Presented by Ave Maria University, Dr. Michael Dauphinais, Chair and Professor of Theology, sits down with colleagues and friends to discuss Catholic theology. Ave Maria is a Catholic University located in Southwest Florida. This Catholic podcast covers themes such as the value of a Catholic higher education, religious liberty, how to pray, the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas and more!
did god not create the universe. if god created the universe god decided what is and is not intrinsically posible. most people say god is outside of time. this would mean there is no past for god. so, any moment can be changed. the past is only the past for entity that are stuck in time. people need to think of the impact of there ad-hoc solutions on the entire picture. you cannot make a solution for one problem without applying that solution to everything.
Thank you for expressing your concern. We think a helpful way to look at this issue is as follows, following the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas: God's power is limited to the possible. If we say that God can make the past, which He allowed to occur by sustaining things in existence at that time, not to have been, it is a contradiction in terms. The fact that He sustained things in existence in what for us is the past indicates that the past belongs to history, and history belongs to His mercy. Because every moment in time exists, it has being. Because it has being, it is good. The fact that God allows the world to continue shows that all time up to now has been under His providence. If He ever wanted to change the past, He simply would not have allowed the past to ever be, because the past has not passed for Him. To say that He can change the past is to say that He can deny Himself, because in allowing the past to occur, He sustained it so that it could have a share in His own being. He lives in an eternal now, so He cannot at the same time give something a share in His own being (allowing things to be) and at the same time withhold it from existence (like changing the past). We hope this may be helpful.
@@TheCatholicTheologyShow"God's power is limited to the possible." - so, god cannot do medicals as a medical is defined as doing the impossible. if it was posible it is not miraculous. "“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” - Arthur C. Clarke. if you want to say god is just a sufficiently advanced being i am cool with that, but the rest of the claims about god and demands from god do not automatically come with it. "The fact that He sustained things in existence..." - this is not a fact it is an assertion. every think we know to be true indicates the cosmos works the way it does all on its own, no suntanning necessary. if god needs to sustain the physical laws of the universe to keep them from changing then god could stop suntanning a property and allow the intrinsically impossible to be posible when desired. most apologists like to say god made an orderly universe so science would not work without god. the revers is true. if god can do the things people say science could not work reliably as god could change the rules at a whim with a medical. "Because every moment in time exists, it has being." (in has being?) - so we do not have libertarian free will if every moment already exist for god. god already know what we will do and we can not change it. free will is used as the get out of a bind by apologist allow. problem of evil, free will. that is a big one, as the problem of evil destroys most definitions of monotheistic gods. god is all knowing (knows about the evil), god is all powerful (can stop the evil), and god is all good (wants to stop the evil). solution god cannot interfere with free will. if god made the universe, sustains the universe, and god knows every moment in time. we do not have free will. this would mean the god as described does not exist. give up one or more of the omni powers then you have a fix for the problem of evil, but can you still call it god? "The fact that God allows the world to continue shows that all time up to now has been under His providence." - again not a fact an assertion. if god cannot do the intrinsically impossible god did not allow it to happen it just happens. if god is allowing it to happen and could change it. "Because every moment in time exists, it has being. Because it has being, it is good." - sophistry with no meaning. furthermore just because something exist does not automatically make that thing good. you also need to define what you mean by "time exists" time is a non physical so it does not exists in the classical sense. "To say that He can change the past is to say that He can deny Himself, because in allowing the past to occur, He sustained it so that it could have a share in His own being." assertion, sophistry with no meaning, "Because every moment in time exists, it has being." it is not the past for god. "He lives in an eternal now" - god exist at all time or in the now? you cannot have it both ways. "He cannot at the same time give something a share in His own being (allowing things to be) and at the same time withhold it from existence (like changing the past)." -more assertions, and nonsensical sophistry. you can share some of you and not all of you. you have now implied god is everything. you are god i am god time is god and so on. "We hope this may be helpful." - it is not, it was more ad-hoc solutions some of witch contradict each other. what theist need to do is define there gods powers. then compare the expected results based on the powers to the accrual results. every definition i have heard fails to line up with observation. is there a god out there, maybe, but it is not the christian god or any other god i have heard of. the only god that has a chance if the deistic god and that god does not interact or care so does not matter. P.S. if we are going to continue can we discuss one statement at a time? otherwise the post will get unreasonably long.
This very young man, Father Blake Britton, fails to reconcile the massive Liturgical failure and the catastrophic collapse Catholic Culture and Catholic Economy of Pope John Paul II's pontificate.
As a recently reverted Catholic, the divine comedy has been on my mind recently and its influence on the faith, so I’m very excited to watch this! God bless
Yes, I agree. A faith that clings to the past „great times“ and the radical rejection of the current culture without any differentiation or discernment isn’t Catholic.
Let me add an obvious comment: This is a really good interview. So important to have the answer for "why". Also, thank you for pointing out that my contribution in the sacrifice of the Mass is "finite". I do not have "infinite" dignity. I have dignity to the degree that I unify myself with Christ through receiving sanctifying grace.
8:29 "The Pope said that if you swear the oath as a Catholic, you'd be ipso facto excommunicated. So you have two really bad options if you were an English Catholic from 1606 onward, which was either potential treason against the Crown, or potential excommunication. That's the context in which Maryland existed."
23:30 "John Paul II focused on Christocentrism, because that was the real foundation of Vatican II. Jesus Christ is not only a historical Person, He is an event, He is happening now, He's here, He's in our midst, eucharistically, primarily, but also in the sacramental life of the Church."
17:59: "For Lewis, Aslan is not a personified abstraction of Jesus Christ. He's a re-presentation of Jesus Christ...But those fine distinctions aside, he is the Son of God, made manifest incarnationally, in all seven of the Narnia stories."
5:11 "A covenant is the extension of kinship, family, by oath. It's a way of swearing someone into your family. Why does God want to deal with us by covenants? It's because by our nature we're creatures, sharing that with other animals, but God is not content for us to remain creatures. He wants to elevate us to children."
10:16 "But when Jesus says 'I am the door, I am the gate,' you don't walk through Jesus to get to somewhere else. Jesus is the entrance to the Father. To abide in Jesus, the door, is to have entrance to the heavenly reality, you have entrance to the Father Himself."
6:04 "Remembering that the love of Jesus is what makes Him the Lord is fundamental. His is not a Lordship of conquest, but of proclamation, proclamation of the Cross."
5:45 "There's a way in which the liberal arts are liberating, 'liber' is the key Latin word, that frees us from that darkness of sin and of ignorance in which we're born---that obscuring of mind, that weakening of the will, that disorder in the passions---the liberal arts help to bring an integrated view of creation and its Creator."
7:21 "Putting the ring on is the act of sin, and when you put the ring on, you excommunicate yourself from the good world that God made---you become invisible. But you become more visible than ever to Sauron, because you've entered his world, his dominion. And if you put the ring on habitually, you gollem-ize yourself, you shrivel, you shrink, you become the wreck of the good hobbit you were meant to be, you become this addicted wretch."
Were the bishop appears there let the people be. Just as where JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. St Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD. God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 🍞🍷🔑⛪️✝️🕊📖✝️🫶🏻⛪️
Father I understand what you say. But at the same time, our lady In Brazil to Pedro Reis is asking for us to be firm in the true teaching of the church. We will bring abominations, in name of progress. God will withdraw. Many will return to the church, and god won't be there. I think that is what people are scared. Communion in the and ,bringing other faiths, blessing sins ,it will get much worse. Women priests, changing the catechism. This things matter. When the church stops teaching the truth, Part of the church will belong to the wolves. The tree that dosent give good fruits will be cut of. For myself i would like to see a bit more piety, in reciving the Eucharist. God already manifested Himself, about this ,and the church dosent seem to take much notice.
As a general rule, it seems clear that Father's descriptions of the paraconciliar and traditionalist modes of interpreting the council were meant as descriptions of certain worldviews and mindsets when it came to interpreting the council's teaching. In no way were they meant to denigrate any particular individuals. These worldviews and mindsets are observable in some of the reactions to the council, even where those who held those views didn't explicitly articulate them.
As a general rule, it seems clear that Father's descriptions of the paraconciliar and traditionalist modes of interpreting the council were meant as descriptions of certain worldviews and mindsets when it came to interpreting the council's teaching. In no way were they meant to denigrate any particular individuals. These worldviews and mindsets are observable in some of the reactions to the council, even where those who held those views didn't explicitly articulate them.
No, Jesus is one of many solar crucified saviours, allegories of one's soul incarnated in body; his story was never literal history. Read Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Massey and Rev. Robert Taylor to understand the true Messiah and comparative religion. Seek and ye shall find the answers to those burning questions on your heart.
pray for this priest. "traditionalism" isn't a movement, modernism is. "The only arms that will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confrères … churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord." -our lady of akita "Many cardinals, bishops, and priests are following the road to perdition, and with them, they are taking many more souls." -our lady of garabandal
Sorry Father, what you are describing is Radical Traditionalism or Rad Trad in short. Traditionalist are us who follows 2000 years of Magisterial teachings and do not subscribe to Rad Trad ideologies.
Only reason I’m still Catholic is because of tradition and Latin mass. All my cousins raised in the novus ordo aren’t Catholic anymore or converted to Protestant churches.
With all due respect Father you lost me at listening to pod casts that make you angry is demonic. I disagree. You are in effect saying don't listen to people who may be speaking the truth because they may get you angry. By extension, listen only to the Vatican, which implies listen to the infallible Vatican. Yes, you didn't say these things but that is what is being implied. So you are saying the 2000+ Bishops drafted, debated, and approved the V2 documents. And hese are the same Bishops who went home and implemented V2 and got the implementation wrong? What is demonic is that Bishops today remain silent to the errors coming from the Vatican for fear of losing their jobs, they cover up clerical abuses, they silence and cancel priests who speak the truth, and they compromise the faith for the Church of be-nice-and-inclusive, without strongly emphasizing repentance and conversion. Who is the audience of your book? I haven't read it so I don't know. The laity? But we are not the ones implementing V2. Is your target audience the clergy, including the Bishops? We are really in trouble if the clergy needs your book to correctly implement V2. You know more than I that the devil will exploit every little opening/crack it can find to the detriment of souls. There may be nothing wrong with 99% of the V2 documents. But there may be just enough ambiguity for the devil to infiltrate/exploit with its smoke. And our Bishops stood by (continue to stand by) and let it happen.
"There are no worse enemies of the Catholic church than the Liberal 'Catholics'" -Pope pius IX "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies and with sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic church" -Pope pius IX (reference taken from pius X's encyclical pascendi) "Progress of dogma is in reality nothing but corruption of dogma" -Pope St Pius X "The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the church's open enemies, but what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom" -Pope St pius X (Pascendi) This next quote is the most important: "The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some NEW doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously gaurd and faithfully expound the Revelation or deposit of faith TRANSMITTED by the Apostles" -Vatican council I (pastor aeternus ch.4) The church and specifically the Popes are given authority not to make new things but to preserve the Tradition of the church which was handed on by the apostles to their successors, the popes since vatican ii have not done this so well, the liturgy was destroyed by the freemason bugnini, and the faith has been watered down by Vatican ii and its non-dognatic changes, even paul VI more or less admitted this, the church is in crisis because of the changes and innovations made, the only recourse, the only solution is to return to what the church authoritatively teaches in the deposit of faith also known as the Tradition of the church.
This priest needs to read Vatican II exposed as counterfeit Catholicism by Father Francisco Radecki and Father Dominic Radecki ,CMRI. Only then will he realize what actually happened during Vatican II
1 : God creates human being that he know will sin. 2 : they sinned and somehow god is angry and punches all human being with the origin of sin 3 : god become a human being 4 : god sacrifice himself to forgive the sin of human being that he himself punched human being with before 5 : you’re only forgiven if you believe in this story How does this make sense to christians is beyond my comprehension. Believe in one God the creator of heaven and the earth
It may be helpful to read the following from the Church's Catechism, nos. 54-55: "In the beginning God makes himself known 54 "God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. and furthermore, wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning."6 He invited them to intimate communion with himself and clothed them with resplendent grace and justice. 55 This revelation was not broken off by our first parents' sin. "After the fall, (God) buoyed them up with the hope of salvation, by promising redemption; and he has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing." Even when he disobeyed you and lost your friendship you did not abandon him to the power of death. . . Again and again you offered a covenant to man." The plan of our salvation consummated by Christ is the fulfillment of all God's covenants of old. Still more, it is through the cross that the revelation of God's merciful love is made to all mankind: "But God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
@@TheCatholicTheologyShow I’m sorry that doesn’t make sense. 1 : If Christ is God him dying on the cross is not a sacrifice because a God can’t die and a God can’t feel pain, and if you say otherwise then he can’t be God. I don’t know why it’s not obvious to you that when the romans adopted the original message of Jesus which was the same message as Moses Abraham etc… to not worship anything else beside God. It’s obvious that the romans will introduce a human god into the message. They worshipped human gods for ages. You’re not following the message of Jesus you’re following the romans
Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious. Pope Pius X
I'm "ossified" "stagnated" "traditionalist". This apologia pro revolution is absurd. All the main architects like Chenou, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Daniélou, etc. etc. had CONDEMNED writings. These men threw out the preparatory documents and won the day. Want to talk of disobedience? Speak of Montini's disobedience to Pius XII in his dealings with Communists and betrayal of priests. Your beloved Meta-meeting had condemned and condemnable theology at its root, made ambiguous enough to be swallowed by the credulous. Your "council" is nothing. May it be condemned - I pray every single day.
We can judge a tree by its fruits, and by the fruits of the Novus Ordum, the Vatican II council has been the biggest mistake in the recent history of Catholicism. We can see Christ's Church stammering and falling. We can see the pews, seminaries, and convents, empty.
Ephesus is the Council we have to reclaim. There was way, way, way, way too much of the 'spirit of Ephesus', aka the dangerously exaggerated Marianism we experienced in the centuries which followed. We need to firmly pull back. There's been lots of abuse which the Council never intended.
His argument is that the council didn't say what the liberals said and the council didn't say what the conservatives said. So the council said absolutely nothing.
What Father was expressing is that the liberal vs. conservative dichotomy has no place in the Catholic Church. One either follows the Church's teachings, which are the revealed teachings of Christ, or does not. As a council convoked by the Successor of St. Peter and ratified by his authority in communion with all the bishops of the world---in this way, no different than any of the other twenty ecumenical councils in the Church's history---we recognize that the Holy Spirit was at work in the council, and thus its teachings must be accepted as authoritatively binding. Interpretation of the Council's documents is a responsibility whose boundaries are set by the Magisterium, and it devolves to theologians, working within and never outside of those magisterial boundaries, to assist the bishops in interpreting conciliar teaching, properly understood within magisterial boundaries and in continuity with the Church's immemorial teaching from Scripture and Tradition.
