Видео

40:30 - ok are we talking about the demons now, or the advertisers?

Catholics go late to mass when every part of the MASS is very important. The MASS starts with the entrance song and then the priest says something about RECALLING your sins(venial) and then the next sequence is ASKING for God's MERCY/ PENANCE( happens within the first 3 minutes of the MASS). Catholics ignore the first part of the Mass by being late which is not good for the soul because you have not recalled your sins that week in the MASS which should have been forgiven at that special SUNDAY MASS( now that I am an older Catholic), I realize how short the MASS is but it is completely PACKED with GRACES from GOD. After the Recollection of sins then the READINGS of the BIBLE(what are the messages of GOD that day). Then the HOMILY, OFFERING and then The CONSECRATION PRAYER( turning of the bread INTO the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST= BEAUTIFUL PRAYERS, recounting how we have the MASS now , ULTIMATE gift of JESUS to humanity to make it to the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. Then the consummation of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ which IS THE FOOD AND DRINK OF OUR SOUL as we pilgrimage on earth.

Very interesting, thank you!

"Dear Olorin is a metaphor for Jesus. Before being sent by Manwë (or, more accurately, by Eru Ilúvatar) to Middle-earth to aid the Free Peoples against Sauron (the equivalent of the devil in this universe), Olorin was the name of the hero you probably know as Gandalf. There is even a moment when Gandalf asks to be spared from the hard task but accepts it. He walked among every Free Folk of Middle-earth and was known as Mithrandir by the Elves, which means the Grey Pilgrim, Tharkûn by the Dwarves, and Incánus by Men. He was loved by all who loved the truth. There are many biblical references in Tolkien's universe."

Proof, that not only is Christianity a cult of blood sacrifice, but one of cannibalism.

ruclips.net/video/qZRj-CleopA/видео.htmlsi=mK1U9GBauihkipUL

Its bc of the writers ....

Love Ave Maria University. May God keep it forever.

Great show!

❤

Amplified Version Acts 11:26 Amen

Patrick Reilly will likely never receive a Fordham University alumni spotlight article despite being the most influential graduate of the Jesuit University of New York City in the last 40 years, pace Denzel. He remains at the vanguard of the renewal of Catholic education by assisting families in the discernment of personal and professional vocations through the Cardinal Newman Society and the Newman Guide.

I have never learned so much about the Eucharist. This was like a bright light shining into my mind!

So profound. Fr Riccardo stirs up so many reflections. Rescue people, rescue people...i m 64, have a neurological illness and recovering from a double fracture, yet i pray to know how to do my mission, be it in prayer or actions. pray for me. ill pray for you. So inspiring ...thank you.Acts XXVIIII and the rescue project are such worthy projects. God Bless you

Wonderful discussion.

Big mistake, to start with this the first command is never have others gods ,, you have a lot gods so you lie ,, you need to repent

Desde el primer mandamiento esa está equivocada ,,

Having had the privilege of corresponding with Father Greeley over the years, and discussing his theology and writing with him, Greeley was FAR from a "crank." More often than not, although I did not always agree with him, he was misunderstood and maligned --- quoted as a Sociologist but not as a Theologian, or, more precisely, his sociological observations were cited as theological commitments. Greeley, like +Barron today, got people interested in and excited about Catholicism. And, to be clear (which Greeley confirmed to me), his novels celebrated the importance of the sensuality (in the best sense) of tactile Catholic community --- specifically in Chicago. People should circumspectly visit Greeley's initiatives more carefully.

I attend a beautiful traditional Latin Mass in my diocese and that has drawn me deeper into the mystery of God if nourished my love of the Eucharist in a way I could not fathom before

Newly converted Eastern Catholic, myself. Grateful for such wisdom and beauty given by Jesus to the Church as displayed in this interview!

Nice to listen to them you can learn so much from this channel 😊 I hope 🤞 people start watching the channel … good luck 🍀

How do they know that Einstein's theory of relativity was correct? They made a prediction based upon its accuracy and then observed the results and saw that they concurred. They then repeated this hundreds and thousands of times. The same is true about the truth of God's existence. The prediction is: If I follow the laws of God as best as I can and try to know and understand God's Will for my life and live it to my best ability, my life will be better than those who choose to do the opposite. And every single human has been running this experiment for 100,000 years. We see the negative effects of promiscuous lifestyles every day and see them in the statistics. And if you only ever give your complete love to your husband or wife, your life is much better in the long run and you don't have to worry about dying from AIDS. In fact, the ways we figure out exactly WHAT God wants for us is to observe what gives us a loving and meaningful life that's moving in a positive direction. If your choices keep leading you towards greater chaos and more self-inflicted suffering, you can be certain that your actions are against God's Will. So the truth of God boils down to one simple fact: If you live your life the way God wants you to, your life will be better in the most profound ways possible. You don't need to prove God. If you assume God and act based upon that assumption, your life will improve.

Is that the book of Siriach (not sure I spelt it correctly) I like what U said.

The book of wisdom?

Sad here also for all those in that "peritrification." They are stuck indeed. The Creator keeps creating, and the Church is forever changing yet changeless. Indeed, tradition is something good to build on and grow from Not solely to rest on! Peace blessings, all 🙌

If you argue with an apologist, you are knocking on a locked door and this door can only be opened from the inside.

Great video on my favorite movie franchise and favorite author y'all! Thank You Jesus! 🙌

Imagine the original apostles have such a theology of any kind.

The modern church is much indebted to Bishop Barron for articulating so well the conciliar theology. However no theology is complete without an embrace of the theology of the Tradition. Like Rahner Barron misses the humility and repentance from personal sin and reparation for human evil. It is not enough to say beautiful things about beautiful things. We must also point out what it evil wicked and destructive and submit to Christ who does battle over us in us and on our behalf.

Thank you for this podcast. I am very interested in getting this book, because I have long appreciated Bishop Barron. I was in seminary and graduate school in Old Testament in the 80s and 90s and you are exactly right that there was a diminishment of God and the domination of the higher critical method, even in the evangelical seminary I went to. I did my graduate work in an institution that was kind of the center of process theology, although it did not really affect the Old Testament department. It was a very dispiriting time for those of us who were committed Christians, and I admit that I was more influenced by all of it than I would have liked. I find myself in a time of repentance, trying to break free of those previous influences. What is helping right now is that I am teaching a class on the Athanasian Creed at my Anglican Church and going back to the early church fathers.

The bread and wine are only the outward symbols to help us remember Jesus's actual substitutionary punishment for our sin. Repentance and faith in Him and His actual transaction are needed for our reconciliation with our holy God.

Great discussion!

Yessir

Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever ❤ Eternal Father I offer you the body and blood soul and Divinity of our lord Jesus Christ in atonement for our sins and of the whole world ❤ Jesus I trust in you, Jesus I trust in you, Jesus I trust in you, ❤

NKJV Acts 11:26 Amen

Applied Version Acts 11:26 Amen

A Protestant response. What I want to point out is that Wrght’s views are rooted in the kind of scholarship that has historically been hostile to evangelical distinctives, such as the authority and inspiration of Scripture. It is ironic, and I think not without significance, that the earliest exponents of this new expertise on Paul were all men who were happy to discard whatever portions of the Pauline writings did not fit their theories. So you have experts on Paul who reject large portions of what Paul actually wrote. In short, this is not the kind of pedigree that ought to inspire the confidence of evangelical scholars. And I rather suspect that evangelicals would have little interest in the New Perspective at all if it were not for the work of Wright, whom many evangelical scholars respect for the work he has done in defense of the historicity of the resurrection.

A Protestant response: There is a reason Roman Catholics love Wright. He attacks historic Protestant understandings of justification. It seems that the unity being sought by our Roman Catholic friends is when we reject the Reformers and embrace Wright who sounds very Roman Catholic when you take a closer look. To review, these are five key distinctives of Tom Wright’s perspective on Paul: He says we have misunderstood first-century Judaism. He says we have misinterpreted Paul’s argument with the Judaizers. He says we have mistaken what Paul meant by the expression “works of the law.” He says we have misconstrued Paul’s doctrine of justification by Faith. and He says we have misread what Paul meant when he spoke of “the righteousness of God.” Therefore, he says, we have got the gospel all wrong. And he says this repeatedly. Page 60: “ ‘The gospel’ is not, for Paul, a message about ‘how one gets saved,’ ” in an individual and ahistorical sense.” Page 41; here is how Wright describes what he is convinced is a misunderstanding of the gospel: “In certain circles within the church . . . ‘the gospel’ is supposed to be a description of how people get saved; of the theological mechanism whereby, in some people’s language, Christ takes our sin and we his righteousness.” “Some people’s language”? Wright himself disdains to use such language. He is careful to insist that he is not intolerant of people who do use that language. He goes on (p. 41): “I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say ‘the gospel’. I just don’t think it’s what Paul means.” But if that’s not what Paul means, it’s not what Scripture means. Is Wright suggesting that Protestants have historically proclaimed a “different gospel”? It would certainly be uncharacteristic of Tom Wright to anathematize anyone, but he does rather clearly imply that he thinks Protestants have been getting the gospel wrong since the 16th century. He says he has no problem with what people mean when they say “the gospel,” and he also seems to try to stop short of explicitly denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the idea of propitiation, and the principle of penal substitution. But he does say that he can’t find those truths in Scripture. And if you’ll permit me to think in Greek categories for a moment, it seems to me that this is tantamount to suggesting that those doctrines are untrue. Perhaps that’s too harsh a conclusion to draw, but frankly, if Wright had no agenda to undermine the heart of historic Protestant theology, then I would think he ought to do more to affirm the central principle of Protestant theology-the truth that Paul so succinctly states in 2 Corinthians 5:21: That “[God] made [Christ,] who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” The apostle Paul himself teaches everywhere that no sinner can stand before God on any ground other than the work of Christ, who “came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” That’s the very principle of individual justification and forgiveness of sin that Tom Wright says he can’t find in Paul’s teaching.

A Protestant response: Wright insists that in the true Pauline theology, justification by faith has almost nothing to do with a person’s standing before God, but it has everything to do with the corporate makeup of the covenant community. To quote Wright again (p. 119): “Justification” in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about “getting in,” or indeed about “staying in,” as about “how you could tell who was in.” In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church. So in Wright’s view, justification is not about how we relate to God; it’s about how ethnic and cultural groups relate to one another. Page 122: What Paul means by justification . . . is not “how you become a Christian, so much as “how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family. . . [Justification] is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences. So in Wright’s estimation, justification is an ecumenical and ecclesiological issue, not a soteriological one. Is there no soteriological or personal dimension in Wright’s understanding of justification, then? There is, and this is one of the most troubling aspects of his work. Like many today who are proposing new understandings of justification, he bifurcates justification into immediate and future aspects, and pushes the personal and salvific dimensions of justification into the eschatalogical future, in a final judgment. That’s troubling for two reasons: first, it makes a person’s covenant faithfulness-obedience-the basis of final justification, thus grounding the ultimate declaration of righteousness in the believer’s own works, rather than grounding justification completely in the finished work of Christ on our behalf. Second, by dividing justification into immediate and future aspects, Wright has unwittingly made justification into a process. It would be simplistic and unfair to characterize Wright’s view of justification as the precise equivalent of post-Reformation Roman Catholicism. But nonetheless, I think it is fair to point out that there is a definite Romanizing tendency in that view. It does have more in common with Trent than with Geneva. And even though Wright’s defenders have tried desperately to exonerate him from this charge, it seems clear to me that throughout his book, he is self consciously and deliberately rejecting the main distinctive-the material principle-of the Protestant Reformation. In Luther’s words, this is the article by which the church stands or falls. In Calvin’s words, it is the principle hinge of all religion. But Wright misses no opportunity to dis or downplay or caricature Luther and the Reformers. Their views are regularly dismissed as “western.” Wright says on page 113 that the classic Reformed understanding of justification “does not do justice to the richness and precision of Paul’s doctrine, and indeed distorts it at various points.” While he carefully avoids saying so explicitly, Wright’s main point-the direction in which his book consistently pushes readers-is a flat-out renunciation of the view of justification that sparked the Protestant Reformation.

A conservative, confessional, creedal, Protestant perspective on N.T. Wright: Excellent presentation gentleman! First, let me acknowledge up front that N.T. Wright has many acolytes and defenders who insist that we can embrace Wright’s version of the New Perspective on Paul and still retain our confessional doctrinal standards. They contend that Wright has simply given us a bigger and more biblical understanding of the concept of justification. If you accept Wright’s new reading of what Paul meant, they say, you can still keep whatever elements of your confessional theology you like. Here’s what Wright himself says about the doctrine of justification on page 113: Briefly and baldly put, if you start with the popular view of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel; whereas if you start with the Pauline gospel itself you will get justification in all its glory thrown in as well. That’s a disingenuous claim. It’s not true, and the proof is seen in the fact that wherever you find the influence of N. T. Wright and the New Perspective, you will find the historic formulations of the doctrine of justification under fire. Wherever you find a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul, you will find a critic of the classic Protestant stance on sola fide. This is one of the major reasons-if not the single, central, most important reason-that suddenly, within just the past three to five years, the doctrine of justification has become a fierce battleground on so many different fronts in the broad evangelical movement. And justification by faith is not the only issue at stake. The next major controversy you can expect to see arising out of the community that has embraced the New Perspective on Paul will be a debate over the issue of whether Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was actually a penal substitution. So the atonement will also become fodder for debate with those who embrace the New Perspective. - Phil Johnson

How does this only have 158 views?

To treat someone like a possession is no longer love. Love is sacrificial, something to give whether someone deserves it or not.

The Novus Ordo is the false church ruled by Satan after 1960. All of their masses are fake. They also say a number of Latin Masses which are also fake and invalid.

just got confessions from the library, can’t wait to read. thanks for the video, loving this channel

Thank you for this discussion. It was a beautiful reflection on the life of Saint Bonaventure and Franciscan prayer. I've also looked at Ignatian prayer, which unsurprisingly has a lot of overlap. However, I have a condition called aphantasia, which means, I can't visualize things. Do you have any advice or resources for approaches to prayer that may be more accessible to people with limited visual imagination? Thank you and God bless.

It’s not about “feelings”!