Fundamentalism is always in the eye of the beholder. Since it is practically a dirty word, there is no one who voluntarily calls themselves a fundamentalist. Everyone sees themselves in the middle, balanced position, because everyone can always see or fantasize about someone who is further to the fringe. In this case, Eric Sammons sees himself in the middle, balanced position, while one can certainly find others who classify him as a fundamentalist. Unfortunately, the definition that Eric Sammons gives for fundamentalists does not help here either, since no one actually "dogmatizes" certain positions in the narrow sense. The term "dogmatize" is also a dirty word, so it is in the eye of the beholder and is used by the beholder when he does not agree with the position in question. So the dirty word "fundamentalist" ultimately becomes an excuse for those who do not want to look at and discuss certain positions in more detail, even though there are in fact well-founded arguments for them... (veiling, geocentrism, etc., etc.)
Exactly. That whole video was just trent calling everyone he disagrees with a fundamentalist. Dumping Peter Dimond and Jacob Imam/Gabriel Castillo in the same group just seemed completely uncharitable and untrue.
Note well, the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith were set out for us, simply, in .. The Penny Catechism, as a secure structure upon which we may grow in faith, hope and charity, knowledge, understanding and wisdom et al. However, making the Penny Catechism of greater authority (or utility) than the living Magisterium - by way of opinion - is not part of this kind of recognised Catholic-fundamentalist trait. There has been a bit of a hard-lining shift - along the route of an earlier 'private-interpretation' Protestant move - and that is (I believe) the 'problem' outlined in Mr Horn's original piece and shared here (with corrections) via Mr Sammons' gentlemanly vigour; all such (overweening personal opinionist) fundamentalism is alien to the Catholic Way, God's Truth, Our Life in Christ Jesus. ;o)
To be completely, I still dont understand the fundamental approach trent or you are taking. And you make the same point. For example. There has been no dogmatic condemnation of going to nightclubs and modern dancing (which you yourself have noticed is immoral). But we can see from our reason, thay these are immoral, so what, we cannot exhort other young people to not do that? Like for example there is no dogmatic proclamation against me going on long walks on the park with my neighbours wife, holding hands. That doesnt mean suddenly its totally fine and nobody can condemn it. Trent has had an axe to grind with Jacob Imam since their debate. I've never seen Trent argue in bad faith, except in that particular debate. He kept Jacob's arguments and taking him out of context. Not charity was given at all. Trent supports libertarian social and economic policies. And he's talked about that. As much as i appreciate Trents clear and consise arguments about against atheism, protestantism and abortion, in this area of Catholic tradition and culture he just loses it.
Saw Trent's video. I really appreciated what he was trying to do, which was to point out and cool down some of the extreme positions of Catholic fundamentalism which is very badly needed. There is a strain of it even within otherwise perfectly orthodox Catholics who have social media platforms that needs to be addressed - especially with people apply a valid/authentic Catholic moral principle but too strictly then tell others something is a sin or a grave obligation when the Church simply has not said that. But I have noticed that Trent does sometimes over-rely on "there's no there, there" arguments when, well, there is or might be a "there" there. Or at least it's open. He said "Harry Potter doesn't have the names of demons, just Greek gods/goddesses" - well, St. Paul said worshipping a Greek god was to worship a demon. He mentioned something like kissing hasn't been formally condemned - almost any priest will tell you sure context is needed but most of the time yes it is illicit because of the near occasion of sin; St. Alphonsus said it was in his books on moral theology; it's in almost every examination of conscience. So I think we need to be super cautious here because this obvious renewal taking place in the Church now especially with young fervent Catholic can easily be derailed. But bravo to Trent to taking this all on, because the fundamentalism IS real and a major threat to the good coming about now.
Orthodox here. With love and humility let me give you an external point of view on what we perceive to be the fundamentals of Catholicism, why we think it's heterodox and how it brought disasters on the western Church, among which the worse is the pan-synchretism of post Vatican 2. We orthodox base our theology on Jesus' teachins and the deposit of the faith given once and for all to the Church Fathers. In Luke 22:24-26 our Lord answers to a dispute that arose among the disciples about who will be the future leader of the Church, a subject that is central to Catholicism. So you would think that Catholics quote his I structions again and again. But you don't and whenever we orthodox quote Him we always hear crickets. Here is what our Lord taught _The kings of the Nations lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves._ And he washed they feet like the servants did in antiquity before the guests were allowed to enter the house of their masters (see the Odyssey). So obviously the hyerachy of the church differs from a typical monarchy. In a monarchy the subjects kiss the feet of the monarch and serve him. Not the other way around. Two other passages of the gospel clarify what's going on. The temptation of the mountain (symbol of the state in the orthodox tradition) when Satan puts Jesus on top of the highest mountain, shows him the glory and power of all the kingdoms of the earth and offers them to him. And Jesus refuses. The other is the interrogation by Pontius Pilates who asks him if he's the king of the Jews. And Jesus answers that His kingdom is not of this world. A third is the incident with the coin with the face of Cesar when Jesus said render to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and to God what belongs to God. When Constantine the Great ended the persecution of Christianity and tried to consolidate the unity of the Church within the empire, Christians had to deal with their new religion with the power. They came up with the double headed eagle that depicts the Christian Roman empire. One head is the temporal power of the emperor and the other is the spiritual power of the Church. Each head is crowned but both are linked by a ribbon to a third one above representing Jesus. This system was challenged when the Frank king Charlemagne took the byzantine province of Ravenna and became the protector of the pope in exchange of his coronation as western emperor. 10 years after his coronation he send a delegation to pope Leo III to request the addition of the filioque to the creed. Saint Leo III refused and nailed two silver shields on the doors of St Peter's cathedral with the unaltered text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed engraved in Greek and Latin followed by this sentence: I LEO DID THIS FOR THE SAKE AND THE LOVE OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH. It was obvious that Charlemagne wanted to create a schism between Rome and the rest of the Church in order to gain better control over his empire. Long story short, this plan was fulfilled by the second ever German pope count Bruno von Eguisheim-Dagsbourg who became pope Leo IX in 1050. Leo claimed the imperial Insignia of Rome for himself based on the Donation of Constantine and constituted a Pontifical State on the land given by Charlemagne to the papacy. He also created a chancellor: Humbert de Moyenmoutiers and a senate, the assembly of Cardinals who wear the colors of the Roman senators (scarlet and purple). The last block was Unam Sanctam in 1302 that proclaimed all human beings had to submit to the Roman Pontiff for their salvation. This entire endeavour was the exact opposite of the instructions of you Lord in Luke 22:24-26 I stop here. I will explain the consequences in a following post.
As soon as the Roman Church became a temporal state it started to behave as one. Leo IX wages wars leading himself and was even captured during the battle of Civitate in 1053 by the Normans. Humbert de Moyenmoutiers brought a letter to Patriarch Michel of Constantinople in 1054 allegedly from Leo IX (who was already dead) accusing him to be a woman in drag. That's not trivial. Its a crude way to express the main difference between the West and the East. For the Frankish-germanic warriors the Greeks were effeminate. This joke is still around today. But it's also a different view concerning the values of Christianity. The West saw the Eastern conception of Christianity as weak. Even Hitler infamously said that he regretted that Germans were not like Muslims but were weakened by Christianity. The West developed after the Schism the theory of the two swords, authorised t@orture and carbonization against 'heretics' aka those who don't submit to the Pontiff monarch, developed military monastic orders as the Templars etc. This is why the western nations rejected the Church. Because instead of being something that freed them it was just another top-down tyranny. In opposition orthodox nations identify with their Church, to the point that neither the Muslim persecution nor the communist one managed to eradicate Christianity. Lord have mercy on us all sinners. Kyrie eleison ☦️
I remember how the late and great Fr. Benedict Groeschel described fundamentalism. It occurs when one makes the measure of one's own mind the definition of all reality, seen and unseen.
Why the controversy? Trent said it plainly. A Liberal argues what the Church Forbids is allowed and a Fundamentalist argues what the Church allows is forbidden. Being a Trad (as opposed to being a mere Vatican 2 Conservative) has nothing to do with it. The only people who would object are those Trads who insist what the Church allows is really forbidden. PS if you don't want to use NFP that is fine. Don't use it but leave them who do alone.
What I said about the consensus of the scholastics being infallible was defined by Pope Pius IX in “Tuas libenter.” It reads: “[Infallibility] must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.” In short, the consensus of the scholastic is an extension of the ordinary magisterium due to their relationships to the bishops as theologians with pontifical charter.
@@Recusant_ just finished reading that article. It was interesting, but did not actually represent a change in consensus of the scholastics (nor did it claim to be). All it described is that at one point in time there was disagreement between the schools, and then they reached a consensus later-thus arriving at an authoritative conclusion. That is not a change in doctrine any more than Pius IX’s infallible declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a change in doctrine. The settling of a debated matter by the Church is not a doctrinal change. It is doctrinal development. The two are not at all the same.
Decrease discipline and rigor, increase laxity and the “Church Militant” becomes the “Church Pacifist “, what is the trajectory of the Church since “THE COUNCIL”?
Old debate. The Church was always pacifist. That's why the West mocked the Greeks as effeminate. But at the end of the day orthodoxy is the true teaching of our Lord. Not the violence western (Germanic) conception of a church holding both swords. Kyrie eleison ☦️
Eric, did you get a chance to watch the 2018 debates between Trent and Tim before Trent took them down? In one of them Trent literally says that "Church Doctrine can change", which is absolutely wrong. So if he's incorrect about something so fundamental (pun intended), I do not trust his criticism on things in the trad space. I do believe he has an inherent bias against anyone who rejects feminism.
The Church has never taught women can't work. It is about contraception. My grandmother and great-grandmother worked in mills as well as many other relatives but all these women had 5 to 9 children. It is about feminism. Women need to be in the home to raise healthy children. That is why Welfare was created, to help women raise children.
@corilv13honey9 when blessed mother at Akita talked about bishop vs bishop I have a feeling she's also talking about lay catholics going after each other like all this nonsense today. Let's not be a part of this. Stand for the faith but let's not bash other catholics who are totally in good standing with the church like Trent, who you happen to have some disagreements with
The greatest problem in the Catholic Church is extreme individualism leading to disobedience. This happens, or can happen, with any political position.
seems like blindly supporting labor unions is another form of Catholic fundamentalism. Leo XIII would probably not like what many unions now promote...
Correct. Christians can’t even take union jobs these days! They only allowed union membership as long as they were pro-Catholic and anti-Communist. This is why Pius XII made May 1st the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker to counter “May Day”, as European labor unions were Commie back then. The U.S. Labor (and Canadian Labour) Day established on the First Monday of September was to celebrate the dignity of the paycheck of a living wage. It also marks back to work and school in most places.
So, in regards to dancing. I guess it would depend on the manner of dancing? So waltzing, square dancing, ballet, traditional ethnic cultural dancing all ok, even some modern dancing ok...But some folks do dirty dancing, lap dancing, bumping & grinding, ritualistic shamanic dancing. I would say for a Christian these latter types are sinful, because they inspire lust and fornication in many cases.
I can't believe we are still discussing dancing.. It is exactly as you said. Avoid certain types. .. At Catholic weddings they usually dance and often some young women will wear short shirts and it may feel uncomfortable but there is not much you can do. Possibly, dancing helps to get rid of alcohol consumption. It is like church during summer when someone comes in with inappropriate attire. You'd also have to ban football or boxing because men wear tight clothing.
Yeah but according to Trents fundamental logic and approach. Since no dancing has been formally dogmatically condemned, you would be a pharisee for declaring it sinful.
Im neither catholic protestant orthodox. Nor a trinitarian. Just a believer. I dont at all go for anyone's infallibility but God and His Son. And the Son only because He has been given His infallibility by His Father, the Supreme. The Son is subject, His Father Supreme. Right after He appoints Peter as the Rock, He admonishes, Get the behind me, satan. The so-called first pope. So much for papal authority and infallibility. I guess people have a need for it. He has yet to give me that need.
So, "believer". What do you believe? Did Jesus appoint Peter as the Rock, and the authority to bind and to loosen, or was He joking? Can the Rock, the foundation stone, then fail? Peter the man failed, and denied Christ. But the Rock is the papacy, the seat of Peter is the continuation of the seat of Moses, which Jesus told the Jews that the Pharisees still held that authority, yet the men themselves were corrupt. Did Jesus delegate the authority to forgive sins, or was he joking again? But most of all, John 6, was Jesus joking about the bread from heaven and eating his flesh? Go count the number of times he said it. Big joke? Not calling back the Jews when they walked away. That means 10,000 that day lost their souls. We Catholics truly believe, the way Peter replied "where else can we go?" Certainly not to the 30,000 denominations all quarreling among themselves. You really want to be a believer? Go research the 152 Eucharistic Miracles (and counting). Slam dunk, case closed.
21:20 I don't think the Government should ban seed oils. But they should cease offering subsidies.
Are there trads who go way too far? Yes.
Would I generally prefer the Church and the laity lean further toward the (sane) trad side? Absolutely.
I prefer neither error to the other. Error is error.
Fundamentalism is always in the eye of the beholder. Since it is practically a dirty word, there is no one who voluntarily calls themselves a fundamentalist. Everyone sees themselves in the middle, balanced position, because everyone can always see or fantasize about someone who is further to the fringe. In this case, Eric Sammons sees himself in the middle, balanced position, while one can certainly find others who classify him as a fundamentalist. Unfortunately, the definition that Eric Sammons gives for fundamentalists does not help here either, since no one actually "dogmatizes" certain positions in the narrow sense. The term "dogmatize" is also a dirty word, so it is in the eye of the beholder and is used by the beholder when he does not agree with the position in question. So the dirty word "fundamentalist" ultimately becomes an excuse for those who do not want to look at and discuss certain positions in more detail, even though there are in fact well-founded arguments for them... (veiling, geocentrism, etc., etc.)
Exactly. That whole video was just trent calling everyone he disagrees with a fundamentalist. Dumping Peter Dimond and Jacob Imam/Gabriel Castillo in the same group just seemed completely uncharitable and untrue.
@@philip506 In the Middle…huh? You don’t get it! If you stand in the middle of the road….well! Ya get ran over! 🙏✝️❤️🇺🇸 Vote Trump!
We rather call ourselves orthodox Christians.☦️
I am a “Catholic Fundamentalist “, I promote “Ten Commandment “ morality, the faith of the “Apostles Creed”, and the “Inherency of Scripture “!
Note well, the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith were set out for us, simply, in .. The Penny Catechism, as a secure structure upon which we may grow in faith, hope and charity, knowledge, understanding and wisdom et al. However, making the Penny Catechism of greater authority (or utility) than the living Magisterium - by way of opinion - is not part of this kind of recognised Catholic-fundamentalist trait. There has been a bit of a hard-lining shift - along the route of an earlier 'private-interpretation' Protestant move - and that is (I believe) the 'problem' outlined in Mr Horn's original piece and shared here (with corrections) via Mr Sammons' gentlemanly vigour; all such (overweening personal opinionist) fundamentalism is alien to the Catholic Way, God's Truth, Our Life in Christ Jesus.
;o)
To be completely, I still dont understand the fundamental approach trent or you are taking. And you make the same point. For example. There has been no dogmatic condemnation of going to nightclubs and modern dancing (which you yourself have noticed is immoral). But we can see from our reason, thay these are immoral, so what, we cannot exhort other young people to not do that?
Like for example there is no dogmatic proclamation against me going on long walks on the park with my neighbours wife, holding hands. That doesnt mean suddenly its totally fine and nobody can condemn it.
Trent has had an axe to grind with Jacob Imam since their debate. I've never seen Trent argue in bad faith, except in that particular debate. He kept Jacob's arguments and taking him out of context. Not charity was given at all. Trent supports libertarian social and economic policies. And he's talked about that. As much as i appreciate Trents clear and consise arguments about against atheism, protestantism and abortion, in this area of Catholic tradition and culture he just loses it.
Modernism is a blight on the Church!
No holding hands with your neighbor's wife clearly implies funny business and is a scandal. Dancing with her at a wedding is not a problem.
Saw Trent's video. I really appreciated what he was trying to do, which was to point out and cool down some of the extreme positions of Catholic fundamentalism which is very badly needed. There is a strain of it even within otherwise perfectly orthodox Catholics who have social media platforms that needs to be addressed - especially with people apply a valid/authentic Catholic moral principle but too strictly then tell others something is a sin or a grave obligation when the Church simply has not said that. But I have noticed that Trent does sometimes over-rely on "there's no there, there" arguments when, well, there is or might be a "there" there. Or at least it's open. He said "Harry Potter doesn't have the names of demons, just Greek gods/goddesses" - well, St. Paul said worshipping a Greek god was to worship a demon. He mentioned something like kissing hasn't been formally condemned - almost any priest will tell you sure context is needed but most of the time yes it is illicit because of the near occasion of sin; St. Alphonsus said it was in his books on moral theology; it's in almost every examination of conscience. So I think we need to be super cautious here because this obvious renewal taking place in the Church now especially with young fervent Catholic can easily be derailed. But bravo to Trent to taking this all on, because the fundamentalism IS real and a major threat to the good coming about now.
Trent is not staying in his lane. Let the Church make statements and keep opinions to yourself. “Online Magisterium”.
Orthodox here. With love and humility let me give you an external point of view on what we perceive to be the fundamentals of Catholicism, why we think it's heterodox and how it brought disasters on the western Church, among which the worse is the pan-synchretism of post Vatican 2.
We orthodox base our theology on Jesus' teachins and the deposit of the faith given once and for all to the Church Fathers.
In Luke 22:24-26 our Lord answers to a dispute that arose among the disciples about who will be the future leader of the Church, a subject that is central to Catholicism. So you would think that Catholics quote his I structions again and again. But you don't and whenever we orthodox quote Him we always hear crickets. Here is what our Lord taught _The kings of the Nations lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves._
And he washed they feet like the servants did in antiquity before the guests were allowed to enter the house of their masters (see the Odyssey).
So obviously the hyerachy of the church differs from a typical monarchy. In a monarchy the subjects kiss the feet of the monarch and serve him. Not the other way around.
Two other passages of the gospel clarify what's going on. The temptation of the mountain (symbol of the state in the orthodox tradition) when Satan puts Jesus on top of the highest mountain, shows him the glory and power of all the kingdoms of the earth and offers them to him. And Jesus refuses.
The other is the interrogation by Pontius Pilates who asks him if he's the king of the Jews. And Jesus answers that His kingdom is not of this world.
A third is the incident with the coin with the face of Cesar when Jesus said render to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and to God what belongs to God.
When Constantine the Great ended the persecution of Christianity and tried to consolidate the unity of the Church within the empire, Christians had to deal with their new religion with the power.
They came up with the double headed eagle that depicts the Christian Roman empire. One head is the temporal power of the emperor and the other is the spiritual power of the Church. Each head is crowned but both are linked by a ribbon to a third one above representing Jesus.
This system was challenged when the Frank king Charlemagne took the byzantine province of Ravenna and became the protector of the pope in exchange of his coronation as western emperor. 10 years after his coronation he send a delegation to pope Leo III to request the addition of the filioque to the creed. Saint Leo III refused and nailed two silver shields on the doors of St Peter's cathedral with the unaltered text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed engraved in Greek and Latin followed by this sentence: I LEO DID THIS FOR THE SAKE AND THE LOVE OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH.
It was obvious that Charlemagne wanted to create a schism between Rome and the rest of the Church in order to gain better control over his empire. Long story short, this plan was fulfilled by the second ever German pope count Bruno von Eguisheim-Dagsbourg who became pope Leo IX in 1050. Leo claimed the imperial Insignia of Rome for himself based on the Donation of Constantine and constituted a Pontifical State on the land given by Charlemagne to the papacy. He also created a chancellor: Humbert de Moyenmoutiers and a senate, the assembly of Cardinals who wear the colors of the Roman senators (scarlet and purple).
The last block was Unam Sanctam in 1302 that proclaimed all human beings had to submit to the Roman Pontiff for their salvation.
This entire endeavour was the exact opposite of the instructions of you Lord in Luke 22:24-26
I stop here. I will explain the consequences in a following post.
As soon as the Roman Church became a temporal state it started to behave as one. Leo IX wages wars leading himself and was even captured during the battle of Civitate in 1053 by the Normans. Humbert de Moyenmoutiers brought a letter to Patriarch Michel of Constantinople in 1054 allegedly from Leo IX (who was already dead) accusing him to be a woman in drag.
That's not trivial. Its a crude way to express the main difference between the West and the East. For the Frankish-germanic warriors the Greeks were effeminate. This joke is still around today. But it's also a different view concerning the values of Christianity. The West saw the Eastern conception of Christianity as weak. Even Hitler infamously said that he regretted that Germans were not like Muslims but were weakened by Christianity.
The West developed after the Schism the theory of the two swords, authorised t@orture and carbonization against 'heretics' aka those who don't submit to the Pontiff monarch, developed military monastic orders as the Templars etc.
This is why the western nations rejected the Church. Because instead of being something that freed them it was just another top-down tyranny.
In opposition orthodox nations identify with their Church, to the point that neither the Muslim persecution nor the communist one managed to eradicate Christianity.
Lord have mercy on us all sinners.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
Non-Kevin Bacon Footloose is flatly immoral. There can be no serious disagreement on this issue.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I remember how the late and great Fr. Benedict Groeschel described fundamentalism. It occurs when one makes the measure of one's own mind the definition of all reality, seen and unseen.
Why the controversy? Trent said it plainly. A Liberal argues what the Church Forbids is allowed and a Fundamentalist argues what the Church allows is forbidden. Being a Trad (as opposed to being a mere Vatican 2 Conservative) has nothing to do with it. The only people who would object are those Trads who insist what the Church allows is really forbidden.
PS if you don't want to use NFP that is fine. Don't use it but leave them who do alone.
The requirement to veil was in the Code of Cannon Law 1917!
What I said about the consensus of the scholastics being infallible was defined by Pope Pius IX in “Tuas libenter.”
It reads: “[Infallibility] must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.”
In short, the consensus of the scholastic is an extension of the ordinary magisterium due to their relationships to the bishops as theologians with pontifical charter.
Not intending any disrespect btw. Loved the show! Thanks!
The consensus of theologians can and has changed. For one example see the article about “Rodriguez and the confession of doubtful mortal sins”
@@Recusant_ just finished reading that article. It was interesting, but did not actually represent a change in consensus of the scholastics (nor did it claim to be). All it described is that at one point in time there was disagreement between the schools, and then they reached a consensus later-thus arriving at an authoritative conclusion.
That is not a change in doctrine any more than Pius IX’s infallible declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a change in doctrine.
The settling of a debated matter by the Church is not a doctrinal change. It is doctrinal development. The two are not at all the same.
Being Catholic is never a problem. Heterodox and heretical views _are_ a problem.
That's why you should be orthodox.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
I am a Catholic Fundamentalist! Not a modernist! I am very traditional! 🙏✝️❤️🇺🇸
Fundamentalism is not necessarily orthodox.
What is left out or ignored may be vital.
Decrease discipline and rigor, increase laxity and the “Church Militant” becomes the “Church Pacifist “, what is the trajectory of the Church since “THE COUNCIL”?
Old debate. The Church was always pacifist. That's why the West mocked the Greeks as effeminate. But at the end of the day orthodoxy is the true teaching of our Lord. Not the violence western (Germanic) conception of a church holding both swords.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
Eric, did you get a chance to watch the 2018 debates between Trent and Tim before Trent took them down? In one of them Trent literally says that "Church Doctrine can change", which is absolutely wrong. So if he's incorrect about something so fundamental (pun intended), I do not trust his criticism on things in the trad space. I do believe he has an inherent bias against anyone who rejects feminism.
I wonder if he took them down because he and possibly Tim don't hold all those opinions anymore.
Agreed. He is a lib!
The Church has never taught women can't work. It is about contraception. My grandmother and great-grandmother worked in mills as well as many other relatives but all these women had 5 to 9 children. It is about feminism. Women need to be in the home to raise healthy children. That is why Welfare was created, to help women raise children.
@@corilv13honey9 no he is not at all
@corilv13honey9 when blessed mother at Akita talked about bishop vs bishop I have a feeling she's also talking about lay catholics going after each other like all this nonsense today. Let's not be a part of this. Stand for the faith but let's not bash other catholics who are totally in good standing with the church like Trent, who you happen to have some disagreements with
The greatest problem in the Catholic Church is extreme individualism leading to disobedience. This happens, or can happen, with any political position.
seems like blindly supporting labor unions is another form of Catholic fundamentalism. Leo XIII would probably not like what many unions now promote...
Correct. Christians can’t even take union jobs these days! They only allowed union membership as long as they were pro-Catholic and anti-Communist. This is why Pius XII made May 1st the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker to counter “May Day”, as European labor unions were Commie back then. The U.S. Labor (and Canadian Labour) Day established on the First Monday of September was to celebrate the dignity of the paycheck of a living wage. It also marks back to work and school in most places.
So, in regards to dancing. I guess it would depend on the manner of dancing? So waltzing, square dancing, ballet, traditional ethnic cultural dancing all ok, even some modern dancing ok...But some folks do dirty dancing, lap dancing, bumping & grinding, ritualistic shamanic dancing. I would say for a Christian these latter types are sinful, because they inspire lust and fornication in many cases.
I can't believe we are still discussing dancing.. It is exactly as you said. Avoid certain types. .. At Catholic weddings they usually dance and often some young women will wear short shirts and it may feel uncomfortable but there is not much you can do. Possibly, dancing helps to get rid of alcohol consumption. It is like church during summer when someone comes in with inappropriate attire. You'd also have to ban football or boxing because men wear tight clothing.
@MS-pm4dc You are conflating a few things. It is important how one dresses at Mass, which has nothing to with mens sports.
@@corilv13honey9 You are right mass is different. I used dancing and sports as events where scant clothing was an issue.
Yeah but according to Trents fundamental logic and approach. Since no dancing has been formally dogmatically condemned, you would be a pharisee for declaring it sinful.
Im neither catholic protestant orthodox. Nor a trinitarian. Just a believer. I dont at all go for anyone's infallibility but God and His Son. And the Son only because He has been given His infallibility by His Father, the Supreme. The Son is subject, His Father Supreme. Right after He appoints Peter as the Rock, He admonishes, Get the behind me, satan. The so-called first pope. So much for papal authority and infallibility. I guess people have a need for it. He has yet to give me that need.
Wow... very silly theology.
@@johnirish989 twisted scripture.
The Arian and Nestorian heresies are strong in this one.
So, "believer". What do you believe? Did Jesus appoint Peter as the Rock, and the authority to bind and to loosen, or was He joking? Can the Rock, the foundation stone, then fail? Peter the man failed, and denied Christ. But the Rock is the papacy, the seat of Peter is the continuation of the seat of Moses, which Jesus told the Jews that the Pharisees still held that authority, yet the men themselves were corrupt. Did Jesus delegate the authority to forgive sins, or was he joking again?
But most of all, John 6, was Jesus joking about the bread from heaven and eating his flesh? Go count the number of times he said it. Big joke? Not calling back the Jews when they walked away. That means 10,000 that day lost their souls. We Catholics truly believe, the way Peter replied "where else can we go?" Certainly not to the 30,000 denominations all quarreling among themselves.
You really want to be a believer? Go research the 152 Eucharistic Miracles (and counting). Slam dunk, case closed.