@jonathanw1106 idk where they got that from. It's nowhere in the scripture. Mary did say she shall be blessed forever. We can pray that, but all salvation comes from the Father through Christ Jesus.
Yeah, there is a huge Constitutional Imperative about there being a separation of Church and State; however, most true power is Economic and Financial. Therefore I would look for Christ to set up His own Banking System. If the Christ Bank proves to provide solid returns on investment, then, well, it is proverbial in the Economic Community that Good Money drives out Bad, and the Christ Bank would soon have an effective monopoly on Economic and Fiscal Activity, just those activities that have always defined the Societal and Civilizational "Ruling Classes", and the Ruling Classes have traditionally been understood as being foundational to Political Control. Yeah, for the Christ Bank to control Free Democracies, It would only need to pay out Donations to those who would Bow to the Way of Christ. So, yeah, where there is a Divine Will, there is a Way, even given the present Political norms.
Mary was sinless for she is the Ark of the new covenant. You should be very careful about disrespecting God's most perfect creations. Where in sciputers does it say Mary sinned? nowhere and do not make false accusations against people for you have no evidence. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eD0K0gRrmOE.html&pp=2AHrApACAQ%3D%3D
@@jaredwilliams1031 gnosticism... she herself claims to be a sinner who rejoices in Jesus our Saviour just like the rest of us--> Luke 1:47 KJV - And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
@@David-bn8to gnostism purely in your head... no Apostles said a word about any of this nonsense you've been lead to believe... I bet you will even believe the pope when he says all religions lead to God.
@@davidcrane6593 Mary called God her Savior not because she was a sinner but because she needed God because even the angels need God. The sacrifice on Calvary was applied to her by the moment she was convinced for she is the Ark of the new covenant. More honorable then the cherub and beyond compare more glorious then seraphim thee without corruption gave birth to God the logos thou art The Theotokos thee do we magnify.
It's a complicated question. Secular society isn't Gnostic. They really want a religion thats relevant to daily lives. Hence Laudato Sii. Hence Novenas for health and healing (super rare to find an intention for the salvation of souls). Hence the perverse prosperity Gospel
Maybe God is using the algorithm to get you to reconsider your position? Because you clearly are interested or else you would have kept scrolling, but you clicked on the video, and posted on it. Maybe what caused all of that is God.
@@nomassgoer8350 Well if God wanted me to reconsider my position he would have guided to a God-for-dummies video, I listened to this video for 10 minutes and understood nothing. THis seems like an advanced theology topic for someone like me. I need baby steps, like lamb = good, wolf = bad.
You’re right this is higher theology. But it at least opened the question for you. You should look into Catholic answers. Trent Horn has some good points about atheism. And I’ll challenge you with this question, if atheism is then what do you have to lose by looking into the objections to atheism? I have looked into all kinds of religions and thoughts and the only one that makes sense is the Catholic Church.
You've greatly inspired me, Chris. I live in Canada and want to see how I can have a Catholic political presence here. Another excellent video. God bless you.
There is no strong case for classical Protestantism; it is baseless. This is why classical Protestantism has collapsed into liberalism, fundamentalist-evangelicalism, spiritual-but-not-religious-ism, and atheism-or else reversion to Catholicism.
@Chris Plance, I enjoy your content and that of RT and others. I am Catholic because I believe Jesus established the papacy. Pope Francis is the Pope. No doubt about that. It feels wrong to label the Pope as incorrect even on non-magisterial statements. In light of Pope Francis being a trained theologian, who knows the Gospel and dogmas of the RCC and encourages people to evangelize, it is difficult to hear the words at Singapore. I don’t know what happened there. Jimmy Akin makes a great point to read in context. Agreed. However, The Pope’s words are not just that all religions are a path people take to try to find God. The original text appears to say they are all “paths to reach God”. The languages example implies that all religions are equal because they are just ways of speaking about the same referent, namely God. The problem is that God has given His people a “pure speech” to call on His name (Zeph 3:9) and every language in heaven will say ““Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev 7:10). The Pope’s words sound like we should have no quarrels in dialogue BECAUSE all religions lead to God. They are all basically grasping the same substance just using using different languages. This is incorrect. Sacrifices to idols are offered to demons. Buddhists reject an eternal Creator. Muslims reject that Jesus is the Son of God who died on a cross for us. Etc.
In order for your idea to be viable, America would have to be converted, throw out the Constitution, and reorient to be fully integralist. The reason you have an issue with the American solidarity Party's platform, their second sentence as you mentioned, is because their party does not intend to throw out the Constitution. It intends to work within the framework of it. In case you forgot "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
When I was coming the Church for the first time many years ago (over 10 years ago), I came from a completely non-Catholic background. One of the biggest hurdles for me was that many Catholics are incapable of communicating their values without using Catholic jargon. Remember back in elementary school where you had vocabulary homework and you had to define words without using the word in the definition? Every Catholic academic needs to work on that if you want to convert the world around you, b/c you're currently just preaching to the choir. The problem with the Cristero party and this video, is that it is completely indecipherable to a non-Catholic and especially a non-Christian. Drop every single bit of jargon vocabulary and it sounds like you're saying: "The problem with American Solidarity Party is that it respects the American Constitution as written, which does not respect religion. Since religion is not respected in the US Constitution, we have to throw it out and the American State must be subordinated to the Catholic Church." Good luck with that.
But are they wrong? Not all Pope-splainin' is off base. Still, Pope Francis does have a frustrating habit of leaving things up to the interpreter to work out.
Yes, it's reasonable, and Catholics need to be charitable when they interpret the Holy Father's thoughts. But I wonder what the young people in Singapore thought he meant since it shocked me. Blessed Pope Pius IX condemns these false statements in his Syllabus of Errors. "15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. - Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851. 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. - Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846. 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. 18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849." www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
Was Christ wrong to rebuke Peter’s opinion that he shouldn’t go to the cross, calling him ‘Satan’? Simon Peter blew it! JA- the pope just spoke off the cuff and was ‘imprecise’ and we need to charitably ‘read into’ what he said. Honestly, do you think anyone but a popesplainer would do that? The world heard him say that all religions lead to God and there’s really only one God, by which they understand that all religions lead to the same God. I have no excuse for Francis just as I have no excuse for Peter. Francis will ultimately be judged by a higher bar, but in the meantime, the world will be led to unorthodox conclusions.
You guys are assuming as the pope said "all religions are equal, regardless knowing and deliberately rejecting the catholic faith you will be saved". Remember only God can judge the heart and yes i agree that pope francis should elaborate more after his statements in order to avoid confusion
Orthodox here. I feel the distress in the hearts of my Roman Catholic brothers. I want to remind you one of the greatest dangers in the dogmatic innovations of Catholicism compared to orthodoxy. Pope Leo XIII, in the following passage, condemed any attempt to oppose the directives of a reigning Roman Pontiff to those of previous pontiffs : _Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed._ (Epistola tua, June 17, 1885). This means that every time a new Pontiff contradicts previous ones, the previous beliefs are cancelled and replaced with the new ones. I hope you grab the danger your Church has set herself into. Don't be fooled. Francis has an agenda. And this agenda is the universal pan-synchretism of the new world order. With everything new declaration he makes the orthodox Church more relevant. Kyrie eleison ☦️
Pope Francis also said they (religions) are a way to arrive at God. So hes not just saying they are paths but he is saying that they will get you there. If you ask the average person on the street what Pope Francis meant the majority of them will come to the conclusion most of us have and that it doesn't matter what religion you are and that is heresy. If you want me to be charitable, fine, then he needs to clarify himself. But he hasn't he has doubles down on hia statments calling multi-religions treasures. Has there ever been a Pope that has had to be defended against accusations of heresy as much as him? Are we just all wrong? Meanwhile Father James Martin is still a Priest while Bishop Strickland has been fired. Actions speak louder than words.
I respect Jimmy's attempt to defend the Pope, but I don't buy his conclusion. The Pope said that religions are like "different languages to get there [to God]". Well, it doesn't matter what language you speak. So - following the analogy - it doesn't matter what religion you have. They all "get there". The Pope was simply wrong.
Hi Chris, I have done a bunch of interaction with this particular subject with all sorts of careful philosophers and theologians who can parse the words favorably. I am exhausted over it. I think anyone who isn’t programmed to force this all into the orange comes of theoretical orthodoxy can see that the Gospel message that holds a condemning law upon the heads of all men if they fail to submit to the heavenly summons of Jesus Christ was stifled and violated. The model is Paul in Acts 17 , a passage viciously victim of speculative exegetes on the “unknown god”, where upon the first encounter with pagans he warns people of the wrath of Jesus Christ, despite whatever ignorance God is going to pass over from things prior. I am sorry you are falling for all this stuff.
@Erick_Ybarra thanks for your concern and attempts to wrestle with these things. I’m sorry you’re exhausted. I won’t engage, then. Rather, I’ll just leave you with this great quote from Pope Francis that might help you if you’re open to further discernment: “A facile syncretism would ultimately be a totalitarian gesture on the part of those who would ignore greater values of which they are not the masters. True openness involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity, while at the same time being ‘open to understanding those of the other party’ and ‘knowing that dialogue can enrich each side.’ What is not helpful is a diplomatic openness which says ‘yes’ to everything in order to avoid problems, for this would be a way of deceiving others and denying them the good which we have been given to share generously with others. Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another.” - Pope Francis (Evangelii Gaudium, 251) God bless
@@ChristopherPlance Yep, I spoke on this with Classical Theist. There is a way to be an ardent absolutist (by mouth and pen) while also being practically just as relativistic as a relativist (by mouth and pen).
Yeah, I'd love to be able to buy this . . . but . . . I think the simpler interpretations are true. Gotta jump through too many hoops to make this not look like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Look up Sam Shamoun's take on this. WAY more reasonable.
We look foolish when we defend the pope for doing and saying bad things. Is catholicism boiled down to being a shill for the pope or for seeking and defending the truth?? Its hard enough to be a convert or even stay catholic, but then the pope has to say sh!t like this. Is it too much to ask for Francis to not seemingly spout heresy??
Accusations of “gaslighting” is literally an anti-Christian position. Chris is right, charity above all things. The “hermeneutic of suspicion” isn’t just evil in regards to Scripture, but Christians as well.
