You’re talking about laymen with almost no knowledge of Catholicism, in fact these people exist in every worldview, they don’t know much, can’t justify anything, and just give cliches to stop conversations. It’s not a good tactic, but most people don’t know that, and it doesn’t make Catholicism wrong if people like this exist within it. There’s a thing called scholastics in Catholicism, this is where critical thought exists. Talk with people that read the church fathers, study the philosophy and theology.
In my personal experience, I never experienced any trad Catholics who made any analogies to parents or had thought-stopping answers about blind obedience. In my experience many traditional Catholics are very well informed in their faith and are able to cite church councils and quote saints off the top of their head (much more than the average typical catholic.) And because of this, I have personally never seen any traditional Catholics who were giving thought-stopping answers
“Traditional Catholics” is not a defined human category, just a description of people who follow the tradition of the Church , especially attending the mass of ages . There is no “traditional catholic” as opposed to to “modernist catholic” morality you are either living the faith or you are not . Sorry but I think the speaker is projecting a lot of.
@@tony1685 What are Catholics then worshipers of the spaghetti God? Luther invented Christianity in the 16th Century? Spare us the weird American sectarian stuff please .
@@davidfunk6698 or people who actually read Scripture and can reason a bit. it's all there, Sir. sense, Scripture and integrity -- you're clearly lacking one or more.
@@tony1685 I recommend among other books “The Bible is a Catholic Book” by Jimmy Akin. You can also look into Prof John Bergsma , Prof Scott Hahn etc. many Theologians/ Bible scholars have actually converted from Protestantism to Catholicism following their in-depth study of the Bible.
look this isn't that hard. You have a consistent teaching that's constant for neigh 2000 years and then you don't have it. Most Trad Catholics just want that. Is it perfect? No But that's because we live in a fallen world. But flailing off to Protestantism or Eastern "orthodoxy" isn't the answer. You'll see they have their own contradictions. Father McGillivray of the SSPX put it perfectly, "if you're looking for a perfect answer to the crisis, you aren't going find it".
My problem with this sentiment is the idea of a consistent 2k years that basically stopped at Vatican 2. The first (we don’t know for sure because they’re mixed up) 4 Popes would’ve been using Greek, rather than Latin - maybe the first, Peter, using Aramaic in the liturgy. The scripture quotes by Clement was Greek, his epistles Greek. The liturgy itself would obviously develop and change emphases over time too. So it’s like 1900 or less years of Latin language emphasis, and multiple time frames on liturgy and other aspects - including theology. But I think the elephant in the room is we all know that most trad Catholics want the church to basically think/look like it did in the 13th century, but with Vatican 1 still intact. If it was about tradition, you’d see more of them championing the New Ressourcement movement!
@@dixonbuttes this presumes that the scholastic tradition didn't adequately reflect the early church. That was the opinion of the ressourcement theologians but not that of Garrigrou Legrange for example. But I think the fruits of V2 ultimately show it. This is antiquarianism personified.
@@aloyalcatholic5785 I mean I can’t imagine how the scholastic tradition could accurately reflect the early church without tossing out most biblical scholarship and mainstream history, you know? I think if most believed that St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wouldn’t have had to write a book justifying the development of doctrine. V2 is another development.
Thank you brother for you opinion and it is not easy being a Catholic Christian. Yet, life isn’t easy for anyone no matter who you are. Carrying the cross isn’t fun, yet casting our worries on Jesus Christ lightens the weight. Truly I enjoyed most of your vid but I believe you not seeing the whole picture. I’m sure you feel the same way about me. I’ll leave it at that, God bless you.
Jesus gave the church the protection of the spirit of truth. None of us have that. As a result, the church cannot teach in error in areas of faith and morals. Your blind obedience to Jesus' protected church is the same as blind obedience to Jesus himself. Go elsewhere at your own risk.
I want to offer some constructive cirsucism, in my opinion it seems that you’re are self inserting, you are making arguments yourself and then defeating those arguments and then say Catholics are self defeating, see what I mean? I have no idea about your life but it seems to me you had a parent/guardian/mentor etc make horrible arguments for the traditional church and most likely with most that go out of the faith were abusive in some way, I don’t know if that’s crossing the line of personal boundaries but this is a very common story from people leaving the church and then putting out these arguments about mindless authoritarianism, but these arguments are from them not from the church itself, like your example with the kid and the chemicals under the sink, I have never heard that before, it seems like someone in your life said this over and over, no one is making that argument. The traditional church isn’t a cult, please don’t put us in that category. I’m actually confused on what the traditional church means to you because in your view of the traditional church it might not apply on what I view the church is. The reason for all these negative comments is the fact that you make arguments about the “traditional church” a identity many Catholics give themselves, can you please tell me what you mean by the traditional church and what you actually disagree with? I would also love to know if you are Christian and what type of Christianity you endorse? And to get a better understanding of your view of “traditional Catholics” can you let me know if the Catholic RUclipsr Trent Horn is, in your eyes, a traditional Catholic?
Were you hurt by a traditional community? Whoever you met doesn’t represent the entirety. Traditional Catholicism is supposed to be just a movement focusing on how the church believed and worshipped before V2, and neither of those things are bad since it’s how the church ran for 500 years. I’m sorry you lost your faith. When you said the trads are hypocritical because they obey all the teachings (before v2) instead of “reasoning,” and then when the 60s came along they switched up , I would say this isn’t hypocritical because if you see that the modern teachings of the church are contradicting those of the last 500 years, it makes sense to be wary of it. Of course, I am also a little confused about the trad movement, but I know there’s definitely some beautiful fruits in it. Again, I’m sorry that you are very conflicted about all these things…
I think you ought to look up “straw man” also. Every analogy breaks down at some point. Doesn’t discount the point of the analogy. If that analogy was the sum total of the teaching on the Church’s authority, then I would agree that would be weak. But a Catholic submits the the Authority of the Church because Jesus gave His authority to the Church to determine proper doctrine and to pass on the teaching from one generation to another. There is quite a bit behind this teaching. Be glad to have a conversation with you about it.
nonsense, the Holy Spirit -- according to Scripture -- is He who leads us into all Truth. catholicism doesn't abide by this because they don't meet the basic qualification for receiving Him -- that too is in Scripture. let me know if you'd like these proven with the Bible. (not that you'll read It or believe It)
I disagree! Im a trad. The only authentic catholicism is traditional, that which has always been taught. The faith doesn't evolve. You just understand it more deeply.Same sense, same meaning! Modernism is destroying the faith of catholics. My advise to you is to study modernism and what it is and how its destroying the church,Pascendi Pius X.
So then is every, single Catholic tradition not established by Jesus and the Apostles illegitimate? There are 2000 years of Catholic Church history, many new doctrines and traditions have been established by the Church that are outside the scope of what we find in the Bible. I find it unbelievable that you would throw out all Catholic traditions post 100 AD as illegitimate, yet you claim that "the faith" does not evolve... I assume that you are fine with many teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church that were not established in the Bible, yes? If so, then questioning Catholic traditions is completely valid, and their legitimacy must be defended when questioned, not dismissed because Church leaders have appointed themselves to a higher authority than you. Even the Pope himself is not above questioning. The first Pope was corrected constantly, it's practically his defining trait... Then you have things like the Western Schism, when there were simultaneously three popes, or the horrors committed by the borgia popes, or even the current Pope, who committed blatant heresy when he said that "all religions are paths to God." Really makes you question the dogma of papal infallibility, especially since it was only established less than 200 years ago... A LOT of the popes seem pretty damned fallible... Catholicism is a cult if nothing about it may be questioned by its followers.
@@davidtucker9498you do know that papal infallibility is not what you described right? Papal infallibility only applies during extremely specific circumstances, papal infallibility was only invoked a handful of times, one of the few times was when the Pope spoke in “ex cathedra” about Mary. Yes the pope has made confusing comments but we need to keep in mind that the pope is a very old man who was only talking offhand to reporters in a one off comment, the translators who initially translated what he said then made a correction which was much better than the original comment. The Pope defiantly has a problem with “confusing” the church but it is certainly not as bad as Protestantism, the various Protestant sects within Amarica have completely fallen to heresy, most mainline churches are too far gone at this point, all embracing very liberal interpretations of the Bible, some don’t even believe in the divinity of Christ. Not to mention the infection of “non-denominational” churches. These are things that the Catholic Church simply don’t have problems with, of course their are slightly more liberal areas of Catholicism but all in all the church is healthy. Also, we do not believe in the Bible alone as a source for the church, so don’t accuse us as being “unbiblical” we do not believe only in the Bible any way. Last thing I’ll say is this, where do you find in the Bible that you must only use the Bible to find God’s word? how do you justify this belief about the Bible when it even isn’t found in the Bible in the first place?
Why did you leave the church? These points that he made seem to only be from personal experience, much of the exodus from the church and Christianity in general is from an authoritarian family pushing things onto children without actually giving rational arguments, these arguments exist, they’ve existed for thousands of years, we need parents to have a good relationship with their children and for those same parents to explain the church in a rational way just as the church father did. Christianity isn’t a religion designed to be authoritative, I feel like most ex Catholics leave because of ideas about the church affirmed by some family members being to heavy handed in their approach to the church. Can you please explain what made you leave and what you disagree with?
Bro what 💀please stop lumping us in with people, what even is traditional Catholicism? What contradictions? Can someone actually argue against Catholicism without just saying “it is a cult” please bro
@@tony1685 good one I now fully understand why Catholicism is wrong, the Bible is not the only source to truth in Catholicism the tradition of Jesus’s original church is on the same level with the Bible itself, we are the original early church along with the orthodox who’ve strayed, what specific contradictions to Gods word are you talking about?
@@jackpack1213 while tradition is well, if it's in contradiction to His Word, there is no 'light' (Truth) in it -- Isaiah 8:20 Jesus' original church never prayed to humans, certainly not dead ('Hail Mary') Jesus' church keeps the 7th day Sabath and always will -- in agreement with Scripture. His church doesn't pretend sinners forgive 3rd party sins -- God Alone does that. no friend, catholicism is not His original church nor is it Christanity. there is much more, but this is sufficient for now.
You're being uncharitable to the magisterium. They care about us and look out for us. We're all on the same boat trying to work for the betterment of humanity for the glory of God.
The whole problem was accepting the catholic paradigm in the first place which requires a surrender of the reason to the pope. The epistemology of Catholicism is broken. Should’ve been Eastern Orthodox.
@@mulg1 yes you are - it’s why so much of your religion consists of various kinds of papal apologetics, explaining every little statement of the pope who is supposed to bring epistemic clarity (Lo and behold, the office does the opposite).
“Thought-Stopping Cliche” is, itself, a thought-stopping cliche.
Nice to see that teenagers still know everything, just like when I was a teenager.
You’re talking about laymen with almost no knowledge of Catholicism, in fact these people exist in every worldview, they don’t know much, can’t justify anything, and just give cliches to stop conversations. It’s not a good tactic, but most people don’t know that, and it doesn’t make Catholicism wrong if people like this exist within it. There’s a thing called scholastics in Catholicism, this is where critical thought exists. Talk with people that read the church fathers, study the philosophy and theology.
I remember being an edgy 15 year old too
In my personal experience, I never experienced any trad Catholics who made any analogies to parents or had thought-stopping answers about blind obedience.
In my experience many traditional Catholics are very well informed in their faith and are able to cite church councils and quote saints off the top of their head (much more than the average typical catholic.)
And because of this, I have personally never seen any traditional Catholics who were giving thought-stopping answers
“Traditional Catholics” is not a defined human category, just a description of people who follow the tradition of the Church , especially attending the mass of ages . There is no “traditional catholic” as opposed to to “modernist catholic” morality you are either living the faith or you are not . Sorry but I think the speaker is projecting a lot of.
and what's also interesting is how catholicism contradicts Christianity.
@@tony1685 What are Catholics then worshipers of the spaghetti God? Luther invented Christianity in the 16th Century? Spare us the weird American sectarian stuff please .
@@tony1685 only schismatics think that.
@@davidfunk6698 or people who actually read Scripture and can reason a bit.
it's all there, Sir. sense, Scripture and integrity -- you're clearly lacking one or more.
@@tony1685 I recommend among other books “The Bible is a Catholic Book” by Jimmy Akin. You can also look into Prof John Bergsma , Prof Scott Hahn etc. many Theologians/ Bible scholars have actually converted from Protestantism to Catholicism following their in-depth study of the Bible.
look this isn't that hard. You have a consistent teaching that's constant for neigh 2000 years and then you don't have it. Most Trad Catholics just want that. Is it perfect? No But that's because we live in a fallen world. But flailing off to Protestantism or Eastern "orthodoxy" isn't the answer. You'll see they have their own contradictions. Father McGillivray of the SSPX put it perfectly, "if you're looking for a perfect answer to the crisis, you aren't going find it".
My problem with this sentiment is the idea of a consistent 2k years that basically stopped at Vatican 2.
The first (we don’t know for sure because they’re mixed up) 4 Popes would’ve been using Greek, rather than Latin - maybe the first, Peter, using Aramaic in the liturgy. The scripture quotes by Clement was Greek, his epistles Greek.
The liturgy itself would obviously develop and change emphases over time too.
So it’s like 1900 or less years of Latin language emphasis, and multiple time frames on liturgy and other aspects - including theology.
But I think the elephant in the room is we all know that most trad Catholics want the church to basically think/look like it did in the 13th century, but with Vatican 1 still intact.
If it was about tradition, you’d see more of them championing the New Ressourcement movement!
@@dixonbuttes this presumes that the scholastic tradition didn't adequately reflect the early church. That was the opinion of the ressourcement theologians but not that of Garrigrou Legrange for example. But I think the fruits of V2 ultimately show it. This is antiquarianism personified.
@@aloyalcatholic5785 I mean I can’t imagine how the scholastic tradition could accurately reflect the early church without tossing out most biblical scholarship and mainstream history, you know?
I think if most believed that St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wouldn’t have had to write a book justifying the development of doctrine.
V2 is another development.
Isn't this what the R&R camp has been saying all along?
Thank you brother for you opinion and it is not easy being a Catholic Christian. Yet, life isn’t easy for anyone no matter who you are. Carrying the cross isn’t fun, yet casting our worries on Jesus Christ lightens the weight. Truly I enjoyed most of your vid but I believe you not seeing the whole picture. I’m sure you feel the same way about me. I’ll leave it at that, God bless you.
Am I to understand that you are proposing that the caricature of Traditional Catholicism is the accurate depiction thereof?
okay zoomer !
Jesus gave the church the protection of the spirit of truth. None of us have that. As a result, the church cannot teach in error in areas of faith and morals. Your blind obedience to Jesus' protected church is the same as blind obedience to Jesus himself. Go elsewhere at your own risk.
I want to offer some constructive cirsucism, in my opinion it seems that you’re are self inserting, you are making arguments yourself and then defeating those arguments and then say Catholics are self defeating, see what I mean? I have no idea about your life but it seems to me you had a parent/guardian/mentor etc make horrible arguments for the traditional church and most likely with most that go out of the faith were abusive in some way, I don’t know if that’s crossing the line of personal boundaries but this is a very common story from people leaving the church and then putting out these arguments about mindless authoritarianism, but these arguments are from them not from the church itself, like your example with the kid and the chemicals under the sink, I have never heard that before, it seems like someone in your life said this over and over, no one is making that argument. The traditional church isn’t a cult, please don’t put us in that category. I’m actually confused on what the traditional church means to you because in your view of the traditional church it might not apply on what I view the church is. The reason for all these negative comments is the fact that you make arguments about the “traditional church” a identity many Catholics give themselves, can you please tell me what you mean by the traditional church and what you actually disagree with? I would also love to know if you are Christian and what type of Christianity you endorse? And to get a better understanding of your view of “traditional Catholics” can you let me know if the Catholic RUclipsr Trent Horn is, in your eyes, a traditional Catholic?
Were you hurt by a traditional community? Whoever you met doesn’t represent the entirety. Traditional Catholicism is supposed to be just a movement focusing on how the church believed and worshipped before V2, and neither of those things are bad since it’s how the church ran for 500 years.
I’m sorry you lost your faith. When you said the trads are hypocritical because they obey all the teachings (before v2) instead of “reasoning,” and then when the 60s came along they switched up , I would say this isn’t hypocritical because if you see that the modern teachings of the church are contradicting those of the last 500 years, it makes sense to be wary of it. Of course, I am also a little confused about the trad movement, but I know there’s definitely some beautiful fruits in it. Again, I’m sorry that you are very conflicted about all these things…
I think you ought to look up “straw man” also.
Every analogy breaks down at some point. Doesn’t discount the point of the analogy.
If that analogy was the sum total of the teaching on the Church’s authority, then I would agree that would be weak.
But a Catholic submits the the Authority of the Church because Jesus gave His authority to the Church to determine proper doctrine and to pass on the teaching from one generation to another.
There is quite a bit behind this teaching. Be glad to have a conversation with you about it.
nonsense, the Holy Spirit -- according to Scripture -- is He who leads us into all Truth.
catholicism doesn't abide by this because they don't meet the basic qualification for receiving Him -- that too is in Scripture.
let me know if you'd like these proven with the Bible. (not that you'll read It or believe It)
I disagree! Im a trad. The only authentic catholicism is traditional, that which has always been taught. The faith doesn't evolve. You just understand it more deeply.Same sense, same meaning! Modernism is destroying the faith of catholics. My advise to you is to study modernism and what it is and how its destroying the church,Pascendi Pius X.
So then is every, single Catholic tradition not established by Jesus and the Apostles illegitimate? There are 2000 years of Catholic Church history, many new doctrines and traditions have been established by the Church that are outside the scope of what we find in the Bible.
I find it unbelievable that you would throw out all Catholic traditions post 100 AD as illegitimate, yet you claim that "the faith" does not evolve... I assume that you are fine with many teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church that were not established in the Bible, yes?
If so, then questioning Catholic traditions is completely valid, and their legitimacy must be defended when questioned, not dismissed because Church leaders have appointed themselves to a higher authority than you. Even the Pope himself is not above questioning. The first Pope was corrected constantly, it's practically his defining trait... Then you have things like the Western Schism, when there were simultaneously three popes, or the horrors committed by the borgia popes, or even the current Pope, who committed blatant heresy when he said that "all religions are paths to God."
Really makes you question the dogma of papal infallibility, especially since it was only established less than 200 years ago... A LOT of the popes seem pretty damned fallible...
Catholicism is a cult if nothing about it may be questioned by its followers.
@@davidtucker9498you do know that papal infallibility is not what you described right? Papal infallibility only applies during extremely specific circumstances, papal infallibility was only invoked a handful of times, one of the few times was when the Pope spoke in “ex cathedra” about Mary. Yes the pope has made confusing comments but we need to keep in mind that the pope is a very old man who was only talking offhand to reporters in a one off comment, the translators who initially translated what he said then made a correction which was much better than the original comment. The Pope defiantly has a problem with “confusing” the church but it is certainly not as bad as Protestantism, the various Protestant sects within Amarica have completely fallen to heresy, most mainline churches are too far gone at this point, all embracing very liberal interpretations of the Bible, some don’t even believe in the divinity of Christ. Not to mention the infection of “non-denominational” churches. These are things that the Catholic Church simply don’t have problems with, of course their are slightly more liberal areas of Catholicism but all in all the church is healthy. Also, we do not believe in the Bible alone as a source for the church, so don’t accuse us as being “unbiblical” we do not believe only in the Bible any way. Last thing I’ll say is this, where do you find in the Bible that you must only use the Bible to find God’s word? how do you justify this belief about the Bible when it even isn’t found in the Bible in the first place?
why then does the catholic 'church' mandate sin, according to the Bible?
@@davidtucker9498 it's a cult. see John 14:15 -- it clearly isn't Christianity.
@@tony1685what do you mean? We follow the commandments, I don’t see your point at all, what sins are mandated by the church, what?
Don't listen to these goobers in the comments, you've made a lot of good points. Can confirm as ex-cath myself
Why did you leave the church? These points that he made seem to only be from personal experience, much of the exodus from the church and Christianity in general is from an authoritarian family pushing things onto children without actually giving rational arguments, these arguments exist, they’ve existed for thousands of years, we need parents to have a good relationship with their children and for those same parents to explain the church in a rational way just as the church father did. Christianity isn’t a religion designed to be authoritative, I feel like most ex Catholics leave because of ideas about the church affirmed by some family members being to heavy handed in their approach to the church. Can you please explain what made you leave and what you disagree with?
Im one of the goobers. How do you know, you're an apostate to the true faith. Bet you never adequately leaned your faith.
I enjoy your very clear understanding of the trads. They are a ball of yarn of contradictions.
Bro what 💀please stop lumping us in with people, what even is traditional Catholicism? What contradictions? Can someone actually argue against Catholicism without just saying “it is a cult” please bro
@@jackpack1213 But it is a cult and its devotees are deluded victims. Its clergy, too often, are crazed lunatics.
read the Bible, catholicism is full of contradictions to God's Word.
@@tony1685 good one I now fully understand why Catholicism is wrong, the Bible is not the only source to truth in Catholicism the tradition of Jesus’s original church is on the same level with the Bible itself, we are the original early church along with the orthodox who’ve strayed, what specific contradictions to Gods word are you talking about?
@@jackpack1213 while tradition is well, if it's in contradiction to His Word, there is no 'light' (Truth) in it -- Isaiah 8:20
Jesus' original church never prayed to humans, certainly not dead ('Hail Mary')
Jesus' church keeps the 7th day Sabath and always will -- in agreement with Scripture.
His church doesn't pretend sinners forgive 3rd party sins -- God Alone does that.
no friend, catholicism is not His original church nor is it Christanity.
there is much more, but this is sufficient for now.
You're being uncharitable to the magisterium. They care about us and look out for us. We're all on the same boat trying to work for the betterment of humanity for the glory of God.
Why do you hate God?
I don't
@@TheDragonsofVictory John 14:15 says you do when you examine God's Commandments.
Huh. I can see why in two days time you only managed to get 531 views...
The whole problem was accepting the catholic paradigm in the first place which requires a surrender of the reason to the pope.
The epistemology of Catholicism is broken.
Should’ve been Eastern Orthodox.
We are not required to surrender Reason to the Pope.
@@mulg1 yes you are - it’s why so much of your religion consists of various kinds of papal apologetics, explaining every little statement of the pope who is supposed to bring epistemic clarity (Lo and behold, the office does the opposite).