Always love listening to Peter Kreeft. So smart, yet so humble. I wish I could have a cup of coffee with him and pick his brain for an hour. He was very influential in my decision of leaving evangelicism and returning home to Rome.
Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion? The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine. Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus) This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one. The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing. One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined? How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal. I would therefore like to ask: Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Wow... Deep messages in just 10 minutes of your conversation. I never liked Vatican II but based on what I heard. But when I read about it, I realized that people there is far from numb. The rosary, OMG, yes, our feelings should not dictate over our will. The King James Version bible: I am glad to hear I am not the only one. I read RSV for prayer, and NRSV for easy reading, but KJV is for personal talk with God. Each one of us speaks a language, and there is a bible translation for us. Thank you for sharing your video.
I love what Dr Kreeft said about the rosary. I struggle praying it, but I do love it. It really spoke to me what he said. I will try in the car while driving. I don't pray enough too. Great video! God bless from another aussie. :)
There are the CV2 documents and there are their implementations. I was a kid in mid-70s and I remember priests were PROHIBITED to say the Tridentine Mass, such a prohibition had never even been tought of in CV2.
My fav is now the Douay-Rheims, Challoner version, which came built into the Laudate app. As far as "thou" compared to "you," let's do some Early Modern English grammar using modern Spanish and Modern English as comparisons: Second person singular pronoun: Early Modern English - thou Modern Spanish - tu Modern English - you Second person plural pronoun: Early Modern English - you Modern Spanish - ustedes Modern English - you Second person formal pronoun: Early Modern English - you Modern Spanish - usted Modern English - [no formal second person pronoun] When St. Teresa of Avila spoke with Jesus in Latin, she was heard to use the familiar second person singular, "tibi," rather than the formal form of the pronoun. Spanish speakers address Jesus and God the Father and the Holy Spirit as "tu," rather than as "usted" or "ustedes," even though the latter is how one would address someone of higher rank, or a stranger whose rank isn't known. Speakers of Early Modern English understood the same distinction -- King James was addressed as "you," but God was addressed by the familiar, "thou," even though "thou" is used to address one's *peers* or people of lower rank or lower status, such as children. Modern English developed with the rise of republicanism and egalitarianism. Americans destroyed all sign of monarchy, while yet addressing one another in royal pronouns.
Case and point on the Douay's superiority - see how the Angel refers to Our Lady - "Full of Grace" - Mother Angelica said any time she looked at a Bible translation she would open to Luke 2 and see how they referred to Our Lady. If it was not full of grace, she said she would not read from it. Sound advice.
@@eldermillennial8330 Great question. Orthodox study Bible is just the New King James version of the Bible with eastern Orthodox commentary. The Eastern Orthodox never made their own translations of the Bible so they borrowed from the Anglicans due to the sad reality of their shared anti-Catholic sentiments. You'll find their perspective laced into their commentary as well, as everyone comes from a perspective. Best to fill your mind and meditate and dwell on what is sure to be true rather than settling for something close but laced with errors, especially if one has not been first thoroughly trained to be able to discern. We often think we know more than we do, which is why traditionally seminarians were not allowed to read protestant works without the permission of their superior who could tell if they were able to properly distinguish. These books were kept in the section of the library labeled "hell," so they would have to ask for permission to read a book from hell. You get the picture.
Well said: to leave the Church in view of the current crisis, would be just an excuse. The Church was founded by Jesus, It belongs to Him. I go to Church not to give glory to the priest, but glory to God. satan is clever, don't fall into his trap! Remain with the Ship. The Blessed Mother has, and always will, keep It afloat. Concerning the rosary: when one discovers the beauty of the holy rosary, and the mysteries contained therein, one can never stop praying it. It is most important to know that the head of satan has already been crushed! Pray and be at peace.
It is very important to pray for all the priests and nuns every day. We should pray for them to overcome the inumerable temptations they would face every day. We need the protection of our beloved mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary for all the seminarians.
@Patz13 You is the formal term. ;) Edit: You is actually the plural form of thou. It's like in French, where the singular is "tu" and the plural is "vous", but the formal (singular) form of "tu" is also "vous". Older styles of German have this, too.
Isaiah Timberlake I think Americans got sick of the classism implicit in those uses and just standardized “YOU” as a defiance of traditional class divisions.
Peter Kreeft, you write some of the most wonderful books. I read one I believe was called "The Hem Of His Garment" or something similar. It helped to change my life.
I was in the 8th grade when Vatican II ended. The Baltimore Catechism was promptly thrown out. By the time I was in the 11th grade our catechism class consisted of asking our mother if we could have her Good Housekeeping magazine so we could cut out pictures of "joy" and "love." We would take them to class and paste them on a poster board and stand back in amazement at our effort. Since I had been confirmed in the 3rd grade my mother said I did not have to go to catechism anymore.
@@josephmaxwell5033 When I was 25 I rediscovered my faith and jumped back in with both feet. I have always went to Mass on Sunday and Feast days, but I acquired a real desire to know my faith deeply. And, it has never left me.
Great Cathy, keep it up as St Paul says, all the way to the end of the race. Jesus in Blessed Sacrament is the centre of my belief and I need His Divine Grace to help me on my way! God Bless and keep you safe!😇😎🏴
Cathy Caten hearing that you were confirmed in the 3rd grade only makes me more frustrated that most western Catholic Churches bump it well into their teens, be it the 8th or 9th grade. Being one of the three sacraments of initiation, it should be delayed as little as possible, though I 100% believe that the west should simply adopt the eastern model: when a baby is baptized, it is also chrismated (our term for “confirmation”), and given the holy Eucharist. We wholly eschew this “age of reason” notion, pointing out that if John the Baptist can leap for joy in his mother Elizabeth’s womb, rejoicing in the presence of Christ in the womb of the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary, then we shouldn’t assume that some arbitrary “age of reason” means that kids can’t and shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. The same rationale that the west uses to justify infant baptism, we extend also to these other two sacraments of initiation.
@@GuadalupePicasso The reason given for delaying Confirmation is they say kids that young don't understand it. When the good nuns who explained what "fear of the Lord" meant I understood it as not wanting to do anything to hurt God. At the age of eight I understood that concept. I am not a genius. The nuns just taught us well. Today, most kids are lucky if they are confirmed at all.
Not sure if it's assuring for me or sad for him I find myself (a new catholic) moraly (so far as the rosary is concerned) and factually (so far as V2 is concerned) correcting him and I still see myself as a novice despite my last almost two years of constantly theology studies. If anything I'll thank this man for strengthening my resolve in becoming the priest God needs me to be as the new priests and old God fearing are doing their best to heal it now despite pushback from the socialists and modernists who still infect theology to bend to their wants and not God's need.
Curious Madcat I’ve no hope for the Latin Rite within the Roman Communion whatsoever. Such as You are an anomaly against overwhelming odds. I DO have two peculiar hopes, however. One, I believe the Latin majority will hemorrhage or switch Rites in such huge numbers that the Unite Eastern Catholic Rites will take over. After a Greek Catholic is elected Pope, THEN things will get interesting. He will do what the Latin establishment didn’t have the guts to do, and among them will be reasonable negotiation with the Orthodox for reunification. Once that’s done, Western Orthodox Bishops will be well placed to take back Rome for Orthodox Catholicism.
Matt, please turn volume down on the last bit (outro), it’s incredibly loud compared to the voices throughout the clip. Otherwise great work and keep it up!
Ordinariate Catholic here, Diocesan Hermit and lover of the Book of Common Prayer and the KJV. There is now a new two volume KJV with the Deutero Canonical books in the order one expects of a Catholic Bible.
Which in the Cahlloner version I prefer to the Catholic bible we use today. which btw, Bill Buckley said was the worst of all modern translations into English. Banal, banal, banal. Read it aloud to someone and ask them to remember anything you just read.
With due respect, Matt, why are Catholics so emboldened to Protestant translations to the point it seems the Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims are considered taboo? Yes, the KJV is beautiful English literature, but the Douay is invariably Catholic.
Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion? The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine. Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus) This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one. The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing. One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined? How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal. I would therefore like to ask: Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
A little confused: as pointed out in a comment below, the use of 'thee' 'thou' thy' 'thine' is intensely familiar and personal .. archaic, for sure, yet quite unlike the formal or plural 'you' 'your'. Is that not the point of using it, even in the formalities of common or liturgical prayer? Sort of poetic: 'Thou art my love, my dove, my heart' - not 'Your Majesty may command me as you please' .. type, stuff.
When asked Mr Kreeft when he Prayed the Rosary and he answered that he Prays the Rosary when he is driving. Well Mr Kreeft lost me there. Praying the Rosary is a Meditation Prayer. You can't do that and drive at the same time. That is just going through the motions thinking that you are accomplishing something. It lacks Devotion and Humility. Obviously you can recite small Prayers while driving but, to try to pray the whole Rosary when driving. (Yes) there are Special circumstances that you Should Pray the Rosary while driving. But as a daily Prayer? We all should focus on the Narrow Path that only the Few Find. May the Lord Saturate your Souls with the Holy Spirit. 🔥✝️📿
@@pinoysarisari7374 Thanks for your comment. In the UNCONTESTED (Catechism of the Council of Trent) speaks strongly about ones Disposition while praying. Please try not to use Scripture to Rationalize your desires. I strongly recommend that you get a copy of (The Catechism of the Council of Trent) if you want to know the Faith, and read it cover to cover. It's not a hard read. You can order a copy at Baronius press, and it's not to expensive. May the Lord Saturate your Soul with the Holy Spirit. 🔥✝️📿🙏
@@jhondoe233 there are many ways of praying...in all things, do everything for the Glory of God... (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18) "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you." ============= You can also Buy the book or listen in RUclips "The Practice of the Presence of God." by Brother Lawrence....A Christian Classic discipline of Praying in all circumstances....
OK, so I’m going to pray a Rosary in my car on the way to Adoration, where I will then pray a more meditative and proper Rosary. I find there is then no problem with my devotion or humility.
Although there was not anything heretical in Vatican Two, it's bad fruit was it's implementation. You really can't divorce one from the other. I don't think that the council bore any good fruit.
Precision in terminology is crucial in our day and age -- there is no such thing as "anglican youth mass". There is an Anglican Ordinariate, which is under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. Imprecision confuses those outside the church, and potentially, even those inside. And King James was a freemason, as well, that "bible" is incomplete, missing books, and contains numerous mistranslations -- so not sure why we're praising that? Just because the devil speaks in poetry, doesn't mean what he's saying is good.
So glad to hear you like the King James too, I love KJV too! Didn't know we were allowed to like it. Reading the 23rd psalm in other versions is just sad.
@@miguelitoantonio1950 Matt says in the video he found one with all the books from an Anglican priest. I just have the regular one which I have heard many Catholics refer to as 'a Protestant bible' : ) now my bible is usually Youversion on my ipad so I can quickly go back and forth from NABRE, NIV, KJV
It is "protestant" because it had books left out when it was translated. King James was a Protestant politician. If you can find one with all the books then no problem. I have a KJV because someone gave it to me as a gift years ago and I didn't want to just throw it away, or give it away since it was a gift. So I have that and of course other (Catholic) versions as well which include ALL the books. Theres nothing wrong with having different translations to compare, and to use for quoting. Just make sure you have at least one translation which includes all the books.
@@dianemarie8873 Yes I acquired mine from my college Honors Humanities program that started with the bible. Certain passages are just so much better IMHO
Peter is quite a character and a cunning mind. But praying the Rosary while driving? Well, who am I to judge. Unless he drives in order to pray the Rosary. If driving is a priority and the Rosary is inserted there for convenience, I don't know... "
Elderly- I’m used to seeing pictures of him when he was younger, so it was also jarring to see him in person at a catholic men’s conference. He’s 82 years old so one might expect him to lack a few hairs(or all of them).
The Rosary is boring if said alone . . . It was meant to be a communal prayer (but all devotions are forbidden, now) with the obvious interchange between the two sections. if it is recited at the proper pace -- rather fast -- you get a rhythm going which, actually, is in conformity with the in- and out-breath. And, of course, the presence of the community supports and soothes the participants. But that was in the good ol' days.
Peter Kreeft is a very intelligent and cultured man. But I am afraid he is not completely right on Vatican two. Vatican two is heretical. It does have error. It says the Muslims with us worship one merciful God. The Latin says “nobis cum,” meaning with us. That’s heresy and it is blasphemy. Here is a priest with a doctorate in canon law and Thomistic theology explain it: ruclips.net/video/qVuX5-waAig/видео.html Also Benedict and John Paul 2 were not as great as people think they are. At Benedict XVI’s mass, pro abortion Rudy Giuliani received Holy Communion, prayed vespers with Protestants (communicatio in sacris), and went to a synagogue in a way that promoted religious indifferentism. And that was just his trip to the US. He also went into the blue mosque, took off his shoes faced Mecca and prayed with an imam. Both he and John Paul also held the inter religious meetings where false religions blasphemously invoked their false gods (demons).
Read the Latin text. It says “nobiscum”. That means with us. It’s syncretism. And leads naturally to the pope going into a mosque, taking off his shoes, facing Mecca and praying with an imam. Which is a mortal sin against the first commandment. ruclips.net/video/RpzPVrTfO1I/видео.html
@@charlesquinn1526 question: do the jews, muslims, jehovas witness, bahai etc. claim to worship the God of Abraham? If no, then they are not an abrahamic religion. If yes, then they do in fact worship the one merciful God since the God of Abraham is the one Merciful God and considering that our God is the God of Abraham and we worship Him as well, then when two persons engage in the same activity they can be considered as doing something together with the other person (same as when a protestant worships Jesus, since you and someone else can be doing one activity but you do it well and the other no. Two persons can be shooting arrows out of a bow, but when one is blind and not trained, he can not hit the target even if he is performing the same activity as the other who is in good condition or at least not in any meaningful way). In V2 there is no mention of the quality of worship or the salvific nature of the worship of false religions, it actually implies that there is none, since it reaffirms (in Lumen Gentium) that outside of Church there is no salvation. When you read V2 in the lens of tradition (in continuity with previous church teachings) and as a whole and with charity there can be no doubt that it is orthodox. In the history of the Church we find the fact that a previous ecumenical council of the Church was viewed in a heretical way even though it was not, that would be the council of Chalcedon, since it was talking about two natures of Christ, which can be viewed as a reaffirmation of nestorianism.
@@jokerguycz Just because someone says they worship the one God, or the God Abraham does not mean they do. The Trinity is the God of Abraham. Islam rejects the Trinity. They don’t worship the Trinity, so they don’t worship same God as us. The Jews reject the Trinity and Our Lord. The Trinity and Christ are the God of Abraham, so they don’t worship the God of Abraham. They don’t worship the same God as us. It’s like a man 1 saying to another man 2 we have the same father, then it is being explained to man 1 that man 2’s father is called Joe. Then man one says I reject Joe as my father, but we still have the same father.. No you don’t. Regarding the quality of worship: “All the Gods of the gentiles are devils” Psalm 96:5 And as Our Lord said about the Christ rejecting Jews: “ thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Apocalypse 2:9 The spirit of Vatican Two goes against the catholic doctrine of the two cities. The city of man and city of God that are against each other. The have repackaged the error of syncretism as ecumenism. They give the impression they are two neighbourhoods in the same city, when they are actually diametrically opposed to each other, as is clear from any cursory reading of church history.
The KJV is very corrupted :( KJ wanted his bible to reflect his divine right of king arguments and changed certain lines to remove possible dissent (I think maybe James and Paul?)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Always love listening to Peter Kreeft. So smart, yet so humble. I wish I could have a cup of coffee with him and pick his brain for an hour. He was very influential in my decision of leaving evangelicism and returning home to Rome.
Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion?
The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine?
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species.
Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing:
Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates.
Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus)
This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal.
Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific.
The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one.
The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing.
One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case.
Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined?
How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal.
I would therefore like to ask:
Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Wow... Deep messages in just 10 minutes of your conversation.
I never liked Vatican II but based on what I heard. But when I read about it, I realized that people there is far from numb.
The rosary, OMG, yes, our feelings should not dictate over our will.
The King James Version bible: I am glad to hear I am not the only one. I read RSV for prayer, and NRSV for easy reading, but KJV is for personal talk with God. Each one of us speaks a language, and there is a bible translation for us.
Thank you for sharing your video.
I love what Dr Kreeft said about the rosary. I struggle praying it, but I do love it. It really spoke to me what he said. I will try in the car while driving. I don't pray enough too. Great video! God bless from another aussie. :)
There are the CV2 documents and there are their implementations. I was a kid in mid-70s and I remember priests were PROHIBITED to say the Tridentine Mass, such a prohibition had never even been tought of in CV2.
My fav is now the Douay-Rheims, Challoner version, which came built into the Laudate app. As far as "thou" compared to "you," let's do some Early Modern English grammar using modern Spanish and Modern English as comparisons:
Second person singular pronoun:
Early Modern English - thou
Modern Spanish - tu
Modern English - you
Second person plural pronoun:
Early Modern English - you
Modern Spanish - ustedes
Modern English - you
Second person formal pronoun:
Early Modern English - you
Modern Spanish - usted
Modern English - [no formal second person pronoun]
When St. Teresa of Avila spoke with Jesus in Latin, she was heard to use the familiar second person singular, "tibi," rather than the formal form of the pronoun. Spanish speakers address Jesus and God the Father and the Holy Spirit as "tu," rather than as "usted" or "ustedes," even though the latter is how one would address someone of higher rank, or a stranger whose rank isn't known. Speakers of Early Modern English understood the same distinction -- King James was addressed as "you," but God was addressed by the familiar, "thou," even though "thou" is used to address one's *peers* or people of lower rank or lower status, such as children.
Modern English developed with the rise of republicanism and egalitarianism. Americans destroyed all sign of monarchy, while yet addressing one another in royal pronouns.
Excellent, informative.
Case and point on the Douay's superiority - see how the Angel refers to Our Lady - "Full of Grace" - Mother Angelica said any time she looked at a Bible translation she would open to Luke 2 and see how they referred to Our Lady. If it was not full of grace, she said she would not read from it. Sound advice.
Una Fides
How does it compare to the Orthodox Study Bible?
I’ve preferred “Ages of ages” to “now and forever” since I first heard it.
@@eldermillennial8330 Great question. Orthodox study Bible is just the New King James version of the Bible with eastern Orthodox commentary. The Eastern Orthodox never made their own translations of the Bible so they borrowed from the Anglicans due to the sad reality of their shared anti-Catholic sentiments. You'll find their perspective laced into their commentary as well, as everyone comes from a perspective. Best to fill your mind and meditate and dwell on what is sure to be true rather than settling for something close but laced with errors, especially if one has not been first thoroughly trained to be able to discern. We often think we know more than we do, which is why traditionally seminarians were not allowed to read protestant works without the permission of their superior who could tell if they were able to properly distinguish. These books were kept in the section of the library labeled "hell," so they would have to ask for permission to read a book from hell. You get the picture.
Well said: to leave the Church in view of the current crisis, would be just an excuse. The Church was founded by Jesus, It belongs to Him. I go to Church not to give glory to the priest, but glory to God. satan is clever, don't fall into his trap! Remain with the Ship. The Blessed Mother has, and always will, keep It afloat. Concerning the rosary: when one discovers the beauty of the holy rosary, and the mysteries contained therein, one can never stop praying it. It is most important to know that the head of satan has already been crushed! Pray and be at peace.
It is very important to pray for all the priests and nuns every day. We should pray for them to overcome the inumerable temptations they would face every day. We need the protection of our beloved mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary for all the seminarians.
Ironically, "thee" and "thou" used to be the more informal and familiar form of "you".
I was going to jump in to mention that ... in fact I will go into the grammar in a separate comment.
@Patz13 You is the formal term. ;)
Edit: You is actually the plural form of thou. It's like in French, where the singular is "tu" and the plural is "vous", but the formal (singular) form of "tu" is also "vous". Older styles of German have this, too.
Ye was formal for thou and you was formal for thee.
Isaiah Timberlake
I think Americans got sick of the classism implicit in those uses and just standardized “YOU” as a defiance of traditional class divisions.
@@eldermillennial8330 The current usage of "you" predates the United States (even Shakespeare used *sometimes* used it as we would today).
Peter Kreeft, you write some of the most wonderful books. I read one I believe was called "The Hem Of His Garment" or something similar. It helped to change my life.
I was in the 8th grade when Vatican II ended. The Baltimore Catechism was promptly thrown out. By the time I was in the 11th grade our catechism class consisted of asking our mother if we could have her Good Housekeeping magazine so we could cut out pictures of "joy" and "love." We would take them to class and paste them on a poster board and stand back in amazement at our effort. Since I had been confirmed in the 3rd grade my mother said I did not have to go to catechism anymore.
Cathy, so sad, sorry for your loss. It’s not been my experience and I am still a practicing Catholic.
@@josephmaxwell5033 When I was 25 I rediscovered my faith and jumped back in with both feet. I have always went to Mass on Sunday and Feast days, but I acquired a real desire to know my faith deeply. And, it has never left me.
Great Cathy, keep it up as St Paul says, all the way to the end of the race.
Jesus in Blessed Sacrament is the centre of my belief and I need His Divine Grace to help me on my way! God Bless and keep you safe!😇😎🏴
Cathy Caten hearing that you were confirmed in the 3rd grade only makes me more frustrated that most western Catholic Churches bump it well into their teens, be it the 8th or 9th grade. Being one of the three sacraments of initiation, it should be delayed as little as possible, though I 100% believe that the west should simply adopt the eastern model: when a baby is baptized, it is also chrismated (our term for “confirmation”), and given the holy Eucharist. We wholly eschew this “age of reason” notion, pointing out that if John the Baptist can leap for joy in his mother Elizabeth’s womb, rejoicing in the presence of Christ in the womb of the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary, then we shouldn’t assume that some arbitrary “age of reason” means that kids can’t and shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. The same rationale that the west uses to justify infant baptism, we extend also to these other two sacraments of initiation.
@@GuadalupePicasso The reason given for delaying Confirmation is they say kids that young don't understand it. When the good nuns who explained what "fear of the Lord" meant I understood it as not wanting to do anything to hurt God. At the age of eight I understood that concept. I am not a genius. The nuns just taught us well. Today, most kids are lucky if they are confirmed at all.
Not sure if it's assuring for me or sad for him I find myself (a new catholic) moraly (so far as the rosary is concerned) and factually (so far as V2 is concerned) correcting him and I still see myself as a novice despite my last almost two years of constantly theology studies. If anything I'll thank this man for strengthening my resolve in becoming the priest God needs me to be as the new priests and old God fearing are doing their best to heal it now despite pushback from the socialists and modernists who still infect theology to bend to their wants and not God's need.
@Curious Madcat God bless you and may your ministry be beneficial and blessed.
Be the Holy Priest that you are called to be!
God Bless you and keep you safe.
Curious Madcat
I’ve no hope for the Latin Rite within the Roman Communion whatsoever. Such as You are an anomaly against overwhelming odds. I DO have two peculiar hopes, however. One, I believe the Latin majority will hemorrhage or switch Rites in such huge numbers that the Unite Eastern Catholic Rites will take over. After a Greek Catholic is elected Pope, THEN things will get interesting. He will do what the Latin establishment didn’t have the guts to do, and among them will be reasonable negotiation with the Orthodox for reunification. Once that’s done, Western Orthodox Bishops will be well placed to take back Rome for Orthodox Catholicism.
Elder Millennial this would be a beautiful dream come true.
Matt, please turn volume down on the last bit (outro), it’s incredibly loud compared to the voices throughout the clip. Otherwise great work and keep it up!
I always go back to my childhood KJEV. It has such a respect for the English language.
Ordinariate Catholic here, Diocesan Hermit and lover of the Book of Common Prayer and the KJV. There is now a new two volume KJV with the Deutero Canonical books in the order one expects of a Catholic Bible.
@Matt Fradd could you tell us a bit more about your change to a Byzantine Parish?
Excellent!
What about Douay Rheims bible?
Orthodox Study Bible! Only english Bible that uses the Septuagint for the Old Testament.
Which in the Cahlloner version I prefer to the Catholic bible we use today. which btw, Bill Buckley said was the worst of all modern translations into English. Banal, banal, banal. Read it aloud to someone and ask them to remember anything you just read.
With due respect, Matt, why are Catholics so emboldened to Protestant translations to the point it seems the Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims are considered taboo? Yes, the KJV is beautiful English literature, but the Douay is invariably Catholic.
I believe in the creator, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and at the end! Dont matter what we all call hes our best friend!
Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion?
The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine?
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species.
Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing:
Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates.
Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus)
This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal.
Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific.
The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one.
The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing.
One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case.
Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined?
How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal.
I would therefore like to ask:
Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
A little confused: as pointed out in a comment below, the use of 'thee' 'thou' thy' 'thine' is intensely familiar and personal .. archaic, for sure, yet quite unlike the formal or plural 'you' 'your'. Is that not the point of using it, even in the formalities of common or liturgical prayer? Sort of poetic: 'Thou art my love, my dove, my heart' - not 'Your Majesty may command me as you please' .. type, stuff.
Rosary is just like daily exercise. Once you have time just read the rosary prayer everyday.
Is bastar* a curse word?
3:59 Does "CCC" count as just "scandals"?
What do you mean?
@@josephmiller3672 "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
@@hglundahl How would the Catechism count as scandals?
@@josephmiller3672 By differring from Catholic teaching.
@@hglundahl Where does it do that?
When asked Mr Kreeft when he Prayed the Rosary and he answered that he Prays the Rosary when he is driving. Well Mr Kreeft lost me there.
Praying the Rosary is a Meditation Prayer. You can't do that and drive at the same time. That is just going through the motions thinking that you are accomplishing something.
It lacks Devotion and Humility.
Obviously you can recite small Prayers while driving but, to try to pray the whole Rosary when driving.
(Yes) there are Special circumstances that you Should Pray the Rosary while driving. But as a daily Prayer? We all should focus on the Narrow Path that only the Few Find. May the Lord Saturate your Souls with the Holy Spirit. 🔥✝️📿
You nailed it right on the head. Praying the rosary is uplifting your thoughts and hearts to God, which once can't do together with another act.
you ought to pray in whatever circumstances...
"(1 Corinthians 10:31)
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."
@@pinoysarisari7374
Thanks for your comment. In the UNCONTESTED (Catechism of the Council of Trent) speaks strongly about ones Disposition while praying. Please try not to use Scripture to Rationalize your desires.
I strongly recommend that you get a copy of (The Catechism of the Council of Trent) if you want to know the Faith, and read it cover to cover.
It's not a hard read. You can order a copy at Baronius press, and it's not to expensive. May the Lord Saturate your Soul with the Holy Spirit. 🔥✝️📿🙏
@@jhondoe233 there are many ways of praying...in all things, do everything for the Glory of God...
(1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)
"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."
=============
You can also Buy the book or listen in RUclips "The Practice of the Presence of God." by Brother Lawrence....A Christian Classic discipline of Praying in all circumstances....
OK, so I’m going to pray a Rosary in my car on the way to Adoration, where I will then pray a more meditative and proper Rosary. I find there is then no problem with my devotion or humility.
Although there was not anything heretical in Vatican Two, it's bad fruit was it's implementation. You really can't divorce one from the other. I don't think that the council bore any good fruit.
Or the Vatican bank in 1929? depending on what you read.
The Vatican bank has been in existence since the middle ages. It had different names. The Catholic Church have always had a place to manage its money
Booo KJB! Hoooyah DRB
Precision in terminology is crucial in our day and age -- there is no such thing as "anglican youth mass". There is an Anglican Ordinariate, which is under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. Imprecision confuses those outside the church, and potentially, even those inside. And King James was a freemason, as well, that "bible" is incomplete, missing books, and contains numerous mistranslations -- so not sure why we're praising that? Just because the devil speaks in poetry, doesn't mean what he's saying is good.
So glad to hear you like the King James too, I love KJV too! Didn't know we were allowed to like it. Reading the 23rd psalm in other versions is just sad.
Is there a Catholic version?
@@miguelitoantonio1950 Matt says in the video he found one with all the books from an Anglican priest. I just have the regular one which I have heard many Catholics refer to as 'a Protestant bible' : ) now my bible is usually Youversion on my ipad so I can quickly go back and forth from NABRE, NIV, KJV
It is "protestant" because it had books left out when it was translated. King James was a Protestant politician. If you can find one with all the books then no problem. I have a KJV because someone gave it to me as a gift years ago and I didn't want to just throw it away, or give it away since it was a gift. So I have that and of course other (Catholic) versions as well which include ALL the books. Theres nothing wrong with having different translations to compare, and to use for quoting. Just make sure you have at least one translation which includes all the books.
@@dianemarie8873 Yes I acquired mine from my college Honors Humanities program that started with the bible. Certain passages are just so much better IMHO
Erin Aboudara welcome to the Church!
Peter is quite a character and a cunning mind. But praying the Rosary while driving? Well, who am I to judge. Unless he drives in order to pray the Rosary. If driving is a priority and the Rosary is inserted there for convenience, I don't know...
"
Is kreeft ill? Cancer?
Elderly- I’m used to seeing pictures of him when he was younger, so it was also jarring to see him in person at a catholic men’s conference. He’s 82 years old so one might expect him to lack a few hairs(or all of them).
The Rosary is boring if said alone . . . It was meant to be a communal prayer (but all devotions are forbidden, now) with the obvious interchange between the two sections. if it is recited at the proper pace -- rather fast -- you get a rhythm going which, actually, is in conformity with the in- and out-breath. And, of course, the presence of the community supports and soothes the participants. But that was in the good ol' days.
The NIV is a heinous work of blasphemy
Peter Kreeft is a very intelligent and cultured man. But I am afraid he is not completely right on Vatican two.
Vatican two is heretical. It does have error. It says the Muslims with us worship one merciful God. The Latin says “nobis cum,” meaning with us. That’s heresy and it is blasphemy.
Here is a priest with a doctorate in canon law and Thomistic theology explain it:
ruclips.net/video/qVuX5-waAig/видео.html
Also Benedict and John Paul 2 were not as great as people think they are. At Benedict XVI’s mass, pro abortion Rudy Giuliani received Holy Communion, prayed vespers with Protestants (communicatio in sacris), and went to a synagogue in a way that promoted religious indifferentism. And that was just his trip to the US.
He also went into the blue mosque, took off his shoes faced Mecca and prayed with an imam. Both he and John Paul also held the inter religious meetings where false religions blasphemously invoked their false gods (demons).
@Prasanth Thomas are you sure?
Read the Latin text. It says “nobiscum”. That means with us. It’s syncretism. And leads naturally to the pope going into a mosque, taking off his shoes, facing Mecca and praying with an imam. Which is a mortal sin against the first commandment.
ruclips.net/video/RpzPVrTfO1I/видео.html
@@charlesquinn1526 question: do the jews, muslims, jehovas witness, bahai etc. claim to worship the God of Abraham? If no, then they are not an abrahamic religion. If yes, then they do in fact worship the one merciful God since the God of Abraham is the one Merciful God and considering that our God is the God of Abraham and we worship Him as well, then when two persons engage in the same activity they can be considered as doing something together with the other person (same as when a protestant worships Jesus, since you and someone else can be doing one activity but you do it well and the other no. Two persons can be shooting arrows out of a bow, but when one is blind and not trained, he can not hit the target even if he is performing the same activity as the other who is in good condition or at least not in any meaningful way). In V2 there is no mention of the quality of worship or the salvific nature of the worship of false religions, it actually implies that there is none, since it reaffirms (in Lumen Gentium) that outside of Church there is no salvation. When you read V2 in the lens of tradition (in continuity with previous church teachings) and as a whole and with charity there can be no doubt that it is orthodox. In the history of the Church we find the fact that a previous ecumenical council of the Church was viewed in a heretical way even though it was not, that would be the council of Chalcedon, since it was talking about two natures of Christ, which can be viewed as a reaffirmation of nestorianism.
@@jokerguycz
Just because someone says they worship the one God, or the God Abraham does not mean they do.
The Trinity is the God of Abraham. Islam rejects the Trinity. They don’t worship the Trinity, so they don’t worship same God as us.
The Jews reject the Trinity and Our Lord. The Trinity and Christ are the God of Abraham, so they don’t worship the God of Abraham. They don’t worship the same God as us.
It’s like a man 1 saying to another man 2 we have the same father, then it is being explained to man 1 that man 2’s father is called Joe. Then man one says I reject Joe as my father, but we still have the same father.. No you don’t.
Regarding the quality of worship:
“All the Gods of the gentiles are devils” Psalm 96:5
And as Our Lord said about the Christ rejecting Jews: “ thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Apocalypse 2:9
The spirit of Vatican Two goes against the catholic doctrine of the two cities. The city of man and city of God that are against each other. The have repackaged the error of syncretism as ecumenism. They give the impression they are two neighbourhoods in the same city, when they are actually diametrically opposed to each other, as is clear from any cursory reading of church history.
@@charlesquinn1526 Dude do the Prots pray to Jesus or no?
The KJV is very corrupted :( KJ wanted his bible to reflect his divine right of king arguments and changed certain lines to remove possible dissent (I think maybe James and Paul?)
Invest in a reusable water bottle eh? You could probably get a company to sponsor you
😄
Vatican 2 needs to go...NOW
The Vatican was established in 1942.
Explain?
@@bigman7856 vatican bank was founded in 1929
Mike Cain Im asking what is meant when you say established?
No.
Just check the history for youself
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City