Dear John (and other commentators, unfortunately): Gavin is neither in the truth (as I have demonstrated philosophically) nor (even less so) in charity (i.e., theologically). He is not, in fact, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, nor does he recognize him as a good apostle; he even says that he is an emulator of Judas! He is clearly ill-equipped in terms of theology. Unfortunately, many people, even more deprived than him, follow him, as seen in the comments. What is especially regrettable in Gavin (and implicitly in Larry) is that they have fallen short of charity, which is the indispensable condition for entering paradise. We cannot forget what Sacred Scripture says: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge. If I have all faith, to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:1-2). Saint Thomas, in his commentary on the first letter to the Corinthians, says that "it is nothing according to the being of grace. And this happens due to the lack of charity, by the strength of which man makes good use of a perfect intellect. But without charity, his use cannot be good." Furthermore, Sacred Scripture, speaking of charity, says that "love is patient, love is kind" (1 Corinthians 13:4). It later states that it "does not insist on its own way," "is not irritable" (1 Corinthians 13:5). And it concludes by saying that love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Corinthians 13:8). Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:20). Unfortunately, in the movement created - not only in the Anglo-Saxon world - by this rebellion against the Pope, the fruits are more than evident: they are all contrary to charity. Of these bitter fruits, Sacred Scripture says: "We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:14-15). One cannot stand as a champion of truth (aside from the fact that here we are in absolute error) when charity is lacking. I am very sorry for Larry, Gavin, and all who have chosen to disregard reverence (at least internally), avoiding external dissent and the rupture with brothers in faith. By acting this way, they have separated themselves, and put themselves outside. Unfortunately, "a veil is laid over their hearts" (2 Corinthians 3:15). It is the veil of blindness that they have allowed Satan to place around their minds. They have allowed it from the moment they lost charity. There is a need for prayer and penance because certain types of demons are only cast out in this way (cf. Matthew 17:21). United with you, John, in charity, hoping for the return of Gavin Ashenden, Larry, and countless others to the table of charity, I remember you in prayer.
You've given excellent scriptural quotes on why charity - what the Church has often called the state of grace - is necessary for salvation, but you have not in any way shown how Ashenden's concerns with the present pope put him out of communion with the Church. Was Adrian Fortescue out of communion with the Pope for his extremely critical (some might even say derogatory) attitude, expressed forthrightly in various correspondence, of Pius X?
Thank you very much for the clarification: canonical excommunication indeed concerns a Catholic who denies a dogma knowing that they are doing so, even if only internally, and commits a grave sin against the faith but is not automatically excommunicated. The reason is that "de internis non iudicat Ecclesia," meaning that the Church establishes its discipline only for external actions. Judgment of the internal belongs only to God and only to the priest-confessor who, at that moment, acts identifying with God, in persona Christi. The first type of excommunication is latae sententiae and strikes immediately with the declared affirmation of a heretical proposition. Suppose a priest openly denies the divinity of Christ or the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and affirms it in a sermon or in writing. At that moment, he is excommunicated and loses all the offices he holds in the Church. The second type, on the other hand, is ferendae sententiae and affects a person after a process instituted within the Church, at the end of which one is convicted and declared excommunicated. It is evident that Gavin does not incur this type of excommunication, but only a grave sin against charity, namely, having formulated a rash judgment. Here is how Saint Thomas comments on the words of the Lord "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged" (Mt 7:1) spoken in the Sermon on the Mount: "First of all, he orders that judgment should not be rash, and for this reason he says: Do not judge, that is, from the bitterness of hatred. Or also in this way: Do not judge concerning those things that are not entrusted to our judgment. Judgment belongs to the Lord, who has entrusted to us the judgment of what is visible externally, but has retained for himself the judgment of the inner person. It is written in Jeremiah 17:9: The heart of man is an abyss, who can know it? Therefore, no one should judge another to be a wicked person, and what is doubtful should be interpreted in a favorable sense (in meliorem partem). Therefore, the Lord prohibits thinking ill of others without foundation (rash judgment), interpreting the actions of others with an evil heart, and condemning them out of hatred or envy. Jesus does not want us to be harsh and evil judges of others in order to deserve mercy and forgiveness in God's judgment, because "with the judgment you make, you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get" (Mt 7:2). I greet you, and I promise to remember you to the Lord.@@iwattguitar
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp Read St. Robert Bellarmine. St. Thomas Aquinas, or better yet Professors Robert de Mattei and Peter Kwazniewski who have written books on obediences. We must honor the Will of God and not be distracted by harmful teaching of man. Respect for the papacy but filial disagreement with the pope.
He says being Catholic isn't a matter of personal preference or choice. It's a way of being obedient. This is how I'm conservative. I want to conserve obedience in the face of destructive individualism rampant in society and Christianity today.
Great point. I’ve come to the same conclusion. I’ve been worn down to succumb to obedience. Why? All this a la carte, how do I feel, what’s MY opinion, has all vanished. Why? Look all around. And, yes, PF knows what he’s doing.
Your the types who are described by The great Friedrich N. That some couldn't bear the burden of assuming response to choice and consequences as far as destiny is equal. What are you conserving that is absolutely necessary and whilst is being removed by progress?
@@madra000 With all due respect, Philosophy without Faith drives many, being unanchored, to the point of permanent psychotic break. N. being the poster boy, self immolating example. Obedience is preceded by a Choice to obey. The incorporeal Lucifer, in all his brilliance, chose not to obey a counterintuitive to him, command. We Catholics have much freedom of conscience to take our choice to serve, to the top of the chain of command, the great chain of being, God. l personally have never been more free, thru obeying the time honoured, rules that are to protect me first and foremost, and which developmentally over time bring an easy resilience and ability to cope with Pomo ethical flaccidness. Furthermore, "l was only obeying (Human) orders" is no defence by law. The operative word being Human. It perturbs me to observe, that an atheistic outlook often leads to such all round fragile brittleness and fantasies of omnipotence.
@@orarerosarium Worn down by what or whom? Worn down deliberately, or, consequent of complex systems? Would be the questions Catholics would be asking themselves, personally. PF "knows what he's doing" is normally a vernacular place holder for, l'm confused. No more data thank you. Catholics pursue the golden mean. The straight narrow path that is straight down middle. This is the age of over compliance and rebelliousness. Over overcompliance thru unconscious conditioning. Versus Rage triggered, self sabotaging, "l will not serve" Many find it better neither to wildly seesaw, nor give up.
I have watched a good number of videos by Gavin Ashenden and have been very impressed. The fact that he was ordained a bishop explains his magisterial charism. He is not swamped by the administrative affairs of most bishops and is able to bless the Church with the grace of his ordination by teaching with clarity. God bless him!
Yes - Bishop Strickland is, of course, now also similarly blessed. He remains a Bishop, with all of the authority of a Bishop, but without all of the administrative tedium which goes with administering a Diocese.
Converts to Catholic are such a blessing. Josh Charles is so knowledgeable about Scripture, is convinced that the Catholics c birch is the one true Faith; so too with Scott Hahn, Taylor Marshall, Anthony Stine. They’ve experienced other religion and recognize the value of the one instituted by Christ Himself for the salvation of al. It’s the same today, yesterday, forever..
I came across this RU-vid by accident ! This conversation is OVER THE TOP ! Outstanding conversation ! Such clarity on what is going on with Pope Francis ! I already knew some of what both of you discussed but this conversation put everything together in such a way that I could clearly understand all the parts of what Pope Francis is doing ! Blessings to both of you from Michigan!
In a radio interview made during the 90s Malachi Martin described the crisis facing the Church and the papacy, and pointed out that Christ was allowing this crisis to take place. Unless the Lord has been working for 2,000 years creating a defective orthodoxy designed to self-destruct in a lifetime, there is something very deep and frightening going on here. If you look at the people surrounding Francis it's obvious to me that Gavin is right and that Francis is trying to bring this crisis to a head and to break decisively with Church practice and doctrine as it has developed over the centuries.
To Ebergerud, yes, occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, groomed non-economic inducement falsely purported presumed of "higher vocation" (TTMHS, PCF, 1995, 35; cf. St Paul, 1Cor7:25-34) for economic advantage of families of these defective family member 'familyist' groomers of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members by tax-exemption embezzlements and lower insurance cost by fraud.
Gentlemen - what a wonderful discussion you’ve given us. Viewpoints clearly put, which results in much food for thought. My gratitude and every blessing to you both from, Arthur (Anglican in South Africa)
Dr. Chapp, thanks. Please keep-up the good work. Your stance on this is a great comfort to me as one who has lived 68 years trying to defend the Church but has been slapped around like a hockey puck by the leader of our Church. I really found your use of the 4th Commandment very useful in rationalizing the regular infamies that issue forth from Rome.
Hi, I'm 72. And like Dr. Ashenten a convert, but from the USA Episcopàl Church (a sister of England's Anglican). I'm unclear about so manythings because this Pope is setting Catholicism on its head. Then a while back, I decided to practice the traditional ways as much as I can. I don't mean Trad. Just look up the practice and do it the ways it's been done before this Pope. N
This was one of the best yet. The first time anyone has expressed a compassionate insight into Pope Francis (that I've heard anyway). Thank you so much Gavin.
Such a scintillating conversation. I truly thank the both of you. Dr Ashenten, wherever I find you, the talk is so reveallationary. I gained many insights from this video. I too converted over 40 (from the Episcopal/USA Church). It is hard to know how to handle this. With typical American love for speed, I thought we all should declare sedevacantism. Then hold a conclave for a new Pope! Well, speed often has its own unintended consequences! We could lose the Papacy entirely! I sure don't want that. So, seeing as I now don't know how to fix all this, I'll go pray the rosary! God has a plan. He just hasn't told us what it is yet! [And yes! Praying the rosary was so hard for me at first. And isn't easy for me now. But as you said, pray the rosary or end up in hell! So, Im literally off to pray the rosary!]
The Rosary is your (and our) armour. And it should be easy for you, because it's so biblical, it's biblically based. It provides us with little vignettes from the Bible stories, it's very pictorial. Also there is nothing contrary to Christian belief in it, except that non-catholics rebel against the last 2 glorious mysteries, which declare Mary to be assumed into Heaven, and Her crowning in Heaven.
@@soniavadnjal7553 Thanks so for the encouragement! Yes, the rosary is very scriptural. With a left over Protestant view, I had to get into it by saying Scriptural Rosaries. And the booklets' illustrations helped. That worked! Recently on a trip to the ER, I had no rosary with me. So I said it on my fingers! So, yes, thank you, the Rosary is so helpful for my feelings añd I know it is a powerful weapon! ✝️🛐💟🕊️🕯️🙏🏻🌹 (The rose is for Mary.)
A few years ago I posed the question ‘ why did C.S.Lewis not go all the way and become a catholic ? ….to Joseph Pearce ( a convert to Catholicism ) but his response cast no light on the question for me. I was born in Belfast myself not far from where Lewis was born…my mother catholic and my father Protestant. Gavin here puts his finger on what I always assumed to be a possible reason for Lewis not crossing the Tiber…My fathers family admittedly not all of them but almost all cut my father off for life when he married a catholic. In places like Ulster that bridge is indeed too far. I always felt a tinge of disappointment in Lewis for not going all the way…my own father died a catholic…but I think I am a little closer to understanding as I know a little bit of the complexity and human suffering that attends
I am so sorry for the prejudices of the human heart. Someone had touched on the subject and Lewis several years back. A good reminder to us all. Perhaps we have similar things holding us back. Calvin Robinson says we trophy hunt. But, Lewis was so close. His conversion borders on mystery considering his closest friends. Many Protestants have read his works. You never know what seeds have been planted. Keep praying.
I really doubt Lewis didn't want to become Catholic, because he lacked guts to stand up to society. He wasn't even married, it wasn't an issue there. He was also a hugely popular professor, so his job was fine. He just chose to become a mere Christian, as so many of us do.
@@drewblack749 Not even close. He was a die hard atheist all his life, until his conversion, so I'm not buying that. He had formerly been against all religion. He was also converted by his Catholic best friend and colleague, J.R. Tolkien. So no aversion to Catholicism in sight there. He just didn't see the full meal deal in the Catholic church. A lot of us don't.
Larry, I don’t know if it is possible, but you should definitely do whatever you can to get Bishop Erik Varden on the show. People need to encounter that man’s work!
As to translations of the Psalms - after listening to what Gavin had to say, I had a look at most of the translations which I have. The one which reads best (in my view) is that of Mons. Ronald Knox from the Vulgate. His translation of the whole of Sacred Scripture from the Vulgate into English is almost unique. He translated the whole Bible himself, without any assistance at all. He even typed up his translation himself as he went along, then corrected in manuscript, before finally entrusting it to his secretaries, who typed it up in final form. As a result, it is one of the few translations which does not read as if it had been thrown together by a committee. Just a sample - Psalm 69 “Deign, O God, to set me free; Lord make haste to help me. Disappoint them, put them to the blush, the enemies who plot against my life! Baffled let them go their way, that rejoice over my ill-fortune; slink away in confusion, that crowed over me so loud!” The language does not suit everyone, of course. It is the English of an English public school boy from between the Wars.
When we learned about Nazi crimes at school my classmates said it couldn't happen here. I then went on to discover the history of Elizabethan England and thatit indeed it had.
This papacy is really unprecedented. Personally I think it's apocalyptic and probably involves the third secret of Fatima. " The apostacy will begin at the top".
The omission of the words “for the office and work of a Priest” in the ordination formula used by the Church of England was not simply an accidental omission. It was, of course, a deliberate denial of any form of priestly ministry as that is understood by the Catholic Church. For a similar reason, when the new form of the Mass was introduced, because so many on the panel where Protestants, their hostile views were taken into account. They insisted upon removing the “prayers at the foot of the Altar” which seems strange, at first sight, since all of these prayers are simply Scripture. However, they objected to the words from the Psalms “I will go to the Altar of God” since they did not believe that the communion table should be described as an Altar. Similarly, they also insisted upon the removal of the “Last Gospel” which, since it is entirely Scripture, seems strange, however, a great many Protestants are, to some extent, Arian in their Theology and find the first chapter of the Gospel of John a problem. They explain it away by insisting that “the Word” refers to the Sacred Scriptures, not, as the Catholic Church, teaches, to Jesus Christ. Then, strange as it may seem, since Protestants are (supposedly) so fond of Scripture, they insisted upon changing the very words at the centre of the Mass - the consecration of the wine from “shed for you and for many” (the words which Jesus used) to “shed for you and for all men” to introduce the Universalist heresy into the very central part of the Mass. This error remained for about forty years, before Pope Benedict finally decided “enough is enough” and simply restored the correct Scriptural wording. So, coming from a Protestant Church to the Catholic Church does not, necessarily, involve leaving Protestant errors behind, since many of the “reforms” which came after the Second Vatican Council were introduced by Protestants welcomed so enthusiastically into the decision making process and, in many cases, introducing changes which could not be supported by any of the actual Council documents.
Just a note on the point Gavin made regarding the new liturgy. Some years ago I made the same point to my Parish Priest. I said to him, please communicate to the higher ups in the Church who have the responsibility to translate the ancient words of scripture that they should get rid of the lawyers on these Boards and appoint more poets.
Relating to poetry in the old translations of the Bible, you have perhaps heard the conjecture that Shakespeare participated in the beautifying the KJ Bible of 1610. In that year Shakespeare was 46 years old. Now if you turn to the 46th psalm and count 46 words forward, you land on the word "shake". (Note: you have to exclude the instruction to the musician and count only the actual psalm's words.) Then, counting backward 46 words, you land on "speare". Pretty nifty, huh?
Galatians 2:11 with Paul rebuking Peter shows the capacity of the Church to call the holder of the Petrine Office to fidelity in doctrine and practice.
Paul was not rebuking doctrine, he was rebuking Peter's application OF doctrine. Paul was rebuking Peter for hypocrisy in his person. There was not an undermining Peter's Papal authority in any way. This is a major distinction that needs to be kept in mind next time we think it is ok to dissent from the authoritative teachings of the magisterium.
Thank you in particular for clearly spelling out the pervasive anti Catholicism (on which I grew up), as well as the fundamental faults of Anglicanism, and most importantly for thoroughly refuting and banishing them. A huge accomplishment and a great gift. Profound thanks!!
I recently started reading Puritan’s Empire by Charles A. Coulombe. It would appear that Catholic history in the US has been proti-washed too, just like England.
I don't have the education or likely virtue of mind to comment much here. If I have a spiritual "attitude" if there is such a thing, it is to see the pope as teaching within the paradigms of traditional teaching. But I do not offer myself as an authority. Indeed some years ago I read that it was the duty of a Catholic confronted with ambiguity or misunderstanding to understand a papal or magisterial teaching as within the church's tradition. Thank you gentlemen very much for your dedication and service to us all.
I earnestly ask theologians and professional Christian journalists to intensify the service they render to the Church's mission in order to discover the deep meaning of their work, along the sure path of "thinking with the Church" (sentire cum Ecclesia). Internal and external difficulties must not make us pessimistic or inactive. What counts, here as in every area of Christian life, is the confidence that comes from faith, from the certainty that it is not we who are the principal agents of the Church's mission, but Jesus Christ and his Spirit.
May I offer my observation on changing the mass. Words and gestures of the Latin mass (our missals had venacular translstions of the Latin) especially the silence, speaks to the sub conscious from which our beliefs and values come that drive our behaviors..... this wisdom of the human psyche is totally overlooked in the modernasation of the mass, hence where we are today. The ancient wisdom of the Catholic Church is being forgotten by ignorance and lack of conscious awareness.... this is why our churches are emptying. Our souls and sub subscious are not being fed and nurtured. One calender for the year gave us spaced repetition of the truths and tenants of our Faith. Why change what has been honed on the master's wheel of time and revelation???? When I read our old propers in this time, they are powerful in their relevance of today's world...the messages are so on point, that they are very modern. Truth does not change when it is in God's Divine Plan
This was SO good! Also, if anyone hasn't watched Gavin's video on the controversial books of Fernandez and the breakdown of the ideas and concepts of sex magic found within I highly recommend it. Very eye opening.
The Apostle Paul pronounced a curse on most churches today because the main Christian denominations of today preach a different gospel than what Paul preached. To quote exactly what Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8). Both apostle Paul and Peter preached the same gospel and quote from the prophet Joel (2:32) saying, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21). The English translations say “Lord” instead of “Yahweh.” But “Lord” does not translate “Yahweh” it is a substitution of a totally different word altogether. This substitution activates two additional curses because if you substitute a word you are both adding and subtracting at the same time. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19) We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that Yahweh spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). Yahweh did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). The English word "Lord" is not a translation for the name Yahweh but is a substitution. I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! “Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when He comes shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.” Some people say that they are watching all the time but they overlook verse 38. “And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.” (Luke 12:37-38). Under normal circumstances people are sound asleep during the second and third watch. Therefore Luke 12 is not talking about watching in a figurative way. The LORD is talking of a literal watch. There are appointed times in the scriptures for us to fulfill a literal watch. In fact, all of the appointed times of holy convocations (moedim) listed in Leviticus 23 are watches and vigils of Yahweh. Each one of them are fulfilled by both an Old Testament and corresponding New Testament historical event. In other words they will be assembled together in a holy convocation and not out and about driving cars and flying airplanes. Like the 120 were assembled in the upper room Acts chapter 2 for the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost). Unfortunately, because of a man-made ecclesiastical calendar many will not be watching at the appointed time when He comes.
When we consider the aggressive and demonic attacks of the secular world on marriage, the family and children...it is so important to hear a voice of clarity amidst the cloud of doctrinal confusion that has grown from misguided compassion
Re: translation (EO here) - We have a dreadful situation with English translations of the Divine Liturgy, Office, and accompanying texts: Greek - English; Slavonic (from Greek) - English; archaic/BCP wannabes; contemporary; dynamic equivalence; American; British; etc. It began as a more unitary & episcopal project, and then came the Great War, the 1917 Revolution and the flood of immigrants & parallel jurisdictions. The Spirit works these things out in His chronos-kairos. But I could almost be convinced of a return to Ecclesiastical Greek & Old Church Slavonic. Almost. But that would deny the very successful missions of Sts Cyril & Methodius and numerous others. Also, at 1:11 Gavin speaks of the primary thing being the “honor” of the papal office. We’re inching together, EO & RC, it seems on this topic anyway.
Something Lewis wrote regarding his not crossing the Tiber: "the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say…To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei [deposit of faith]…the proliferation of credenda [what must be believed]."
Seems like kissing and betrayal still go together among the hierarchy, just a different time, first the head is betrayed, then the body. There have been claims on the internet about kind of behind the curtain fixing of the last conclave. I have dismissed it as mere exaggeration relative to normal conversations, but something is clearly very off with this pope.
Academics pre 80's, have a better grasp of their topics of specialization, and are more capable and more reasonable in the analysis of the current situation in the Church. 👍 Everybody else......not so much.
Please could Gavin give us a whole podcast on Jung, especially on the errors that have misled many who were innocently unaware of them, or seduced towards them by those in the Church who should know better.
40:35 "The ministry of Judas" I'm sorry, very sorry, but the flaw lies both in the modernists (or secularists) and the conservatives (or ultra-orthodox) when considering things (from Dominus Iesus to Fiducia Supplicans). It is that they see them not in their concrete reality and complexity, not with a critical eye capable of distinguishing the positive from the negative, the good from the bad, the merit from the flaw. Instead, they are considered as a whole, as if it were a unique and simple entity, as if it were an abstract category or a logical predicate-a concept of something simple and indistinct, which as such can only be either positive or negative, unable to simultaneously be a mixture of positive and negative. What is sinful cannot be lawful (religious conservatives or nominalists), and what is good cannot be bad (secular nominalists). There is a lack of philosophical habitus both in modernists (liberals) and conservatives (Pharisees). I would extend this to the Bishops, as well as the Cardinals (and former prefects of dicasteries) who have spoken against Fiducia Supplicans (even defining it as "heresy"). They fail to see reality in its human complexity, which is not simply good or bad but a complex mixture of positive and negative aspects. In other words, they are foolish fundamentalists, in a certain "Cartesian" sense, like the Lefebvrists, who always need "clear and distinct ideas" to avoid disturbing the false tranquility of their Pharisaic conscience, which wants to see everything simply divided into pure wheat and pure tares. If, from one one hand, truth for modernists is an Heraclitean - Hegelian - Rahnerian process, a river with no origin and no end, that never reaches the sea but always gets wider and truer as it flows on and on. On the other hand, truth, according to the Neoparmenideans, the Pharisees, and the Philo-Lefebrvians, is perceived as a rock against which all boats or people collide. Traditionalists or pseudo-theists are - ut pluribus - sin-pathetic to all white or black thinking and antipathetic to all individual complexity. They feel self-righteous working for objective truth. Realism (by contrast) is not a compromise but a "higher synthesis" because Christ is the only Savior and because He is already at work in all our lives, both of heart’s modernists and of mind’s ultra-orthodox.
12:43 My _own_ only "spiritual indigestions" with the Rosary have only been about "would I be praying this with people who pray for me to remain celibate" + "sicut et nos dimittimus" ... I have never had any kind of revulsion, even as a Protestant, against Our Lady. The people who pray for me to be saved from apostasy by celibacy, or who present me as a Protestant are people I have a real difficulty pardoning. My _remaining_ prayer life includes pretty many Hail Mary overall ...
The CCC says "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person". Has the inviolability and dignity of the person changed? No. So if it is inadmissible now it was always inadmissible. But the previous teaching was that it was inadmissible. PS: inadmissible means morally inadmissible, i.e. wrong. So either the current teaching is wrong or the previous teaching was wrong. Were both teachings infallible?
Dr Ashenden, the message of Our Lady of All Nations, (approved by the local ordinary) given through Ida Peerdmann dated 3 January 1946, speak of a spiritual battle all over Europe. Our Lady said this spiritual battle, which mentions England, will involve a new movement that comprises a mixture of the: swastika and communism. This, I believe, is a clear reference to what has now become the EU. This particular message also speaks of a Bishop of the Church of England, located in Westminster Abbey, above the Bishop is the word 'Fight'. I think this message might have meaning in the context of our present circumstances and be of interest to you. Your thoughts? With prayers for the Church... 🙏🙏🙏
Can you further develop the notion of criticizing a pope while honoring the office. How are we to objectively know what resistance is just and what is unjust? How do we avoid injustice always being perceived and then used to rationalize disobedience.
An excellent dialogue! Some remarks regarding the prospect of an Ecumenical Council (Synod in Greek), including the Orthodox Churches.. These Churches, in practice, do see the Catholic Church as heretical and conceive of the Primacy of the Pope as simply "an honorific title" our Lord conferred on Peter and his successors. In Greece, Cyprus, Syria and the Middle East in general, the Orthodox bear a festering grudge concerning the Crusade of 1204 and the capture of Constantinople to this day. The new quasi-supplanting term of "Synodal Church" in place of Catholic Church that Pope Francis insists on implies a Church that makes decisions "democratically:, inclusively and equally" taking into account not only Bishops but also laity and even non Christians. What is the criterion? Simply that of having been baptised? and what about the laity? What are their political views? their moral views? and the non-Christian" why should they have a say, except -perhaps- that of observer? The emphasis on the Synodal Church undermines the Petrine ministry and demotes the Papal authority, as it carries within its conception-in my opinion, the seeds of division and even rivalry. We only have to study the history of the synodal Churches afore-mentioned to the present day. The unity of the Churches will not last if they all bend to the least common denominator, instead of being willing to face up what Christ really intending by building His Church on the rock of Peter.
24:21 The height of human achievement ... just as the 19th C. was in a way the calmest and most triuamphant of the Modern Period, I think a century within the Middle Ages can also be pointed out. A large century. 1200 - 1310, the lifespan of St. Alexis Falconieri.
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
I completely agree with you both regarding the importance of addressing the East-West schism in the Church. Whilst the Catholic Church has developed a very open-armed approach to the Eastern Orthodox (which I think wonderful), the Orthodox (rightly) view with suspicion the fact that the authority of the papacy, there to safeguard and hand on the tradition, was used (abused?) to essentially dismantle it. I'm not a Traditionalist and in fact quite comfortable with many of the theological developments of the 20th century, but it is difficult now for the Latin Church to claim to have a 'first theology' in the liturgy when that very liturgy was dismantled so violently and replaced with something put together by a committee (this was, of course, Ratzinger's principal misgiving about the Novus Ordo). Papal Infallibility and Supremacy make perfect sense as a final resort, or ultimate court. Newman said it was the genius of the Roman Church to never itself produce theological development but instead be the authority which says 'no' or 'that's enough' to any development which strays too far. The charism is therefore negative. But 'Pope as a daily oracle of God' has now reached absurd proportions. I think Dr Ashenden correct when he suggests that it needs the complimentary authority of the other ancient Patriarchs for it to be placed in its correcr contexts. That comment from Bouyer on ecumenical councils is very illuminative.
15:01 Until I started to convert, I actually avoided Newman and considered him as a kind of grandfather of modernism. No doubt bc the kind of sense in which "you know Newman said" is by some characters in Lewis used to denote an "evolution of dogma" which involves starting to believe things that the early Christians didn't believe. It may be added, in the 1940's (which is when Lewis was beginning his carreere as a writer), there were hints that things _were_ going that way, and those factions actually have triumphed, I will not say "in the Catholic Church" but I _will_ say in the communion that acknowledges Jorge Mario Bergoglio as "Pope Francis" ... The sentiment may have been horribly unfair to John Henry, I think it was, but it was spot on about a certain usage some people (admiring Theilhard, for instance) made of Cardinal Newman.
Overall adored this talk. My heart really sank when the comparison between Judas and the current pontificate came out tho. This is how the devil attacks those who are faithful to tradition: by tempting us to judge Peter according to his relation to worldly dominions, to judge him as he once judged the wind as he began to sink. Why do we not look more often to the way in which the Spirit is active in Francis’ pontificate? Or is the claim that He is not active in Francis’ pontificate?
What "Spirit" are you referring to, exactly? This Pope sad to say is not defending the Church or its teaching, he's more inclined to secular values. This is not to say I am opposed to a Papacy in principle, only that the present incumbent of Peter's chair is not doing very much to defend or protect the Catholic faith.
@@soniavadnjal7553 to imply that the Holy Spirit is not at all times operative in guiding the Church specifically in the Holy See is against Catholic teaching. You could say that he is too amenable to secularism but do not imply that he has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Simply by being incumbent of the chair of Peter he receives this guidance and demands our respect
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I've never bought the claim by ordinariate attendees that the ordinariate liturgy is what Vatican II envisioned. Firstly, the queens english as an elevated liturgical language would not appeal to all cultures. Secondly, the same approach would not work in every different language. Lastly, I don't think Vatican II envisioned a liturgy completely in the vernacular and even proclaimed that the use of latin should be retained. If we're going to change the Church's liturgical language I don't see how the Queens English would be an ideal alternative to Latin. We should just face the reality that we were not supposed to dump latin in the first place.
To be clear, he was driven to despair by the lack of a Magisterium in Anglicanism and Protestantism, so he converted to Rome, where he ended up refusing ordination because he didn't want to submit to the conditions the Magisterium set out, and he wanted the freedom as a layman to have the media presence to trash said Magisterium, which he refers to snidely as "the present regime" that he hopes the Ordinariate will "outlast?" Man
Regarding the death penalty, how can there be just war without the death penalty, or mere self defense? Both also imply pre-emptive killing as a necessary possibility.
