Indeed thank you, Holy Father. I just wish your bishops and priests were faithful to you and the magisterium. I so miss the TLM and cannot get to it. Pope Bendict is wonderful.
THIS FACT! The Catholic Church has always tried to keep the European as dumb possible. An example of this hiding of truth can be seen in the coverup of the Pedophile Priest and Gays that run the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, WWI, and WWII, all involve the Catholic Church manipulating, lying to, stealing from, and murdering the people of Europe. WWII is nothing but the Catholic Church and Rothschild using Ashkenazi Khazars(non-Semites/Zionist) for another Crusade.
The Catholic Church has been the greatest power in Europe for a very long time. How long do you think they have been screwing children? The Catholic church created WWII! Hitler, Nazi, and Ustashi are all Catholic Creations. Even today, the Croatian Ustashi are proud Nazi Catholics, and not ashamed to say so. Why would you take your child to a place that is known to house pedophiles? Why would you support a church that houses pedophiles, unless you are brainwashed lemming freak.
The Vatican according to the Third Secret of Fatima will be destroyed on August 17, 2011. The Dogma, the Trinity, has been replaced with the Masonic Trinity. The documents that prove the change from Our Lady, Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (the real Father) into the Lord Father/coming Lord Jesus/Holy Spirit are on FATIMAMOVEMENT d o t c o m
The Illuminati have essentially changed the three keys to heaven and humanity allowed it. The punishment from heaven is imminent..
The Jesuit order has agreed to ay more than $166 million to the more than 500 victims who suffered sexual abuse when they were kids in Catholic schools in five states of the U.S. northwest, the victims’ attorney said.
Most of those affected are Indians who suffered abuse at the hands of priests in what is known as the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, which includes the states of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Montana, according to the local press.
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
este es un video bastante proclive a dar una valoración parcial acerca de la mala comparación de la Eucaristía.
Muestran los horrores litúrgicos que hemos visto a raíz del Concilio Vaticano II, pero no muestran de manera objetiva las bondades que trajo el AGGIORNAMENTO de s.s. Juan XXIII de feliz memoria. No muestran las grandes celebraciones eucarísticas del vaticano, de las grandes basílicas o parroquias, sino la informalidad de ciertos presbíteros al celebrar, habría que revisar de nuevo
@sebreathnach Certainly - I'll take you up on that. I'm happy to put up 10,000 pennies if you would care to specify a date by which the war will begin. If the Pope has not started a war with China by then, you would owe me £10,000. Does that seem fair to you?
@timfinigan Not to be unfair to you, but you will observe -- even on UTube -- that the war has long since begun. At first Tibet and now the bishops after the fashion of Tertullian are stirring the pot ...
"Simon, Simon, ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum. Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua". Mantenha-se firme, Santo Padre. Nós queremos ver a sua força e sua coragem. Não mude, não ceda, não perca a esperança. Du bist PETRUS. Der Heiligen Geist ist mit dir.
@Ignatius212 he will die sooner, god wont help him, and there is no miracle, if u will cut popes legs it wont grow back even if all worlds catholics will pray :D
Mass should be said in vernacular so that the people may understand the Word of God itself.
However, the Church should be highly decorated, particularly the altar, (Where the miricle that is the Eucharist happens) and the tabernacle, (the throne of Jesus' body, thus decorated as such.) I see these Churches that look more like protestant churchs, with little or no decoration in the sactuary. One church I saw didn't even have a tabernacle, but shared it with the chapel.
Fool......have you ever been to a Tridentine Rite Latin Mass? The Gospel is read in both Latin and English. Please only post what you know to be the truth, you ecclesiastical liberal.
I am a man who has studied the mass for years. I am a seminarian. Just because you disagree does not make me wrong. I have studied under great theologians and I will not go against them based on the opinions of unsatisfied Laymen.
@drinaldi2000 The mess is too great to be in denial. Boff, Suenens, Teilhard de Chardin, Rahner, Küng, Bugnini and the infiltrators in the church have made their damage. Sexual abuse, USA, Ireland, England and now Germany. Jesuits, corrupted, Dominicans corrupted, US Catholic Bishops corrupted, the stink is beginnig to get to Heavens.
If you truely believe what you have just said, then you have no faith in the Roman Catholic Church, it's ways, and it's beliefs and therefore are not worthy to call yourself Catholic. Catholic means univernal, which we cannot be if we say mass every day in a dead language. Embrace change. Change is why Christ came into the world.
@drinaldi2000 You may have fallen to the new Arrianism, the modernism, sum of all heressies. And you know this struggle is eternal. Prelates have grown comfortable in their posts, "careerism" , the Pope called it. They are more interested in that than in he salvation of souls.
Your most precious Martin Luther doesn't have time to fume because he is too busy roasting on a spit in Hell. BOO HOO get over yourself you stupid protestant fool, you and your precious Lutheran Church are all damned, enjoy your trip, bon voyage!!
@latinmass9000 then what did He intend? Masses that the people did not understand? Congregations not being able to pray with the priest, only listen? He gave all of his people active ministry, Catholics are not meant to whach, but to participate.
Jersusalem was a test place. I say this now as it is obviouse God left that place many years ago, due to mans failure to understand his message. Now look at it. Barron, Dry, and Lifeless. Its been a warzone ever since his arrival. Don't forget the place was pointed out by nothing more than A Man. The holey land moves around just as we do through time. You only need to look with your heart to realise im right.
I most thankful to you Holy father. I am young and yet I have the heart for the trdition of the Church. This may be a gift from God, to be different. God bless you Holy father. May the church be one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, there is a MAJOR difference between this Catholic celebration, and a Lutheran service.
There is still the elevation of the bread and wine in here, and the vestments. Holy candle shown, and yes, Confession to a priest.
Lutheran services teach the absolute TRUTH, whereas Catholic Masses - both English and Latin, promote salvation by works............I have been to both a Latin and an English Mass........
Danger Jesus is the end times false Christ we were warned was coming. Jesus is the Antichrist. I'll pay anyone $5000 cash if Jesus was Christs name. Jesus Is Esus a Satanic God. Search the net for Djice9 for the truth facts and results. Christs name was Yahshua which means Yahweh is Salvation in Hebrew. Just as Hallaluyah in Hebrew means give praise to YAHWEH. PLEASE REPOST!
There were Jewish people outside of Jerusalem. Just because he did not live there does not mean he was not Jewish! Thats the silliest argument i'v ever heard! I never anywhere said that Jesus was not from Galilee thats silly to believe he wasn't, but it is just as silly to think he wasn't Jewish, considering he was sent as their Messiah. Not only that he quoted multiple times from the Old Testament.
Alright Jesus was Jewish. How can you deny this with things like the presentation in THE TEMPLE where Mary had to be cleansed (according to Jewish law), or how about the passover a Jewish tradition coming from the Exodus. Jesus himself said do what they say and not what they do when referring to the Jewish high priests.
Yes the entire Gospel is about love. Christ himself was a Jew! He told his apostles to first preach to the jewish people and then to the gentiles. Just about everyone Christ knew, WAS A JEW, including the Blessed Mother, his uncle and aunt. His earthly father Joseph. The jewish people WERE the chosen people up until the time of Christ.
A theatre or circus or a show in the flesh! A holy father??? Denying Jesus Christ! Altering the word of God! "Saint - A dead sinner revised and edited.... . In other respects he was a perfect gentleman, though a fool.' "
It started by saying the NO was far too 'ordinary', then shopwed pics of the NO with clown music. Then it said it's time for something more 'extraordinary' and showed pics of the TLM & processions &c. to Handels Hallelujah Chorus. It doesn't seem to be on Youtube anymore.
Ireland's Catholics finally informed of extent of sexual abuse of their children by the representatives of the "One True Church."
"Bishop Pat Buckley said an extremely conservative estimate was that one in 10 of the 5,000 Catholic priests in Ireland enjoyed regular sex with women and some even referred to their clerical collar as the "bird catcher" ...40 per cent of the Catholic clergy in Ireland were sexually active."
Google "Hundreds of Irish Catholic priests implicated in child abuse"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actaully, the catholic church is around 300-400 years older than the bible, and it is the catholic church that decided which books go into the bible, which books don't.
@brownbigb See, yer trollin' again. I don't think you know enough about me to make that call. Religion alone is certainly not justification for calling me a moron. Fr. Stanley Jaki I'll give as an instance. Inhaling deeply from the opiate of the masses, he was also one of the more brilliant astrophysicists of his time. But you, millenarian, would bring the question of intelligence down to one apocalyptic question, whereby the whole character of a man be judged. Wouldn't you?
@NihilNominis talking to imaginary friends as a grown up should lend you in a mental institution. it is definitely a marker for intelligence. being unreasonable bcounts against your intelligence
@brownbigb See, this is why you are a troll. Start by looking up Fr. Jaki, whom I've already put forth as a counterexample. He was the first astrophysicist to suggest that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems might apply to the efforts of physicists to construct a Theory of Everything. This premise has now been adopted by Stephen Hawking, but Jaki beat him to it. Brilliant man. Also a theologian. Why a theologian? Because rational discourse about God is entirely possible.
@brownbigb Now, I don't know whether you are an old bitter troll or a young rebellious troll, or just a middle-aged disillusioned troll, but you are a troll, and unless you put some thought into your next post, I'll probably quit feeding you.
@NihilNominis there are some people that are very smart otherwise, but refuse to use their brain when it comes to wishful thinking. the only reason anyone ever has presented for a god, is the inability to explain some things. so one can be honest and say "i don't know", or dishonest, and make up things., one can be a theologan though without believing in god, simply out of fascination for the subject. btw, none of the above.
@brownbigb Must wishful thinking be wrong? As regards our desires: "I hunger. I wish this pain would go away. There must be something which fulfills it. Food!" Why not, "I lack meaning. I wish I could find it. There must be something which provides it. God!"? Meh, it's not empirical, so you won't accept it, but it is a counterexample of a different reason to posit God than the ones you gave. Whatever the case, you've admitted that you were unjustified in calling me a moron.
@NihilNominis Also, one can read theology without believing in God, but one cannot be a theologian. For if no God exists, what rational discourse is there to be had about God except simply to say, "He exists not."? That would be the whole of good theology that an atheist theologian could produce.
@NihilNominis but if that food is imaginary, is it still serving that purpose? that is the reason for faith in god, the problem of dealing with having to determine one's own meaning. but looking for such meaning in a deity is the same kind of attitude as reading a tabloid, because regular news is just too objective. i was justified in calling you a moron as much as you were in calling me a troll. i disagree with an atheist not being able to be a theologian. because the discourse is not rational.
@brownbigb You wrote "christian=idiot" (which you have now admitted a false statement) under *this* video. You are a troll. That was bait. To "determine one's own meaning" is to admit it is not objective, and to that argument I can only ask you to read Charles Taylor's work on authenticity. Specifically the 'assigned meaning' of wiggling one's toes in the mud. Apparently there is some objectivity; but whence does it come? If there is no "logos'" about God, there is no "theology".
@NihilNominis christian=idiot. they might be an idiot in other things. but in repect to believing in an imaginary daddy, who cares about what you do, that is plain nuts.
there is objectivity, but not involving one's meaning. i will read charles taylor. right now i am reading the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by julian james. very interesting. the origin of religion is basically schizophrenia.
@brownbigb Jayne's premise is interesting, but I think the Book of Psalms pretty well demolishes it. Nevertheless, why are you wasting your time talking to an idiot like me? Especially if meaning is subjective: I mean, does it matter if I assign meaning the same way you do? Why can't I find meaning in an imaginary sky-daddy? It's all subjective! (You said it).
@NihilNominis there is nothing wrong with finding meaning in an imaginary daddy.the only problem is when it is considered to be objective. if you realize that is still a subjective meaning, you can waste your life in whatever manner pleases you
It is objective. If you had studied basic philosophy you would know the simple fact that nothing can be the cause of its own change. Something cannot be both in potency and act. But there is change, meaning a change from potency to act. In philosophy this is called motion. Since all motion cannot be its own cause, it must be caused by something else. Ontologically, this goes to infinity. Therefore it is necessary that there be a First Cause, which is pure act with no potentiality. This is God.
@rumpranger65 you are right. i found jesus. i found jesus this morning. you know how people find image of jesus in chips, and chocolate bunnies, and other stuff. well i went to the bathroom in the morning, and when i got up and looked down in the bowl, it is the spitting image of jesus staring at me. and i said " now that is some holy shit"
@rumpranger65 i am going to try to get the vatican to recognize this as a true miracle, and to declare my toilet bowl as a sacred, holy place of worship, so the faithful can pilgrimage and behold the wonder that my toilet is, where a piece of shit turned into jesus.....or is it the other way around? :)
You're upset because you cannot respond to the Biblical and historical truth. You're arguing at this moment on the side of somebody who says God doesn't even exist, just to contradict me. I have not said anything in order to offend you. I've laid out the facts, both for you and this atheist, as well as responded to both of your statements, and you both avoid the evidence, change the subject, or make irrelevant and rude comments. Hardly Christian on your part, and hardly rational on his part.
@rumpranger65 you made no argument. just a special pleading. the burden of proof is on you. if you know what special pleading is, than you'd know why you don't make any sense. there is no point using reason with religion, as there is no reason in religion. and if you think there is makes you even a bigger idiot.
Special pleading? If anybody, you have done special pleading by offering an arbitrary statement exempt from philosophical rigour. I made two logical syllogisms, to which you still have yet to reply. You have not addressed any of the arguments I brought up. I have no idea where I've used special pleading. I think you are just trying to use big logical words which have no relevant application here. If I'm wrong, please be more specific. Otherwise, until you say something reasonable, I'm done.
Just to make it clear for you that I am making a logical syllogism rather than a special pleading, I'll lay out the argument very clearly.
(1) Objects are in motion (change).
(2) If something is contingently in motion it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself. (For something cannot be both in actuality and potentiality)
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers.
(4) So there is an ontological first, unmoved mover. (Who must be pure act)
@rumpranger65 you are making an exception. you are making a special pleading for the initial "unmoved mover". of course without it you have infinite regression.
in which case why make an extra unnecessary step of creating a mover? secondly we don't know what happened in the beginning, and it will not be philosophy that solves it either.
Second premise is that it be something in motion contingently. Key word: contingently. Also, it is by logical necessity that the mover be unmoved. It's the logical conclusion following from the premises. Since God is pure act , there is no potentiality, and no need for a mover for the Unmoved Mover. And we do know from science that there was a definite beginning in time to the universe. Even if there weren't, it's still ontologically necessary, or else we would not observe the effects (change).
@rumpranger65 premise 2 is an if. and a big if. you can try to force philosphy onto a god, but the fact remains. that we simply don't know. i am smart enough to be able to say "i don't know". you on the other hand can't handle it, nd rather make up fairy tales. don't use the lack of understanding as a proof of god. now let's see what you have.
@brownbigb It's really not that big of an if. The only way we can say that is to say that nothing is in motion. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't observe change in the universe? You haven't noticed anything being caused? You've never seen an effect before? That's truly absurd my friend. The syllogism still stands just as strong as ever.
@brownbigb 2 is an obvious fact. There is motion in the universe. At one point you had not written that comment, and now you have. This means there was motion (change). 3 is a self-evident truth as well. If you had an infinite regress of movers you would not observe the effect, because the cause would go back into it eternity. 4 is not an assertion or premise. It is a logically necessary conclusion. Study your logic books my friend.
@rumpranger65 no. one is a self evident truth. the rest are bare assertions. you conclusion is a bare assertion because your premises are too. btw, if one believes in god, he should not even use the word logic. doews not apply. i'll give to you that if you don't understand the beginning, and you just want a made up answer, you'd get to the deistic view. but how you could jump from deism, to christianity? makes zero sense.
@brownbigb 2 is not a bare assertion. It's an axiom. Nothing can cause itself. It's the basic principle of causality, which you should know by now. I've explained 3. I have no idea what you mean about one who believes in God not using the word logic. The majority of philosophers down the centuries have come to the conclusion that God exists. Now, since all existence is contingent, there must be a Necessary Being to sustain all existence. This makes God much more than just a deistic watchmaker..
@rumpranger65 let's play this. since your "argument" is baically a take off on the kalam, even if i grant you the 3 premises, and #4, #5 is still a dishonest answer, and is begging the question. it is a useless step, as even if you conclude motion started somewhere, (disregard energy) to conclude that the starter is god, is just syaing whatever it is you're gonna call god. herein lies your problem. in order to roove god, you have to define it. so define god first.
It's the argument ex-motu of St.Thomas Aquinas. From the argument and its logical conclusions we find the attributes of God. We learn that God is immaterial and immutable, since God must have no potency. We learn that God is infinite, in that God bridges an infinite ontological divide of nonexistence to motion. We learn that God is eternal since the idea of eternity follows immutability as the idea of time follows movement. And we learn God is perfect, since He is the first immaterial principle.
@brownbigb So it's not the Kalaam argument. That is based on the whimsies of current scientific theories. The argument ex motu is based on pure logic and accepted axioms. If you really want to deny 2, you're denying that things are caused. If you want to deny 3, you must describe in philosophical terms how we can observe the effects of an infinite regress. 4 and 5 are simply logical conclusions. As you see, we do not first define God, but rather deduce God's attributes from the proof.
@rumpranger65 talk about jumping to conclusions. as i said, we do not live in the dark ages anymore, so philosophy can not prove god. it can only prove that there are things we do not understand. but you do have to define god in order to prove it. otherwise you just sat god is what we don't know. and now you are onto something.
Yes, we come to conclusions. That's the object of a syllogism, a logical conclusion. Philosophy can no longer prove God's existence? The principles of philosophy are exactly the same as they were 800 years ago when this proof was first written in St Thomas' book. There is still motion, things are still caused to be in actuality from potentiality, and infinite regresses are still impossible. As I said, we deduce the Unmoved Mover's attributes from the argument. This is what we call God.
@rumpranger65 god is the explanation of our ignorance, or in other words that is the name we give as a reason for the things we can not understand. so god exists. god is the cumulative ignorance of an individual, or of mankind. the more evolved philosophy however is simply stating i don't know instead of it's god. god is i don't know, just a more primitive form of it.
@brownbigb Once more I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that from our logical subtraction that we know quite a bit. God is not I don't know. God is the immutable, infinite, immaterial, eternal, perfect, necessary, pure Being, that we have deduced from our syllogism. Not "I don't know" as you say.
@rumpranger65 you are inducting. where do you get perfect being? or anything else. even if i give you 4, 5 does not follow. and all the qualities you mentioned casn not be deduced from, there is an unmovable mover. of course since you are introducing infinity, why couldn't ebergy be ifinite? motion is not phylosophy, it is physics, and aquinas had no idea about what caused motion. he didn't know about the basic laws of physics, much less quantum mechanics.
Of course 5 follows from 4. God's perfection follows from His being the primal immaterial principle. Since all potentiality is imperfection, and potentiality is absent from God (as we deduced from the Unmoved Mover), God is perfect. Energy is not infinite. This is the basic empirical law of physics called the law of conservation of energy. And you haven't understood what I've been trying to make clear all along. Motion in philosophy is not defined only as movement, but as all change.
I agree, the world is not perfect. This does not mean God is imperfect. We don't identify the universe with God. To say God should create a perfect universe is to say creation should have no potentiality. But to create something with no potentiality is to create God, since God is the only Being that is pure act. However, this is impossible, because to have two Gods is to have two infinite beings. But if they were infinite they would not differ, because each encompasses infinity.
@rumpranger65 gos is i don't know. i am not saying that you don't think you can attrubute qualities to god, but in any case you are calling your own ignorance god. you are using god instead of i don't know. you don't use god to answer the things that you have an answer to. only when you can not find another answer. you can try to deduce phylosophically the origin of the universe, or the origin of change, but really you don't know. i am still curious how you make the leap to christianity.
We DO know that some perfect, infinite, immaterial, immutable, eternal and primal Being is the origin of motion. We've found this rationally. Most people call this God, but call it whatever you want. The leap from this Being to the Christian God is not far. "I AM WHO AM" describes perfectly the Being we deduce. Christianity and Judaism are the only revelations wherein God identifies his essence with his own existence. From Judaism to Christianity is a matter of study of such revelation.
@rumpranger65 now you have lost your mind. that is just mindless chatter. don't you dare to call yourself rational. just another idiot, that is going backwards. if you remember the christian god came first , then the "induction" to find it through "philosophy". you seem to forget that. the fact that there is really no proof that jesus even lived dont even bother you? have you read the mahabharata? or every other so called ancient text that is claiming god?
You're not being rational. You don't accept basic axioms or the necessary consequences of those facts. Moreover, you can't disprove any of it because it is so logical and true. I don't induce, I deduce. I did not start with Christianity, I started with reason and worked my way there. The mahabharata does not feature a God who directly reveals Himself as having as His own essence His existence. But this is the central attribute we deduce from our logic, and this is the God we find in Exodus.
@brownbigb Actually, there is proof that Jesus really existed. This is such a rediculous, stubborn debate. /// By saying that the idea of God was introduced before the existence God was disocovered by philosophical deduction is not the best arguement, since evolutionary theory works the same way. "We think evolution from one speices to another happened(s), so we're going to look for evidence proving that it really did (does) happen".
@brownbigb It's interesting how you posed that question: "proof outside the Bible that is contemporary to Jesus...". You are cherry picking, sir. You've already stated the Bible as proof, but, obviously, that isn't good enough for you. And, "contemporary" would mean that you're aware of posthumous proof, but that just isn't good enough for you either. It's generally accepted by historians that Jesus was an actual, historical person, regardless of divinity. Will any proof be good enough for you?
@TenderTrap86 i thought so. itis not generally accepted that jesus was a historical figure. much more likely it is a collection of stories attributed to one imaginary person, very much like king arthur. the fact that a lot of the jesus story is borrowed from older myths points to that as well.
@brownbigb Okay, so you're arguement is to just keep saying that there is no evidence for the historical Jesus? That's very tactful of you... /// - "the jesus story is borrowed from older myths" - Oh, no. Another zeitgeist zombie... Am I correct? PS BTW, a lot of those accusations that have been made about Christ as being a reincarnation of ancient dieties have either been greatly exagerrated or disproven entirely.
@TenderTrap86 not zeitgeist. the christ in egypt by d. m. murdock you should read it.
a lot of the acient story telling worked that way. taking many different events that happened to many different people, exaggerate them, and attribute them to mone person. since there is no independent sources available, and the gospels increase scope as they go along, it is an indication that's what happened.
@brownbigb What made you draw the conclusion that I don't read the Bible? And, oh my! Where did that "90% of Christians" "statistic" come from! Pulled it out of your ass, did you?
@TenderTrap86 you said you don't read th bible. as far as the 90%, yo can find tha on christian apologetic sites. so technically i pulled it out of your ass. it was a little difficult to get it past your head though.
@brownbigb Why are you going to Christian apolegetic sites? Why are you going to any site that has to do with Christianity at all, even if it's anti? Surely, Christianity is such a useless, stupid, ignorant, feeble intellectual aspiration it doesn't need to be reinforced by people who claim that they don't need it as a crutch. And I'd like to know which site you went to exactly and I'll find what their sources are so then I can expose you as the cafetria fact finder you are. I'm waiting...
@TenderTrap86 im atheist and i dont think that i must read all those fairytales books - old or new tetsament, koran, tipuka, etc. so if doctor wants to heal drug addict he must try drugs? lol. retards
@gaysfriend Atheism has little to do with knowing the Content of biblical books. It's difficult to make a case for their untrustworthiness or absurdity if you don't know what they Say; not what somebody else tells you they think it Means. Same with politics: I've been carping since the the early 70's that studies in Gov't are based upon Interpretive sources. There's a world of difference between the Constitution and a textbook that claims to tell you what it MEANS rather than what it SAYS.
To make it simple, to ask who caused the Uncaused Cause is a contradiction. If the first Cause is caused, it is practically not even a cause but rather an effect. It's only a participation in causality, and not a cause in itself, and it would be necessary to go back ontologically to the Uncaused Cause.
@brownbigb Try reading Aquinas. He is far smarter than I, far smarter than Julian James, and far smarter than you. Read through "De Ente et Essentia". Not to be offensive, but I think you probably wouldn't even understand it. And if you do, then you'd become a Christian, or at the least a theist. It's available free. Just do a google search and click the link of dhspriory.
@rumpranger65 if aquinas lived today, he would be an atheist. religion was the early psychological construct to repress mankinds innatre anxiety for the unknown. it is no longer necessary. btw, the argument you presented here is simply a special pleading.
@brownbigb That's just an arbitrary statement. You don't even respond to the logic. Moreover, if our origins are entirely naturalistic, we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties, and therefore no reason to believe any conclusions we come to. All you do is make lewd and sarcastic comments, rather than reply to pure reason, because you cannot. Your atheism is superstition and folly. When you at least try to make a philosophical argument then I'll reply to your comments.
@brownbigb rumpranger65 does not study for himself so ignore what he is saying. He has tried and failed miserably to prove me wrong. so Use this statement against him "So who are the heretics?! I know what I believe and I have studied to prove my self, you are living by blind faith and thus you are lost! I refuse to continue on with someone who does not study for himself! I have deleted you letter as per what the above states!I refuse to continue on with someone who does not study for himself!"
Instead, I trust you'll turn your attention with the rest of us to the real crises in Catholicism - unaccountable hierarchy covering up misdeeds; poorly-prepared and badly-delivered homilies; insufficient vocations to the priesthood, and other orders, especially among the sisters; and a general lack of Christian charity to men (and women) of goodwill. You know, things a little bit of Latin WONT solve.
You'll understand when people don't slavishly adhere to stilted renderings of Latin into English, if those translations add nothing but detract much or reverse agreed-upon translations in use by our Anglican & Lutheran brethren; or if people want to preserve the laitiys role as lectors or EMHC; or maintain parish councils & transparency over finances; or accept women in the same lay positions as men; or continue to accept other teachings from Vatican II, such as Nostra Aetate.
Those of you who gave a negative rating to rumpranger regarding his comment that the organ music was by a Protestant: Is this because you don't believe, or it's too painful to believe?
I laughed and laughed and then my eyes welled up with tears of joy that the Holy Father is bringing the ancient Mass of the Church back to us all, even to them who don't know it!
How mystical, how holy is that Mass?! Wonder!
Glory! Truth! Sacrifice! Love! Reconciliation!
Joy! Joy! Joy!
I thank Jesus, and I thank the Blessed Virgin for praying for this day.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hello, the indult mess has been around since the mid 1980's and you're just one heartbeat away from a new more modernist "pope" who gets rid of all of it.
@MysticHoly how sad that you can't find Christ in the Novus Ordo. It's sad because if you can't find Christ in that and need all the externals of the Mass of the Extraordinary Rite, you have little faith in the true sense.
My friend, before you judge the legitimacy of whether or not the new mass is valid read Quo Primum and De Defectibus by Pope St Pius V. When you have read these ex cathedra writings, reflect on them. While these thoughts about the Novus ordo are disturbing, based on these writings by this great Pope, and the change to the New Rite of Priestly Ordination by Paul VI (and in light of Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, 1896, on the invalidity of Anglican Orders), the Novus Ordo is, ipso facto, invalid
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
People, dont be fooled by this man. He is a full supporter of Vatican II's fales teachings. Under his tennure, the ConciLIAR church has signed joint agreements with Lutherans, Schizmatics and now Jews. Do a google search and find out the numerous heresies this msn has foisted on the unsuspecting Catholic.
Do NOT imply that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic. He is not. Sedevacantists are heretics and they don't even know it.
You do not trust in Jesus who said that the gates of hell shall never prevail over HIS Catholic Church. Well they have not prevailed with VII. And you think it has. Shows how mu
Indeed thank you, Holy Father. I just wish your bishops and priests were faithful to you and the magisterium. I so miss the TLM and cannot get to it. Pope Bendict is wonderful.
RichardIIfan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS FACT! The Catholic Church has always tried to keep the European as dumb possible. An example of this hiding of truth can be seen in the coverup of the Pedophile Priest and Gays that run the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, WWI, and WWII, all involve the Catholic Church manipulating, lying to, stealing from, and murdering the people of Europe. WWII is nothing but the Catholic Church and Rothschild using Ashkenazi Khazars(non-Semites/Zionist) for another Crusade.
Born2Flesh 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Catholic Church has been the greatest power in Europe for a very long time. How long do you think they have been screwing children? The Catholic church created WWII! Hitler, Nazi, and Ustashi are all Catholic Creations. Even today, the Croatian Ustashi are proud Nazi Catholics, and not ashamed to say so. Why would you take your child to a place that is known to house pedophiles? Why would you support a church that houses pedophiles, unless you are brainwashed lemming freak.
Born2Flesh 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Vatican according to the Third Secret of Fatima will be destroyed on August 17, 2011. The Dogma, the Trinity, has been replaced with the Masonic Trinity. The documents that prove the change from Our Lady, Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (the real Father) into the Lord Father/coming Lord Jesus/Holy Spirit are on FATIMAMOVEMENT d o t c o m
The Illuminati have essentially changed the three keys to heaven and humanity allowed it. The punishment from heaven is imminent..
fatimamovement 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Jesuit order has agreed to ay more than $166 million to the more than 500 victims who suffered sexual abuse when they were kids in Catholic schools in five states of the U.S. northwest, the victims’ attorney said.
Most of those affected are Indians who suffered abuse at the hands of priests in what is known as the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, which includes the states of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Montana, according to the local press.
goinghomesomeday1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
¡LARGA VIDA AL PAPA!
¡LARGA VIDA AL PAPA!
¡LARGA VIDA AL PAPA!
Joaquín.
felipegutibu 10 months ago
¡LARGA VIDA AL PAPA!
¡LARGA VIDA AL PAPA!
¡LARGA VIDA AL PAPA!
Joaquín.
felipegutibu 10 months ago
What is the name of that organ piece towards the end? That would make a good postlude!
8038mdodom 1 year ago
@8038mdodom It is "The arrival of the Queen of Sheba" by Handel.
timfinigan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
YOUTUBE. COM / WATCH? V = S1TCWKCUWWY
JOHN 6: 32-66
God bless
JezusSlave 1 year ago
NO GUITAR IN THE MASS!
Martinus512 1 year ago 9
este es un video bastante proclive a dar una valoración parcial acerca de la mala comparación de la Eucaristía.
Muestran los horrores litúrgicos que hemos visto a raíz del Concilio Vaticano II, pero no muestran de manera objetiva las bondades que trajo el AGGIORNAMENTO de s.s. Juan XXIII de feliz memoria. No muestran las grandes celebraciones eucarísticas del vaticano, de las grandes basílicas o parroquias, sino la informalidad de ciertos presbíteros al celebrar, habría que revisar de nuevo
TheYturria89 1 year ago
3 years Summorum Pontificum!
Viva il papa!
tradiwaberl1 1 year ago
"La Bellezza salverà il mondo".
padrecassiomarinho 1 year ago
0:38 the guy in purple looks like Rowan Williams
hurricaneomega 1 year ago
A pound to a penny the Pope starts a war with China!
sebreathnach 1 year ago
@sebreathnach Certainly - I'll take you up on that. I'm happy to put up 10,000 pennies if you would care to specify a date by which the war will begin. If the Pope has not started a war with China by then, you would owe me £10,000. Does that seem fair to you?
timfinigan 1 year ago
@timfinigan Not to be unfair to you, but you will observe -- even on UTube -- that the war has long since begun. At first Tibet and now the bishops after the fashion of Tertullian are stirring the pot ...
sebreathnach 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Simon, Simon, ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum. Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua". Mantenha-se firme, Santo Padre. Nós queremos ver a sua força e sua coragem. Não mude, não ceda, não perca a esperança. Du bist PETRUS. Der Heiligen Geist ist mit dir.
padrecassiomarinho 1 year ago
God bless the Pope!
madeformv7 1 year ago
Awful before 1:25, wonderful after :-)
SimplyDavid42 1 year ago
1:38 best pic
cunjoz 1 year ago
GOD HATESSS USSS ALLLL!!!!
zGriNdzTV 1 year ago
May Benedict reign for 100 years!
Ignatius212 1 year ago 21
@Ignatius212 may benedict get it in the ass for a 100 years.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@Ignatius212 CANES INFERNALES DAMNARI
frochten 1 year ago
@Ignatius212 he will die sooner, god wont help him, and there is no miracle, if u will cut popes legs it wont grow back even if all worlds catholics will pray :D
gaysfriend 11 months ago
My beliefs:
Mass should be said in vernacular so that the people may understand the Word of God itself.
However, the Church should be highly decorated, particularly the altar, (Where the miricle that is the Eucharist happens) and the tabernacle, (the throne of Jesus' body, thus decorated as such.) I see these Churches that look more like protestant churchs, with little or no decoration in the sactuary. One church I saw didn't even have a tabernacle, but shared it with the chapel.
drinaldi2000 2 years ago
@drinaldi2000 You can have the missal with translation to latin and undestand. We need to recover the beautiful lingua franca.
ixtoc999 2 years ago
@ixtoc999 God understands all languages, does He not? What different does Latin or English make?
drinaldi2000 1 year ago
@drinaldi2000 Latin is the lingua franca, universal language and not difficult to understand. Even the devil undestands it.
ixtoc999 1 year ago
Fool......have you ever been to a Tridentine Rite Latin Mass? The Gospel is read in both Latin and English. Please only post what you know to be the truth, you ecclesiastical liberal.
latinmass9000 2 years ago
@latinmass9000 I have seen a tridintine mass and I only heard a one minute long homily after the LATIN gospel. That is the only english in there.
drinaldi2000 1 year ago
I am a man who has studied the mass for years. I am a seminarian. Just because you disagree does not make me wrong. I have studied under great theologians and I will not go against them based on the opinions of unsatisfied Laymen.
drinaldi2000 1 year ago
@drinaldi2000 The mess is too great to be in denial. Boff, Suenens, Teilhard de Chardin, Rahner, Küng, Bugnini and the infiltrators in the church have made their damage. Sexual abuse, USA, Ireland, England and now Germany. Jesuits, corrupted, Dominicans corrupted, US Catholic Bishops corrupted, the stink is beginnig to get to Heavens.
ixtoc999 1 year ago
If you truely believe what you have just said, then you have no faith in the Roman Catholic Church, it's ways, and it's beliefs and therefore are not worthy to call yourself Catholic. Catholic means univernal, which we cannot be if we say mass every day in a dead language. Embrace change. Change is why Christ came into the world.
drinaldi2000 1 year ago
@drinaldi2000 You may have fallen to the new Arrianism, the modernism, sum of all heressies. And you know this struggle is eternal. Prelates have grown comfortable in their posts, "careerism" , the Pope called it. They are more interested in that than in he salvation of souls.
ixtoc999 1 year ago
This is a response to KAMIKAZR:
Your most precious Martin Luther doesn't have time to fume because he is too busy roasting on a spit in Hell. BOO HOO get over yourself you stupid protestant fool, you and your precious Lutheran Church are all damned, enjoy your trip, bon voyage!!
TheSacredHeart2 2 years ago
Grazie...
MrPiemonteseDOC 2 years ago
Si,gracie Padre! Tu sei veramente Benedictus!!!!!!!!!!!! Benedictus qui venit in Nomine Domini!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jame243 2 years ago
If Martin Luther were alive today and witnessed this, he would be angry............no, he would be FURIOUS.
He would mention: "Follow the laws of men, and you get this heretical nonsense.............follow Christ, you get the TRUTH."
Martin Luther would be absolutely fuming if he were to see what has taken place...............
..................and this is due to following the pope, who is a man, and not Christ - who is TRUTH.
Lutheran services contain the truth.
KAMIKAZR 2 years ago
This is a Catholic video. Don't spread your lies.
latinmass9000 2 years ago
If Martin Luther were alive today, and saw this, he would be absolutely angry.
I know he would be, and he would say "this is due to those following the laws of men - follow man, and you get this nonsense."
Lutheran services are quieter than this, and in a Lutheran service, there is no "fun and games" as is shown in here.
KAMIKAZR 2 years ago
Thats all that goes on. "Fun and games" and feel good services. That's not what Christ intended.
latinmass9000 2 years ago
@latinmass9000 then what did He intend? Masses that the people did not understand? Congregations not being able to pray with the priest, only listen? He gave all of his people active ministry, Catholics are not meant to whach, but to participate.
drinaldi2000 1 year ago
hha. Happy days tune.. hhaa
Jersusalem was a test place. I say this now as it is obviouse God left that place many years ago, due to mans failure to understand his message. Now look at it. Barron, Dry, and Lifeless. Its been a warzone ever since his arrival. Don't forget the place was pointed out by nothing more than A Man. The holey land moves around just as we do through time. You only need to look with your heart to realise im right.
MrWombatPPC 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
see the miracles!
mostholyfamilymonastery (dot) com / watch_our_videos_3 (dot)php
cfh99nyc 2 years ago
1:41 ... is that at St. Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh? Looks really familiar!
rickpitt49 2 years ago
Summorum Pontificum: 2 Years today!
TE DEUM LADAMUS!!!!
dacatholicbandorgan 2 years ago 8
Nescio linguam vestram, sed dico vobis optimum laborem fecisse!
Sancta Missa Tridentina vivat in aeternum
Oscar3460 2 years ago 3
Periucundae fuerunt mihi litterae tuae et gratias tibi refero
timfinigan 2 years ago
I most thankful to you Holy father. I am young and yet I have the heart for the trdition of the Church. This may be a gift from God, to be different. God bless you Holy father. May the church be one.
fatimajoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, there is a MAJOR difference between this Catholic celebration, and a Lutheran service.
There is still the elevation of the bread and wine in here, and the vestments. Holy candle shown, and yes, Confession to a priest.
Lutheran services teach the absolute TRUTH, whereas Catholic Masses - both English and Latin, promote salvation by works............I have been to both a Latin and an English Mass........
NOTHING LIKE A LUTHERAN SERVICE!!!
KAMIKAZR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Danger Jesus is the end times false Christ we were warned was coming. Jesus is the Antichrist. I'll pay anyone $5000 cash if Jesus was Christs name. Jesus Is Esus a Satanic God. Search the net for Djice9 for the truth facts and results. Christs name was Yahshua which means Yahweh is Salvation in Hebrew. Just as Hallaluyah in Hebrew means give praise to YAHWEH. PLEASE REPOST!
FelixChosenByYahweh 2 years ago
I'm not arguing for the term Jew, i'm arguing for the fact that Jesus was Jewish.
huskerfreak22 2 years ago
There were Jewish people outside of Jerusalem. Just because he did not live there does not mean he was not Jewish! Thats the silliest argument i'v ever heard! I never anywhere said that Jesus was not from Galilee thats silly to believe he wasn't, but it is just as silly to think he wasn't Jewish, considering he was sent as their Messiah. Not only that he quoted multiple times from the Old Testament.
huskerfreak22 2 years ago
Alright Jesus was Jewish. How can you deny this with things like the presentation in THE TEMPLE where Mary had to be cleansed (according to Jewish law), or how about the passover a Jewish tradition coming from the Exodus. Jesus himself said do what they say and not what they do when referring to the Jewish high priests.
huskerfreak22 2 years ago
Yes the entire Gospel is about love. Christ himself was a Jew! He told his apostles to first preach to the jewish people and then to the gentiles. Just about everyone Christ knew, WAS A JEW, including the Blessed Mother, his uncle and aunt. His earthly father Joseph. The jewish people WERE the chosen people up until the time of Christ.
huskerfreak22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matthew 23:9 AND CALL NO MAN YOUR FATHER UPON THE EARTH;FOR ONE IS YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN
rgbaysa 2 years ago
Christ preached love, even of the Jewish people.
huskerfreak22 2 years ago
A theatre or circus or a show in the flesh! A holy father??? Denying Jesus Christ! Altering the word of God! "Saint - A dead sinner revised and edited.... . In other respects he was a perfect gentleman, though a fool.' "
missionoc 2 years ago
There used to be another video like this.
It started by saying the NO was far too 'ordinary', then shopwed pics of the NO with clown music. Then it said it's time for something more 'extraordinary' and showed pics of the TLM & processions &c. to Handels Hallelujah Chorus. It doesn't seem to be on Youtube anymore.
Does anyone know what this video was called?
162ALAN162 2 years ago
... What. The. Hell. Were those photographs of 1970's Masses?!
Wow, how reverent to the Creator Incarnate. Sitting in a folding chair and letting people strum and croon at Him. D<
So... thank you, Your Holiness. You're bringin' coolness back. Keep it up.
Aniretak205 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ireland's Catholics finally informed of extent of sexual abuse of their children by the representatives of the "One True Church."
"Bishop Pat Buckley said an extremely conservative estimate was that one in 10 of the 5,000 Catholic priests in Ireland enjoyed regular sex with women and some even referred to their clerical collar as the "bird catcher" ...40 per cent of the Catholic clergy in Ireland were sexually active."
Google "Hundreds of Irish Catholic priests implicated in child abuse"
Rayosun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god doesn't exist.
mexicantaco12 2 years ago
I know for sure He does..
And the Blessed Virgin Mary as well.
deutscheseele 2 years ago
Comment removed
Blablaballar 2 years ago
If love exists. God exists... because God = Love
TheEcumenator 2 years ago 2
lol thats a quote, and it makes no sence lol how is god love wtf.
mexicantaco12 2 years ago
you clearly are arguing for something you have no idea...
TheEcumenator 2 years ago
u also have no idea, that was the worst explanation of god i have ever heard.
mexicantaco12 2 years ago
you clearly never felt in love...
I pitty you
TheEcumenator 2 years ago
1:41 - This looks an awful lot like St. Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. Anyone else confirm? I didn't know they still performed Latin Mass there...
rickpitt49 2 years ago
great! =)
cardwell222 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Bible does not mention anything about Pope's.
The Bible clearly states that one must not call anyone but one's father 'father'
The Bible does not mention purgatory
The Bible clearly states 'No one shall forbid Jesus' people from marrying in the eyes of god.
The Bible does not mention nuns
The Bible tells you 'not to worship false idols, or anyone but God'
The Bible tells us not to worship Images.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is almighty and is in heaven
CATHOLICISM PROMOTES SIN
thomaslincoln22 2 years ago
The Bible doesn't mention anything about thumping it.
The Bible doesn't mention anything about Redneck tele-evangelists.
The Bible doesn't mention anything about Christian rock.
The Bible doesn't mention anything about Luther,Calvin orZwingli.
The Bible wasn't written in the BibleBelt.
The Bible was around for 1500 years before there were Protestants and incidently,so was the Catholic Church.
NONDENOMINATIONAL, CONFERENCE OF 1972, ANABAPTIST, CALVOFUNDAMENTALIST PRESBYLUTHERANS ARE IDIOTS.
pmdazzle 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actaully, the catholic church is around 300-400 years older than the bible, and it is the catholic church that decided which books go into the bible, which books don't.
marahbadrian 2 years ago
@pmdazzle : They may well be idiots, but they are also christians, our separated brethen and we must respect them and guide them to the Truth.
We must make a distinction between our brethen and their heresies.
C2209w 1 year ago
@C2209w christians=idiots. same thing. what truth? do you know the truth?
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Est vir qui adest.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis ok pilatus. now try making some sense.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Naw; yer justa troll.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis nope. just not a moron like you
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb See, yer trollin' again. I don't think you know enough about me to make that call. Religion alone is certainly not justification for calling me a moron. Fr. Stanley Jaki I'll give as an instance. Inhaling deeply from the opiate of the masses, he was also one of the more brilliant astrophysicists of his time. But you, millenarian, would bring the question of intelligence down to one apocalyptic question, whereby the whole character of a man be judged. Wouldn't you?
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis talking to imaginary friends as a grown up should lend you in a mental institution. it is definitely a marker for intelligence. being unreasonable bcounts against your intelligence
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb See, this is why you are a troll. Start by looking up Fr. Jaki, whom I've already put forth as a counterexample. He was the first astrophysicist to suggest that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems might apply to the efforts of physicists to construct a Theory of Everything. This premise has now been adopted by Stephen Hawking, but Jaki beat him to it. Brilliant man. Also a theologian. Why a theologian? Because rational discourse about God is entirely possible.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@brownbigb Now, I don't know whether you are an old bitter troll or a young rebellious troll, or just a middle-aged disillusioned troll, but you are a troll, and unless you put some thought into your next post, I'll probably quit feeding you.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis there are some people that are very smart otherwise, but refuse to use their brain when it comes to wishful thinking. the only reason anyone ever has presented for a god, is the inability to explain some things. so one can be honest and say "i don't know", or dishonest, and make up things., one can be a theologan though without believing in god, simply out of fascination for the subject. btw, none of the above.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Must wishful thinking be wrong? As regards our desires: "I hunger. I wish this pain would go away. There must be something which fulfills it. Food!" Why not, "I lack meaning. I wish I could find it. There must be something which provides it. God!"? Meh, it's not empirical, so you won't accept it, but it is a counterexample of a different reason to posit God than the ones you gave. Whatever the case, you've admitted that you were unjustified in calling me a moron.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis Also, one can read theology without believing in God, but one cannot be a theologian. For if no God exists, what rational discourse is there to be had about God except simply to say, "He exists not."? That would be the whole of good theology that an atheist theologian could produce.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis but if that food is imaginary, is it still serving that purpose? that is the reason for faith in god, the problem of dealing with having to determine one's own meaning. but looking for such meaning in a deity is the same kind of attitude as reading a tabloid, because regular news is just too objective. i was justified in calling you a moron as much as you were in calling me a troll. i disagree with an atheist not being able to be a theologian. because the discourse is not rational.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb You wrote "christian=idiot" (which you have now admitted a false statement) under *this* video. You are a troll. That was bait. To "determine one's own meaning" is to admit it is not objective, and to that argument I can only ask you to read Charles Taylor's work on authenticity. Specifically the 'assigned meaning' of wiggling one's toes in the mud. Apparently there is some objectivity; but whence does it come? If there is no "logos'" about God, there is no "theology".
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis christian=idiot. they might be an idiot in other things. but in repect to believing in an imaginary daddy, who cares about what you do, that is plain nuts.
there is objectivity, but not involving one's meaning. i will read charles taylor. right now i am reading the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by julian james. very interesting. the origin of religion is basically schizophrenia.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Jayne's premise is interesting, but I think the Book of Psalms pretty well demolishes it. Nevertheless, why are you wasting your time talking to an idiot like me? Especially if meaning is subjective: I mean, does it matter if I assign meaning the same way you do? Why can't I find meaning in an imaginary sky-daddy? It's all subjective! (You said it).
NihilNominis 1 year ago
@NihilNominis there is nothing wrong with finding meaning in an imaginary daddy.the only problem is when it is considered to be objective. if you realize that is still a subjective meaning, you can waste your life in whatever manner pleases you
brownbigb 1 year ago
It is objective. If you had studied basic philosophy you would know the simple fact that nothing can be the cause of its own change. Something cannot be both in potency and act. But there is change, meaning a change from potency to act. In philosophy this is called motion. Since all motion cannot be its own cause, it must be caused by something else. Ontologically, this goes to infinity. Therefore it is necessary that there be a First Cause, which is pure act with no potentiality. This is God.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 you are right. i found jesus. i found jesus this morning. you know how people find image of jesus in chips, and chocolate bunnies, and other stuff. well i went to the bathroom in the morning, and when i got up and looked down in the bowl, it is the spitting image of jesus staring at me. and i said " now that is some holy shit"
brownbigb 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 i am going to try to get the vatican to recognize this as a true miracle, and to declare my toilet bowl as a sacred, holy place of worship, so the faithful can pilgrimage and behold the wonder that my toilet is, where a piece of shit turned into jesus.....or is it the other way around? :)
brownbigb 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 You do not even know logic!
MenechemShaul 1 year ago
You're upset because you cannot respond to the Biblical and historical truth. You're arguing at this moment on the side of somebody who says God doesn't even exist, just to contradict me. I have not said anything in order to offend you. I've laid out the facts, both for you and this atheist, as well as responded to both of your statements, and you both avoid the evidence, change the subject, or make irrelevant and rude comments. Hardly Christian on your part, and hardly rational on his part.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 you made no argument. just a special pleading. the burden of proof is on you. if you know what special pleading is, than you'd know why you don't make any sense. there is no point using reason with religion, as there is no reason in religion. and if you think there is makes you even a bigger idiot.
brownbigb 1 year ago
Special pleading? If anybody, you have done special pleading by offering an arbitrary statement exempt from philosophical rigour. I made two logical syllogisms, to which you still have yet to reply. You have not addressed any of the arguments I brought up. I have no idea where I've used special pleading. I think you are just trying to use big logical words which have no relevant application here. If I'm wrong, please be more specific. Otherwise, until you say something reasonable, I'm done.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
Just to make it clear for you that I am making a logical syllogism rather than a special pleading, I'll lay out the argument very clearly.
(1) Objects are in motion (change).
(2) If something is contingently in motion it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself. (For something cannot be both in actuality and potentiality)
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers.
(4) So there is an ontological first, unmoved mover. (Who must be pure act)
(5) Therefore, God exists.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 you are making an exception. you are making a special pleading for the initial "unmoved mover". of course without it you have infinite regression.
in which case why make an extra unnecessary step of creating a mover? secondly we don't know what happened in the beginning, and it will not be philosophy that solves it either.
brownbigb 1 year ago
Second premise is that it be something in motion contingently. Key word: contingently. Also, it is by logical necessity that the mover be unmoved. It's the logical conclusion following from the premises. Since God is pure act , there is no potentiality, and no need for a mover for the Unmoved Mover. And we do know from science that there was a definite beginning in time to the universe. Even if there weren't, it's still ontologically necessary, or else we would not observe the effects (change).
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 premise 2 is an if. and a big if. you can try to force philosphy onto a god, but the fact remains. that we simply don't know. i am smart enough to be able to say "i don't know". you on the other hand can't handle it, nd rather make up fairy tales. don't use the lack of understanding as a proof of god. now let's see what you have.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb It's really not that big of an if. The only way we can say that is to say that nothing is in motion. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't observe change in the universe? You haven't noticed anything being caused? You've never seen an effect before? That's truly absurd my friend. The syllogism still stands just as strong as ever.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 i give you premise 1. but 2-4 are bare assertions. so no, it does not stand strong.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb 2 is an obvious fact. There is motion in the universe. At one point you had not written that comment, and now you have. This means there was motion (change). 3 is a self-evident truth as well. If you had an infinite regress of movers you would not observe the effect, because the cause would go back into it eternity. 4 is not an assertion or premise. It is a logically necessary conclusion. Study your logic books my friend.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 no. one is a self evident truth. the rest are bare assertions. you conclusion is a bare assertion because your premises are too. btw, if one believes in god, he should not even use the word logic. doews not apply. i'll give to you that if you don't understand the beginning, and you just want a made up answer, you'd get to the deistic view. but how you could jump from deism, to christianity? makes zero sense.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb 2 is not a bare assertion. It's an axiom. Nothing can cause itself. It's the basic principle of causality, which you should know by now. I've explained 3. I have no idea what you mean about one who believes in God not using the word logic. The majority of philosophers down the centuries have come to the conclusion that God exists. Now, since all existence is contingent, there must be a Necessary Being to sustain all existence. This makes God much more than just a deistic watchmaker..
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 let's play this. since your "argument" is baically a take off on the kalam, even if i grant you the 3 premises, and #4, #5 is still a dishonest answer, and is begging the question. it is a useless step, as even if you conclude motion started somewhere, (disregard energy) to conclude that the starter is god, is just syaing whatever it is you're gonna call god. herein lies your problem. in order to roove god, you have to define it. so define god first.
brownbigb 1 year ago
It's the argument ex-motu of St.Thomas Aquinas. From the argument and its logical conclusions we find the attributes of God. We learn that God is immaterial and immutable, since God must have no potency. We learn that God is infinite, in that God bridges an infinite ontological divide of nonexistence to motion. We learn that God is eternal since the idea of eternity follows immutability as the idea of time follows movement. And we learn God is perfect, since He is the first immaterial principle.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 interesting. you just said the argument ex motu
came first then christianity. i was not aware of that. hmm......
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Yep. It was first expounded by Aristotle about 350 years before Christianity.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@brownbigb So it's not the Kalaam argument. That is based on the whimsies of current scientific theories. The argument ex motu is based on pure logic and accepted axioms. If you really want to deny 2, you're denying that things are caused. If you want to deny 3, you must describe in philosophical terms how we can observe the effects of an infinite regress. 4 and 5 are simply logical conclusions. As you see, we do not first define God, but rather deduce God's attributes from the proof.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 talk about jumping to conclusions. as i said, we do not live in the dark ages anymore, so philosophy can not prove god. it can only prove that there are things we do not understand. but you do have to define god in order to prove it. otherwise you just sat god is what we don't know. and now you are onto something.
i can prove god exists.
brownbigb 1 year ago
Yes, we come to conclusions. That's the object of a syllogism, a logical conclusion. Philosophy can no longer prove God's existence? The principles of philosophy are exactly the same as they were 800 years ago when this proof was first written in St Thomas' book. There is still motion, things are still caused to be in actuality from potentiality, and infinite regresses are still impossible. As I said, we deduce the Unmoved Mover's attributes from the argument. This is what we call God.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 god is the explanation of our ignorance, or in other words that is the name we give as a reason for the things we can not understand. so god exists. god is the cumulative ignorance of an individual, or of mankind. the more evolved philosophy however is simply stating i don't know instead of it's god. god is i don't know, just a more primitive form of it.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Once more I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that from our logical subtraction that we know quite a bit. God is not I don't know. God is the immutable, infinite, immaterial, eternal, perfect, necessary, pure Being, that we have deduced from our syllogism. Not "I don't know" as you say.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 you are inducting. where do you get perfect being? or anything else. even if i give you 4, 5 does not follow. and all the qualities you mentioned casn not be deduced from, there is an unmovable mover. of course since you are introducing infinity, why couldn't ebergy be ifinite? motion is not phylosophy, it is physics, and aquinas had no idea about what caused motion. he didn't know about the basic laws of physics, much less quantum mechanics.
brownbigb 1 year ago
Of course 5 follows from 4. God's perfection follows from His being the primal immaterial principle. Since all potentiality is imperfection, and potentiality is absent from God (as we deduced from the Unmoved Mover), God is perfect. Energy is not infinite. This is the basic empirical law of physics called the law of conservation of energy. And you haven't understood what I've been trying to make clear all along. Motion in philosophy is not defined only as movement, but as all change.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 what we know about how energy works today, and what happened in the beginning could be very different.
as far as change, what we do know thqt change is a constant. god is perfect, but is a source of an imperfect world? that means it is not perfect.
brownbigb 1 year ago
I agree, the world is not perfect. This does not mean God is imperfect. We don't identify the universe with God. To say God should create a perfect universe is to say creation should have no potentiality. But to create something with no potentiality is to create God, since God is the only Being that is pure act. However, this is impossible, because to have two Gods is to have two infinite beings. But if they were infinite they would not differ, because each encompasses infinity.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 gos is i don't know. i am not saying that you don't think you can attrubute qualities to god, but in any case you are calling your own ignorance god. you are using god instead of i don't know. you don't use god to answer the things that you have an answer to. only when you can not find another answer. you can try to deduce phylosophically the origin of the universe, or the origin of change, but really you don't know. i am still curious how you make the leap to christianity.
brownbigb 1 year ago
We DO know that some perfect, infinite, immaterial, immutable, eternal and primal Being is the origin of motion. We've found this rationally. Most people call this God, but call it whatever you want. The leap from this Being to the Christian God is not far. "I AM WHO AM" describes perfectly the Being we deduce. Christianity and Judaism are the only revelations wherein God identifies his essence with his own existence. From Judaism to Christianity is a matter of study of such revelation.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 now you have lost your mind. that is just mindless chatter. don't you dare to call yourself rational. just another idiot, that is going backwards. if you remember the christian god came first , then the "induction" to find it through "philosophy". you seem to forget that. the fact that there is really no proof that jesus even lived dont even bother you? have you read the mahabharata? or every other so called ancient text that is claiming god?
brownbigb 1 year ago
You're not being rational. You don't accept basic axioms or the necessary consequences of those facts. Moreover, you can't disprove any of it because it is so logical and true. I don't induce, I deduce. I did not start with Christianity, I started with reason and worked my way there. The mahabharata does not feature a God who directly reveals Himself as having as His own essence His existence. But this is the central attribute we deduce from our logic, and this is the God we find in Exodus.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@brownbigb Actually, there is proof that Jesus really existed. This is such a rediculous, stubborn debate. /// By saying that the idea of God was introduced before the existence God was disocovered by philosophical deduction is not the best arguement, since evolutionary theory works the same way. "We think evolution from one speices to another happened(s), so we're going to look for evidence proving that it really did (does) happen".
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 i'd like to know what proof outside of the bible, that is contemporary to jesus, exists of his existence.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb It's interesting how you posed that question: "proof outside the Bible that is contemporary to Jesus...". You are cherry picking, sir. You've already stated the Bible as proof, but, obviously, that isn't good enough for you. And, "contemporary" would mean that you're aware of posthumous proof, but that just isn't good enough for you either. It's generally accepted by historians that Jesus was an actual, historical person, regardless of divinity. Will any proof be good enough for you?
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 i thought so. itis not generally accepted that jesus was a historical figure. much more likely it is a collection of stories attributed to one imaginary person, very much like king arthur. the fact that a lot of the jesus story is borrowed from older myths points to that as well.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Okay, so you're arguement is to just keep saying that there is no evidence for the historical Jesus? That's very tactful of you... /// - "the jesus story is borrowed from older myths" - Oh, no. Another zeitgeist zombie... Am I correct? PS BTW, a lot of those accusations that have been made about Christ as being a reincarnation of ancient dieties have either been greatly exagerrated or disproven entirely.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 not zeitgeist. the christ in egypt by d. m. murdock you should read it.
a lot of the acient story telling worked that way. taking many different events that happened to many different people, exaggerate them, and attribute them to mone person. since there is no independent sources available, and the gospels increase scope as they go along, it is an indication that's what happened.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb I don't read second hand sources for information. And, again, all those "parallels have been greatly exaggerated or disproven entirely.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 so you don't read the bible. that is good. you fall in with 90% of christians then.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb What made you draw the conclusion that I don't read the Bible? And, oh my! Where did that "90% of Christians" "statistic" come from! Pulled it out of your ass, did you?
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 you said you don't read th bible. as far as the 90%, yo can find tha on christian apologetic sites. so technically i pulled it out of your ass. it was a little difficult to get it past your head though.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Why are you going to Christian apolegetic sites? Why are you going to any site that has to do with Christianity at all, even if it's anti? Surely, Christianity is such a useless, stupid, ignorant, feeble intellectual aspiration it doesn't need to be reinforced by people who claim that they don't need it as a crutch. And I'd like to know which site you went to exactly and I'll find what their sources are so then I can expose you as the cafetria fact finder you are. I'm waiting...
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 im atheist and i dont think that i must read all those fairytales books - old or new tetsament, koran, tipuka, etc. so if doctor wants to heal drug addict he must try drugs? lol. retards
gaysfriend 11 months ago
@gaysfriend What in the bloody hell are you talking about?
TenderTrap86 11 months ago
@gaysfriend Atheism has little to do with knowing the Content of biblical books. It's difficult to make a case for their untrustworthiness or absurdity if you don't know what they Say; not what somebody else tells you they think it Means. Same with politics: I've been carping since the the early 70's that studies in Gov't are based upon Interpretive sources. There's a world of difference between the Constitution and a textbook that claims to tell you what it MEANS rather than what it SAYS.
UlfenDaddy 10 months ago
To make it simple, to ask who caused the Uncaused Cause is a contradiction. If the first Cause is caused, it is practically not even a cause but rather an effect. It's only a participation in causality, and not a cause in itself, and it would be necessary to go back ontologically to the Uncaused Cause.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@brownbigb Try reading Aquinas. He is far smarter than I, far smarter than Julian James, and far smarter than you. Read through "De Ente et Essentia". Not to be offensive, but I think you probably wouldn't even understand it. And if you do, then you'd become a Christian, or at the least a theist. It's available free. Just do a google search and click the link of dhspriory.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 if aquinas lived today, he would be an atheist. religion was the early psychological construct to repress mankinds innatre anxiety for the unknown. it is no longer necessary. btw, the argument you presented here is simply a special pleading.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb That's just an arbitrary statement. You don't even respond to the logic. Moreover, if our origins are entirely naturalistic, we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties, and therefore no reason to believe any conclusions we come to. All you do is make lewd and sarcastic comments, rather than reply to pure reason, because you cannot. Your atheism is superstition and folly. When you at least try to make a philosophical argument then I'll reply to your comments.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brownbigb rumpranger65 does not study for himself so ignore what he is saying. He has tried and failed miserably to prove me wrong. so Use this statement against him "So who are the heretics?! I know what I believe and I have studied to prove my self, you are living by blind faith and thus you are lost! I refuse to continue on with someone who does not study for himself! I have deleted you letter as per what the above states!I refuse to continue on with someone who does not study for himself!"
MenechemShaul 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 Anyone is Smarter than you!
MenechemShaul 1 year ago
Pt 4.
Instead, I trust you'll turn your attention with the rest of us to the real crises in Catholicism - unaccountable hierarchy covering up misdeeds; poorly-prepared and badly-delivered homilies; insufficient vocations to the priesthood, and other orders, especially among the sisters; and a general lack of Christian charity to men (and women) of goodwill. You know, things a little bit of Latin WONT solve.
Pax Christi, Matthew
MattDCnMD 2 years ago
Pt 3.
You'll understand when people don't slavishly adhere to stilted renderings of Latin into English, if those translations add nothing but detract much or reverse agreed-upon translations in use by our Anglican & Lutheran brethren; or if people want to preserve the laitiys role as lectors or EMHC; or maintain parish councils & transparency over finances; or accept women in the same lay positions as men; or continue to accept other teachings from Vatican II, such as Nostra Aetate.
MattDCnMD 2 years ago
The clear answer is:Tridentine Mass! Anyone that doesn't like can join the Episcopalians.
xplund 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wierd dress code these catholics are as bad as the muslims
jayeff49 3 years ago
Well Jesus wore robes so I mean.. lol Go catholics and happy days!!
RockyBalboa211 3 years ago 3
I think it is worse down under... they smear mud on themselves or plainly running around naked. Frigging
kangooroos.
SanJuana1985 3 years ago
Hey..........the priest sitting down in the very beginning of this, watching the girls dance, looks EXTREMELY familiar !!!
KAMIKAZR 3 years ago
Those of you who gave a negative rating to rumpranger regarding his comment that the organ music was by a Protestant: Is this because you don't believe, or it's too painful to believe?
TrackerAction 3 years ago
haha I'm not even protestant, it's just a fact...I don't even know why that would make some people mad. Pax vobiscum.
rumpranger75 3 years ago
The whole novus ordo mass IS protestant.
xplund 3 years ago
If its in Latin, it is almost certainly NOT protestant.
cardwell222 2 years ago
Deo gratias pro Pontefice nostro Benedicto...
thanks for the Post Father Finigan.
mikiroony 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting that the organ piece is by a protestant..lol
rumpranger75 3 years ago
hahaha, BC (best comment)
stennea 3 years ago
Happy day indeed!! NO MORE NOVUS ORDO! Thanks Holy Father! Funny video!
doway1609 3 years ago 13
I laughed and laughed and then my eyes welled up with tears of joy that the Holy Father is bringing the ancient Mass of the Church back to us all, even to them who don't know it!
How mystical, how holy is that Mass?! Wonder!
Glory! Truth! Sacrifice! Love! Reconciliation!
Joy! Joy! Joy!
I thank Jesus, and I thank the Blessed Virgin for praying for this day.
MysticHoly 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hello, the indult mess has been around since the mid 1980's and you're just one heartbeat away from a new more modernist "pope" who gets rid of all of it.
wjweigand 3 years ago
@MysticHoly how sad that you can't find Christ in the Novus Ordo. It's sad because if you can't find Christ in that and need all the externals of the Mass of the Extraordinary Rite, you have little faith in the true sense.
gracestephanie 1 year ago
SATURDAY! WHAT A DAY!!
rumpranger75 3 years ago
My friend, before you judge the legitimacy of whether or not the new mass is valid read Quo Primum and De Defectibus by Pope St Pius V. When you have read these ex cathedra writings, reflect on them. While these thoughts about the Novus ordo are disturbing, based on these writings by this great Pope, and the change to the New Rite of Priestly Ordination by Paul VI (and in light of Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, 1896, on the invalidity of Anglican Orders), the Novus Ordo is, ipso facto, invalid
Raven0065 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People, dont be fooled by this man. He is a full supporter of Vatican II's fales teachings. Under his tennure, the ConciLIAR church has signed joint agreements with Lutherans, Schizmatics and now Jews. Do a google search and find out the numerous heresies this msn has foisted on the unsuspecting Catholic.
wjweigand 3 years ago
Do NOT imply that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic. He is not. Sedevacantists are heretics and they don't even know it.
You do not trust in Jesus who said that the gates of hell shall never prevail over HIS Catholic Church. Well they have not prevailed with VII. And you think it has. Shows how mu