Father Mike is such a blessing. He says things so perfectly with such love. I wish there were many, many more people like him in the world. It would be a much better place 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
I think that be kind is universal whether someone is gay or straight or not sure or confused, or perhaps to change the conversation completely mentally or physically challenged. It costs absolutely nothing to be kind. It cost zero dollars to be kind.
As an LGBT Catholic who has lived the teachings of the Church my whole life, I really wish more people followed that “Third Way”. One of the hardest things about living those teachings is how lonely it can be. You’re living a celibate life, but you don’t have the support that people who choose religious life do. If more people heard this and followed it, it would give LGBT people much needed support within the Church. If you’re LGBT and you choose to be Catholic, the LGBT community will reject you. The Church needs to be there with love and support.
Jesus isn’t calling you to celibacy (you'd know if he was) and never said anything about gay people one way or the other. Love thy neighbour, and your neighbour is whoever's next to you. Follow your heart, Jesus built you for Love ❤
Thank you, Father Mike for this personal story and lesson about walking a third way with our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. We're all made in the image of God and deserve love and respect, however, this does not mean we need to engage in moral relativism to love someone. God bless!
Absolutely amazing. Your strongest attribute, and the one that always wins, is your love. Thank you for all your videos and messages- you are changing lives.
MY DEAR PASTOR MIKE HALLOW!! THERE IS NOTHING TO DEFEND !!! BUT OUR LOVING JESUS WENT TO THE CROSS!! WHO WAS PIERCED !!! on the cross for me you & I AMEN HALLYLUJAH !!!
Father Mike, thank you for all of your wisdom. I greatly enjoy your sermons and conferences. In this topic, however, I see judgment and control in this rule of not allowing an adult couple to sleep in the same room. It seems to me that it is unkind. I will pray on this more.
Put this video and ALL YOUR OTHER VIDEOS side by side with ANY other RUclips video and compare audio levels. Just once. Try it. See if there's a difference. I'm sure you'll notice as your speakers get blown out from normal listening levels.
we all are sinners yes indeed but that is not to say the grace of God is guaranteed if souls become blase *** the misfits on the fringes now increasingly are those in Western Culture who resist the Pride the 'woke' propose *** A time to accompany, a time to caution... YES, a time for kindness, and a time for clarity. 🙏
If the Catholic Church had pride in my dad Lazarus from Bethany, they would jump to take me there insteasd of a man who hates my guts,a convert to the Roman Catholic faith, Father Mitch.
Fr. MIKE, could you give some passages of scripture where the CATHOLIC church is mentioned and scriptures which teach us the CATHOLIC church IS THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? I'm Catholic but I'm trying to convert a FRIEND of mine. Thanks
realEmoSedillo Judasim, was founded by God to prepare his people for Christianity, Islamic people claim it to be founded by Allah and delivered to Muhammad by an angel, though this is not true ) unless it was a vision misinterpreted (which I find unlikely), or a demon [which I find illogical since they (I beleove) are recognized as having potential to get to heaven by the Catholic Church], most religions (except atheism and agnosticosm) claim some basis on the supernatural,
Thanks Major, ...I did look up and listen to that video, but STILL he never answered the question my friend is asking me? He is asking me HOW do I KNOW the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ? I looked it up the Scriptures and I see where Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18 that *upon this rock I will build MY church* ....but it STILL never once says ANYTHING about it being called "Catholic" or anything else?? Truthfully, it's beginning to cause ME to have questions. I mean, I've been Catholic my entire life...and yet I cannot find one single passage of scripture supporting the Catholic church? I was always taught the definition of the word Catholic was "Universal." But there is nothing in the scriptures about that either?? There is nothing about a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, or any other church?? I just think it is FAIR QUESTION. And I wished I had the answer for it. I found ONE scripture in Romans 16:16 where the church was actually referred to BY NAME. It say in Romans: 16:16 *The CHURCHES OF CHRIST* I have to do some more study on this.
Kenny Scarborough, almost every passage of the Bible that refers to the church says so in singular, as “the Church” not the “churches” such as Mathew 16:18 where Jesus declares Peter to be the rock, he says “and upon this rock I will build my church,” (once again singular) the Catholic Church acknowledges multiple “churches” (technically subdivided into these groups) namely the Church Triumphant (in heaven) the Church Penitent (in Purgatory) and the Church Militant (on earth) and then the Church militant is subdivided into 24 Catholic Churches the largest of which is the Roman Catholic Church. The distinction is that all are unified in belief, with the 24 just having different traditions of how the liturgy is celebrated. The short and simple is that the non-Catholic churches deny things that are explicitly (or implicitly) commanded by the Bible with some accepting abortion, and most accepting artificial birth control which defies natural law, Sola Fide which many accept is illogical since Jesus often commands things like confession, and gives the Church (through the pope especially but to some extent the Priests and Bishops too) the power of the keys. Face it in the end the only Christian church that even claims divine founding is the Catholic Church. All Protestants claim founding by someone like Martin Luther or John Calvin or Henry VIII. Even history acknowledges the Catholic Church to have been founded in the time of Christ, in the Bible and early Church there was no need of a name because there wasn’t another Christian Church any dissenting group was simply declared heretical and excommunicated and they were given a separate title, and ceased to be called Christians, but with the advent of Orthodox churches and then Protestant churches we needed a title, and took on Catholic which in the most basic form (more complicated definitions provide even more understanding) means universal, ie the one church that is everywhere and will not fail. Please keep asking questions it is by doing this that we grow and learn, try asking your parish priest. Also consider that in Mathew 6 around verse 66 Jesus teaches that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood will have eternal life, and after that many people left him because the teaching was hard to bear, Protestants believe that the Eucharist is symbolic but in reality though if Jesus had meant it figuratively he would have been pastorally obliged to run after them saying that he had only meant it figuratively, he didn’t so, therefore, he must have meant it literally and would therefore have provided us a way to access it. If you want proof of transubstantiation look up the miracle of Argentina,and you could also look up other Eucharistic miracles. Keep trusting that truth is out there and in cases like this it will be objective, waiting for the right moment to appear, and keep searching and you will find what you need the Catholic Church subsists in the fullness of truth so you will find truth on our side, remember in the end it always comes down to a leap of faith, but smallest one is to become Catholic. For more information is suggest you email Fr. Mike at fathermikeschmitz@gmail.com (I got it off of one of the websites he is on, but can’t find it right now).
Why is it the gay people who are placed into a position of being told your conditions of acceptance? How about you conform to the gay person's conditions? What rules do you have to follow in their home?
Islam is one of the religions that brings mankind to a good & true path because only Islam strictly forbids haram food, one of which is alcohol which causes the human mind to be damaged, there are many more Islamic teachings that bring goodness to you by studying the koran(qur'an), and Islam is one of the true religions. it is clear that his divinity on this earth is ALLAH SWT, the one God is not three, one is still one cannot be made into three numbers three different from the number one understand!!! ALLAH SWT, the self-sufficient God, was not born and was never said to be dead, and there is not a single creature anywhere that resembles ALLAH the creator. ALLAHUAKBAR LAAILAHAILAULAAH.....
I don't think it wouod be right to go to the reception either. A reception means to receive. to go to a gay reception means you're accepting the gay marriage and receiving them as a married couple. no.
You mention the idea of your folks rule of not sleeping in the same room/bed unless you are married. Would they allow it if it was a gay married couple? Especially since they don't support, approve, and I suspect, even recognize it as legitimate.
I don't think it's correct to compare homosexual acts (grave sin) and minor gossip or complaining about problems (most of the time not a grave sin). I'm not convinced that all sins are the same. It's like saying that abortion and complaining are equal in seriousness and gravity, or even something like murder and non-recycling are the same.
If I may, I would like to humbly suggest that the categories you have described - grave and not grave - are not related to the type of sin (homosexual acts versus complaining or gossip). What I mean by this is that the gravity of any sin is determined by three factors: 1.) It must be serious; 2.) One must have knowledge of this seriousness; and 3.) One must consent to the act while being completely aware of points 1 and 2. These factors can apply to any type of sin and render the commission of that sin as grave or not grave. If I am reading your comment correctly, you say that most acts of homosexual behavior are grave while most gossip or complaints are not so grave. I am not sure, though, it is possible to make that generalization because the gravity of the act depends, in great measure, upon the circumstances, knowledge, and intent. For example, if I steal a candy bar from a store, one might argue that this is not especially serious (and that might be true). But if I steal the same candy bar from a starving boy on a street corner, I think it's fair to argue that the seriousness of the act is greatly multiplied. One theft is not grave, perhaps, while the other probably is, assuming the same knowledge and consent in both cases. If a person engages in sexual behavior with someone outside of a marriage (and by marriage I mean the sacred covenant between a man and a woman), whether heterosexual or homosexual, is it grave? Is it even always serious? A serious sin can lose some of its seriousness and can certainly lose its gravity if it becomes a habitual sin. I am thinking here of things like addiction where full consent is not necessarily always present. Similarly, gossip, for example, can be very serious. Unfortunately, I witnessed a situation where an individual left the Catholic Church as the result of "minor" gossip. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. It certainly seems like some sins (say murder, for example) are far worse than others (like lying, maybe). But, on the other hand, the Commandments aren't separated by categories of "really bad" and "not so bad." Each of us has a proclivity to certain sins (and we have a tendency to see them as "not so bad") while it is easy for us to resist others (which we find heinous). I think Fr. Mike's point is that, until we make ourselves pure in God's eyes, we should consider our own sin as a grave rupture in our own relationship with God while simultaneously seeing the sins of others as easily forgivable because we hope God will extend us the same consideration. Thanks for reading all of this.
I think I see what you are saying but I disagree with your view of sin. I also believe that the Church doesn't distinguish sins in the way you do either. Based on my personal research through Catechism and quite a few articles about the nature of sin I have come to the following understanding of sin that is quite different from yours (I'm open to be corrected in case I'm mistaken, at the same time I believe I can demonstrate why my view is faithful to the Catholic Church's view of sin and I can quote the sources if needed). Here are the two main points I would disagree with you on: 1) What I understand by "gravity of sin" is whether a particular sin is of "grave matter". Sins of grave matter stay the sins of grave matter and constitute a grave offense towards God and neighbor independently of free consent and full knowledge of the person committing the sin. That's why it is one of the conditions for a sin to be mortal. If you have full knowledge and full consent but it's not a grave matter then your sin is not mortal. Of course a person can have a reduced SUBJECTIVE culpability, but OBJECTIVELY the sin is still a grave offense. Let me give you an example. Adultery always offends God and neighbor gravely even if the person committing it doesn't have full knowledge or full consent. Adultery also gravely damages us ourselves even if the person doesn't have full knowledge and full consent (ask the family of an adulterer whether they are not hurt and the family, including the adulterer himself, is not damaged simply because the adulterer is not aware of his sin; also consider abortion, does the baby not lose life even though the mother didn't know what a grave evil abortion is?). Sins of grave matter hurt God and neighbor gravely, sins of non-grave matter don't hurt God and neighbor gravely. Reduced culpability doesn't make an abortion less evil, does it? That's the difference Fr. Mike seems to ignore. That's why I wanted to comment about it. Let me know what you think about it, though, I can try to demonstrate through Catechism why I have such a view. 2) With all other conditions equal (and I would want to emphasize "with all other conditions equal") small matter gossip itself cannot by definition bring you to hell because it's not a grave matter and therefore will never be a mortal sin (although it can LEAD to a mortal sin), on the other hand homosexual acts in many (if not most) cases are a mortal sin and lead to damnation. Do you see the difference? With sins of non-grave matter you are still going to heaven, you can have confidence that even if you are playing mind games with yourself and if God shows you those mind games on the judgement day nevertheless since the matter wasn't grave you will still be going to heaven. With homosexual acts (as with adultery, fornication, murder, abortion, human trafficking, etc.) you are risking very very seriously. Do we all sin? Yes. Do we all offend and hurt God, neighbor and ourselves gravely? No. Reduced personal culpability doesn't reduce the gravity of the act. I think Veritatis Splendor by Saint John Paul II touches on that subject very extensively and I highly recommend it, it has very important clarifications and distinctions to be made when it comes to sin. I propose these two quotes from Catechism for now: 1858 [...] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. (note "the gravity of sins is more or less great" and "murder is graver than theft" - that's exactly the point of my comment). 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. [...] (note "grave offense" which stays "grave offense" even though imputability is diminished or removed). At the same time I do agree with this: 1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. So yes, some homosexuals can be committing subjectively venial sins when they commit homosexual acts (even though many of them actually commit mortal sins by doing homosexual acts), but those acts are still a "grave offense" to God, neighbor and themselves. That's why those sins of grave matter can never be OK and the person committing a sin of grave matter should always be helped in getting out of that sin of grave matter. Let me know if it's clear. Yet another example. A 3-year-old boy is visiting a radioactive plant that his dad works at. He pulls a random plug and the plant explodes. Everyone is hurt including the boy. Is the boy committing a mortal sin? No, he's 3 years old. Was what he did an objective evil that hurt others nonetheless? Of course. Should he have been prevented from doing it? Of course. Should he be prevented from doing it again? Of course.
To answer your questions: 1) If a person engages in sexual behavior with someone outside of a marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is it grave? Is it even always serious? - If we are speaking about the "act" then the answer is yes, sexual behavior outside of marriage is always serious and is always grave. 2) Stealing a bar from the store and stealing a bar from a starving boy are two different acts. One is grave, the other is probably not.
Abortion constitutes excommunication, so your example is not on par, secondly, gossip is a mortal (major) sin. You are trying to say that I'm not as guilty as "they" are.
Why do wonderful messages have to be messed up technically?? YOU who are producing and uploading this video, before you pat yourself on the back, PAY ATTENTION TO THE AUDIO!!! Learn what you must! If you are not sure sure how this is done ASK! This is a wonderful message and you have BLOWN IT with your inability to adjust the audio so that it is listenable....
The bible teaches that stars can fall to earth. It also teaches that rain comes from the ,"jars of heaven." I can go on but that will take for ever. The bible fails on 2nd grade science just like all other holy books. I've been an Atheist for 7 years. I chose to read for myself instead of having others read for me. Maybe everyone here should try it.
Can I possibly suggest that you're being a bit biased? Look at it from a religious person's POV. God can do anything in their eyes, right? so that means god can deny science. If you're an atheist, you should know that the bible is not a science book. You should know it tells the story of Christianity. I should like to point out that LGBT people are denying science more than religious people. Science says that you are born male OR female. you cannot change. Does not matter how many surgeries you have, or no matter how much you like like the opposite gender. Ironically, a man will always have his sperm cells. If anyone is denying science, it's you and your LGBT friends. :) The bible also teaches that the deluge happened. Science 100% suggests that the earth was flooded at one point. The bible also says that god created earth. Statistically, it's WAY more likely that the earth has a creator instead of being a "cosmic accident". Like Father Mike Schmitz said in one of his other talks, it's 100% objective truth to weather god exists or not. He either does or does not. Statistically it's more likely he does. Never mind all the other philosophy that was in the bible, and is now come true in modern world.
@@matthewhall6444 Well, first of all, gay people do not want to change their sex. They simply are attracted to the same sex. So you do not even know what homosexual means. Second, you honestly expect God to deny science, which is the study of the laws that rule how things work? You are right out of the Middle Ages.
"Eventually this lifestyle is going to break up?" Michael.. That is very insulting and dismissive. Insulting to any gay person in a relationship. Maybe gay people should be clear with people like you about what respect they will accept and what disrespect they will not accept from you.
These gay videos anger and annoy me. Your kindness and compassion are on point. But there's a dismissive condescension of homosexuality as something that's not as innate or intrinsic as heterosexuality, that irritates.
Eunuchs are not sons and daughters. They are brothers and sisters of Christ. Eunuch is a person that is not completely dead to this world otherwise how would they baptize people unless they are dead. They are called in Hebrew ministering Spirits for those who will inherit salvation. What secures salvation is baptism is not the eunuch because eunuch is a servant and for that reason they get a better name than sons and daughters. Nor they are fathers and mothers rather fathers and mothers in Christ. So boasting is done in Christ. Orthodox don’t have right to Blessed Mary because they are married. That’s where the free mother Sarah comes in. Married people are sons and daughters of Abraham and Sarah that Jesus places them they the promise into the family. Can married people preach yes but not baptize. Can married people be farmers to bring people to Christ? Yes that’s the point of preaching. Can people be saved if they are not baptized? Yes because anyone that calls in the name of Jesus will be saved but they are not clothed. They are outside. Jesus says be clothed. Jesus is my father - Heavenly Jerusalem is my mother.
Mary is our mother, and all persons can baptize, the unbaptized my be saved by baptism of desire, blood, or special graces given to those resulting from ignorance.
Defending what faith? Because of unbiblical sacraments n repeated reports of paedophilia n satanic signs n wonders(2Thessalonians 2 Verses 7 to 11)ny many have left!
As I understand, this is the priest who, with a giant grin on his face, tells all young gay people that the Catholic Church loves and welcomes them except for a few tiny rules: they must NEVER fall in love and have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex. To a gay person, that means they will never have a romantic loving relationship their entire lives. AND, they must never have sex their entire lives because gay people would have sex with the same sex. What a deal, right? And for this, you get this priest's pat on the back and a "Atta boy!" Did you know his own brother is gay and thinks Father Mike is full of excrement on this issue?
The origin of the Catholic Church is not on the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. [No apostles of Yeshua will do the below] 1]Idol & image worshipping? 2]Mary is sinless & greater than Yeshua [What is this?] 3]Praying/speaking to the dead? [The Saints] Deuteronomy 18:11 tells us that anyone who “consults with the dead” is “detestable to Yahweh”
I agree with you on these points: - The Catholic Church is not [based] on the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. It is based on the command of Christ and on his teachings. - No disciple of our Lord and Savior would worship an idol or image, which is the clear dogma of the Catholic Church. -No disciple of our Lord and Savior would say the Blessed Virgin Mary is greater than him and this is clear Catholic teaching. Mary is the Queen Mother of Creation but it is God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is Creator, Savior, and Life-Giver. Mary has great influence as Queen Mother - and Catholics honor her as such - but it is to God our worship is directed. - No disciple of our Lord and Savior would consult a necromancer or a conjurer or the dead (among other things) instead of consulting our Lord and Savior, as Deut. 18:11 expressly forbids and is clear Catholic Dogma. In addition, we follow the infallible words of God in the Bible when St. James tells us to pray for one another (James 5:16). The Catholic Church obeys this command and prays for the Church Militant (those still on earth) and the Church Suffering (those in purgatory). We assume the Church Triumphant (those already in Heaven) are still obeying God's word and praying for those of us on earth and in purgatory and, as such, we ask them (in our own prayers) to remember and intercede for us before the Lord. I disagree with you on one point: (Possibly this was only a typo on your part since the rest of what you articulate was reasonably well-expressed Catholic teaching?) -All disciples of our Lord and Savior would say Mary is sinless, as every early church father (especially those who were students of the Apostle's themselves) taught, and the Catholic Church has continued to teach. It was formally defined a little more than 150 years ago so that what the teaching was (and what it was not) would be crystal clear.
Is Fr. Schmitz only telling part of the story? Please read on and decide for yourself. Bridling the tongue is further explained in St. James 3. Bridling the tongue regards prudent and wholesome speech. We are called to avoid blasphemy, cursing, slander, boasting, grumbling and improper oath swearing. 3 : 1 tells us that teachers will be judged with greater strictness because of their influence and teachers need to be careful that they do not speak carelessly or in a manner that opposes what the Catholic Church has always taught. Why are there no stories in the Holy Bible where Jesus ministers to people living a SS life style? Is the closest we can come, fornication? Any type of sex that does not happen within the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and is not open to the conception of children, Catholics consider fornication. So do we look at how Jesus addresses people who fornicate? If we do then we should open our Holy Bible to St. John 8. When the pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, He told the crowd "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." When the woman and Jesus were the only ones left: Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: "Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?" She said: "No man, Lord." And Jesus said: "Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more." Because Jesus has authentic/divine charity, for the woman, He tells her what she must do in order to be saved - repent. Does it appear that Fr. Schmitz is only telling half the message? Fr. Schmitz never tells us if or when we are supposed to say "Go, and now sin no more." to those living a SS lifestyle. If a friend who has SSA is killed in a car accident 5 minutes after they left your company and they go to Hell, because of the lifestyle they are living, am I responsible for the loss of their soul because I was never charitable toward them and told the Truth as Jesus did with the woman in St. John 8? I recall Fr. Corapi stating that he wished somebody at some point would have hit him over the head with a two by four, but no one ever did. Is that charitable? Fr. Corapi did not think so. It is always extremely difficult to tell a person you love that their actions have eternal consequences/damnation and so in our weakness, we opt to take the human view of charity and accept them where they are and forget to tell them the whole Truth. This Truth is the message Jesus has for all: St. Mark 1: 14-15 [14] And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, [15] And saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel. We are called to live the whole Truth, not only the parts that appeal to us. We all have a cross to bear and maybe SSA is the custom made cross God has "allowed" these people to bear. We are always called to repent - turn away from sin and toward God. If we do not repent, we cannot be saved and salvation would not even be possible if Jesus did not die for us. I do not recall the story exactly, but a person was complaining to a saint about their cross. This saint instructed the person to put it in a pile with all the rest of the crosses and pick the one they desired. The person returned with their own cross. God knows the type of suffering that is best for us. We just have difficulty believing He knows what is best for us.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
Father Mike is such a blessing. He says things so perfectly with such love. I wish there were many, many more people like him in the world. It would be a much better place 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
I think that be kind is universal whether someone is gay or straight or not sure or confused, or perhaps to change the conversation completely mentally or physically challenged. It costs absolutely nothing to be kind. It cost zero dollars to be kind.
As an LGBT Catholic who has lived the teachings of the Church my whole life, I really wish more people followed that “Third Way”. One of the hardest things about living those teachings is how lonely it can be. You’re living a celibate life, but you don’t have the support that people who choose religious life do. If more people heard this and followed it, it would give LGBT people much needed support within the Church. If you’re LGBT and you choose to be Catholic, the LGBT community will reject you. The Church needs to be there with love and support.
😧
Jesus isn’t calling you to celibacy (you'd know if he was) and never said anything about gay people one way or the other.
Love thy neighbour, and your neighbour is whoever's next to you. Follow your heart, Jesus built you for Love ❤
An excellent talk delivered with so much love. Father Mike, you are the best
Awesome presentation of truth love. Thank you Father Mike🙏💞
THANK YOU JESUS .
Thank you, Father Mike for this personal story and lesson about walking a third way with our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. We're all made in the image of God and deserve love and respect, however, this does not mean we need to engage in moral relativism to love someone. God bless!
Look up Sam Harris - Moral Landscape for objective morality.
Absolutely amazing. Your strongest attribute, and the one that always wins, is your love. Thank you for all your videos and messages- you are changing lives.
MY DEAR PASTOR MIKE HALLOW!! THERE IS NOTHING TO DEFEND !!! BUT OUR LOVING JESUS WENT TO THE CROSS!!
WHO WAS PIERCED !!! on the cross for me you & I AMEN HALLYLUJAH !!!
Thank you for this amazing video! I've really learned a lot from it.
Totally agree with Rick. Great message, but it'd be nice if someone would could upload a version with better audio quality.
I totally agree
Father Mike, thank you for all of your wisdom. I greatly enjoy your sermons and conferences. In this topic, however, I see judgment and control in this rule of not allowing an adult couple to sleep in the same room. It seems to me that it is unkind. I will pray on this more.
THANKS
Put this video and ALL YOUR OTHER VIDEOS side by side with ANY other RUclips video and compare audio levels. Just once. Try it. See if there's a difference. I'm sure you'll notice as your speakers get blown out from normal listening levels.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Great video but can you please fix the audio? I can barely hear it. Thank you!
Thank YOU !
Agree! Audio inaudible.
we all are sinners yes indeed
but that is not to say
the grace of God is guaranteed
if souls become blase
***
the misfits on the fringes now
increasingly are those
in Western Culture who resist
the Pride the 'woke' propose
***
A time to accompany, a time to caution...
YES, a time for kindness, and a time for clarity.
🙏
I do it my faith cos our priest does not pray for other denominations even when they request prayer y
Please turn the volume up. This is barely audible.
How do I find a podcast
colud you subtitu... this video into spanish? I hope I write well
Yes, you do write well. Yo hablo español un poquito. :)
Razberry Mist gracias! y quise escribir "could" pero tipeé mal.
I'm probably going to hell for saying this but, damn he's a hottie! I'd be sinning in my mind every Sunday I'd see him in mass.
If the Catholic Church had pride in my dad Lazarus from Bethany, they would jump to take me there insteasd of a man who hates my guts,a convert to the Roman Catholic faith, Father Mitch.
I can't hear it
Disappointed 😔 with the audio cannot hear
Pleaseeeee somebody Fix it thks !!!
Unfortunately, the volume on this video is way too low. I cannot hear much of what he's saying
Schmitz is so well-groomed he looks like he's just come from a gay wedding 😊
Talk is nice but walk is more important
Fr. MIKE, could you give some passages of scripture where the CATHOLIC church is mentioned and scriptures which teach us the CATHOLIC church IS THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? I'm Catholic but I'm trying to convert a FRIEND of mine. Thanks
Look up Fr. Mike Schmitz why be catholic and not just Christian, and hopefully you'll find what you need.
Jesus Christ was God. God founded the Catholic Church. Has anything other religion been founded by a supernatural being?
realEmoSedillo Judasim, was founded by God to prepare his people for Christianity, Islamic people claim it to be founded by Allah and delivered to Muhammad by an angel, though this is not true ) unless it was a vision misinterpreted (which I find unlikely), or a demon [which I find illogical since they (I beleove) are recognized as having potential to get to heaven by the Catholic Church], most religions (except atheism and agnosticosm) claim some basis on the supernatural,
Thanks Major, ...I did look up and listen to that video, but STILL he never answered the question my friend is asking me? He is asking me HOW do I KNOW the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ? I looked it up the Scriptures and I see where Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18 that *upon this rock I will build MY church* ....but it STILL never once says ANYTHING about it being called "Catholic" or anything else?? Truthfully, it's beginning to cause ME to have questions. I mean, I've been Catholic my entire life...and yet I cannot find one single passage of scripture supporting the Catholic church? I was always taught the definition of the word Catholic was "Universal." But there is nothing in the scriptures about that either?? There is nothing about a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, or any other church?? I just think it is FAIR QUESTION. And I wished I had the answer for it. I found ONE scripture in Romans 16:16 where the church was actually referred to BY NAME. It say in Romans: 16:16 *The CHURCHES OF CHRIST* I have to do some more study on this.
Kenny Scarborough, almost every passage of the Bible that refers to the church says so in singular, as “the Church” not the “churches” such as Mathew 16:18 where Jesus declares Peter to be the rock, he says “and upon this rock I will build my church,” (once again singular) the Catholic Church acknowledges multiple “churches” (technically subdivided into these groups) namely the Church Triumphant (in heaven) the Church Penitent (in Purgatory) and the Church Militant (on earth) and then the Church militant is subdivided into 24 Catholic Churches the largest of which is the Roman Catholic Church. The distinction is that all are unified in belief, with the 24 just having different traditions of how the liturgy is celebrated. The short and simple is that the non-Catholic churches deny things that are explicitly (or implicitly) commanded by the Bible with some accepting abortion, and most accepting artificial birth control which defies natural law, Sola Fide which many accept is illogical since Jesus often commands things like confession, and gives the Church (through the pope especially but to some extent the Priests and Bishops too) the power of the keys. Face it in the end the only Christian church that even claims divine founding is the Catholic Church. All Protestants claim founding by someone like Martin Luther or John Calvin or Henry VIII. Even history acknowledges the Catholic Church to have been founded in the time of Christ, in the Bible and early Church there was no need of a name because there wasn’t another Christian Church any dissenting group was simply declared heretical and excommunicated and they were given a separate title, and ceased to be called Christians, but with the advent of Orthodox churches and then Protestant churches we needed a title, and took on Catholic which in the most basic form (more complicated definitions provide even more understanding) means universal, ie the one church that is everywhere and will not fail. Please keep asking questions it is by doing this that we grow and learn, try asking your parish priest. Also consider that in Mathew 6 around verse 66 Jesus teaches that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood will have eternal life, and after that many people left him because the teaching was hard to bear, Protestants believe that the Eucharist is symbolic but in reality though if Jesus had meant it figuratively he would have been pastorally obliged to run after them saying that he had only meant it figuratively, he didn’t so, therefore, he must have meant it literally and would therefore have provided us a way to access it. If you want proof of transubstantiation look up the miracle of Argentina,and you could also look up other Eucharistic miracles. Keep trusting that truth is out there and in cases like this it will be objective, waiting for the right moment to appear, and keep searching and you will find what you need the Catholic Church subsists in the fullness of truth so you will find truth on our side, remember in the end it always comes down to a leap of faith, but smallest one is to become Catholic. For more information is suggest you email Fr. Mike at fathermikeschmitz@gmail.com (I got it off of one of the websites he is on, but can’t find it right now).
42:00
12:07
Why is it the gay people who are placed into a position of being told your conditions of acceptance? How about you conform to the gay person's conditions? What rules do you have to follow in their home?
Islam is one of the religions that brings mankind to a good & true path because only Islam strictly forbids haram food, one of which is alcohol which causes the human mind to be damaged, there are many more Islamic teachings that bring goodness to you by studying the koran(qur'an), and Islam is one of the true religions. it is clear that his divinity on this earth is ALLAH SWT, the one God is not three, one is still one cannot be made into three numbers three different from the number one understand!!! ALLAH SWT, the self-sufficient God, was not born and was never said to be dead, and there is not a single creature anywhere that resembles ALLAH the creator. ALLAHUAKBAR LAAILAHAILAULAAH.....
I don't think it wouod be right to go to the reception either. A reception means to receive. to go to a gay reception means you're accepting the gay marriage and receiving them as a married couple. no.
But you are communicating that I reject this "marriage" but I receive the people, as human beings who I am very much capable of loving.
hate the sin, not the person.
You mention the idea of your folks rule of not sleeping in the same room/bed unless you are married. Would they allow it if it was a gay married couple? Especially since they don't support, approve, and I suspect, even recognize it as legitimate.
Can barely hear anything
I don't think it's correct to compare homosexual acts (grave sin) and minor gossip or complaining about problems (most of the time not a grave sin). I'm not convinced that all sins are the same. It's like saying that abortion and complaining are equal in seriousness and gravity, or even something like murder and non-recycling are the same.
If I may, I would like to humbly suggest that the categories you have described - grave and not grave - are not related to the type of sin (homosexual acts versus complaining or gossip). What I mean by this is that the gravity of any sin is determined by three factors: 1.) It must be serious; 2.) One must have knowledge of this seriousness; and 3.) One must consent to the act while being completely aware of points 1 and 2.
These factors can apply to any type of sin and render the commission of that sin as grave or not grave. If I am reading your comment correctly, you say that most acts of homosexual behavior are grave while most gossip or complaints are not so grave. I am not sure, though, it is possible to make that generalization because the gravity of the act depends, in great measure, upon the circumstances, knowledge, and intent. For example, if I steal a candy bar from a store, one might argue that this is not especially serious (and that might be true). But if I steal the same candy bar from a starving boy on a street corner, I think it's fair to argue that the seriousness of the act is greatly multiplied. One theft is not grave, perhaps, while the other probably is, assuming the same knowledge and consent in both cases.
If a person engages in sexual behavior with someone outside of a marriage (and by marriage I mean the sacred covenant between a man and a woman), whether heterosexual or homosexual, is it grave? Is it even always serious? A serious sin can lose some of its seriousness and can certainly lose its gravity if it becomes a habitual sin. I am thinking here of things like addiction where full consent is not necessarily always present.
Similarly, gossip, for example, can be very serious. Unfortunately, I witnessed a situation where an individual left the Catholic Church as the result of "minor" gossip.
I don't disagree with you, necessarily. It certainly seems like some sins (say murder, for example) are far worse than others (like lying, maybe). But, on the other hand, the Commandments aren't separated by categories of "really bad" and "not so bad." Each of us has a proclivity to certain sins (and we have a tendency to see them as "not so bad") while it is easy for us to resist others (which we find heinous).
I think Fr. Mike's point is that, until we make ourselves pure in God's eyes, we should consider our own sin as a grave rupture in our own relationship with God while simultaneously seeing the sins of others as easily forgivable because we hope God will extend us the same consideration.
Thanks for reading all of this.
I think I see what you are saying but I disagree with your view of sin. I also believe that the Church doesn't distinguish sins in the way you do either. Based on my personal research through Catechism and quite a few articles about the nature of sin I have come to the following understanding of sin that is quite different from yours (I'm open to be corrected in case I'm mistaken, at the same time I believe I can demonstrate why my view is faithful to the Catholic Church's view of sin and I can quote the sources if needed). Here are the two main points I would disagree with you on:
1) What I understand by "gravity of sin" is whether a particular sin is of "grave matter". Sins of grave matter stay the sins of grave matter and constitute a grave offense towards God and neighbor independently of free consent and full knowledge of the person committing the sin. That's why it is one of the conditions for a sin to be mortal. If you have full knowledge and full consent but it's not a grave matter then your sin is not mortal. Of course a person can have a reduced SUBJECTIVE culpability, but OBJECTIVELY the sin is still a grave offense. Let me give you an example. Adultery always offends God and neighbor gravely even if the person committing it doesn't have full knowledge or full consent. Adultery also gravely damages us ourselves even if the person doesn't have full knowledge and full consent (ask the family of an adulterer whether they are not hurt and the family, including the adulterer himself, is not damaged simply because the adulterer is not aware of his sin; also consider abortion, does the baby not lose life even though the mother didn't know what a grave evil abortion is?). Sins of grave matter hurt God and neighbor gravely, sins of non-grave matter don't hurt God and neighbor gravely. Reduced culpability doesn't make an abortion less evil, does it? That's the difference Fr. Mike seems to ignore. That's why I wanted to comment about it. Let me know what you think about it, though, I can try to demonstrate through Catechism why I have such a view.
2) With all other conditions equal (and I would want to emphasize "with all other conditions equal") small matter gossip itself cannot by definition bring you to hell because it's not a grave matter and therefore will never be a mortal sin (although it can LEAD to a mortal sin), on the other hand homosexual acts in many (if not most) cases are a mortal sin and lead to damnation. Do you see the difference? With sins of non-grave matter you are still going to heaven, you can have confidence that even if you are playing mind games with yourself and if God shows you those mind games on the judgement day nevertheless since the matter wasn't grave you will still be going to heaven. With homosexual acts (as with adultery, fornication, murder, abortion, human trafficking, etc.) you are risking very very seriously.
Do we all sin? Yes. Do we all offend and hurt God, neighbor and ourselves gravely? No. Reduced personal culpability doesn't reduce the gravity of the act. I think Veritatis Splendor by Saint John Paul II touches on that subject very extensively and I highly recommend it, it has very important clarifications and distinctions to be made when it comes to sin.
I propose these two quotes from Catechism for now:
1858 [...] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. (note "the gravity of sins is more or less great" and "murder is graver than theft" - that's exactly the point of my comment).
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. [...] (note "grave offense" which stays "grave offense" even though imputability is diminished or removed).
At the same time I do agree with this:
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
So yes, some homosexuals can be committing subjectively venial sins when they commit homosexual acts (even though many of them actually commit mortal sins by doing homosexual acts), but those acts are still a "grave offense" to God, neighbor and themselves. That's why those sins of grave matter can never be OK and the person committing a sin of grave matter should always be helped in getting out of that sin of grave matter. Let me know if it's clear.
Yet another example. A 3-year-old boy is visiting a radioactive plant that his dad works at. He pulls a random plug and the plant explodes. Everyone is hurt including the boy. Is the boy committing a mortal sin? No, he's 3 years old. Was what he did an objective evil that hurt others nonetheless? Of course. Should he have been prevented from doing it? Of course. Should he be prevented from doing it again? Of course.
To answer your questions:
1) If a person engages in sexual behavior with someone outside of a marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is it grave? Is it even always serious? - If we are speaking about the "act" then the answer is yes, sexual behavior outside of marriage is always serious and is always grave.
2) Stealing a bar from the store and stealing a bar from a starving boy are two different acts. One is grave, the other is probably not.
Abortion constitutes excommunication, so your example is not on par, secondly, gossip is a mortal (major) sin. You are trying to say that I'm not as guilty as "they" are.
Loving another man, when you are a man, can hardly be seen as equal to murder. How sick are you?
Why do wonderful messages have to be messed up technically?? YOU who are producing and uploading this video, before you pat yourself on the back, PAY ATTENTION TO THE AUDIO!!! Learn what you must! If you are not sure sure how this is done ASK! This is a wonderful message and you have BLOWN IT with your inability to adjust the audio so that it is listenable....
Hey rick....chill out!!!
turn up your speaker. it is fine
Everyone of their videos has this problem, I just have to listen with headphones :/
The bible teaches that stars can fall to earth. It also teaches that rain comes from the ,"jars of heaven." I can go on but that will take for ever. The bible fails on 2nd grade science just like all other holy books. I've been an Atheist for 7 years. I chose to read for myself instead of having others read for me. Maybe everyone here should try it.
Can I possibly suggest that you're being a bit biased? Look at it from a religious person's POV. God can do anything in their eyes, right? so that means god can deny science.
If you're an atheist, you should know that the bible is not a science book. You should know it tells the story of Christianity.
I should like to point out that LGBT people are denying science more than religious people. Science says that you are born male OR female. you cannot change. Does not matter how many surgeries you have, or no matter how much you like like the opposite gender. Ironically, a man will always have his sperm cells. If anyone is denying science, it's you and your LGBT friends. :)
The bible also teaches that the deluge happened. Science 100% suggests that the earth was flooded at one point. The bible also says that god created earth. Statistically, it's WAY more likely that the earth has a creator instead of being a "cosmic accident".
Like Father Mike Schmitz said in one of his other talks, it's 100% objective truth to weather god exists or not. He either does or does not. Statistically it's more likely he does. Never mind all the other philosophy that was in the bible, and is now come true in modern world.
@@matthewhall6444 Well, first of all, gay people do not want to change their sex. They simply are attracted to the same sex. So you do not even know what homosexual means. Second, you honestly expect God to deny science, which is the study of the laws that rule how things work? You are right out of the Middle Ages.
"Eventually this lifestyle is going to break up?" Michael.. That is very insulting and dismissive. Insulting to any gay person in a relationship. Maybe gay people should be clear with people like you about what respect they will accept and what disrespect they will not accept from you.
These gay videos anger and annoy me. Your kindness and compassion are on point. But there's a dismissive condescension of homosexuality as something that's not as innate or intrinsic as heterosexuality, that irritates.
Bunyi video tidak bagus
Eunuchs are not sons and daughters. They are brothers and sisters of Christ. Eunuch is a person that is not completely dead to this world otherwise how would they baptize people unless they are dead. They are called in Hebrew ministering Spirits for those who will inherit salvation. What secures salvation is baptism is not the eunuch because eunuch is a servant and for that reason they get a better name than sons and daughters.
Nor they are fathers and mothers rather fathers and mothers in Christ. So boasting is done in Christ.
Orthodox don’t have right to Blessed Mary because they are married.
That’s where the free mother Sarah comes in.
Married people are sons and daughters of Abraham and Sarah that Jesus places them they the promise into the family. Can married people preach yes but not baptize. Can married people be farmers to bring people to Christ? Yes that’s the point of preaching. Can people be saved if they are not baptized? Yes because anyone that calls in the name of Jesus will be saved but they are not clothed. They are outside. Jesus says be clothed.
Jesus is my father - Heavenly Jerusalem is my mother.
Mary is our mother, and all persons can baptize, the unbaptized my be saved by baptism of desire, blood, or special graces given to those resulting from ignorance.
You said HALO was free, that was a lie. It IS NOT. I don’t listen to you anymore 🤥
Defending what faith? Because of unbiblical sacraments n repeated reports of paedophilia n satanic signs n wonders(2Thessalonians 2 Verses 7 to 11)ny many have left!
As I understand, this is the priest who, with a giant grin on his face, tells all young gay people that the Catholic Church loves and welcomes them except for a few tiny rules: they must NEVER fall in love and have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex. To a gay person, that means they will never have a romantic loving relationship their entire lives. AND, they must never have sex their entire lives because gay people would have sex with the same sex. What a deal, right? And for this, you get this priest's pat on the back and a "Atta boy!" Did you know his own brother is gay and thinks Father Mike is full of excrement on this issue?
Judas !
The origin of the Catholic Church is not on the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. [No apostles of Yeshua will do the below]
1]Idol & image worshipping?
2]Mary is sinless & greater than Yeshua [What is this?]
3]Praying/speaking to the dead? [The Saints] Deuteronomy 18:11 tells us that anyone who “consults with the dead” is “detestable to Yahweh”
I agree with you on these points:
- The Catholic Church is not [based] on the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. It is based on the command of Christ and on his teachings.
- No disciple of our Lord and Savior would worship an idol or image, which is the clear dogma of the Catholic Church.
-No disciple of our Lord and Savior would say the Blessed Virgin Mary is greater than him and this is clear Catholic teaching. Mary is the Queen Mother of Creation but it is God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is Creator, Savior, and Life-Giver. Mary has great influence as Queen Mother - and Catholics honor her as such - but it is to God our worship is directed.
- No disciple of our Lord and Savior would consult a necromancer or a conjurer or the dead (among other things) instead of consulting our Lord and Savior, as Deut. 18:11 expressly forbids and is clear Catholic Dogma. In addition, we follow the infallible words of God in the Bible when St. James tells us to pray for one another (James 5:16). The Catholic Church obeys this command and prays for the Church Militant (those still on earth) and the Church Suffering (those in purgatory). We assume the Church Triumphant (those already in Heaven) are still obeying God's word and praying for those of us on earth and in purgatory and, as such, we ask them (in our own prayers) to remember and intercede for us before the Lord.
I disagree with you on one point:
(Possibly this was only a typo on your part since the rest of what you articulate was reasonably well-expressed Catholic teaching?)
-All disciples of our Lord and Savior would say Mary is sinless, as every early church father (especially those who were students of the Apostle's themselves) taught, and the Catholic Church has continued to teach. It was formally defined a little more than 150 years ago so that what the teaching was (and what it was not) would be crystal clear.
Nor do Catholics
Is Fr. Schmitz only telling part of the story? Please read on and decide for yourself.
Bridling the tongue is further explained in St. James 3. Bridling the tongue regards prudent and wholesome speech. We are called to avoid blasphemy, cursing, slander, boasting, grumbling and improper oath swearing. 3 : 1 tells us that teachers will be judged with greater strictness because of their influence and teachers need to be careful that they do not speak carelessly or in a manner that opposes what the Catholic Church has always taught.
Why are there no stories in the Holy Bible where Jesus ministers to people living a SS life style? Is the closest we can come, fornication? Any type of sex that does not happen within the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and is not open to the conception of children, Catholics consider fornication. So do we look at how Jesus addresses people who fornicate? If we do then we should open our Holy Bible to St. John 8.
When the pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, He told the crowd "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." When the woman and Jesus were the only ones left: Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: "Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?" She said: "No man, Lord." And Jesus said: "Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more." Because Jesus has authentic/divine charity, for the woman, He tells her what she must do in order to be saved - repent. Does it appear that Fr. Schmitz is only telling half the message? Fr. Schmitz never tells us if or when we are supposed to say "Go, and now sin no more." to those living a SS lifestyle.
If a friend who has SSA is killed in a car accident 5 minutes after they left your company and they go to Hell, because of the lifestyle they are living, am I responsible for the loss of their soul because I was never charitable toward them and told the Truth as Jesus did with the woman in St. John 8?
I recall Fr. Corapi stating that he wished somebody at some point would have hit him over the head with a two by four, but no one ever did. Is that charitable? Fr. Corapi did not think so. It is always extremely difficult to tell a person you love that their actions have eternal consequences/damnation and so in our weakness, we opt to take the human view of charity and accept them where they are and forget to tell them the whole Truth. This Truth is the message Jesus has for all:
St. Mark 1: 14-15 [14] And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, [15] And saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.
We are called to live the whole Truth, not only the parts that appeal to us. We all have a cross to bear and maybe SSA is the custom made cross God has "allowed" these people to bear.
We are always called to repent - turn away from sin and toward God. If we do not repent, we cannot be saved and salvation would not even be possible if Jesus did not die for us.
I do not recall the story exactly, but a person was complaining to a saint about their cross. This saint instructed the person to put it in a pile with all the rest of the crosses and pick the one they desired. The person returned with their own cross. God knows the type of suffering that is best for us. We just have difficulty believing He knows what is best for us.
Catholic Christian??? Haha.