Catholics Respond to "Frank the Hippie Pope" by LutheranSatire 

keep up the good work pastor Fiene

+LutheranSatire Hey, thanks for joining the conversation. I've seen some of your videos, which are very thought-provoking and funny. I just wanted to point out at the end of your original Hippie Pope video, you missed something important. The Council of Trent document you quoted was written hundreds of years ago when Lutherans were actively breaking away from the Catholic Church. The teaching of the Catholic Church on current Lutherans such as yourself is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was published in 1994, paragraphs 818-819 - “One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.”

+Pen Writer only took 500 years. What about the atheist though?

Love most of your work. The world needs more Horus and C&D.

+Altar Boy Well, actually, Martin Luther never repudiated the Catholic faith, rather he wanted to reform the church as it was in state of gruesome and utter turmoil due to the corruption in the church hierarchy. Luther never wanted to create a new religion or a new denomination, he merely wanted to reform Roman Catholicism and destroy what he saw as erroneous dogmas and doctrines that were advocated by the church's teachings.

Jesus my God and savior loves you have a nice day

God Christ Jesus loves you have a nice day

+blablabubles I agree. It seems the girl with the glasses was the only one to honestly admit that it's true instead of becoming overly defensive.

Exactly. This isn't an attack on Pope Francis. It's an expression of frustration at the fact that at a moment when we ALL need him to speak up clearly in defense of the truth, he's not. He's being loving and conciliatory at a moment which cries out for confession and when all is said and done saying things in a way which invites and promotes misunderstanding.

Thank you.

We need clarity. Our world is very wishy washy and under the guise of being sensitive people's lives are destroyed as I saw speaking with a trans man. He did not need people to pat him on the back and say he is a woman. He needs healing. And the current pope might sometimes be a bit wishy washy when he needs to be clearer.

Fatima warned us: the church will lose the faith starting from the top. And here we are. :/

Yup, someone did. The original video's answer to that question is either intentionally deceptive or ignorant. See Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.

But the video skipped over it

+Michiganman800 It was irrelevant to the topic we wanted to focus on, which is Pope Francis himself and the statements he's made. Pope Francis never said that non-Catholic Christians go to hell, that was thrown in there by LutheranSatire as a potshot at Catholicism in general. We skipped it so the ensuing discussion wouldn't be derailed by that separate issue.

+TitoPaul Oh it's not ignorant nor deceptive. Rome has gone inclusivist.

+New Catholic Generation you mean you avoided the issue??

+Steve Bliss (MackleeGreen) I'm surprised to see a Lutheran here in the comment section of this video,but I'm also glad.

I am Lutheran as well and it was interesting to hear what Catholics think of the Pope and how they would take this video.

Many of us Catholics are ignoring all popes and doctrinal novelties since Vatican 2, and carrying on as a faithful remnant of the faith from when it was pure.

So you are not Catholic you are a protestant?

He's a sedevacantist. They're one of the newest Protestant sects, so new they haven't yet realized they're Protestant.

+Ivan Zenteno Benedict was an actual legit scholar, a legit theologian. Francis? Not so much.

Ivan Zenteno I was fortunate enough to see Pope Benedict 3 times while at Rome. His mind is a bedrock of revealed truth.

Repent and trust in Jesus. He's the only way. We deserve Hell because we've sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23😊❤❤

I am Evangelical (not in protest against Roman Catholics). In my opinion Pope Benedict XVI biggest mistake as Pope was resigning. I appreciated the writings of Pope Benedict XVI.

+Andrew Hoffer Well, some of us are, at least

Repent and trust in Jesus. Hes the only way. We deserve Hell because weve sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤😊❤

​@@lowlightpiano7110 We know.

I think he gave Pope beelzebub his sense of humor away.

He's hard to watch...

heyyyy. Love your videos! Surprisingly I just saw a comment from Fritz on another of their videos. lol

The video is about how cavalier Pope Francis is. Catholics and Christians affirm this.

Loved your latest video

Rick Pettey he is JESUIST!!! Oh, yeah! XD

Repent and trust in Jesus. Hes the only way. We deserve Hell because weve sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤😊❤

+Little Dream Didn't she say 9:30 PM classes? Now I'm not quite sure...........

+Ethan Ceroja I'm pretty sure it's AM because she first says: "His eyes look like me when I have to wake up for my 9:30 class" and then she says again "9:30 am" :) It wouldn't make sense (for most people) to wake up for a 9:30 PM class :P

After re-watching the video, I realized how idiotic I was in my previous statement. I apologize.

try 8am classes and waking up early at 4am to commute for 2 hours to get to early to class lmao

Whoa, brutal........

I would have to agree with them. Pope Francis seems to speak directly from what the Holy Spirit is guiding him to. Where as Pope Benedict and John Paul II both were more reserved in the way they talked. Not saying anything is wrong with either way of speech, but there is for sure a difference

I worry that Pope Francis is guided more by politics than by prophecy. But hey, the media got their leftist pope, so they dropped the pedophile priest story like a hot potato, and now the crisis is past. So maybe it was all worth it.

"I worry that Pope Francis is guided more by politics than by prophecy." Yeah? And I worry that his detractors are.

Repent and trust in Jesus. He's the only way. We deserve Hell because we've sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤❤❤

+Eran Carter I have a problem with cussing and using the name of God in vain. I decided a while ago to replace all my instances of "God" and "Jesus" with the names of Protestant reformers whose names I have no issue taking in vain. :)

+Tatiana Federoff Oh. Okay. I just figured using the phrase "my sweet" meant you liked them. Now I see what you mean.

Captain Dinglepants I’m not catholic, but I love that. It’s the perfect catholic cuss word.

+cc536 I don't see why we SHOULDN'T believe he is being misinterpreted. I, along with about a billion worldwide Catholics, see no reason why he would go blatantly against many of the most basic church teachings. It IS true that Pope Francis's statements are rather ambiguous, but it is easy to see what he actually means if you look at his actual words and not what you want the words to be.

+Ethan Ceroja Sorry but you are in denial. Pope Francis is capable of speaking clearly and unambiguously and has done so when it comes to politically correct issues like climate change and immigration (which are questions outside the authority and expertise of the pope btw). If he wanted to he would have defended traditional catholic teaching in the same way, but he chooses not to.

Aloisivs he doesn't contradict doctrine, it's weaponized ambiguity

@@thecngent9724 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7EX1BjID_fE.html Explain this.

@@aloisivs3652 and considering how the Amazon's Synod went, it would seem that your words are confirmed

+Nikki Mitchel The reason I didn't include that part is that the main theme I was going for with the discussion is Pope Francis himself and his statements. The faith vs. works issue is a whole other can of worms and if we're going to discuss that I'd rather devote a separate video to it. -David

I'm glad it wasn't included. Comparing statements from Lumen Gentium (1964) with The Council of Trent (1545) was either an ignorant juxtaposition or intentionally misleading. I suspect the latter as LuthernSatire appears too smart in his other videos to make this type of bonehead mistake. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) if you really want to understand the church's position. If you don't want to look it up yourself, see Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.

+Nikki Mitchel See CCC 818 and 838 for the Church's teaching on modern Lutherans, as the anathema was for Lutherans hundreds of years ago, who were actively teaching against the Catholic Church, and therefore had nothing to do with LutheranSatire's video.

+Pen Writer I think the point is that Rome hasn't been consistent over the years. Their understanding has changed. Go read Unam Sanctam from around 1300 AD and then go read 838. Now, I don't care that you've guys have changed. But I'm not going to pretend you haven't really changed. Mainly because I don't have to assume your church is infallible. The bigger problem is that some of your changes into inclusivism runs counter to Scripture.

Franjo Krajinović writes: >[Vatican II] as pastoral, not dogmatic You lie sir. John XXIII said that it would reflect the Church’s MAGISTERIUM, which is predominantly pastoral IN CHARACTER. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible. John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.” Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech at Vatican II doesn’t actually matter. This is because it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept him. "“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Paul VI, solemnly closing every document of Vatican II) Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.” >So council fathers, by large majority influenced by modernism change language but not substance. No they didn't they changed the substance, they changed everything. They changed the consecration rite, they changed the ordination rite, they changed the baptismal rite (Praise be Jesus Christ He didn't allow them to change the form of it though otherwise all Vatican II baptism would be invalid), the mass and YES he changed the liturgy as well. >[the] council was pointless No it wasn't, it had a point and it was "to bring the church into modern age. It's heretical and all those who accept it have fallen into schism >but it is still valid No it's not it's heretical and thus invalid and all who accept it are in schism and ths ipso facto removed from the Body of Christ >SSPX related groups say, who are basically heretics for no good reason SSPX accepts it's heresies, they are just as much heretics as modernists like you. >Also all previous anthems are still valid Wrong again, it has allowed the eastern orthodox schismatics and protestant heretics"partial communion" with the church. The funny thing is for false traditionalists who accept the heretical counil of vatican II are sinning everytime they rebuke a protestant heretic. Vatican II has in effect turned the Catholic church into a protestant sect where all you gotta do is believe to be saved. It's a joke. So much wrong your post

Wow. This comment section is a relic of an age long gone.

@@hismajesty6272 Geez. Now that's a blast from the past, thanks for bringing it back to my attention hahaha

+A. D Hey there, we're not undermining Jesus, just saying that the pope has a tough job. There is a pyramid in Catholicism, but one that is flipped. The Pope is underneath, carrying the weight of the Church on his shoulders.

@Aaron, meaning what?

Well, it had THAT much in common with the Pope's statements n these things...

He isn't against capitalism, he's against the corporatism of countries like Argentina and people think he's against free market capitalism.

+Don't Worry - Any time. When the Pope is asked a question, think of the Pharisees, and their questions about taxes to Rome, or whether to stone Mary Magdalene. They weren't trying to "learn" anything - they were setting traps. (Btw - as I recall, no sooner had the Pope said this, than everyone cried out, "The Pope said condoms are OK! The Pope said condoms are OK!". Of course, in this situation the condom was *not* being used to prevent birth!)

Actually, CatholicApologist said in one of his videos on his own channel, that the pope is morally infallible, or something along those lines, it was in his video 8 Lies About Catholics or something like that, I don't remember exactly, but basically, as far as he's concerned, the pope can't be scheisse.

+Patrick McWilliams see my response to Lutheran Satire about what the church actually teaches about that

+Pen Writer I wonder why they didn't include that in the video?

+Patrick McWilliams The reason I didn't include that part is that the main theme I was going for with the discussion is Pope Francis himself and his statements. The faith vs. works issue is a whole other can of worms and if we're going to discuss that I'd rather devote a separate video to it. -David

+New Catholic Generation I thought the last bit was the meat of +LutheranSatire 's original vid. The whole point was how Pontifex is inconsistently consistent. This vid goes for the softball points, unfortunately.

If that was the meat of LuthernSatire's video then I'm glad I didn't take a bite. It is so spoiled that I would have gotten food poisoning. The video's answer to that question was either intentionally deceptive or ignorant. Comparing statements from Lumen Gentium (1964) with The Council of Trent (1545) was a misleading juxtaposition. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) if you really want to understand the church's position. If you don't want to look it up yourself, see Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.

Did they really do that?

@@Procopius464 "VATICAN CITY (RNS) - In a decree signed Jan. 5 (2022) the Vatican tightened its COVID-19 regulations by requiring the use of FFP2 masks (similar to N95 masks) inside and making vaccinations and booster shots mandatory for employees and visitors wishing to enter the Vatican Museums and gardens." It's over now but they did it then. And there was no medical justification for it at all. The jab was not safe or effective at preventing transmission.

+Charles Comer Another reason, apparently, is that translations from the Italian media to other languages are not always accurate.

+Charles Comer how about he uses language that can be interpreted by both theological liberals and conservatives in the way they want on purpose?

+geoffrobinson Well, the pope isn't a political figure. What may sound like politics to most people; to someone well versed in Catholic social teaching they will hear the principles of the Church being echoed in his speech. The pope doesn't speak from a liberal or conservative perspective, nor a Democrat or Republican perspective, nor a socialist or capitalist perspective, but from a Catholic perspective.

+Jesus Sanchez this is about different theological wings, not political. Saying things that can be interpreted differently by different groups has been going on for a while. At least since Vatican II.

That too, indeed. I'm always hesitant to suppose intent, but I think that in some cases it may be a bit obvious as well as divisive. Co-opting the Pope inappropriately for theo-political argument is by all accounts unfortunate. Especially when the message is misconstrued.