@Gre8 At this point your monopolizing this video thread and dominating the dialog and hijacking this feed. I am no longer going to entertain your troll and diversion tactic. Let's others speak here as they will. Out.
@InvictusLux Oh well, if you feel that way about a discussion than have it your way. Its just that I did not change my point of view and I still don't think military is a sound profession for a christian, you are making a straw man out of terms I used. And ok, I'll not debate anymore because one who is willing to see the catholic church as infallible clearly has a very myopic and biased view of history, and can only accept it through faith for reason and honesty cannot condone with it. Out.
@Gre8 You're just flat out wrong on the whole military/soldier argument. Luke 3:14 tells soldiers to "be content with your pay" & nothing about being pacifists. Romans 13 speaks to national rulers & authority - obey it when its just.
@Gre8 As to the military - now that I've proven you wrong you've shifted the argument from a valid profession (security/police/military) to a philosophy - militarism. You're changing your arugment. In no way does The Church support militarism. You're mixing apples & oranges now. The Church recognizes the right to just self defense both at a personal level and a societal level. And that is plain in scripture. [continued]
@gre8 All you mention comes down to "authority". Saints are not saints until THE CHURCH canonizes them as such AFTER THEY ARE DECEASED. There are no living saints & there are no saint's writings taken as universal teachings of faith & morals (unless the pope declares it in a public statement). Even a saint's writings must have an Imprimatur Seal on it before it can be taken as consistent with Catholic Teaching.
@Grey8 [cont celibacy] Priests in the Eastern Catholic rites MAY marry. In the larger Western Rite (Latin/Roman) priests willfully take oaths not to marry & hold to the higher standard taught & practiced by Christ Himself. Again, The Church is free to amend this at anytime. In fact the Latin Rite (West) occasionally grants exceptions for married Anglican priests who convert. Early Church practise was that married clergy did NOT re-marry after becoming widowed. Nothing unbiblical there.
@Grey8 Yes, SOME of the early bishops were married - St. Paul was not however. Paul discouraged marriage ( 1 Cor 7). Christ also held celebacy as a higher calling & encouraged those so called [priests] to embrace it ( Mat 19:12). Also, The Church teaches celebacy for BOTH clergy and single Christians; it is reserved only for the sacred sacrament of marriage. But also note that clerical unmarried celibacy is taught as a DISCIPLINE NOT as a DOGMA. It can be relaxed by the pope at any time. [cont]
@Grey8 But you are exaggerating yet again. The Church has never contravened scripture - not once. You just don't really grasp what The Church teaches. So, you're parroting myths about what Catholics actually teach & making yourself pope as well as judge; but lack any spiritual authority. You're falling headlong into St. Peter's warning about the "ignorant" who privately interpret scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16 ). This is what this video is essentially saying. [cont]
@grey8 Just now seeing some of your prior posts - so MANY historical errors! Did you learn this in college?! Text limits - too many errors to fix for you. Example: The person normally referred to as "Saint Hippolytus" was actually a heretic & an anti-pope (!!) during a good part of his mid-life. His teachings are NOT binding on the members of the Church - especially before he reconciled himself to The Church before death. Christ DID NOT condemn the military. Absurd! See Luke 3:14; Romans 13:1-6
@InvictusLux Well, whether you take Hippolytus as a heretic or anti-pope he is still a saint with a feast day even. And despite questioning his authority, we can still take his account historically and see that some (probably most) Christians did reject militarism. Romans 13 has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and Luke on the other hand does not give a clear condemnation on soldiery, but it does not enforce it. Rather Jesus says that: "He who lives by the sword (etc)" Matthew 26:52
@InvictusLux As to mocking the church, I exaggerated the matter a little bit and I am sorry for that, but I would then point in history the fact that sometimes the Church does override scripture. For instance, it is clear that early bishops were married and even that St. Peter himself had a wife. (I Timothy 3:2-4, Mark 1:30) But clerical celibacy is enforced as law only from the Synod of Elvira and beyond.
@gre8 three vows, poverty, chastity and obedience, the clergymen and women take these vows as a show of their love and devotion to Jesus Christ and the promise of their service, permanent deacons are allowed to be married but they can't be married after they are ordained a deacon
@gre8 You're grossly inconsistent. You demand The Church speak to advance YOUR moral opinions but go conveniently deaf when The Church does teach. That's a prodigious hypocrisy. You'll have "it" YOUR WAY or not at all. Hold the pickle? That's classic rogue Protestantism. You mock The Church by referring to the fractional percentage of bad priests but ignore "the log in your own eye" & thus invalidate yourself. The extremes of Donatism & Marcionism are both erroneous. But hypocrisy is the worst.
@gre8 No. Core Christian morality has always be constant. Just corporeal punishment was as valid in the apostolic era as it is now. Luke 12:47-48 refers to the lazy slave who knows His master's will getting more beatings than the one who did not (note: slavery is not condemned in the parable). No luv-n-lollipops there. God gives authority to rulers. The societies evolve & become more civil and Christian under Christian influence. The Church does not exist in a vacuum to society's laws.
@gre8@InvictusLux I undesrtand that this space is really limited, but I think that pointing me to apologetic web sites is not fair, because I have taken my time to make my point whereas you seem to be dodging the questions I propose. On my defense I'll say I did take the time to read other opinions on this, and as I said, I spent a great deal of time reading saints and teachers of the catholic church, so I find little use on those websites.
@gre8 This posting forum is too limited for me to give an adequate rebuttal. I need more text space and piece-wise replies won't cut it. Go ask these same questions on this apologetic forum Catholic.com in the forum area. You will get reams of documents and rationale and live dialog from apologists to help you. The key error you are making is anachronistic judgement - using today's standards to an era where the church had a tenuous influence with unpredictable kings and monarchs.
@InvictusLux Well, I think both me and you can agree that Christ's moral and values are absolute. There might be debate whether that is the case under new and old alliance (testaments) but under Christ it is quite clear that we are under one morality and ethic values. As I said, values did change. Christians were pacifists at first, then political church did become lenient towards violence in the name of God, or soundness of faith, and now we see a return to old pacifist values.
@gre8 I think that it is absolutely unwise to talk about anachronism when we talk about eternal God given moral values, and that sir, is a bit of a contradiction. You either accept that Christian values are absolute and the church did step out of boundaries for political reasons or over zealousness, or you admit that Christian values changed over time and who knows what they will be in the future.
@gre8 You are trolling this priest's video feed - why not give your absurdities a rest and stop torturing all of us here with you rhetoric. The video is spot on theologically - speak to that topic or kindly go elsewhere. My final word on this topic is the Catholic Church spoke out against torture forced confessions as early as Pope Nicolas in 866. Society embraced it in part, rejected it later & now reimbraces it. Current civility you enjoy is a fragile fruit of the Church's teaching [continued]
@gre8 Completing my comments... Christ gave no explicit moral teaching on torture nor slavery where it existed all around him in society (he even suffered it on the cross). OT is full of just torture both by God and by man ( Lev 20:1-2;14 Deut 22:23-34;25:1-3) - even disciplining one's own sons (Prov 13:24 Sir 30L1;9;11-13). Torture has been banned only in Christian countries very recently by historical standards. This is how long it took the Church to get "the world" to comply at least in part
@gre8 Completing my comments. Scripture does not qualify torture as always and everywhere evil or unjust. The Church has promulgated the teaching that UNJUST torture or harm to anyone is evil - especially with respect to forcing confessions. Enough said.
@InvictusLux Oh well, if you think that under christianity there is space for torture and violence in the name of God then I rest my case. I would not be amazed if some theologian began to defend pedophile priests based on scripture. If christian morality is to be handled like you think than there is no reason to discuss anymore. Have a nice day.
@InvictusLux@InvictusLux I undesrtand that this space is really limited, but I think that pointing me to apologetic web sites is not fair, because I have taken my time to make my point whereas you seem to be dodging the questions I propose. On my defense I'll say I did take the time to read other opinions on this, and as I said, I spent a great deal of time reading saints and teachers of the catholic church, so I find little use on those websites.
@gre8 You are using anachronistic rationale. The church condemned unjust punishment. Don't forget that these were all just a few centuries earlier utter pagans and barbarian states that were converted to Catholicism. It took God centuries and centuries to refine the Jews into a civilized culture. The same principal applies in Christendom. The emphasis at this time was on the welfare of SOULS of the entire community. A criminal put at risk the eternal souls of all of the community.
@gre8 The only time torture was ever permitted in the inquisitional courts was AFTER a person admitted guilt or was proven by evidence/witness guilty and then refused to cooperate in identifying his accomplices. This was a huge change in the entire legal paradigm of the time and is the underpinnings for current western legal jurisprudence of reasonable doubt. The Church did not have the influence with all monarchs to compel outright bans on torture till later. Don't judge anachronistically.
@gre8 [continued Ad Extirpanda]. You need to get some historical context. Civil courts were routinely using torture to FORCE confessions. Inquisition courts required for the 1st time in history multiple witnesses and evidence and sought principally to be an intermediary sanctuary of mercy FROM the HARSH secular courts. MOST citizens feigned demonic possession or uttered curses against the Church when arrested by civil authorities to get a venue in Inq. Courts rather than civil courts.
@InvictusLux I understand that what you are saying and though I do not have thorough knowledge on the numbers and facts you are pointing out, one thing is clear. The church did not condemn the practice altogether, it regulated it. Now I will ask you plainly, besides any sophistic attempt of apologists to reconcile it, does it really make sense that a christian church would not condemn torture but suggest it as a way to obtain "truth"?
@gre8 I can show the sources to my claims if you want them, I just thought they were not necessary since they are quite common. But if you will, I'll point out the texts I mentioned from Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
@gre8 you need to go to an apologist forum rather than troll this video feed. Ad Extirpanda is the 1st time you have offered any evidence or clue about what you are talking about. What you fail to comprehend is that in this period of time ALL of Europe had reverted to harsh Roman Lad - torture was the COMMON practice in the SECULAR/CIVIL courts. This Bull a FIRST attempt ever in human history to LIMIT torture to non deadly forms AND very limited circumstances. [continued]
@gre8 Christ looked them right in the eye and CONFRONTED them with the plain Truth of HIs innocence and they struck him (unjustly). The idea of turning the cheek is to do the same thing - to stare falsehood right in the face and not turn to cower from it. Truth is always confrontational to those who reject it. What's your point by this statement: " It is so clear that catholic tradition is clear on how christians were systematically persecuted during the 1st centuries of Christendom."?
@InvictusLux I'm sorry, my sentence was poorly written. I meant that catholic tradition, id est, old patristic writers and historical evidence point out to massive persecution of Christians and it does not show them fighting back, but quietly going to slaughter like lambs.
@gre8 re: "old patristic writers and historical evidence point out to massive persecution of Christians and it does not show them fighting back, but quietly going to slaughter like lambs." YES this is TRUE. This is the Catholic tradition. What are we in disagreement on this point?
@gre8 "Don't turn a blind eye on truth?" It's "cheeky" to presume to sage wisdom & in possession of Truth when you have yet to demonstrate you have any. "Turning the other cheek" & offering the cloak off one's back is exactly what Christ did when falsely accused & struck by the Jews in court (John 18:23;John 19:23-24 ). Jesus wasn't a pacifist - as The Lion of Judea He CONFRONTED (ref. money changers). 11 of 12 of the apostles & the first 31 popes were murdered for speaking the TRUTH.
@InvictusLux I'm sorry but I couldnt really understand whether you were supporting or confronting my views. For in one hand you said Jesus turned the other cheek but on the other he confronted the money chargers. Of course that is sound scripture, but I don't think Christ abused any of those people but rather showed them their wrong doings in a more assertive way, it would be contrary to all His preaching. And what you said only adds to my thesis that early Christians were pacifists
@InvictusLux And to make it clear, I'm not saying that I alone have truth, but I showed indeed plenty of sources to prove my argument such as saints of the catholic church and modern day scholarship on such subjects. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but I would like to see you rebuke the sources I gave. Read the papal bull Ad Extirpanda. It even teaches at what point torture should stop. Rebuke this evidence I presented and we can go on. Hope you are not another troll.
@FWYGINOND You really are guessing about both scripture and history; and you are guessing wrong. Jesus did not have a problem with ALL of the Pharisees at all - just those who were being hypocritical. If you read NT scripture with a bit more comprehension you will clearly see that some of Jesus' most devout disciples were in fact very religious Sanhedrin and Pharisees - e.g. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. What court, what judge & on what date was the Catholic Church declared Phariseeical?
@FWYGINOND The church was not organized & sat around talking theology until Constantine? Are you completely detached from scripture and history??? The Church was under persecution night & day with daily mass esp (Sunday - day of the lord) aka agape feasts in the catacombs. Bread & wine converted to the sacred mystery of the body & blood of Christ (the Romans even accused them of being cannibals!). They also read some of the few texts avail. as liturgy Read 1 Cor 10; 11;12 . Get educated.
Mother Theresa was a Catholic Christian. The Catholic Church is not afraid of its past, it has been wrong. But it has corrected itself and grown stronger. The Church has recognized these errors - leaders rose to power who weren't suited for the job. It was a period of scandalism in the Church. But it has been hundreds of years since then and the corrections have been made, and the Church is now in line with Jesus again. The church is human - therefore imperfect, but God is making it more perfect
@Jimmy161803 One minor correction. While its true that SOME of the members of the Catholic Church have done wrong in the past (just like the apostles did wrong & repented - ref. St. Paul was a murderer/persecutor, St. Peter denied Christ, St. Thomas doubted the resurrection etc. ) it has NEVR taught theological error. Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (its protected from teaching error) but personal impeccability of individuals is not guaranteed.
Well, he is a priest, organized religion is his way of life therefore he wouldn´t think otherwise. However, I expected a bit more of argumentation. This video is pure rethorical fallacies. Mother Thereza is a Christian, not a religion that reads in the bible that thou shalt not kill but in the other hand supported inquisitions and promoted crusades. Its not fear of history, we know it all to well. I think that this priest is afraid of his church´s history, therefore the smoke screen arguments.
@gre8 You need to get some balanced historical context and stop reading the Black Legend war/religious propaganda. Have you read any real history books outside of high school? At the time of the Inquisitions the civil courts were routinely torturing citizens for minor offenses to force admissions of guilt. It was OLD ROMAN LAW. Inquisitions were a huge advance in evidence and witness based law. Inquisitions released over 90% of those submitted for lack of evidence or pleas of mercy! [continued]
@gre8 [Inquisitions continued] Inquisitional courts NEVER executed any - they turned over admitted hard criminals who refused to repent or plea mercy to the civil court system where the Nobles retried them and sometimes granted mercy based on the CHURCH'S customary recommendation. But more often the civil courts executed them since they were criminals. Fewer were executed in the Spanish Inquisitions over hundreds of years than the modern state of Texas executed in the last 60 years!
@gre8 Further... Crusades were a military response to Muslims slaughtering and/or force converting Christians in the Holy Lands and to their routine invading and looting of Europe (well into Austria and elsewhere). Get your facts straight please. Further still., the bible condemns murder - it does not condemn killing in a just defensive war or for self protection when there is no other way out. Do not Kill and Do not Murder are two different semantics. Mother Theresa was a DEVOUT Catholic.
@InvictusLux Oh well, you see, you may love your church, I respect that. But don't turn a blind eye on truth. The old testament does support what you said about killing in self defense. However, Jesus is a radical pacifist, to the point where He makes it clear urging people to give the other cheek. It is so clear that catholic tradition is clear on how christians were systematically persecuted during the first centuries of Christendom.
@gre8 Saint Hippolytus of Rome for instance said that soldiers seeking to become Christians were despised of God. So far I've given one example on scripture and on tradition. When the church however becomes a political body around the time of Constantine, it therefore has to deal with secular matters such as wars. Then we begin to see a change in that pacifist stance to something that will later develop concepts such as just war and violent suppression of heretics.
@gre8 St Augustine (a author I truly like) does at one point in his writings support persecution towards donatists on grounds of religious matters. I understand that it was a violent time, but you don't justify self defense on religious grounds, because Christ himself NEVER even hinted that such should be done. Moving on we arrive at the crusades. Sure, I can understand the political situation, where Islam swept over Christian lands on the Levant.
@gre8 But once again, the mistake was that the pope urged it not as a political matter where Byzantines asked for help, but marketed as a way to go to heaven. Though his homily urging the crusades is not entirely recorded, eyewitness of the time do support the fact that killing infidels was pretty much forgiveness for every sin. Once again, nowhere in scripture that is supported, not even in the law o Moses. We can even talk about St Thomas Aquinas (whose Summa I am reading at the moment).
@gre8 He said, on his questions on heresy that they should be excommunicated from the body of the church and sent to secular tribunals to be executed. They should not only be separated from church but from the world by death. So far from the original teachings of Jesus I might say. Anyway, I agree that the Inquisition is largely overrated, but its very existence is beyond any question, abhorrent to true Christianity. Remember in scripture that heretics where supposed to be quietly urged...
@gre8 ... to repent, asked twice to give up on false teachings and then as a last measure, anathema. But Inquisition goes way beyond that, in the form of public trials and humiliating acts such as the autos da fé, or even the occasional use of torture. That is not made up, that is a fact and if it was done more or less than usually thought it is still beyond belief that a christian institution would support such a monstrosity. Not to talk about the personal life of several popes.
@gre8 But that is not the scope of the debate. The religion of mother Theresa is irrelevant really because what she did was true charity and ALL Christians should follow her example, just like all Christians should follow Martin Luther King Jr's example on the speech on behalf of oppressed minorities. That is true Christianity and it goes beyond a church sign or name. Anyway, I know my history and I don't speak lightly of it. I take my time looking at the evidence and go the source.
Excellent. The babel of the "I hate religion but love Jesus" video was as viral as an STD. The kid's pontificating an oxymoronic contradiction that would replace orthodox religion with HIS own. It was akin to banging his head 95 times on the church door of the invisible protestant church in cyber space like a door knocker of protest to say "you're not relevant" (so why bother?-Go howl at the moon.). Slam Dunk for Religion: "TEACH all nations" & "If you love me you will DO all I commanded". QED
So he's saying that the Catholic "Church" is necessary for salvation? I thought Jesus was!!! We were warned against this kind of stuff in the Bible...
@FWYGINOND You need to reacquaint yourself with scripture. Jesus gave ALL authority on earth to His Church leaders until he returns (the apostles & those they chose as their successors in the apostolic succession as manifest by a chain of laying on of hands [ref Mathias, Timothy, Paul etc.). Read the binding & loosing authority (Mat 18:18). Also Luke 10:16 "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
@InvictusLux I assume you're Catholic? Of course you're going to believe that going to church is necessary and that the institution of the church is important - that's what they've been teaching for almost two millenia! You have to remember that when Jesus was instructing His apostles, there was no institutional "Church." The "church" was the collection of those who believed. Even when the apostles themselves organized the church in Jersusalem, it was not institutionalized!
@FWYGINOND It was simply a fellowship of Christians who decided to get together to discuss theology. It was after Constantine (the brutal murderous Roman dictator) "accepted" Christianity that the church (bosy of believers) became the "Church" (the religous institution). Constantine transformed Christianity from a doctrine that despised human power in favor of Godly power, to a doctrine that loves both.
@FWYGINOND There are countless examples in the Old Testament where God says to follow him and not earthly-concieved governments because they always become corrupt and ultimately they always turn against God because they are concieved and run by humans (who are fallible). Also, with your verse from Luke, that's about following Jesus and YHWH, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!! In Judaism, our relation to God was communal. In Christianity, our relation is individual.
@FWYGINOND wow! Quite the statement. Do you think every last Pharisee was a bad guy - do you think that every time Jesus mentioned the scribes and pharisees that he literally meant every last one of them? Were there no good pharisees, scribes, etc.?
@FWYGINOND In Christianity our relationship with Jesus is individual and not communal? Sorry but there is no evidence for of this in scripture or in history. While its true that we are each called to make a personal election there is no concept of a lone-ranger Christianity. In fact so many of Christ's parables explicitly used a flock metaphor and the lone sheep that wandered off were gone after to return them to the fold. St. Paul even mentions "The Church is the pillar of truth". Sorry.
@FWYGINOND What do you mean there was no "institutional" church in Jesus time? The Church was explicitly formed in a communal context (!) at Pentacost when all the disciples were gathered in long 9 day prayer TOGETHER in the upper room. That's church bro! After the resurrection Christians came together routinely on The Lord's Day (the 8th day of the new creation - Sunday). They broke bread in agape feasts. This was the EARLY MASS we still celebrate daily. Have you actually read any NT scripture?
@FWYGINOND How can you say The Church was not institutional in Christ's time when HE told us HE was with us for all time? This wild accusation does NOT square with the fact that the Apostles & their elder disciples all come together at the 1st ever Council of Jerusalem presided over by the first pope, St. Peter, to settle issues related to the Gentile Christians (Acts 15). This was the very prototype for all future Catholic Church Ecumenical Councils meetings. Even mentions Pharisee CHRISTIANS!
I'm not Roman Catholic, but this is an excellent response. The whole, "I hate religion but love [my own customized conception of] Jesus" movement is at least as hypocritically self-righteous as the Christians from which they seek to distinguish themselves.
@ElasticGiraffe The "I hate religion but love Jesus movement" does not customize their own conception of Jesus. In fact, it's exactly the opposite! The say look, the Bible says nothing about the dogmas and traditions (and even some of the sects' doctrines) of most of our current denominations. Let's return to what Jesus did actually say. For example, some sects look down on people for not taking communion/eucharest but Jesus told His disciples as individuals to do this, not as a group.
@FWYGINOND The Bible says nothing about traditions??? Balogna - 2 Thes 2:15 "hold to the TRADITIONS which you were TAUGHT, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." There was no bible for 350 years after Christ - how do you think the Catholics produced the bible (Pope Damascus in 382 AD)?? It was by ORAL TRADITION of what we actually taught in the context of the early church mass/liturgy. Also the "do this in memory of me" Eucharist command was AS A COMMUNITY at the LAST SUPPER. Strike 3.
@ElasticGiraffe (see my previous comment first). Jesus knew that the disciples would get split up and thus would not be able to take the communion/eucharest all together, after all, He's the one who told them to "go unto all the world" preaching. However, the disciples (as individuals) WOULD be able to participate in it. Let's say Iran captures a Western tourist and put this person in solitary confinement. Don't you think they have the same relationship to God as they did before being captured?
The Catholic Church is the primary practicer of the "religion" that this guy is "rapping" against - so it is quite clear that his attack is directed toward the Church. Yes, to a lesser extent, he may be coming after Muslims, Jews, and High Church Anglicans, but he is quite clearly coming after the Catholic Church.
@JohnHollowel I would argue that he is not exclusively going after just the Catholic Church. Even though the Catholic Church matches his description the best, I would bet he would include most or all other denominations too. It's funny, Mahatma Ghandi said that he would be a Christian if the church (or rather, Church) were not so hypocritical. He loved the Biblle and its tenets, he just didn't like the organization called "the Church." It's funny how unChristian the "church" has become...
@FWYGINOND Elsewhere (my blog, Facebook) I've said the same thing - he's not going after just the Catholic Church, but clearly it is the number one aim. Of course Ghandi said that, anyone who doesn't join the Church ultimately would. When you say "It's funny how unChristian the "church" has become" you give voice to the reason people exempt themselves from taking the Church seriously - because there are sinners inside its doors -
@JohnHollowel but, let's say Christ really did found a Church on Peter...if you are Satan, what is the best way to get people to never darken said Church's door - get a couple people inside to start acting hypocritical. That's what he's done from the beginning (not just recently as you seem to suggest) and Satan's plan has worked marvelously.
@JohnHollowel I find it fascinating that so many Protestants claim to reject the importance of works but nonetheless base their dismissal of the Church on the works of some individuals.
The priest did not confuse religion with the church. Catholics do not believe the church is a building. We believe we are the church, the living people who enter the church, and WE are the religion. I love this response! Engage, Father, engage, and we will, too!
@Thenicoshuba But Catholics also consider Catholic traditions and dogmas to be part of "the church" in the sense that true Christians cannot stray from them (thus, the traditions and dogmas are necessary for the existence of the Church). Most of the Catholic Church's traditions and dogmas are extensions of pagan rituals and aren't even in the Bible which is why for a long time the Catholic Church told people to NOT read their Bible! And I know this because many Catholic churches still do this.
@FWYGINOND Seriously? Which Catholic Church locks up their Bible or tells people to not read the Bible? The tradition in the 1500's- 1700's where most Churches locked their Bible was because they were EXPENSIVE! It's all a matter of spin, though, and Church haters have largely won the battle over how things are spun, I'll give you that.
@FWYGINOND From your comments its clear you are under strong influence from Protestant fundamentalism - not a very suitable intellectual or historically accurate framework for dialectic arguments. There are NO pagan rites in Catholicism. Baptism was practiced by the Jews but some pagans had their own version of it (bathing LOL). You're wrong about the church discouraging reading the bible. Most people could not read until well into the 19th century! Bibles were costly & RARE till 16th century.
I'll try to make my response to Father's video fit the mood; "Yo Fadda, I mean.. you hits this bad topic on tha Head! That otha guy was a foo. I mean, I could tell he'd been hurt. Hurt bad by some church and I was feelin for him. Someone needta rap him up in some a Jesus love and bring some heelin on that bro. He don't need ta be bad moutin no churces, Jesus said, "where two or more o ya'll will be, I'll be up in there". shoot! God bless and peace out ya'll
@FWYGINOND So the Church is just some spiritual collection of "good people" that has nothing to do with anything earthly right? Kind of like Descartes - everything physical is an illusion and/or trivial and/or unimportant?
@lucrative11 You can't separate Jesus from His Church anymore so than you can separate His teaching from His religion & the authority He gave His church to teach it. You're creating a tautology of nonsense. The Great Commission was given to the representatives of His Church (the apostles and the apostolic succession to those after them ) not to the man-made tower of babel that God replaced WITH His Church. The mandate is: "TEACH all Nations ALL that I commanded you." That's religion AND Church.
If the original guy meant only religion and not the church, as if they could be separated in the first place, then his entire video was irrelevent, because all he did at that point is take sin and change it's name to "religion." Sin is what causing those things, not religion.
i LOVE it ! posted it on my FB please friend me FB dot c om /reinagrace8 i am so passionate about my beautiful Catholic faith and find myself constantly defending it. i moved to TX 5 years ago knowing no one, thinking by coming to the "Bible Belt"i'd finally belong and not be an outsider anymore for believing in the Bible. i got the shock of my life when i was more of an outsider than ever here- constantly being insulted for my Catholic faith. it led me even deeper into the truth of it
THIS IS AMAZING. I couldn't be more fulfilled or happier than I am right now knowing I'm Catholic! God has given us a CHURCH. HIS Church! Thank you so much!!! God bless!!
+1 father !
RSConsolata 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Preach it, Father!
eblyns 3 weeks ago
... YES.
Ambushleena 1 month ago
YES!!! This exactly what we need! More priests getting in tune with society. Nice video. Agree all the way.
godzilla5549 1 month ago
Awesome.
eraser695 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Salam Alaikum from Pakistan.
eraser695 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Gre8 At this point your monopolizing this video thread and dominating the dialog and hijacking this feed. I am no longer going to entertain your troll and diversion tactic. Let's others speak here as they will. Out.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux Oh well, if you feel that way about a discussion than have it your way. Its just that I did not change my point of view and I still don't think military is a sound profession for a christian, you are making a straw man out of terms I used. And ok, I'll not debate anymore because one who is willing to see the catholic church as infallible clearly has a very myopic and biased view of history, and can only accept it through faith for reason and honesty cannot condone with it. Out.
gre8 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gre8 You're just flat out wrong on the whole military/soldier argument. Luke 3:14 tells soldiers to "be content with your pay" & nothing about being pacifists. Romans 13 speaks to national rulers & authority - obey it when its just.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
Comment removed
InvictusLux 1 month ago
Comment removed
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@Gre8 As to the military - now that I've proven you wrong you've shifted the argument from a valid profession (security/police/military) to a philosophy - militarism. You're changing your arugment. In no way does The Church support militarism. You're mixing apples & oranges now. The Church recognizes the right to just self defense both at a personal level and a societal level. And that is plain in scripture. [continued]
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 All you mention comes down to "authority". Saints are not saints until THE CHURCH canonizes them as such AFTER THEY ARE DECEASED. There are no living saints & there are no saint's writings taken as universal teachings of faith & morals (unless the pope declares it in a public statement). Even a saint's writings must have an Imprimatur Seal on it before it can be taken as consistent with Catholic Teaching.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@Grey8 [cont celibacy] Priests in the Eastern Catholic rites MAY marry. In the larger Western Rite (Latin/Roman) priests willfully take oaths not to marry & hold to the higher standard taught & practiced by Christ Himself. Again, The Church is free to amend this at anytime. In fact the Latin Rite (West) occasionally grants exceptions for married Anglican priests who convert. Early Church practise was that married clergy did NOT re-marry after becoming widowed. Nothing unbiblical there.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@Grey8 Yes, SOME of the early bishops were married - St. Paul was not however. Paul discouraged marriage ( 1 Cor 7). Christ also held celebacy as a higher calling & encouraged those so called [priests] to embrace it ( Mat 19:12). Also, The Church teaches celebacy for BOTH clergy and single Christians; it is reserved only for the sacred sacrament of marriage. But also note that clerical unmarried celibacy is taught as a DISCIPLINE NOT as a DOGMA. It can be relaxed by the pope at any time. [cont]
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@Grey8 But you are exaggerating yet again. The Church has never contravened scripture - not once. You just don't really grasp what The Church teaches. So, you're parroting myths about what Catholics actually teach & making yourself pope as well as judge; but lack any spiritual authority. You're falling headlong into St. Peter's warning about the "ignorant" who privately interpret scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16 ). This is what this video is essentially saying. [cont]
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@grey8 Just now seeing some of your prior posts - so MANY historical errors! Did you learn this in college?! Text limits - too many errors to fix for you. Example: The person normally referred to as "Saint Hippolytus" was actually a heretic & an anti-pope (!!) during a good part of his mid-life. His teachings are NOT binding on the members of the Church - especially before he reconciled himself to The Church before death. Christ DID NOT condemn the military. Absurd! See Luke 3:14; Romans 13:1-6
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux Well, whether you take Hippolytus as a heretic or anti-pope he is still a saint with a feast day even. And despite questioning his authority, we can still take his account historically and see that some (probably most) Christians did reject militarism. Romans 13 has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and Luke on the other hand does not give a clear condemnation on soldiery, but it does not enforce it. Rather Jesus says that: "He who lives by the sword (etc)" Matthew 26:52
gre8 1 month ago
@InvictusLux As to mocking the church, I exaggerated the matter a little bit and I am sorry for that, but I would then point in history the fact that sometimes the Church does override scripture. For instance, it is clear that early bishops were married and even that St. Peter himself had a wife. (I Timothy 3:2-4, Mark 1:30) But clerical celibacy is enforced as law only from the Synod of Elvira and beyond.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 three vows, poverty, chastity and obedience, the clergymen and women take these vows as a show of their love and devotion to Jesus Christ and the promise of their service, permanent deacons are allowed to be married but they can't be married after they are ordained a deacon
musiciangirl591 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@gre8 You're grossly inconsistent. You demand The Church speak to advance YOUR moral opinions but go conveniently deaf when The Church does teach. That's a prodigious hypocrisy. You'll have "it" YOUR WAY or not at all. Hold the pickle? That's classic rogue Protestantism. You mock The Church by referring to the fractional percentage of bad priests but ignore "the log in your own eye" & thus invalidate yourself. The extremes of Donatism & Marcionism are both erroneous. But hypocrisy is the worst.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 No. Core Christian morality has always be constant. Just corporeal punishment was as valid in the apostolic era as it is now. Luke 12:47-48 refers to the lazy slave who knows His master's will getting more beatings than the one who did not (note: slavery is not condemned in the parable). No luv-n-lollipops there. God gives authority to rulers. The societies evolve & become more civil and Christian under Christian influence. The Church does not exist in a vacuum to society's laws.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gre8 @InvictusLux I undesrtand that this space is really limited, but I think that pointing me to apologetic web sites is not fair, because I have taken my time to make my point whereas you seem to be dodging the questions I propose. On my defense I'll say I did take the time to read other opinions on this, and as I said, I spent a great deal of time reading saints and teachers of the catholic church, so I find little use on those websites.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 This posting forum is too limited for me to give an adequate rebuttal. I need more text space and piece-wise replies won't cut it. Go ask these same questions on this apologetic forum Catholic.com in the forum area. You will get reams of documents and rationale and live dialog from apologists to help you. The key error you are making is anachronistic judgement - using today's standards to an era where the church had a tenuous influence with unpredictable kings and monarchs.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux Well, I think both me and you can agree that Christ's moral and values are absolute. There might be debate whether that is the case under new and old alliance (testaments) but under Christ it is quite clear that we are under one morality and ethic values. As I said, values did change. Christians were pacifists at first, then political church did become lenient towards violence in the name of God, or soundness of faith, and now we see a return to old pacifist values.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 I think that it is absolutely unwise to talk about anachronism when we talk about eternal God given moral values, and that sir, is a bit of a contradiction. You either accept that Christian values are absolute and the church did step out of boundaries for political reasons or over zealousness, or you admit that Christian values changed over time and who knows what they will be in the future.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 You are trolling this priest's video feed - why not give your absurdities a rest and stop torturing all of us here with you rhetoric. The video is spot on theologically - speak to that topic or kindly go elsewhere. My final word on this topic is the Catholic Church spoke out against torture forced confessions as early as Pope Nicolas in 866. Society embraced it in part, rejected it later & now reimbraces it. Current civility you enjoy is a fragile fruit of the Church's teaching [continued]
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 Completing my comments... Christ gave no explicit moral teaching on torture nor slavery where it existed all around him in society (he even suffered it on the cross). OT is full of just torture both by God and by man ( Lev 20:1-2;14 Deut 22:23-34;25:1-3) - even disciplining one's own sons (Prov 13:24 Sir 30L1;9;11-13). Torture has been banned only in Christian countries very recently by historical standards. This is how long it took the Church to get "the world" to comply at least in part
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 Completing my comments. Scripture does not qualify torture as always and everywhere evil or unjust. The Church has promulgated the teaching that UNJUST torture or harm to anyone is evil - especially with respect to forcing confessions. Enough said.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux Oh well, if you think that under christianity there is space for torture and violence in the name of God then I rest my case. I would not be amazed if some theologian began to defend pedophile priests based on scripture. If christian morality is to be handled like you think than there is no reason to discuss anymore. Have a nice day.
gre8 1 month ago
@InvictusLux @InvictusLux I undesrtand that this space is really limited, but I think that pointing me to apologetic web sites is not fair, because I have taken my time to make my point whereas you seem to be dodging the questions I propose. On my defense I'll say I did take the time to read other opinions on this, and as I said, I spent a great deal of time reading saints and teachers of the catholic church, so I find little use on those websites.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 You are using anachronistic rationale. The church condemned unjust punishment. Don't forget that these were all just a few centuries earlier utter pagans and barbarian states that were converted to Catholicism. It took God centuries and centuries to refine the Jews into a civilized culture. The same principal applies in Christendom. The emphasis at this time was on the welfare of SOULS of the entire community. A criminal put at risk the eternal souls of all of the community.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 The only time torture was ever permitted in the inquisitional courts was AFTER a person admitted guilt or was proven by evidence/witness guilty and then refused to cooperate in identifying his accomplices. This was a huge change in the entire legal paradigm of the time and is the underpinnings for current western legal jurisprudence of reasonable doubt. The Church did not have the influence with all monarchs to compel outright bans on torture till later. Don't judge anachronistically.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux The church might not have the power to enforce, but it does not mean that it couldn't condemn it. So my argument still stands.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 [continued Ad Extirpanda]. You need to get some historical context. Civil courts were routinely using torture to FORCE confessions. Inquisition courts required for the 1st time in history multiple witnesses and evidence and sought principally to be an intermediary sanctuary of mercy FROM the HARSH secular courts. MOST citizens feigned demonic possession or uttered curses against the Church when arrested by civil authorities to get a venue in Inq. Courts rather than civil courts.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux I understand that what you are saying and though I do not have thorough knowledge on the numbers and facts you are pointing out, one thing is clear. The church did not condemn the practice altogether, it regulated it. Now I will ask you plainly, besides any sophistic attempt of apologists to reconcile it, does it really make sense that a christian church would not condemn torture but suggest it as a way to obtain "truth"?
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 I can show the sources to my claims if you want them, I just thought they were not necessary since they are quite common. But if you will, I'll point out the texts I mentioned from Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 you need to go to an apologist forum rather than troll this video feed. Ad Extirpanda is the 1st time you have offered any evidence or clue about what you are talking about. What you fail to comprehend is that in this period of time ALL of Europe had reverted to harsh Roman Lad - torture was the COMMON practice in the SECULAR/CIVIL courts. This Bull a FIRST attempt ever in human history to LIMIT torture to non deadly forms AND very limited circumstances. [continued]
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 Christ looked them right in the eye and CONFRONTED them with the plain Truth of HIs innocence and they struck him (unjustly). The idea of turning the cheek is to do the same thing - to stare falsehood right in the face and not turn to cower from it. Truth is always confrontational to those who reject it. What's your point by this statement: " It is so clear that catholic tradition is clear on how christians were systematically persecuted during the 1st centuries of Christendom."?
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux I'm sorry, my sentence was poorly written. I meant that catholic tradition, id est, old patristic writers and historical evidence point out to massive persecution of Christians and it does not show them fighting back, but quietly going to slaughter like lambs.
gre8 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gre8 re: "old patristic writers and historical evidence point out to massive persecution of Christians and it does not show them fighting back, but quietly going to slaughter like lambs." YES this is TRUE. This is the Catholic tradition. What are we in disagreement on this point?
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 "Don't turn a blind eye on truth?" It's "cheeky" to presume to sage wisdom & in possession of Truth when you have yet to demonstrate you have any. "Turning the other cheek" & offering the cloak off one's back is exactly what Christ did when falsely accused & struck by the Jews in court (John 18:23;John 19:23-24 ). Jesus wasn't a pacifist - as The Lion of Judea He CONFRONTED (ref. money changers). 11 of 12 of the apostles & the first 31 popes were murdered for speaking the TRUTH.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux I'm sorry but I couldnt really understand whether you were supporting or confronting my views. For in one hand you said Jesus turned the other cheek but on the other he confronted the money chargers. Of course that is sound scripture, but I don't think Christ abused any of those people but rather showed them their wrong doings in a more assertive way, it would be contrary to all His preaching. And what you said only adds to my thesis that early Christians were pacifists
gre8 1 month ago
@InvictusLux And to make it clear, I'm not saying that I alone have truth, but I showed indeed plenty of sources to prove my argument such as saints of the catholic church and modern day scholarship on such subjects. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but I would like to see you rebuke the sources I gave. Read the papal bull Ad Extirpanda. It even teaches at what point torture should stop. Rebuke this evidence I presented and we can go on. Hope you are not another troll.
gre8 1 month ago
This is amazing, Great Job!
iSheaShea 1 month ago
Great Job guys! From a seminarian in Ohio
crazyseminarian 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND You really are guessing about both scripture and history; and you are guessing wrong. Jesus did not have a problem with ALL of the Pharisees at all - just those who were being hypocritical. If you read NT scripture with a bit more comprehension you will clearly see that some of Jesus' most devout disciples were in fact very religious Sanhedrin and Pharisees - e.g. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. What court, what judge & on what date was the Catholic Church declared Phariseeical?
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND The church was not organized & sat around talking theology until Constantine? Are you completely detached from scripture and history??? The Church was under persecution night & day with daily mass esp (Sunday - day of the lord) aka agape feasts in the catacombs. Bread & wine converted to the sacred mystery of the body & blood of Christ (the Romans even accused them of being cannibals!). They also read some of the few texts avail. as liturgy Read 1 Cor 10; 11;12 . Get educated.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
Mother Theresa was a Catholic Christian. The Catholic Church is not afraid of its past, it has been wrong. But it has corrected itself and grown stronger. The Church has recognized these errors - leaders rose to power who weren't suited for the job. It was a period of scandalism in the Church. But it has been hundreds of years since then and the corrections have been made, and the Church is now in line with Jesus again. The church is human - therefore imperfect, but God is making it more perfect
Jimmy161803 1 month ago
@Jimmy161803 One minor correction. While its true that SOME of the members of the Catholic Church have done wrong in the past (just like the apostles did wrong & repented - ref. St. Paul was a murderer/persecutor, St. Peter denied Christ, St. Thomas doubted the resurrection etc. ) it has NEVR taught theological error. Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (its protected from teaching error) but personal impeccability of individuals is not guaranteed.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
Well, he is a priest, organized religion is his way of life therefore he wouldn´t think otherwise. However, I expected a bit more of argumentation. This video is pure rethorical fallacies. Mother Thereza is a Christian, not a religion that reads in the bible that thou shalt not kill but in the other hand supported inquisitions and promoted crusades. Its not fear of history, we know it all to well. I think that this priest is afraid of his church´s history, therefore the smoke screen arguments.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 You need to get some balanced historical context and stop reading the Black Legend war/religious propaganda. Have you read any real history books outside of high school? At the time of the Inquisitions the civil courts were routinely torturing citizens for minor offenses to force admissions of guilt. It was OLD ROMAN LAW. Inquisitions were a huge advance in evidence and witness based law. Inquisitions released over 90% of those submitted for lack of evidence or pleas of mercy! [continued]
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 [Inquisitions continued] Inquisitional courts NEVER executed any - they turned over admitted hard criminals who refused to repent or plea mercy to the civil court system where the Nobles retried them and sometimes granted mercy based on the CHURCH'S customary recommendation. But more often the civil courts executed them since they were criminals. Fewer were executed in the Spanish Inquisitions over hundreds of years than the modern state of Texas executed in the last 60 years!
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@gre8 Further... Crusades were a military response to Muslims slaughtering and/or force converting Christians in the Holy Lands and to their routine invading and looting of Europe (well into Austria and elsewhere). Get your facts straight please. Further still., the bible condemns murder - it does not condemn killing in a just defensive war or for self protection when there is no other way out. Do not Kill and Do not Murder are two different semantics. Mother Theresa was a DEVOUT Catholic.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux Oh well, you see, you may love your church, I respect that. But don't turn a blind eye on truth. The old testament does support what you said about killing in self defense. However, Jesus is a radical pacifist, to the point where He makes it clear urging people to give the other cheek. It is so clear that catholic tradition is clear on how christians were systematically persecuted during the first centuries of Christendom.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 Saint Hippolytus of Rome for instance said that soldiers seeking to become Christians were despised of God. So far I've given one example on scripture and on tradition. When the church however becomes a political body around the time of Constantine, it therefore has to deal with secular matters such as wars. Then we begin to see a change in that pacifist stance to something that will later develop concepts such as just war and violent suppression of heretics.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 St Augustine (a author I truly like) does at one point in his writings support persecution towards donatists on grounds of religious matters. I understand that it was a violent time, but you don't justify self defense on religious grounds, because Christ himself NEVER even hinted that such should be done. Moving on we arrive at the crusades. Sure, I can understand the political situation, where Islam swept over Christian lands on the Levant.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 But once again, the mistake was that the pope urged it not as a political matter where Byzantines asked for help, but marketed as a way to go to heaven. Though his homily urging the crusades is not entirely recorded, eyewitness of the time do support the fact that killing infidels was pretty much forgiveness for every sin. Once again, nowhere in scripture that is supported, not even in the law o Moses. We can even talk about St Thomas Aquinas (whose Summa I am reading at the moment).
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 He said, on his questions on heresy that they should be excommunicated from the body of the church and sent to secular tribunals to be executed. They should not only be separated from church but from the world by death. So far from the original teachings of Jesus I might say. Anyway, I agree that the Inquisition is largely overrated, but its very existence is beyond any question, abhorrent to true Christianity. Remember in scripture that heretics where supposed to be quietly urged...
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 ... to repent, asked twice to give up on false teachings and then as a last measure, anathema. But Inquisition goes way beyond that, in the form of public trials and humiliating acts such as the autos da fé, or even the occasional use of torture. That is not made up, that is a fact and if it was done more or less than usually thought it is still beyond belief that a christian institution would support such a monstrosity. Not to talk about the personal life of several popes.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 But that is not the scope of the debate. The religion of mother Theresa is irrelevant really because what she did was true charity and ALL Christians should follow her example, just like all Christians should follow Martin Luther King Jr's example on the speech on behalf of oppressed minorities. That is true Christianity and it goes beyond a church sign or name. Anyway, I know my history and I don't speak lightly of it. I take my time looking at the evidence and go the source.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 I wish you a good day, and hope that this debate might bring better understanding of this matter to both of us.
gre8 1 month ago
"But Jesus says don't be a Church hater,
the weeds and the wheat, they get separated later"
Nice!
nick19912010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent. The babel of the "I hate religion but love Jesus" video was as viral as an STD. The kid's pontificating an oxymoronic contradiction that would replace orthodox religion with HIS own. It was akin to banging his head 95 times on the church door of the invisible protestant church in cyber space like a door knocker of protest to say "you're not relevant" (so why bother?-Go howl at the moon.). Slam Dunk for Religion: "TEACH all nations" & "If you love me you will DO all I commanded". QED
InvictusLux 1 month ago
Comment removed
InvictusLux 1 month ago
EPIC!!
newtochrist 1 month ago
So he's saying that the Catholic "Church" is necessary for salvation? I thought Jesus was!!! We were warned against this kind of stuff in the Bible...
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND You need to reacquaint yourself with scripture. Jesus gave ALL authority on earth to His Church leaders until he returns (the apostles & those they chose as their successors in the apostolic succession as manifest by a chain of laying on of hands [ref Mathias, Timothy, Paul etc.). Read the binding & loosing authority (Mat 18:18). Also Luke 10:16 "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@InvictusLux I assume you're Catholic? Of course you're going to believe that going to church is necessary and that the institution of the church is important - that's what they've been teaching for almost two millenia! You have to remember that when Jesus was instructing His apostles, there was no institutional "Church." The "church" was the collection of those who believed. Even when the apostles themselves organized the church in Jersusalem, it was not institutionalized!
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FWYGINOND It was simply a fellowship of Christians who decided to get together to discuss theology. It was after Constantine (the brutal murderous Roman dictator) "accepted" Christianity that the church (bosy of believers) became the "Church" (the religous institution). Constantine transformed Christianity from a doctrine that despised human power in favor of Godly power, to a doctrine that loves both.
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND There are countless examples in the Old Testament where God says to follow him and not earthly-concieved governments because they always become corrupt and ultimately they always turn against God because they are concieved and run by humans (who are fallible). Also, with your verse from Luke, that's about following Jesus and YHWH, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!! In Judaism, our relation to God was communal. In Christianity, our relation is individual.
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND The Catholic "Church" has been, and has become, just like the Jewish Pharisees.
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND wow! Quite the statement. Do you think every last Pharisee was a bad guy - do you think that every time Jesus mentioned the scribes and pharisees that he literally meant every last one of them? Were there no good pharisees, scribes, etc.?
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND In Christianity our relationship with Jesus is individual and not communal? Sorry but there is no evidence for of this in scripture or in history. While its true that we are each called to make a personal election there is no concept of a lone-ranger Christianity. In fact so many of Christ's parables explicitly used a flock metaphor and the lone sheep that wandered off were gone after to return them to the fold. St. Paul even mentions "The Church is the pillar of truth". Sorry.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND What do you mean there was no "institutional" church in Jesus time? The Church was explicitly formed in a communal context (!) at Pentacost when all the disciples were gathered in long 9 day prayer TOGETHER in the upper room. That's church bro! After the resurrection Christians came together routinely on The Lord's Day (the 8th day of the new creation - Sunday). They broke bread in agape feasts. This was the EARLY MASS we still celebrate daily. Have you actually read any NT scripture?
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND How can you say The Church was not institutional in Christ's time when HE told us HE was with us for all time? This wild accusation does NOT square with the fact that the Apostles & their elder disciples all come together at the 1st ever Council of Jerusalem presided over by the first pope, St. Peter, to settle issues related to the Gentile Christians (Acts 15). This was the very prototype for all future Catholic Church Ecumenical Councils meetings. Even mentions Pharisee CHRISTIANS!
InvictusLux 1 month ago
Comment removed
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
wonderful video father! =)
musiciangirl591 1 month ago
Great video!
cowboydave44 1 month ago
I'm not Roman Catholic, but this is an excellent response. The whole, "I hate religion but love [my own customized conception of] Jesus" movement is at least as hypocritically self-righteous as the Christians from which they seek to distinguish themselves.
ElasticGiraffe 1 month ago 2
@ElasticGiraffe The "I hate religion but love Jesus movement" does not customize their own conception of Jesus. In fact, it's exactly the opposite! The say look, the Bible says nothing about the dogmas and traditions (and even some of the sects' doctrines) of most of our current denominations. Let's return to what Jesus did actually say. For example, some sects look down on people for not taking communion/eucharest but Jesus told His disciples as individuals to do this, not as a group.
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND People "returning to what Jesus actually says" has resulted in 26,000 different denominations in the United States.
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
Comment removed
InvictusLux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FWYGINOND The Bible says nothing about traditions??? Balogna - 2 Thes 2:15 "hold to the TRADITIONS which you were TAUGHT, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." There was no bible for 350 years after Christ - how do you think the Catholics produced the bible (Pope Damascus in 382 AD)?? It was by ORAL TRADITION of what we actually taught in the context of the early church mass/liturgy. Also the "do this in memory of me" Eucharist command was AS A COMMUNITY at the LAST SUPPER. Strike 3.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@ElasticGiraffe (see my previous comment first). Jesus knew that the disciples would get split up and thus would not be able to take the communion/eucharest all together, after all, He's the one who told them to "go unto all the world" preaching. However, the disciples (as individuals) WOULD be able to participate in it. Let's say Iran captures a Western tourist and put this person in solitary confinement. Don't you think they have the same relationship to God as they did before being captured?
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND So you are saying the tourist wouldn't benefit from receiving the Eucharist? Your example is confusing to me
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
The Catholic Church is the primary practicer of the "religion" that this guy is "rapping" against - so it is quite clear that his attack is directed toward the Church. Yes, to a lesser extent, he may be coming after Muslims, Jews, and High Church Anglicans, but he is quite clearly coming after the Catholic Church.
JohnHollowel 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@JohnHollowel I would argue that he is not exclusively going after just the Catholic Church. Even though the Catholic Church matches his description the best, I would bet he would include most or all other denominations too. It's funny, Mahatma Ghandi said that he would be a Christian if the church (or rather, Church) were not so hypocritical. He loved the Biblle and its tenets, he just didn't like the organization called "the Church." It's funny how unChristian the "church" has become...
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND Elsewhere (my blog, Facebook) I've said the same thing - he's not going after just the Catholic Church, but clearly it is the number one aim. Of course Ghandi said that, anyone who doesn't join the Church ultimately would. When you say "It's funny how unChristian the "church" has become" you give voice to the reason people exempt themselves from taking the Church seriously - because there are sinners inside its doors -
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
@JohnHollowel but, let's say Christ really did found a Church on Peter...if you are Satan, what is the best way to get people to never darken said Church's door - get a couple people inside to start acting hypocritical. That's what he's done from the beginning (not just recently as you seem to suggest) and Satan's plan has worked marvelously.
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
@JohnHollowel I find it fascinating that so many Protestants claim to reject the importance of works but nonetheless base their dismissal of the Church on the works of some individuals.
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
The priest did not confuse religion with the church. Catholics do not believe the church is a building. We believe we are the church, the living people who enter the church, and WE are the religion. I love this response! Engage, Father, engage, and we will, too!
Thenicoshuba 1 month ago
@Thenicoshuba But Catholics also consider Catholic traditions and dogmas to be part of "the church" in the sense that true Christians cannot stray from them (thus, the traditions and dogmas are necessary for the existence of the Church). Most of the Catholic Church's traditions and dogmas are extensions of pagan rituals and aren't even in the Bible which is why for a long time the Catholic Church told people to NOT read their Bible! And I know this because many Catholic churches still do this.
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND Seriously? Which Catholic Church locks up their Bible or tells people to not read the Bible? The tradition in the 1500's- 1700's where most Churches locked their Bible was because they were EXPENSIVE! It's all a matter of spin, though, and Church haters have largely won the battle over how things are spun, I'll give you that.
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND From your comments its clear you are under strong influence from Protestant fundamentalism - not a very suitable intellectual or historically accurate framework for dialectic arguments. There are NO pagan rites in Catholicism. Baptism was practiced by the Jews but some pagans had their own version of it (bathing LOL). You're wrong about the church discouraging reading the bible. Most people could not read until well into the 19th century! Bibles were costly & RARE till 16th century.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
I'll try to make my response to Father's video fit the mood; "Yo Fadda, I mean.. you hits this bad topic on tha Head! That otha guy was a foo. I mean, I could tell he'd been hurt. Hurt bad by some church and I was feelin for him. Someone needta rap him up in some a Jesus love and bring some heelin on that bro. He don't need ta be bad moutin no churces, Jesus said, "where two or more o ya'll will be, I'll be up in there". shoot! God bless and peace out ya'll
billbobagns 1 month ago
@billbobagns You're right - the church is actually the people and God, not the people, traditions and dogmas, and God.
FWYGINOND 1 month ago
@FWYGINOND So the Church is just some spiritual collection of "good people" that has nothing to do with anything earthly right? Kind of like Descartes - everything physical is an illusion and/or trivial and/or unimportant?
JohnHollowel 1 month ago
lol nope
tanksmallcape 1 month ago
like many others, this priest has confused religion with the church. the two are not the same, and it kinda makes his response irrelavent
lucrative11 1 month ago
Comment removed
InvictusLux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lucrative11 You can't separate Jesus from His Church anymore so than you can separate His teaching from His religion & the authority He gave His church to teach it. You're creating a tautology of nonsense. The Great Commission was given to the representatives of His Church (the apostles and the apostolic succession to those after them ) not to the man-made tower of babel that God replaced WITH His Church. The mandate is: "TEACH all Nations ALL that I commanded you." That's religion AND Church.
InvictusLux 1 month ago
@lucrative11
If the original guy meant only religion and not the church, as if they could be separated in the first place, then his entire video was irrelevent, because all he did at that point is take sin and change it's name to "religion." Sin is what causing those things, not religion.
nick19912010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i LOVE it ! posted it on my FB please friend me FB dot c om /reinagrace8 i am so passionate about my beautiful Catholic faith and find myself constantly defending it. i moved to TX 5 years ago knowing no one, thinking by coming to the "Bible Belt"i'd finally belong and not be an outsider anymore for believing in the Bible. i got the shock of my life when i was more of an outsider than ever here- constantly being insulted for my Catholic faith. it led me even deeper into the truth of it
reinagrace118 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To those that say Jesus hates religion: Is that your dogma?
soulsey 1 month ago
Something that needed to be said! Thank you!
Xanxer 1 month ago
Work and study but most of all for your Life Long Yes+
Phrasester 1 month ago
Not the coolest or up beat in tempo and style but God Bless you Fr for your
Phrasester 1 month ago
Im not part of any religion but have some sort of belief on god just wondering what should i do?
MapleGlobaIFAN 1 month ago
Read Rome Sweet Rome by Dr. Scott Hahn
It will change your life for the better!!
Will be praying for you!!!!
rubyslipper08 1 month ago
swagsyndrome
SeaaNThECreaToR 1 month ago
THIS IS AMAZING. I couldn't be more fulfilled or happier than I am right now knowing I'm Catholic! God has given us a CHURCH. HIS Church! Thank you so much!!! God bless!!
LittleFlowerluv 1 month ago
Thank you for responding to that video. God bless you!
laurieinsimi 1 month ago