality of God you say well you know I’m no longer live you’re living your life in me it sounds so oppressive as though I’ve just surrendered everything but see no when you surrender to God who is the very ground of your own being you find yourself read Paul’s letters his personality is evident on every page his unique form of intellectual ‘ti his own passions his emotional life I mean all of its there Paul is Paul but he can say it’s no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me the old self focused on ego and success and money and power all that business that that doesn’t matter it’s no longer I who live at old self but it’s Christ who has come to dominate me and that means I Paul have found my deepest self that’s what it means to be a saint well part of the genius of the church is that we have so many saints and the saints are so diverse there’s nothing of this kind of you know Maoist China in the 1950s and 60s here everybody’s were in the same thing and saying the same things and walking the same way well that’s just tired you know monotony the Saints are not monotonous there’s a wide variety of personality styles background education what do they all have in common they’ve all become the Friends of Christ they’ve all allowed Christ to live his life in them but the perfection of God is such that it requires this variety of manifestations in order to show itself adequately there’s no one Saint who expresses the fullness of God each of the Saints in his or her own way expressed something of God’s power I use the image of the bright white light that passes through a prism and then it breaks into many colors well think of God’s being is like this intense white light God’s perfection but now it passes through the prism of the saints and it splits into all sorts of colors and so we look at that wide variety and we get something of God’s total splendor it’s also why it’s important for each person to find a saint maybe who corresponds to his own deepest longings or style or background fineness say dude yeah he’s like me or she’s like me also I’ve argued find a sane who’s not like you find one who doesn’t have your background your interests your style because that Saint will probably complete something that’s lacking in you but all of them in their splendor represents the fullness of God I think it’s okay to think of saints as heroes in any walk of life we have heroes or models if you’re a baseball player you look up to certain great figures you’re a golfer you find there’s a swing I want to emulate and there is something of that in the Saints and we look to them as models or heroes for many people John Paul the second was that he was a model of the Christian life but Saints are more than that because Saints are our friends I can say well Roberto Clemente’s my model of how to run the basis but I’m not a friend of Roberto Clemente but the Saints are alive and the Saints are present to us they intercede for us from their heavenly place they guide us still as the liturgy says do you think of heaven not so much as way up there in a physical istic way like it’s way beyond the planet Jupiter or something that just puts it a great remove to think of heaven as somehow else it’s another dimensional system that yet impinges upon ours the saint is at work can stoop low to enter into our system and influence us pray for us act in our behalf so when you find a saint you found much more than just a model or a guide you found a friend spiritual friend who helps you in your friendship with with God I think the most fundamental quality of a saint is a saint as someone who has allowed Jesus to get into his boat and I use that image from the scriptures when Jesus gets into the boat of Simon without being asked without being invited he just gets into the boat and then begins commanding and Simon cooperates with him okay we’ll go out on the deep end okay I’ll lower my nets for a catch even though Lord we’ve been added all night long and caught nothing but I’ll do what you want that’s a saint so a saying to someone who has decentered her life it’s so longer her projects her plans her goals it’s now what Christ wants to accomplish through her and so she sees herself as a vehicle again that’s not to be construed in a domineering way as though I I negate myself you actually find yourself that’s why you know the Saints are always very vivid personalities I don’t know really an exception to that the Saints are vivid memorable striking personalities even like the little flower who’s dis pending her whole life in this quiet little convent in northwestern France but talk about a vivid personality because he the closer God gets the more were lit up from the inside it’s like the burning bush image was so powerful that when God comes into the world he lights the world up without consuming it so the bush is on fire but not consumed classical mythology whenever the gods come in they destroy what they have encountered they have to clear out a space it’s not true with the Bible but it’s the Saints you like the like a burning bush they’re on fire with Christ but they’re not consumed they’re lit up they become more radiant that’s what we admire about them that’s why the artists depict them with halos I think because there are a source of luminescence they’re a source of illumination to others mother Teresa had that role clearly in the 20th century talk about a vivid personality by the way but she she lit up the world around her that’s what the saints do [Music]

100 Replies to “Bishop Barron on All Saints Day”

  1. @Entropy3ko I'm not claiming anything, I'm just saying it's reminiscent, and asking for clarification if there is any. As for quoting religulous, I was quoting a Catholic priest interviewed in the movie. If I was quoting Bill Maher you would have a point but I wasn't. Why would a priest distort reality to ridicule religion?

  2. @joecool385 Yes, Hinudism is widely accepted as polytheistic but it's not much different, as there is one main God who presides over every other who have specializations, just like saints.

  3. Fr. would you consider doing something on the writings of Fr Garrigou-Lagrange? He was the spiritual director of Maritain for some time and is considered the greatest Thomist theologian of the 20th century.

  4. @Nemesis000000

    1- in which context did the priest speak? Did he mean to be ridiculing or offensive or had he something positive to say in his who0le discourse.
    2- do we have all his words or only Maher final cut?
    3- in what authority does that priest speak?
    4- which sources did he use?

    In the end such questions are unanswered and we have only Maher final product.

    As many similar 'documentaries' have shown it is very easy to cut material ad hoc to completely distort something.

  5. As always Fr., you take subjects like this, and turn them into something absolutely meaningful. This was something I wondering and contemplating about for a while now. Thank you so much for your insights, they are encouraging and enlightening. You don't mind me sharing this do you?

  6. @Coredeemer Yeah, I figured that when I see so many people puffing themselves up wanting to be Saints. Funny thing is that the people whom I think would or should be Saints, don't bring attention to themselves, they just go about and do as they do, and they carry something Saintly about them. I think any desire to be a Saint should not be a "hey look at me" but rather a call of duty from God. As Christ did with Peter, God is entrusting us for our vocation. That is what I think sainthood is.

  7. While listening to your excellent commentary (when is it NOT excellent?) I couldn't help but think of this quote from C.S. Lewis: “How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different the saints.”

  8. Indeed, I can say that "Les Grandes Amitities"(Great friendships), wrote by Raissa Maritain as some kind of philosophical diary, is really worth to read.

  9. @Sarusource Let me ask you a simple question: why do you think it's a good idea to love everyone? If you press that question, you will move into Christian doctrine.

  10. @Sarusource No, I just mean human beings! Why do you experience a sense of empathy with everyone you meet? Why do you admire those who love their fellow human beings without qualification?

  11. @Sarusource But why do you think that every human being is the subject of rights? Why do you think that every human being is worthy of respect? Plato and Aristotle didn't. Certainly Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't. How come? What makes the difference?

  12. @Sarusource I think you're subjectivizing things too much here. Granted, there has been an evolution on this score: we've come to see with ever greater clarity that all people are of inherent dignity. But I would ask you whether you think this is true. Are all people endowed with truly inalienable rights? And if so, I'd ask you to search out the deepest ground for that truth.

  13. @Megastephen1o1

    Where are you getting your information? These all enjoy the same status in the Latin rite as they always have.

  14. @Megastephen1o1 Can you please cite the official Church documents acknowledging that St. Valentine and St. Christopher did not exist and "were most likely legends".

    As for prophets no longer being taught by the Church, I refer you to the numerous citations found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains the TEACHINGS of the Church. In particular, Moses is cited in paragraphs: 204, 205, 210, 2575-2577 among others.

  15. @Megastephen1o1 As to the significance of Scripture, I refer you to the following paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 115-117 and you will see that there is in no way a dismissal of the literal in Scriptural exegesis of the Church, as you would have us believe.

  16. @Sarusource You're on a very dangerous slope indeed, for the moment you say that human rights are not inherent, you admit that someone or some institution has to grant them. And this means in turn that someone or some institution can declare them null and void–which is precisely what happened in the atheist regimes of the last century. What if, according to your reading, we (read powerful people) decide that it's not appropriate to grant rights to others?

  17. @Sarusource Well, at least you've admitted now that human rights are objective and are not simply granted by the state or by fleeting popular opinion. But my question goes beyond simply the recognition of human rights. I'm asking you to consider their source. Where does the inherent dignity of each individual come from?

  18. @Sarusource OK, so what is it about human biology and organic chemistry that infuses the human being with rights? Which biological process is it that gives us rights?

    And if the laws are "variable," then they are not in fact laws as science understands them at all. A scientific law is, by definition, one that applies to the whole universe, at all times and places. So if they are not laws, then they are just descriptions of how something happened, and no basis for morality at all.

  19. @Sarusource I read it, and my question is still the same.

    Now saying that human rights don't actually exist in the way that people think they do–that we can just totally dismiss them, reinvent them, or whish them away. I doubt very much that even YOU believe that, as if someone violates your rights, you don't shrug and say, "Well, those rights don't really exist objectively anyway. Maybe this guy just has a different set of rules." No, you argue that your rights transced his opinion.

  20. @Sarusource And if the laws of nature are "set," from the beginning of the universe to now, always and everywhere, then they're not variable in any meaningful sense at all–unless you mean we can *imagine* them being different, which isn't the same thing as they're *actually being variable*. A very, very puzzling argument.

  21. @Sarusource Well, string theory is just speculative mathmatics, and if there were "multiple universes," that wouldn't prove a thing. All it does is expand the range of things that need to be explained. It's a "turtles all the way down" argument. Anyway, the existence of different laws of nature is only relevant to the question of rights *if you already assume that everything is rooted in the physical*, but that's the very thing at issue! So it's question-begging even to bring it up.

  22. @Sarusource You're begging the question again, though. The fact that people have different ideas about morality only proves they are not objective *if you assume that morality is a matter of human opinion*. Think about it. You're using your conclusion as one of your premises. Anyway, people have had different ideas about purely scientific matters, too, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as an objective universe for the sciences to study. Einstein's physics are new ideas, too, so…?

  23. @Sarusource I'm afraid your question suggests you aren't really aware of what question-begging means.

  24. @smmclaug75 Oops, hit "enter" too soon. Anyway, question-begging means circular reasoning. I think you literally aren't grasping my point. Your argument is invalid, logically, because it presupposes the very thing you're trying to prove.

  25. @Sarusource Your line of argument seems to be to continually repeat your conclusion. Morality is biological. Morality is biological. Morality is biological. Morality is biological.

    Coming up with six different ways of stating this conclusion isn't an argument.

  26. you know, the church defines evil as the lack of the good. i realized today that were there's a lack of jesus' teachings, other philosophies come in. and presto! public school! -____- yuk. its obvious people of my generation are hungry for jesus…all of my friends in high school took philosophy as soon as they could…too bad they wont find what they are looking for there.

  27. comparing the moral life to diet isn't a good analogy at all. 'good' diets can be different based on people's genetic make-up, age, etc. in the moral life, there are objectively 'goods' for the person that are 'better' goods than others, regardless of where a person lives or what their physical body needs. the spiritual life is much more objective in this way.

  28. some things are not subjective about diets, others are. for example, a baby needs things in certain amounts that a 40 year old does not. some vegetables, too early in a child's life, might endanger them more than help them.

  29. perhaps our judgement about 'culpability' of actions changes if someone is too young, or not in mental health; but our judgement about an action itself is usually not swayed by the age of a person. genetic make up? what does that have to do with morality? why does 'what' matter?

  30. you are glossing over the fact that the act of stealing itself is an evil. as i stated, there 'may' be circumstances that diminish their culpability; but the act itself is evil. genetic make up has nothing to do with rather an act is 'evil' or not. if the genetic component deals with their mental capacity in some way, it may diminish culpability. either way, we can look at acts in a generic way, and decide if they are good or evil. race and environment do not impact intrinsic values of acts.

  31. i would point out then, that if morality is a socio-cultural construct, it is odd that nearly every society agrees on certain things, not just today, but throughout human history. killing, stealing, cheating, adultery (in general) are pretty much universally despised. why? because within the human person, there exists a set of 'natural' laws, not evolved to, but inherent in our 'design' by a creator.

  32. although some people certainly 'do' steal and murder, that doesn't mean that as a general rule, it has always been considered 'non-moral' behavior. i don't see Jesus promoting the stoning of anyone…perhaps you can remind me where he said to do that?

  33. 'exceptions?' by who? people who choose base behavior and crime? i'm not talking on a few personal levels. i'm talking societies. bears do kill their young if given opportunity. a male will kill cubs if not protected by a mother. the 'evolution' argument has been proven faulty so many times over. you just cannot trace moral behavior to any type of evolution. sorry.

  34. no. apes do have pecking orders, and ways of 'interacting' among their group, but it isn't culture, by the usual meaning of the word. a common definition: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group. there isn't a 'belief' system among non-humans in the animal kingdom. morality doesn't exist among animals because they do not have a self conscious intellect.

  35. some animals do eat their own young, given the chance. again, i don't see any evidence for the 'evolution of morality.' morality is specific to humans. much of your end statements are commentary not rooted in anything. i can say just the opposite. morality and consciousness among humans can only have come from a divine planner. the 'laws' of the universe themselves point to a planner; the odds of such things 'just happening' are infinitely impossible.

  36. i dont see any serious proof for 'macro' evolution. micro evolution, fine. you say humans are an evolved species. from what? regarding bears, you stated earlier that you thought animals generally did not eat their own. i presented a problem to that, now you are saying my point is from evolution. you cant just decide some 'behavior' is evolved because it exists. before you can talk about human language being evolved, you need to prove humans evolved from something…good luck.

  37. Australopithecus has many problems as a 'predecessor' to humans. some issues are: the carrying angle of her lower extremities; within a species, variation can be extensive-'lucy' may be an outlier of her species, and not really the 'norm;' among the 'pithecus' remains found, scientists claim certain ones were adept climbers, and others were bipedal; in ape construction, we find these two traits don't mix well-so there is some inconsistency there. my point: the evidence is pretty vague.

  38. so you think survival instincts are 'evolved.' i happen to think they are consistently found among nearly all wild animals-meaning, it isn't an evolved trait at all, but instinct at its finest. in a world where death has entered into what was previously a world at peace and without death, creatures have come to realize that fight or flight is the rule of survival, apart from change over time. i'd like to think of it more as conditioning.

  39. there are problems with your DNA suggestion. first, single changes in DNA often are silent in expression, lethal, or not enough to change phenotype. second, you seem to be mixing up 'adaptation' with evolution. third, evolution, on a macro scale, is not proven. sorry. 4th, reproduction becomes nearly impossible with a species that has any dna change that would change it beyond the species level. consider horses, donkeys, mules. truth isnt dependent on the number of people who believe it.

  40. If we took our morals from the bible we'd all be living under something very similar to Shari Law, you're being ridiculous as usual. We'd be murdering disobedient children, adulterers, Sunday workers, homosexuals & so on. Clearly, our morals are NOT 'god-given'. They merely came about through pleiotropic interactions & are the result of higher mental functions. Moral behavior is indeed present throughout the animal kingdom, it's all about the good of the group.

  41. "some animals do eat their own young, given the chance. again"

    And that's supposed to be god's design?? What a lovely god you bow to, not only do you have to justify the horrors of the bible he was responsible for, but also designing such delightful creatures as parasitic wasps or great white sharks who eat their own siblings whilst still in the womb. 99.9% of all animals to have ever lived now extinct, whoop whoop, all praise the great designer………or he'll fucking burn you!! *facepalm*

  42. You cling on to your god of the gaps, just be aware that as history has shown, those gaps have a nasty habit of getting closed. You're on borrowed time & clearly flogging the proverbial dead horse. Only a fool with the intellect of pond scum could bury their head to such a mountain of independently sourced evidence ALL standing up to the most intense scientific scrutiny, & ALL supporting evolution 100%. I take it you still haven't found a single secular scientist who rejects evolution yet? lol

  43. We've been through this. I assumed by the way you disappeared when backed into a corner you'd conceded. Speciation's been directly observed thus macroevolution has been directly observed. End of.

    "you say humans are an evolved species. from what?"

    We don't, the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY supported by 3 centuries of empirical evidence do. We descend from a now extinct proto-ape like being as do all the great apes. We simply follow the evidence no matter where it leads with no presuppositions.

  44. 1.) since 'we' (you and i) have been through all this, your jumping in here is really pointless.
    2.)speciation is NOT macro evolution-by definition, changing one gene or two genes is not 'macro' evolution. keep trying…you're wrong here.
    3.) the entire scientific community does not support macro evolution. i gave you scientists who don't believe it. this 'missing' link has yet to be identified. there are too many problems with 'pitchecus' to call that your link. i bet you do though…lol

  45. your point about not reading creationist sources is like me asking you to cite non-evolution sources.

  46. all of your points are in fact 'opinion.' why then do you demand proof from me, when you offer none?

  47. you seem off balance frequently. perhaps you need a new theory that actually fits the facts and data. evolution doens't cut it.

  48. all your points have been opinion. i did not say dna cant change. i said that gene changes don't mean macro evolution. speciation isn't a big deal. it happens very quickly as adaptation; not 'evolution…' if you understand the difference.

  49. Joh Paul 2 stated: theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. ultimately, it is possible, he states, that man could evolve a body, but his soul would still need to be infused by a creator. JP2 neither states emphatically that evolution is true or false. sorry.,

  50. i'm not arguing for either theory you just suggested. i'm stating that a person shouldnt try and make data fit a theory. this is the case with an overwhelming number of evolutionist scientists, and creationists alike.

  51. my above point is where i'm heading with that prior statement. people who already believe a theory, try and make data fit it, rather than see data for what it is.

  52. i think some people are blinded by what is right in front of them. they argue evolution (or strict creationism) based on beliefs rather than working through all the possible contradictions and data.

  53. one man named 'Duve" is the emphatic definer of the world "evolution" to you? what about the broader science community? I'm afraid your bias against any idea but 'evolution' really makes further discussion pointless. ciao

  54. wrong. i stated there is a difference between macro and micro evolution. there is not clear data that 'proves' macro evolution. transcription and replication of DNA makes changes larger than on the gene level, nearly impossible; when you try and conclude that a whole species tries to make the change at any larger level, you end up with reproductive infertility.

  55. 1#
    1.) When i say 'we've been through this', what i should have said is that you blatantly lied then when faced with evidence you disappeared. It really doesn't lend well to your credibility. If you can't justify the evidence in terms of creation, why don't' you question the fact it may be your beliefs that are wrong?

    2.) Now i've proven this to you categorically with numerous definitions from credible sources. I even caught you asserting to somebody else on another video that speciation…….

  56. 2#
    …….WAS macroevolution. Would you like me to find it & quote you to expose your lies once again? I thought you'd know better than to lie to me by now. You really should polish up on your commandments.

    3.) I think you'll find the ENTIRE scientific community does indeed accept it, & have done so for a considerable amount of time. Do we have to go through this again? Do you want to TRY & name a single secular scientist (from a related field please) who rejects it? Do you remember what…….

  57. 3#
    …….secular means?
    As for 'the missing link', the mere fact you think there is one goes to show the level of understanding we're dealing with here. There is no missing link, it's a myth. Every new find creates 2 new 'missing links', it's a spurious argument. Australopithecus is one of numerous transitional forms we know of.

  58. You're welcome, just be aware that this guy isn't afraid to lie & change definitions to validate his claims. ALL creationists are dishonest by default.

  59. its only 'transitional' if you can prove it transitioned 'to' us. which has not been proven. one of many problems still not answered by the evolution 'groupies.' forcing 'data' to fit a theory you believe is bad science.

  60. 1.) personal attacks don't help your position…swing and a miss
    2.) the catholic church allows that evolution 'may' be a plausible theory; it does not state anything concretely. the reason being there isn't enough data that proves it. your bias is blinding you.
    3.) my openess to going where the data leads, rather than forcing it into a theory is really alarming to you apparently; name calling, attempts to portray psychoanalysis….all off the topic, and very much why this has become fruitless

  61. 1.) i was mentioning your 'un'openess to data, rather than bending it to a theory. commenting on my views hardly makes a valid reply.
    2.)i've not listed sources so much as raised questions you don't like to consider
    3.)name calling is really your best response? really? sad…

  62. Ah so once again you move the goalposts lol, typical. We have transitional forms across ALL of the major classes of vertebrate life. Why is it the lower through the strata we dig, the less morphologically complex life becomes? Reject the mountain of fossil evidence is you must but the fact is it wouldn't matter if we'd never found a single fossil, we'd still have more than enough evidence to prove categorically that life evolved eg. ERV's, atavisms, the nested hierarchy of genes etc. etc.

  63. I take it you don't want me to quote where you stated that speciation is macroevolution? I also take it you was unsuccessful again in your search for secular scientists who reject evolution? Why say these things if you can't support them, when will you learn? Are you still claiming that a theory gets upgraded to a law if shown to be correct? lol

  64. 1.) i never did state speciation = macroevolution
    2.) any scientist who works within their educational scope has a right to comment on theories, such as evolution. 'secular' is a term for a scientist who works in a public setting, regardless of their personal beliefs..i've given you a large list of such people who don't believe evolution has been satisfactorily proven.
    3.) i never claimed a theory got 'upgraded' to a law. another strawman argument by you….keep lying…its your best attempt

  65. 1.) You are a shameless liar. You said on the video 'Catholics vs Protestants', & i quote; "micro evolution is merely gene expression. macro is change from one species to another. this requires much more than differences in genetic expression.".

    2.) You have given me no such list or even any names that qualify. Name a single one.

    3.) I may be wrong but i'm sure you did

    4.) Why is it you refuse to address any of the evidence i put to you, choosing to focus on the less relevant points?

  66. Why dress up in that funny robe with nothing on under it ? could you be looking for young boys like the pope and the rest of the pediphiles at vatican city ? . Protect the child molesters at all cost right ? .

  67. This is awesome, Father. Thank you so much for allowing Christ to live and teach through you. It inspires me to do the same! God bless you in your ministry. =)

  68. Father, you are great! It is such a blessing to have you.
    I am never tired of listening to you on YouTube, on EWTN on Salt&Light.
    Thanks for sharing with us "The Splendor of Truth".
    I am, going buy your series, "Catholicism" and I will give it to all my children.
    God bless you, Father Barron!

  69. I found the comment that the saints "act on our behalf" very striking. My patron saint is Bl. Imelda Lambertini (look her up, she's awesome), and sometimes I'll find myself wanting to dance with joy or some other thing that I as a respectable(?) adult can't do in that moment. It's comforting to imagine Imelda, eleven years old and full of love, getting to do those things in Heaven on my behalf.

  70. A few thoughts on Robert Barron’s video…
    1. Mr. Barron said that to become a saint “you must allow Jesus to so dominate your life in every aspect that he’s your Lord. He’s the Lord of your whole life.” The Bible teaches that everyone who believes in Jesus is called a saint. 1 Corinthians 1:2 says that we “are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” The only way to be washed/cleansed/sanctified, is through faith alone in the blood of Jesus (Revelation 1:5), apart from any of our own works, prayers, religious performances (Ephesians 2:8-9). Mr. Barron is consistent with the Catholic system which teaches that in order to be cleansed/sanctified a person needs to obey Jesus with their whole entire life. It is hoping to be cleansed by self-performance, instead of pure faith in the grace of God.
    I would ask Mr. Barron if he has allowed Jesus to dominate his whole entire life – even his thought life? No man (other than Jesus Christ) has allowed God to dominate his entire life. We are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and therefore need to be washed/cleansed by faith alone in the blood of Jesus (Romans 3:25).

    2. Mr. Barron said that saints can “complete something that is lacking in you,” and that all of the saints together “represent the fullness of God.” The Bible teaches that all the fullness of God is found in Jesus Christ, and that we are complete in Him (Colossians 2:9-10). The apostle Paul warned, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). Catholicism is a “tradition of men” that takes attention and glory away from the saving work of Jesus alone, and places it in “saints” who are sinners just like everyone else.

    3. Mar. Barron said that the saints, “Intercede for us. They pray for us, and act on our behalf.” The Bible says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5) Notice also that he said, “…as the Liturgy says.” The fundamental error of Catholicism is the issue of Authority. They have replaced God’s Word (The Bible) with man’s word (The Liturgy) as their Authority for truth. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Only Mediator between God and man. The Liturgy teaches that there are many mediators or interceders between God and man. Whichever we believe is our choice. Only Jesus is sufficient as our mediator because only he gave his life as a ransom for us by dying for our sins and rising from the dead. (1 Timothy 2:6).

    4. Conclusion, I hope that you will prayerfully consider the Bible Scriptures I referenced, and realize that the only way to become cleansed of your sins (become a saint) is through repenting of your sins and placing your faith in Jesus Christ alone (Mark 1:15).

  71. There's a patron Saint i rely on in good times and bad times. His name is Saint Michael the Archangel. He's the patron saint of police officers, military grocers, mariners, paratroopers and so on. The reason why i chose him as my Patron Saint because he encourages me to be brave, strong, vigilant, not to be intimidated or weak. The Devil unfortunately sees my weak points and exploits them. By making me feel ashamed, weak, worthless and not qualified enough to please God. But Saint Michael the archangel on the other hand, he makes me feel strong, brave, less ashamed and worthy and more qualified to please God. In my daily life, Saint Michael and i fight together against Satan and his minions whenever i pray the Chaplet of Saint Michael or the rosary. He also knows about my girlfriend. Meaning he knows that she's struggling to receive a kidney transplant. Often times i see her in emotional pain, i start getting emotionally upset like crying. But he encourages me to pray for her. He said, "Alan, I know you're upset about Heidi's kidney situation, but you have to be brave for her and pray for her. Saint Gabriel and i will pray for her too. We're here for you and Heidi." Any Saint in the Catholic church will tell you to be brave, strong, vigilant and high alert of the Devil's work.

  72. I understand the Synod 7 which just concluded in Rome will issue a statement which in reality will give a green light to homosexuality, gay marriage, and say fornication is no longer a serious sin. Maybe not in those words but it essence that what the fancy words will mean.

  73. Πολλοὶ γὰρἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷὀνόματί μου , λέγοντες, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ χριστός · καὶ πολλοὺςπλανήσουσιν .

    Vicarius Filii Dei


    Bless you

  74. Very Dear Bishop Robert Barron, the more I want, the more I desire, with all my being be Jesus Christ be My Lord, My King, My Ruler, My Mentor, My God, My Teacher, My Rabbi, My Adonai, My Best Friend, when Jesus Christ is the Very Essence in all My Being, then the more I am. In the Holy and Almighty Name of My Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit and the Authority of God Father. Amen.

  75. O Come Holy Spirit, Living In Mary. Teach us Love, Faith and Hope. Ps 116

    “Act, and God will act.” Mk 8:27

    😇 St. Joan of Arc please pray 4us

  76. Dear Bishop Barron I praise & thank God for your inspiring message on All Saints day. May God bless us all with his graces needed to achieve our destiny to be Saints.

  77. With the solemnity of All Saints Day which is today, God has called and chosen us to become future saints. Jesus said various times in the Gospels.
    "Many are called, but few are chosen."
    If we're meant to become future saints in Heaven and to reign with God, Jesus Christ and the rest then we have to live up to the merits and expectations that God has given us.
    I have a list of Saints who became a good example.
    I. Saint Michael the archangel.
    II. Saint Pope John Paul II.
    III. Saint Faustina.
    IV. Saint Francis of Assisi.
    V. Saint Patrick of Ireland.
    VI. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
    VII. Saint Peter.
    VIII. Saint Jude.

  78. One wonders why you are still speaking. After the Viganò statement, the Pope said he would not say a word. Why Bishop are still speaking? There is nothing to say. Silence! Silence! Silence!

  79. This heretic and his anti-pope are likely to canonize even more Novus Ordo Saints…St. George Soros, St. Hillary Clinton and St. Anton Levey.

  80. All Saint's Day

    Unto the graves of family and friends I bring
    Chrysanthemums, so pure in absolution-plea,
    Upon the speechless altar laid for God to see,
    Before the Judgment Bells begin to ring.

    In November I'll embrace all rank and file,
    All those whose heavy baggage Death has now claimed in,
    And I will say a prayer for any time-barred sin,
    May finally God and sinners peacefully reconcile.

    And by the tomb without a date or name thereon,
    Although it has no cross – a candle I shall light,
    And pray that God receive, such is His might,
    Those Innocent Souls at a moment of oblivion.

    Wieslaw Musialowski

Leave a Reply
