Видео

You love to see it. This is great.

Very insightful

It seems like you guys maybe wanted a comment? I'd like to share my perspective as an involuntarily childless married ex-Catholic. We left the church around a decade ago but still have family members and friends "on the inside" lol. Wife and I were devout Catholics and got married at age 22, and we have always been "open to life." We were destined (unknowingly) to never have children because of a very rare and random genetic disease that makes conception impossible. Anyway, I think this state of affairs has unavoidably colored my perception of life, love, meaning, desire, fulfillment, grief, and virtually every other aspect of my subjective experience of life. Not being able to have what you think you want, on any level, can certainly cause grief. We could conceptualize grief as a kind of misplaced or frustrated love, sure. I think of it more as an illusion and a forgetfulness. The truth is, I have no idea what our theoretical children and possible family would have been. I want to assume it would have been amazing and wonderful and beautiful and that we are missing out on all the things that make life most worth living, but I don't actually know that. It's also fully possible we are avoiding depths of misery, anxiety, pain, and despair that are impossible for non-parents to imagine. We really can't say with certainty that we should suffer and grieve the absence of a perceived good. There are people who have the things we want, like wealth, health, success, recognition, happy families, artistic creativity, beauty, friendships, whatever...and they are still unhappy. There are others who lack the things we have and assume are the foundation of our own happiness, and yet they are still happy as well! I have come to think that true joy and happiness lies not in having what you want, but in wanting what you have. I haven't even thought to pray, not only because I don't think there is anyone who is listening, but because I accept and embrace the life I have instead of a different life I could imagine in theory. I don't want to forget and ignore the abundance of good things I have in the present moment and right in front of me so I can instead grieve over my imagined lack of other perceived good things. I spend no time at all grieving the fact that I was not born Japanese, or a billionaire, or an astronaut, or a professional baseball player, or literally anything else, including being a father, because it's pointless and would dampen my enjoyment of my actual life as me.

I appreciate all your sincerity, but you all come off deaf to the reality MANY, possibly most people experience. First, you all met your spouses under ideal circumstances, which VERY FEW people can experience. Of course it’s doable to meet a Catholic spouse at a Catholic university or at a Catholic organization. It just isn’t what most people, even in a place like the USA can experience. Second, you really don’t get how people’s life experiences change the reality they live in. Think of a girl who was molested by a relative. She struggles with constant anxiety and fear, even as an adult. The whole world feels dangerous. She struggles just to be “ok” on a normal day, and often turns to addictive means to cope. Life feels miserable. So, of course when life seems so bad she may not want to bring a child into the world only to suffer the way she did - at least how it seems to her. She’ll try to make the most of it with her partner trying to be happy. She’s not being “selfish.” She’s making the most kind decision she can. It may be wrong, but it seems like the most right thing to her. There are countless similar examples of how trauma and deprivation can impact people. They’re often too ashamed to be open about these things, but it’s what’s at work under the surface. There’s just so much more to all of this. Some people have been through Hell, and it needs to be acknowledged with compassion and understanding, even if they’re making decisions which are wrong.

Anton is the man! Great reflection on being the culture in your marriage!

Yes I was thinking the same thing!

Holy Glory Alleluia 🌾🌹❣️☘️🍀💞💓🌵❤️🌸💕🌷🍁🙏💗🌴🎄☺️🌲🌺🌿🪻💐🏵️🪴🌳🍃🏡🪷🌼💗🙏

I have been down to JMT Hermitage in Ark and spent two 3 day retreats there . One 25 yrs ago and one 2 yrs ago and both beautiful Spirit filled Retreats. I went in the Autumn both times and it’s glorious with the foliage that time of year. Accommodations are lovely , peaceful and the food is Fabulous!!! People from all around US were there and I hope to go again one day . Mimi

He might be a Catholic saint one day!

John Michael is a great preacher. Some people are just more spiritual than others.

This is amazing

A deep 5 on the scale of relevance. Thank you!

Love it!

Thanks for having me on!

Hey 👋 I am kinda down. My mother in law told my wife there’s something wrong with me. That cuts deep because it makes me wonder what if she’s right ? I only make $50,000 in a dead end job, and have no ability to make friends despite much volunteering. I told my wife if she wants to leave let’s just get it over with. She denies she will of course. And I don’t think she wants to. But women are all about what people say I know it’s taking a toll. I just feel down and like a failure. I don’t have skills or personality to get a good corporate job. I’m lucky to get the $50,000.

(18:30) "The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 68, A. 1

I'm curious....what were the outcomes of the two different approaches on the two campuses? Did you have more encounters that resulted in conversations with the MIT approach, or the Carnegie approach? Did one strategy result in more follow-up by the students?

Sola Scriptura simply cannot be found in the Fathers, as the many historians I cite (mostly Protestant) repeatedly affirm. All my research thus far has convinced me all the more that these scholars are absolutely correct. To state otherwise is (in my opinion) historical revisionism and anachronism. I have massively cited Protestant scholars in this regard, and I find very little that is in disagreement with the Catholic position. I have even shown how these historians note the distinction between material and formal sufficiency in various Fathers’ views. I see little or no conflict with Catholic beliefs, and much conflict with classic Protestant, present-day evangelical belief in sola Scriptura. I’ll take Protestant historians J. N. D. Kelly, Philip Schaff, and Jaroslav Pelikan over pseudo-scholars, historical revisionists, merely self-published William Webster and David T. King any day. If a Church Father states that the Church is necessary for interpretation and the standard of orthodoxy, and that Tradition is binding, then he does not believe in sola Scriptura. It’s as simple as that. One must take each Father’s thought in the context of his overall thought. If we only quote their thoughts about Scripture, then our only information will be about their view of Scripture. We have to also see what they say about Tradition and the Church as well, because sola Scriptura is a position which takes a particular stand concerning the relevant importance and authority of those two entities. Whether a Church Father actually holds one or the other position regarding sola Scriptura can only be determined by seeing what he also says about Tradition and the Church. What anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists constantly do is to find a statement that doesn’t immediately contradict what is entailed in sola Scriptura, and they then illogically assume that the person has no viewpoint on the authority of Tradition and the Church, based on the one passage alone. Again, I have shown that in every case of Fathers I have dealt with in great depth, that this assumption was fallacious. It’s a classic case of an isolated “proof text” thought to mean or assert what it does not assert. It’s a logical error, brought on by extreme eagerness to anachronistically read into the Fathers a latter-day Protestant perspective on authority. In my section on Irenaeus, I cited Jaroslav Pelikan criticizing precisely this mindset: Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the 16th century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church . . . there was no notion ofsola Scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.’ Yet this is constantly done; almost in every case. It is not only bad, inaccurate history, but also rhetorically vacuous and logically atrocious. To illustrate this sort of reasoning, consider the following analogies: A Church father might say something like, for example, “There is nothing greater than Holy Scripture.” The anti-Catholic then jumps on that and triumphantly exclaims that he believes in sola Scriptura. But this is wooden, hyper-literalistic interpretation. The Church Father can say this in the same sense that I could say all the following, and not be understood as contradicting myself: 1. “There is nothing greater than fresh-baked bread.” 2. “There is nothing greater than a fresh-baked apple pie, right out of the oven.” 3. “There is nothing greater than one’s wedding day.” 4. “There is nothing greater than the birth of your first child.” 5. “There is nothing greater than the feeling of getting right with God.” He can say it in the same way that the Apostle John wrote: “you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything . . .” (1 John 3:27; RSV). According to the anti-Catholic mode of patristic interpretation, John is obviously excluding Christian teachers, right? After all, that is the logic of the sentence; it is inescapable: “no need” means there is no need for teaching to be provided! The “anointing” teaches the believer “about everything,” therefore (quite obviously) there is nothing left to be taught; hence no need for teachers. Who could doubt it? My goal is to to see what the Church Fathers (as a whole or in the main and particularly) believed about the Bible and its relationship to Tradition, the Church, and apostolic succession. If they viewed the relationship as classic Protestantism did, and present-day “orthodox” or “conservative” Protestantism (evangelicalism) does, then they advocated sola Scriptura. If they didn’t do that, they did not hold to sola Scriptura. It’s as simple as that. If the anti-Catholic or even a more ecumenical, serious Protestant researcher demonstrates conclusively that 1, 2, or 10 Fathers believed in sola Scriptura, that still doesn’t affect Catholic doctrine or our historical “case” in the least, as we agree with Protestants that Fathers sometimes contradict each other (and Church dogma). Nor do we consider any one Father’s opinion as infallible or binding (unless it is identical with a proclamation that the Church made in Council or by infallible papal proclamation, but then - strictly speaking - that doesn’t prove that the Father possessed the gift of infallibility, only that he spoke truth in that instance). Not even St. Augustine is held in that high of a regard, nor a later giant figure such as St. Thomas Aquinas. What we claim is that the broad consensus of the Fathers is strong historical evidence for the truthfulness of particular Catholic doctrines. If someone showed that 50 Fathers accepted sola Scriptura (Webster’s ridiculous position), then that would pose a problem for our claims. But I contend that Webster, King, Engwer and other anti-Catholic polemicists haven’t even shown that one does so. Entire books are written about the Fathers’ supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally. It is easy to misleadingly present them as sola Scripturists if their statements elsewhere about apostolic Traditiwww.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/04/church-fathers-sola-scriptura.htmlon or succession and the binding authority of the Church (especially in council) are ignored.... Continued at: www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/04/church-fathers-sola-scriptura.html

I am so happy you did post this! Really nice filming, great auditory, and super content. I rarely subscribe, but I did for this (my third subscribe on RUclips). Begin before the beginning....so helpful. I've been running on sloth, in my prayer life and my house upkeep. thanks for the habituation training examples.