A Catholic cannot licitly vote for either candidate other than Trump; a choice not to vote is similar in efficacy to voting for Kamala and RFK Jr. thus the only licit action is renouncing citizenship and moving, or voting for Trump. Remember what you fail to do can also be sinful.
The guy in the video is great empirical proof of how sodomitical acts darken the mind, harden the will in sin, and weaken (if not destroy) the proper use of reason. You can even see the insanity in his eyes. God bless Fr. Mike.
Your take is a total strawman! The most charitable way of reading what Trent is saying is not that past magisterial isn’t binding but that one can’t read into past teachings something that the Church doesn’t recognize is there. That is to say, one can’t make a teaching binding that the Church doesn’t recognize as in fact binding. And his examples clearly elucidate this, i.e. that married couples can’t use NFP but must have as many children as God wills or that women must wear veils. Trent just seems to be saying that seems pretty obvious!
I think you strawmaned Trent’s point at around the 8 minute mark by ignoring the distinction he gave and the example he pointed to that show what exactly he was referring to . I agree with much of what you say just think you talking past Trent’s actual point which is essentially privet interpretation of past documents being elevated above the interpretation of the living magisterium.
I have said this before and don't remember receiving a response, but there are glaring issues with your view that the Pontiff of Rome can err in even his Universal & Ordinary Magisterium. The fact that we're hearing concessions early on in this video that there are real conflicts between various Papal Teachings already speaks to a huge problem. You've given away all the ground in accepting that Papal 'Magisteria' exist as separate expressions and can disagree with each other. Moreover, you make this more than theoretical by strongly suggesting that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have somehow deviated from a previous Orthodoxy on moral teaching. You already entertain positions that make it more than plausible that the Head of the visible Church can break from Orthodox Church teaching. There is no clear way to prevent a slide into more extreme Schismatic and Protestant stances on the Magisterium from here, given what you already allow for. I am also seeing some failure to understand the different levels of the Church's Magisterium and the role of teachings that are merely disciplinary at around 12:20 or so. However, that's really nothing compared to the view I have heard you espouse more than once before, and that you seemingly try to defend here, which is that a current Pontificate can produce significant errors on Faith & Morals that are A) dangerous to souls and B) represent a break from Orthodox Church teaching of previous eras. I have seen you promote this view in multiple videos of your own, on Mr. Gordon's RU-vid channel, and on your Twitter account. You continue to do this in spite of the fact that it is not harmonious with Donum Veritatis, Lumen Gentium, and Vaticans I & II. I am not aware of any serious Catholic (i.e. not sedevacantist) theologians willing to defend this view. You suggested previously that you have been able to somehow avoid a 'rupture' hermeneutic by suggesting that we favor previous teachings in a framework where they have been pitted against more contemporary opinions from the Papal Office in our own day. But this now places an unbearable burden on the inquiring Believer, as they now have to re-litigate all 2000 years of Church Teaching and Discipline, reading through every possible text to look for some presently undefined heterodoxy. Such a thing will necessarily be done purely through one's own individual sense of reason and discernment with no help from the Magisterium, because the true teachings of said Magisterium are precisely the subject in question. You concede as much in this very video. This leads to a quasi-Reform Calvinist state of unending scrupulosity where embracing and affirming positions promulgated by the Church, Herself, could be mortally illicit, but there can be no clarity about which to deny or which to endorse, since any such visible signs is precisely what the Magisterium - both in the office of the Papacy and the College if Bishops united with him - is supposed to provide. You make the Papacy into a source of anxiety for the Faithful. To really hammer this point home: since we are always looking backwards and trying to decide whether or not 'novel' teachings are correct in light of previous definitions (even at the *highest* levels of Magisterial Authority) why not just start looking at some of the earlier Ecumenical Councils? I mean, after all, they don't represent the very earliest teachings from the Church, right? You can try to answer that their declarations of such things as the Holy Spirit being Consubstantial with Father and Son are clearly present already within earlier teachings from Christ, Himself, but the whole point is that this was not so clear at the temporal context in which the Councils took place. In the end, I have tried looking at Magisterial Teaching through something like the lens you use, now, but found it led only to confusion, despair, frustration, and scrupulosity. For what little it's probably worth, I strongly recommend turning from this notion and openly recanting.
Thank you for this. Simply the enemy leaves a seed of doubt saying, "Did God really say?" It's impossible to check/recheck all the teachings of the Church just to "be sure". It defeats the purpose of an established Authority of the Magisterium and we will end up becoming our own authority.
"Fundamentalism" is a propaganda term coined by nihilists (who go by the names modernist or progressive). "Fundamentalism" is simply the enduring, historic form and beliefs of a religion.
If Vatican II was in error, then the Holy Spirit has left the Church? What happened to Jesus' promise of being with His Church always? He's reneging on His promise? If Vatican II was such a bad thing, why did God allow it? Is He asleep all these years and left His Church all alone by itself for almost 60 yrs now? Is that really what happened? Or is this just because of PRIDE? The very same PRIDE that caused Lucifer's fall? The very same PRIDE that divided the angels? If we don't follow the Church's Magisterium, then what makes us different from those Protestant Reformers who broke away from the Church because they don't accept the Pope's authority? The bottom line is, God has left the Church for more than half a century now. Am I Right? And fake cardinals installed fake popes and hijacked the Vatican from the 'GENUINE' Catholics who are now trying to install the 'ORIGINAL' Catholic Church back to its proper place. Am I Correct? If that is so, where are the 'REAL' Catholic cardinals and why haven't they elected a 'REAL' Catholic pope to lead the 'REAL' Catholic Church of Christ? Is this really is what's going on? Or are we just experiencing the second wave of Luthers, Zwinglis and Calvins?
@@iamcatholicsincebirth get real. There is no office of the pope. There is no papal infallibility. Believing those 2 things alone proves you ignorant of history.
I dont understand this shet. I consider Catholism, i somewhat agree with trent horn. The thing is, the catholic church is as divided as the protestants as a whole. All have ideas and beliefs OUTSIDE OF CANON law basically alot of people who are catholics would be considered "heretics" recent study on the belief of the real presense. "On June 3, Vinea Research, a Maryland-based market research firm that focuses on the Catholic Church in the U.S., released “Do Catholics Truly Believe in the Real Presence?” - which concluded that 69 percent of Mass-going Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist" almost 40 procent is "heretics"............
He didn't say that past magisterial teaching isn't binding. He said that people are misinterpreting past documents and claiming things are binding that never were.
The problem is that some of these past documents and collective teachings are not part of the ordinary authentic magisterium, which can be non-binding later. They are part of the ordinary universal magisterium (which means they are undefined doctrines and dogmas of faith). Even if a particular practice is not a doctrinal statement, the intention or purpose behind it can be.
Well hes prefecing the inaccurate charge on his whims to save him the burden of providing any substance to his false claims. Extremely slimey behaviour and reasoning. They absolutely know better.
@@hairypawter8475 The distinction is the personal interpretation and not the teachings of the church. If you can definitively show it was a binding teaching of the church, he can't arguye that point. If you just offer your personal interpretation of it without anything to back it, he's right. Don't get me wrong, despite not being Catholic (currently) I would be more inclined to convert if I had assurance that what the Church traditionally taught was still observed and respected today. Moving away from feminism and feelings. Clearly not all tradition is good, but the majority of it is. I could be mistaken but I believe the main complaint about the N.O. is not the language used but the removal of so much of the traditional liturgy and, in the U.S. at least, an avoidance of topics that might offend the more liberal minded among the people. We are to conform to His will, not the will of the World. Some things are hard, but it is not an excuse to deny or avoid them.
Very disappointing video by Trent Horn. He is usually good, but his video seemed more like a wailing around trying to hit as many traditionalists as possible than serious targeted critique. For someone who will discuss with anyone and is usually willing to listen to the arguments of others, he did not even give the courtesy of showing an argument from our side and he seems much less willing to converse with anyone "like us" (he won't have Nick on and he recently canceled a debate with Pinesap)
I honestly think that apologists are intimidated by people like Nick just because of how much more they know about the magisterium, the three levels, and how to discern those levels from pre-conciliar documents and moral manuals.
It's frustrating that Trent Horn will attack and debate low-hanging fruit like Destiny, Pearl, Mormons and Baptists, but as soon as he attacks the illiberal people like us on the subjects of the Jews or of Liberalism, he shies away from debate and just doesn't address any counterpoints. His video on "Christ is King is anti-semitic" is now almost 6 months old and there has been no follow-up to the backlash.
You're attacking a strawman and it's easy to demonstrate. Trent agrees with you. What we can say is, if the Church is infallible, then teachings don't change. If they don't change, then a present one can't contradict an old one. If you think they do, it's you're private interpretation of the old one that is wrong, because the Church knows better than you what the old documents say. That's all. If you don't get it, you're trapped in your fallacy. Too bad, I'm a fan of yours usually, but this looks like it's totally over your head.
2 things: 1)not all teachings are infallible, so a contradiction even in magisterial teaching is theoretically possible between two non-infallible teachings. In such a case, one must look to the level of authority of each teaching, not solely which one is newer 2)even setting aside the possibility of an outright contradiction above, you state "If you think they do [contradict], it's you're [sic] private interpretation of the old one that is wrong." Why is that necessarily the case? Isn't it just as possible that your private interpretation of the new one is wrong?
You are wrong. That is not Trent's position. Trent's position is that a teaching loses validity if the Magisterium is not currently teaching it. If it were to make a solemn declaration regarding these topics that would be one thing, but rn they are not. So we, on the one hand, are relying on older declarations, while Trent is saying it is impossible for us to understand older texts and so must on all issues rely on the current day Magisterium for all minute teachings. However since they don't teach anything definitively, he assumes the rules are completely null-and-void.
Or, everyone is denial that all teachings need an interpreter, so you kick the can one step down the road from Sola scriptura adherents. Thus, we all have the some level epistemology problem. Ultimately, you don't have ANY issues that can't be addressed with the bible, but somehow the convoluted mess of the magesterium solves it all.
If the teaching is ordinary universal magisterium, it cannot lose validity or become void just because an error in the ordinary authentic magisterium becomes widespread. Otherwise we should all be Arians.
@@mattmalcolm534when you say level of authority, how do you know since there is absolutely no official list of dogmas and all other teachings are lesser than dogmas. The whole thing is a lot less solid than people realize.
Have you debated and defended the Church against the likes of James White, et al? What have you done to defend the FAITH against the RABID attacks of non-Catholics and save Catholics from leaving the Church? Have you accomplished what Catholic Answers accomplished in defending the Catholic faith? If you did, then educate me for I have never known your works in defense of our Catholic faith. God bless the Catholic Church, the One True Church of Christ.
This is really what Jesus wants. His church divided. Catholics against Catholics. Protestants are laughing at us saying, "Look at these Catholics. And they have the guts to criticize us for having divisions." My goodness.
Yes, stop accusing others of division because then you are causing division. Are your accusations against Catholics really what Jesus wants? The defining trait of modern thought is a complete lack of self-awareness such that people will excuse themselves of the very behaviors of which they accuse others. No doubt your accusations are the only good ones, right?
I mean, the division started when the moral theology manuals were burned in seminaries after the Second Vatican Council and bad prelates began to push false narratives of what the council said rather than what it actually stated, all while refusing to use a hermeneutic of continuity. You can’t have disunity in the Church unless that disunity goes straight to the highest parts of the Church, and then we must ask “what errors are causing this disunity?”
There is no division, the church is always one and is the only church with a magisterium that can bind all believers to the one true teaching. If you think this is remotely bad, you should’ve seen how they disagreed in every other century.
What authority do you have to question the living teaching office of the Church ?It's main job is to give as authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture) or in the form of Tradition
The teaching of the magisterium throughout all of history is equally as “living” as that of the current institution of the Church. Weighing non-definitive teachings and examining other theological loci in order to come to conclusions is just called doing theology. Read Donum Veritatis.
The living teaching office of the Church today has not spoken on many of these issues, much less definitively, that is the problem. Trent Horn is taking the position that old teachings lose validity simply by merit of being old, which Catholics should never even entertain.
@@vaderkurt7848 so why does he cite Imam as being a "Catholic Fundamentalist" for having simply reached a theological conclusion regarding the 401k (a matter on which there is actually no explicit magisterial teaching, much less from the last century)?
His whole argument is "Dispensationalism is true because dispensationalism says it does." The only way you find his words compelling is if you already assume dispensationalism is true.
Please make a video thoroughly addressing the infernal elephant in the room: there is a lot of Catholic internet activity which is needlessly accusatory and divisive. I am definitely guilty of this, and it is not how Jesus wants Christians to behave.
How can such a video be made without introducing new accusations? Sadly, mindless people who lack self-awareness think that by adding more noise to the cacophony they can silence the room. What you really want is an authoritative leader to guide the sheep, but the lack of that leader is the very nature of the issue in the first place, and no video can solve that problem.
Thanks for this. I'm hearing more dissatisfaction about women and their place in the home. It's clearly the ideal, but it's difficult to formulate with the way American men are taught. I find more amd more and more women want to be in the home, but men don't know they're supposed to make that happen.
Trent’s arguments against Dr. Jacob Imam seems to rest on some sort of belief in episcopal impeccability, which is obviously not a real thing. He then resorted to calling him a “fundamentalist” over it. That was really low.
Lumping Dr. Jacob Imam into the same category as Sedevacantists was wild. Apparently disagreement about financial matters is tantamount to schism in Trent’s worldview.
That's utterly ridiculous. Trent could probably stand to be a bit fundamentalist if this is the case. I'll take Catholic fundamentalists over "bare-minimum Catholicism"
