When I was a kid, the nuns who educated me told me that if I disagreed with some thing the church taught (aside from the creed) I was required to study the issue, to pray about it, to meditate on it, and to do what my conscience demanded. It has worked for me.
Thank you very much, Nancy. I only knew that it is not acceptable to have the Holy Communion through your hands. The New Mass does not allow the Holy Host on the tongue because of the pandemic. I attended a mass through SSPX to have the acceptable communion. However, there are questions about them. I am very confused what to do. Your comment helps me.
Sounds like Protestantism. If your conscience supersedes the Dogmas and the Magisterium, then your conscience wasn’t formed by the Dogmas and Magisterium. Your conscience is equal to God. God’s Word becomes the servant of your “conscience”. That’s Protestantism, you’re just making it up as you go along.
@@harryallenpearce89 not true. Doctrine can be reinterpreted and evolve. Dogmas are static, so denying them would be bad news for any Catholic, but one could in theory dissent from certain doctrines and still remain a Catholic in good standing.
Usury has changed meaning over history, from being predatory lending, excessive rates, or any interest at all. But the economy has also changed over history and also varies by country. Usury is now a civil law matter in most Western countries, and that alone probably explains much of why the Church avoids being overly rigid on the topic. Also, the economic systems of the European Union, UK, US, Switzerland, and most major countries is based on interest generated by interbank loans, which makes the idea this is somehow sinful highly problematic in practice. In short, the way money works now is way different than when people just bartered to bought thing using precious metal coils, and these countries with developed economic systems have the best standards of living. Also, alternatives to interest are not that great. At best, they reduce consumer choice, and at worse, they force people to surrender their equity rights to investors instead of offering a fixed interest rate. For example, many Islamic banks insist on partial ownership to reap returns, which can be a way worse deal to someone wanting to borrow money to start a business idea, or to you the student borrower who may find your future earnings docked.
@@jenniferh7163 What you said is true. But for hundreds of years, the Catholic church was the lender because it had the most money to lend. They charged high interest rates and if you could not pay then they would ruin you and your family.
@@dhhbtd Not really. Jesus is a Genius in the way His mind works. Because whatever answer He gives, He does so as to punch the connection between the present(thosedays) and the future. That's the reason why His teachings are Alive and knocking even the hardest Hearts till today.
Rafi Schon Wirtschafter What language is “ Jewish”? Do you refer to Aramaic? The language the Messiah Christ spoke while teaching people about Himself and His Church is Aramaic. The Jewish people rejected God and His Religion, and crucified Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Yes, there are a lot of rules to be found, after 2,000 years of men arguing. The Catholic Church is also full of God. Full of saints who united themselves with God through His Sacraments, and lived in heroic Charity. Rules can be like background music if your eyes are already fused with God’s.
Gosh! Fr. Casey. The title of your video drag me here. The times we're going through make people think about these things. Let's hope we all keep loving God and following the main teachings that Jesus told us. At the end of the day, we are all mortals. When we meet God, He will tell us what did we miss. God bless us all. Keep healthy.
I really appreciate how you tackle and teach these Catholic issues (how u tackle the hard questions) and answer them as succinctly and as honestly and directly as you do. Thank you for this and may God bless your ministry!
@@BreakingInTheHabit when are you going to do a video on Catholic Teaching on the sanctity of Marriage being between one man and one woman?? Or you scared to cover that one?
@@anthonyhulse1248 That is part of the problem of the protestantised/ protestantising thought process at work in the Church since the mid-20th century. How does one know one is drawing closer to this or that opinion on Gospel Truth, especially if Church teachings are disposable, malleable, or temorary? The answer is simple - and easy - enough, but involves a disruption that Modernism cannot accept (at any price) i.e. measuring all dispute by a standard of sound words (aka principles, rules, authorities, witnesses) = Sacred Tradition. God bless.
Another video full of edifying and useful content. This is all stuff that you don't get taught in Sunday school...or at least I didn't. Thank you, Fr. Casey.
I can’t put my finger on it exactly but I’m thinking there’s a renewed clarity and punchiness in your videos post-break, which is great. I hope and am sure you’ll keep taking risks (and flak) with the controversial contemporary stuff - there’s a desperate need for a clear perspective anchored with God and not bogged down in the current ideological mire. The yoke is light etc. Sincerely, from London
Personally I think it is a waste of time & money. But do priests get paid for conversions they do? I mean seriously? Whats the point of converting someone externally when they have their hearts unconverted? The ones who believe in Supreme Power, believe no matter what. The three gifts are God given. Some oversmart Catholic cant pressure, these gifts in anyone's head. Why try so hard to convert? What is the benefit? God's calling cant be pressurized. Why do they convert ppl forcibly (according to allegations)? A blot on Catholic church because of these insane priests in India. I Condemn Them Wholeheartedly.
"For the skeptics throughout the ages inherit nothing except a negation. Their positive policy or ideal varies, not only from century to century, but even from father to son....Those who leave the tradition of truth do not escape into something which we call Freedom. They only escape into something else, which we call *Fashion.* That is really the crux of the controversy between the two views of history and philosophy. If it were true that by leaving the temple we walked out into a world of truths, the question would be answered; but it is not true. By leaving the temple, we walk out into a world of idols; and the idols of hedonism and socialism are more perishable and passing than the gods of the temple we have left." - G.K. Chesterton The problem orthodox Catholics face right now is similar to a problem I suspect many orthodox Catholics faced in Nazi German. Namely that many of their fellow Catholics were brainwashed by the Nazi culture. Secular Culture, as Chesterton said, is just a bunch of fads and fashions. These fashions change with each successive generation. Cultural Fascism was popular in the 1930s. Cultural Marxism, the opposite, became popular in the 1960s. It is already being rejected by the generation that grew up in the 1990s. Sadly, Vatican II was heavily influenced by theological fads that existed at the time. The "hierarchy of truths" idea exists is in all ideologies. Suppose I walked into a feminist club with a T-Shirt that said, "The bodies of men and women are biologically different". Most of them would be annoyed. But If I walked in with a T-Shirt that said, "Women don't belong in the workplace", they would ask me to leave - and rightfully so. Similarly, if an unrepentant-openly-h0m0seuxal couple walk into a church, they should be asked to leave. Everyone instinctively knows what crosses the line. And many of our lay people and clergy have not only crossed that line but gone way, way past it.
I suspect that positing a central conflict between Tradition and Cultural Marxism, fighting on with the rusted armour of centuries, will ensure victory for the latter. Are you so confident that Jesus would stand there and order your homosexual couple to leave? Haven’t you just fallen into a trap? The higher dangers of the 20th century and current ideologies (leading to Gulags and modern day Chinese versions e.g.) can be avoided but there must be a better way of tackling them, applying reason and engagement, anchored of course in the foundations but not sunk by the accretions.
Father, I appreciate your deep Spirituality on the Scriptures and the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. Being a young Priest, God has bestowed on you, a Special Charism to break the Word and catechise on the teachings of the Church open to anyone and everyone. God bless you and strengthen you on your mission of Evangelisation.
@@leifewald5117 Are you saved. Have you made Jesus your Savior? No church can save your soul. You must make Jesus your Savior and you don't need a church to do that.
Raised in the church, parochial school, now a middle aged practicing member of the faith, the first half of this video perfectly confounded me! Glad I stuck it out, as the 2nd half spoke more my language...
Fr. Casey, thank you for such an enlightening explanation about these confusing practices in the church which we, as lay members seem not able to comprehend the differences among the clergy in terms of how clearly they preach them or even how they live their lives as alter Christus✝️
Thank you for this, Fr. Casey. I wonder if you have any video or if you can talk about "responsible dissent". I use some of your videos in my classes. God bless you a hundredfold!
I appreciate your time and effort to help educate us with your videos. Feeling blessed that I can watch your videos from another country and during a pandemic!🙏🏻. Thank you!
Remember that even Moses, and even Jesus himself, were skeptical and offered questions to God. God does not condemn questions, and we should never fear to ask why or how. Questions are the fundamental basis of wisdom. More importantly, remember that it is wisdom, and the desire to strengthen your knowledge and faith, that should always be the end goal. Even Martin Luther, in his famous argument with Cardinal Tommaso Cajetan, stated that his original end goal was not to quarrel with the Pope or the Holy See, but rather, to 'defend them with more than the mere opinions of man.'
When the Catholic Church was certain that the soul of an unbaptised baby that dies - effectively went into Limbo, has to be one of the cruellest and manipulative pieces that the planet has ever known. Imagine being a parent that on top of dealing with their child's passing, also has to deal with being told that even after death - they'll never be reunited with the child they never got the chance to truly know. Now add to that, being told that the church has changed it's mind on that. What type of psychological damage must that have caused? And how can such a claim have been made in the past, only to have that claim changed?
I understand what you mean. To me it shows what Fr. Casey presented about levels of Church teaching. Some are time and culturally bound. I think it was Aquinas. It’s not based in scripture which today is so important. In the Middle Ages it was not the priority. So I think God who is all wisdom and love will make His own decision separate from us as to what He will do with those babies who die without baptism. What ever God decides will be right. What we decide because we are human may be flawed. I think Fr Casey made a good point about dogma being the essential part of our faith and it cannot change. Limbo was not a part of that. The Church has much to do to teach the people about this. When VII occurred my dear grandmother was upset because St Christopher was no longer a saint. She thought “ How can God change his mind?” Well God didn’t the Church did because it learned that legends can distort.
As people higher have pointed out it was never part of official teaching so Church wasn’t erroneous. Of course this may have caused pain for parents but priests that perpetuated this believe weren’t some insensitive monsters. They genuinely tried to explain matters with resources they had at the time. It’s unfair to call it cruel and manipulative. People today have that sense of being self-righteous and knowing everything about morality (I’m not pointing out OP, in general many people are angry at Church for doing x or y in the past without actually doing thorough scrutiny of the issue). Truth is that morality evolved throughout human history, from Christian perspective God was wary of our hardened hearts and he tailored revelation according to our moral capabilities that’s why for example Moses Law would allow for divorce and even after revelation was complete in Jesus Christ we still have limited cognitive abilities. Perhaps many things we accept today as moral will be deemed “cruel” by future generations. It’s quite easy to judge from current perspective.
Jesus Christ, what an insufferable post. It was never taught with certainty, in fact it was never taught at all. It was considered among priests as it underwent discussion and very, VERY quickly settled that no, they just straight up go to Heaven. Yes, terrible for the parents that were around and only had access to priests that supported that view, but it never stuck in the Church, in none of those 4 categories of the video.
Great video! Perhaps the most authoritative book on this is, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," by Dr. Ludwig Ott. Get the 2018 edition by Baronius Press.
In my grade school, my religion teacher was a fine nun. She said that to be a Christian, only two things really matter. Love God and respect for others.
I think this must be taught in secondary catechism ... authority is such a big problem faced by many adults ... it will certainly help to think about our approach to authority systematically
Moral reason, due self-respect, and respect for the welfare of other immortal soul, also having a jolly time together .. while avoiding the occasion of sin. God bless. ;o)
Praise God. God should be first priority in both you and the person you date's life. If not then the relationship should be extinguished as it is not pushing u closer to God but moving you away from God and leading to eternal damnation for both you and your partner. May God help you. Praise God.
No bookie until the wedding night. There's much emphasis on the bride actually being entitled to wear white. After the wedding, produce a baby every nine months and ten minutes. Try very hard not to enjoy any of it, but by the fifth child, it will definitely feel like duty not pleasure.
What the Church teaches through its documents can be quite different from what it teaches through its actions. For example, if the Church on paper is supposed to be evangelical yet there are no institutional efforts on the parish level in most places to regularly witness to the Gospel in the greater community, then how is anyone supposed to recognize the Church in the world as the Church on paper?
I’m really conflicted on this. On one hand, I admire a church that is willing to reconsider some of its teachings and rules. On the other hand, if an entity is willing to change on 2/3s of its rules, then those rules were on shaky ground to begin with. Why not just dispense with everything except the top-level dogma. It’s like a community having bylaws and codes but only enforcing it some of the time, or even worse, having it on the books and never doing anything about it.
I'm fine with it. Take that idea about not always enforcing laws, this is something we have, police officers have discretion to not charge someone they catch speeding, but do need to arrest you if they see a dead body in the car. Judges can use a great deal of discretion when deciding sentences and and verdicts and can even ignore and establish precedents , but somethings still have a minimum penalty they must abide by. The church is meant to be a spiritual leader, a guiding hand for people as they rarely have the time/ability to familiarize themselves with thousands of years of philosophy, theology and history on a myriad of topics. As faith should play a part in every aspect of our lives its only natural they have an opinion on pretty much everything, but like the law makers who gave the police and judges discretion, the church can recognize that they can't always think of everything and that some things are more important then others.
@@Mathayas_ Yh. Jesus did the same thing when he answered something akin to the Sabbath. When someone asked if he should save his sheep if it’s trapped on a Sabbath and Jesus basically gave an instance to have an exception
Great video! To often opponents of the Catholic Faith view everything as strict dogma. And that is why they like to denounce it as a Cult. This video was very clear. You sort of said this, but I think if you have a question about anything the Church requires, recommends, or suggests you think about, go talk to your Priest. It may simply be a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding that simply needs clarification. If it is a teaching that significantly and personally affects you, then you definitely need to talk through it with your Priest. They are there to help you.
Thank you Fr Casey for this video. Very informative. This is what I have requested also last time. And boy was I wrong... I thought it would be less controversial but based on the comments, your video seems to be controversial again.
"Jesus promised his followers three things: that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble!" - G.K. Chesterton Controversy has been with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church right from the beginning, for 2000 years, because the enemy is so jealous of God's perfect love for us and our imperfect love for Him. Whenever I come across someone who is critical of the Church, I'm reminded that it's far better to struggle for what is right than to excell at what is wrong.
The Catechism of the Catholic church has greatly helped me to understand more about my catholic faith. Not everything about the catholic faith is in the Bible, I totally agree with you Fr. Keep up the good work of enlightening the world.
'that does not give us license to outright deny them'. Would this also, in retrospect, be true for a Catholic who denied that slavery was justified, while the church still taught that it was?
@Vicente Blasco Ibanez I took 60 years to decide. I have found a very welcoming Episcopal church that better expresses my relationship with God. I don't believe there is only one way to God. My own family is a mix of Christians of various denominations, Buddhists, Jews, and plenty that are non believers.we each must find our path. I hope you find peace wherever you land.
@Why So Serious? They disobeyed God. They have been punished for disobedience many times. The Reformation was a form of punishment. They are being punished now by the split in the church. They will be punished more because they are not following Jesus but follow aspirations, Maryism, the lack of knowledge of the Bible, and the end times. It is not for me to say how or when. God has His own timing.
I have a question: should one be happy that a person wants to be a reader in church? Is it ok to say to a person who wants to read, but cannot because (perhaps due to nerves) they stumble, stutter, miss and mispronounce words and therefore render the reading , to try and serve the church in a different role? How would you do it? I really need to know. Thank you.
Public speaking is a fear many face when first introduced to it. With practice that fear goes away. I would suggest participating in Toast Masters as a way to practice public speaking. This will give you the practice you need to over come stage fright/nerves. As for other ways you can serve, the church has many ministries that need the help of volunteers. Just ask a member of the clergy and they can discuss options with you and you can decide what works best for your skills and comfort.
I have a question. I have 4 children and another on the way so that makes 5 children total. When can a couple say they are done and since contraception is a sin and nfp is not always effective what does a couple do?
Move to Canada for the Winnipeg Statement :p In all seriousness, 86% of American Catholics feel the teaching on contraception is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a second thought. But ultimately you need to do what Fr Casey has suggested, critically study out the issue, and be earnest in your attempt to understand why the church teaches what it does. Maybe speak to a spiritual director during this process too. Personally I don't agree with the teaching, but I'm not Catholic so my disagreement doesn't particularly bother me. The church I attend (Orthodox) doesn't have official teaching on the matter, but generally accepts that non-abortifacient contraception is permissible in delaying, spacing, or preventing pregnancy for health or other reasons. But also, that you should consult your spiritual father about your particular situation and examine your motivations. Often St John Chrysostom is quoted regarding not needing to use procreation as an excuse to come together. However, the Orthodox Church places emphasis on "economia" or "personal economy" (deviation from the letter of the law to fulfil the spirit of the law), that the Catholic Church does not necessarily regard in the same way.
As a Russian Orthodox Christian I find the Roman Catholic desire to have a schematic breakdown of "doctrine" odd, but historically speaking the Roman Church has always tended to be legalistic on faith issues. That being said, the idea that a Catholic is free to withhold assent in connection with "definitive doctrines" sounds a bit strange to me. In fact, I remember reading several years ago (probably more than a decade ago) a document issued by the Catholic Church in connection with modifications made to canon law as it concerns dissent from Catholic teachings (moral and otherwise), and that was titled something along the lines of, "Doctrinal Commentary" or "Profession of Faith Commentary", where it said that anyone who denies teachings that are "definitive" is no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. Isn't that like saying that a person is excommunicated (or has excommunicated himself) as a result of error or heresy?
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker - The difference lies in the motivation behind the Christian life. As St. Paul points out over and over again in his letters, it is not the "Law" that saves us, but the Spirit who saves. Christianity should not have a legalistic approach to the spiritual life. Now, I'm not asserting that there are no "rules" at all within Christianity, and by "rules" I mean "canons," which are not rightly speaking laws, because of course the Church's canons can be applied or not applied for the good of souls through a process called "economia" in Orthodoxy; but what I am saying is that Christianity must be distinguished from Rabbinic Judaism in what motivates the spiritual life, i.e., it must be said that a Christian does not practice the faith through an obligation to some kind of legal system. That being said, one of the greatest differences between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity is in how the two sides approach the process of salvation. Now the question can be asked: What is salvation? The West would answer by saying that salvation is the "justification" of a man through an application of the forgiveness achieved by Christ upon the Cross. What is justification? Protestants and Roman Catholic disagree on the nature of justification with Protestants viewing justification as something imputed to a man, but without any ontological change thereby occurring in the "justified" person. In other words, for a Protestant "justification" is a type of legal fiction in which a man remains unjust in reality, but with Christ's justice being imputed to him, so that we talk about the man as just, even though he has not been ontologically made just (n.b., think of the pile of manure analogy for "justification" used by Martin Luther). This Protestant approach is often summarized with the Latin phrase, "Simul iustus et peccator" (i.e., simultaneously just and sinful) when speaking about those who have come to Christ through faith. It is easy to see that this approach is problematic. Now, in opposition to the Protestant Reformers, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent asserted that a man who comes to Christ by grace and faith has become truly just in the process of justification, but not with the justice whereby God Himself is just, but with a "created justice" (see the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter VII). That is to say, for the Roman Church the justification of a man comes about by a "created grace" that causes a "created justice," so that the man in question truly becomes just, and that means that he can no longer be called sinful (although concupiscence remains), but the justice received is a created reality that causes an ontological change in the justified person. Both of these views (i.e., the Protestant and the Roman Catholic) are foreign to Orthodoxy, which first of all does not speak about "justification," but which talks about the gift of "righteousness" being bestowed upon a man who comes to God through faith and baptism. The Greek word δίκαιος, which Western theologians usually translate as "justification," is invariably understood to mean "righteousness" in the writings of the Greek Fathers and the Medieval theologians of the East, and the sense in which they take this word involves a real ontological participation in God's own uncreated righteousness by the man who comes into contact with Christ through faith and the holy mysteries. Salvation for the Orthodox is not primarily forgiveness of sins, although that is a part of it; instead, salvation involves the destruction of death through a real participation in God's uncreated energy of life that has the effect of divinizing the human person. This process of participation in God's uncreated energy is called "theosis" in Orthodoxy. Christ, by His death, destroys death and gives God's own uncreated life to those who come to Him through faith and baptism. So salvation is not some type of "imputed justification" (as it is for Protestants), nor is it some kind of "created justification" (as it is for Roman Catholics), because of course nothing created can divinize a person; instead, for Orthodox the gift of "righteousness" which is received by faith, and by participation in the holy mysteries, really makes the man who receives it righteous with the very uncreated energy of righteousness by which God Himself is righteous. That being said, these differences boil down to different approaches in understanding the nature of salvation with the Protestant and Roman Catholic viewpoints focused upon legal concepts (applied in an imputational manner by Protestants, and applied ontologically by Roman Catholics); while Orthodox see salvation as the destruction of death through an ontological process of deification (theosis) whereby the human person is given a real participation in God's own energies (i.e., His life, His righteousness, His mercy, etc.). Thus, from an Orthodox perspective the Western approach is theologically nominalist, because it reduces salvation to a type of legal "justification," either as a legal fiction (Protestantism) or as a created reality (Roman Catholicism), rather than as a true participation in God's own uncreated righteousness. I hope this helps to explain in more detail what I meant by "legalism" in my previous comment.
@@theomimesis Well, yeah, true, it's a cultural thing though. Even before our split it was like that. Us in the West were discussing our rules, how mass should be step-by-step, advice on the "maximum interest rate that's morally a-OK" and stuff like that, while you folks in the East focused more on the Mystical. And it was chill like that. At least most of the time. The Roman Empire may have left the West much earlier than in the East, but its thoughts, languages, and approach to things stuck to us real hard. For better or for worse. Thing is we tolerated each other. As I see it, it's just a different way of approaching God, and not at all something wrong or disagreeable.
Fr Casey thank you for the explanation of the rules of the church. I have been a Catholic since birth but we are not traditional Catholics so many doctrines , rules are missed . You explained them very well. Thank you. By the way , don’t you need a Saint name when you become a priest? Was there a Saint Casey ?
Great video Father! Is there any reliable and all-encompassing source that summarizes all of the churches teachings, and where they fall in these categories? The Catechism is a great summary of all church teaching, but is there something like that with an allotment of teachings into their categories?
The Vatican site has all the official teachings of the church and publications. Given the language differences for the website it’s not easy for people not familiar with the lexicon to find the documents you want but there are search filters to help
Time point 0:37 "Can a Catholic disagree with the Church and remain in Communion?" Today is Passion Sunday in the traditional calendar of the Church, and the Epistle this morning was from the Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 8: 45-59 Jesus was in the temple and the scribes and pharisees were trying to test Him. What did Our Lord Jesus say? (Chapter 8, 46-57) "If I speak the truth why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear is that you are not of God." The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. How can this Mystical Body teach anything but the truth? Why would a Catholic not want to hear the truth?
I think a previous commenter well stated what the core principle behind any disagreement one would have with church teaching should be--and that is the intent of that disagreement. If its purpose is to create chaos or open rebellion, then I agree with all points that such disagreement is out of line. But if it's to question a teaching so as to gain a clearer understanding of the teaching, then that seems to me to be a viable reason to do so. Ultimately, whatever obedience we have must be to God. He is, after all, the ultimate authority of what MUST be as opposed to what could be or should be. I believe that was made clear when God provided us with the 10 commandments and Jesus summarized them with two--love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself. The Catholic Church (as with most religions) provides guidance in living out those precepts and, indisputably, has spent much time and study to make sure they are viable and realistic to our relationship with God and, by correlation, our neighbor (no matter who they happen to be). Ultimately, though, it is between each individual and God how those precepts are to be lived. God is the ultimate judge--and it is to him we will always be answerable.
I do have kind of a small issue with this ranking, so any guidance or help would be appreciated: doesn't putting "scriptures" as a whole in the second category equals putting on the same level the word of God and the interpretation of the first christians? If one believes the gospels to be true, he believes the words of Jesus to be words of divine nature, which obviously makes them undisputable and as authoritative as it gets. But do the rest of the new testament holds the same weight? Isn't holding every single word of Paul infallible kind of essentially making him equal to Jesus? Even the original twelve apostles weren't exactly exempt from sinning or mistakes. Sorry for any misunderstanding, this particular point kind of puzzles me a bit.
I’m not sure but it seems like Authoritative Doctrine at a first glance BUT PLEASE don’t take my words very seriously since I haven’t give it more than a minute’s thought
The concept of sexual orientation is pretty recent. Because of that the scriptures don't contain the noun "homosexual", but it explicitly prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex, so, at least that part should be dogma.
Hello Fr Casey, I got a question in regards to the video. You have stated four levels Dogmas, Definitive Doctrines, Authoritative Doctrines and Pastoral Application. Could you use Marian Veneration/Apparitions or Rosary as an example and show the different levels of it? Thank You
Apparitions are considered "private revelation." The Church either affirms or denies these experiences, allowing the faithful to have devotion to them, but they are never binding on the faithful (we don't have to accept them.) Here's a video for more information: ruclips.net/video/hkVNuyP8Tpo/видео.html
Fr. Casey. I was born amd raised Catholic but currently taking online RCIA class for deeper understanding of our church's teaching. it is allowed right?
Father Casey, you are on the right path, for you obey the chosen one of the LORD, and the Church. You are teacher for the lay faithfuls, who need teachings of the LORD and of his Church.
I'm still struggling in my mind with the church vs nominalism. I agree that Derida is ridiculous, and Occam's statements like "Christ could have incarnated as a donkey" are pretty insulting, I still have issues with the idea that things have a fundamental nature outside of their physical. Everywhere that we use morally charged words, those words imply a specific goal. A "good" fork is great for eating, but terrible for digging a trench. A broken fork is no less good than a whole fork for most contexts. Since this seems to imply that "good" is dependent on the context of a goal, how could there possibly be objective morality? I behave as if there is objective morality, for instance I follow God because I love and trust him, and I believe that it is good to follow those you love and trust. However I cannot come up with a rational reason why I believe that it is good to follow those I love and trust, rather it comes from some mental source apparently inaccessible to my ability to reason. Since every action I take is a choice I make (the decision to act vs inaction, or which action to take), everything I do is a moral decision. Even the decision to be honest with myself in my ability to reason is a morally charged decision. Through Hume's fork, I cannot see any rational source for any moral decisions, unless that reasoning process takes as a premise some other moral assertion (thus shifting the problem without solving it). As far as I can tell, God's commandments for us are brilliant syntheses of those moral impulses, e.g. "Thou Shall Not Lie" is a great synthesis that incorporates our impulse to be rational, as well as many other things (liars make for a short-lived and unstable civilization). My desire to have a stable civilization is based on many things, one of which is my empathy for those who would be hurt by civilizational collapse. That empathy is something that seems to come from my heart, rather than my mind. My mind can state that "those people are not you, so their suffering doesn't affect you". This statement is materially true, but I find it repulsive despite it's material truth. My revulsion to such selfishness is something I cannot rationally justify, but the existence of that revulsion is plainly observable, much like the way that I cannot rationally justify whether a car is painted red or blue without observing it. No amount of rational contemplation could tell the ancients about the existence of black holes, and no amount of rational contemplation could reveal the existence of Kangaroos to a man living in Roman Judea. Our senses are a source of truth outside of the grasp of reason, and I think we have a similar irrational source of moral truth. I was told that this was Nominalism, which is rejected by the church, but I am having a very hard time finding a reason that it's not true, since it seems to be the inevitable conclusion of self-examination of my own mind. It's why I've been reading Aristotle, and watching lots of stuff on the Church's position on Nominalism. I want to follow the church, but if the church were to say that 2+2 was 5, I couldn't. If the church were to say that the sky is red, while I am watching it in real time and observing that it is currently blue, then I similarly couldn't follow the church there. I currently suspect that I am either misunderstanding Nominalism, or misunderstanding the church's teachings on it. I really need to talk to someone with church authority to figure this out, because feeling like I'm forced to disagree with the church is terrifying. I love the church because God created her for us to love and trust.
This is fascinating, and it answers some questions I've had as a non-Catholic. But there seems to be a disconnect in part of what you're saying. I'm really hoping you'll actually read this and can maybe help me understand better. For the third tier of teaching, you acknowledged that this is an area where the Catholic Church may well be wrong on matters, and you cited the Church's past acceptance of slavery as an example. But then in the final few seconds of the video, you said that we have no license to outright deny such teachings. But what about when the Church actually is wrong about something? And even more so, what about when the Church's being wrong is actually causing harm to people? Take, for example, any Catholics who outright denied the Church's teaching on slavery back when the Church still accepted it. Would we not in retrospect say that they were actually _more_ faithful Christians, who outright denied Church teaching because of their higher allegiance to Christ's way of love for their neighbor? And assuming so, is that not still possible today? To put a more concrete point on it, I know a ton of Catholics who, out of a higher allegiance to Christ's way of love, outright deny the Catholic Church's unquestionably harmful teachings prohibiting gay marriage, for example. Where would such people fall under these principles today? Would the Catholic church consider their dissent to a tier-three teaching acceptable? Or do they have have no license "to outright deny" such teachings and remain Catholics? I have no doubt that if the Catholic Church survives very far into the future, it will eventually repent of its current and historical stance on LGBTQ people and their relationships, and it will look back on its past teachings no differently than it already does for what it once taught about slavery. But what about right now? Is there no room for faithful dissent in the present? Thanks in advance for your response!
Fr Casey, I'm struggling with why can a priest turn the host and wine to body and blood of christ, and I can't consume unleavened bread and wine and it still be the same thing. From a scripture point of view I read Jesus saying take this and eat its my body take this and drink it is my blood do this in memory of me, all the Deciples were men like me and you and the Holy spirit was not upon them yet so why can't I have the authority to consume the body and blood of christ on my own??. I'm a Catholic but I am a sinful man and I just want some advice and help, I have a girlfriend but I consider her to be my wife but at the same time I feel a calling from God and its tearing me inside, I don't hate God or Jesus I just don't understand alot of things. Thank you for these videos and God bless.
Basically what the priest does is he calls on god the son, 2nd person of the blessed trinity, to come down from heaven to earth in the mass to feed his sheep his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.
@@versatilelord8893 in the bible Jesus said This is my body this is my blood take it and eat it/drink it and when you do, do it in memory of me. There's not mention of call me down from heaven either physically or spiritually.
@@Minesaysme I don’t know what your objecting to sir. This is the teaching on the Eucharist/transubstantiation that the church has taught for 2000 years based on that verse on John 6
@@versatilelord8893 why does it take a priest to do it???. Like in the present climate why can't we have the "authority" to do this on our own in our homes.
@@Minesaysme I think theres bunch of reasons. But here is my best interpretation of it: The followers of Jesus are called his disciples, but among ALL the disciples he still chose 12 to be his close friends (and later the witnesses and leaders of His Church). And even among the 12, there were always 3 who he chose to be around him in important moment such as the transfiguration and when Jesus prayed the night before Judah betrayed him...So with this we can see there was an important call of certain men to be leaders AND servants of the Church (his people), ...Now Jesus HIMSELF gave the people bread, theres no need for purification because he HIMSELF purified them. He knew everyone's thoughts and hearts. But also Jesus Himself gave the Disciples His Bread and Wine turned into His own Body and Blood, and later HE told THEM to do the same among the people. He gave them a special grace, not because he loves them more. Just because they were called to do more and by those standards be fully Servants of the people...Jesus is sacrificial Lamb at the altar, he is th Bread of Life, He said eat my flesh and blood. If he can multiply fish and bread abundantly and create more tangible food from his Divinity alone. How can he NOT transform plain bread and wine into his glorious DIVINE AND ALIVE Body and Blood. 😊 I hope it helped. But I can just say keep reading the Bible. And pay attention to what he says and does.
It seems like Pope Francis's focus has been on teaching in the face of differences and even error. I think this is wonderful. If we had his approach 500 years ago we might have had some theological error but not the thousand protestant churches who tend to be fair reformers on 100 topics and in grave error over one or two points. Flexibility and teaching rather than punishment.
Father, that is indeed a very graceful way to put things. However, although you said that the categorisation is not to make certain teachings optional, it still may lead people into thinking so. It’s quite unfathomable to think that one can literally deny books of Scripture yet remain in communion with the Church. Despite this limitation, I still really like the classification system. I would however, just emphasise one value: obedience. One’s reason or conscience isn’t superior to that of the Scriptures, Holy Church, or Her Magisterium. So, rejecting anything of Church teaching is just wrong, so we should just obey, for it is God’s will and hence in our interest. Greetings from Spain!
I would live to hear you explain why God seems to put such an emphasis on choosing the correct faith, or denomination. It’s hard to understand why a divine creator would have a care for doctrines like Trinitarianism, or the correct name of God for that matter. You’re an impressive communicator, I enjoy your presentations.
@Everything Burns If you were so eager to see the evidence for the existence of Jesus, you would have done your own private research. Yes, a few contemporary non-Christian Roman writers mentioned his crucifixion in their letters
Hard to explain why God decides things. Unless you're asking him to speculate, and if so it would be interesting, but to argue *why exactly did Christ decide to make One Church,* well I don't know if a human can just answer that with any authority, not even all the Popes put together. Order? Unity of faith? To keep the record straight? Maybe God just really wants us to "get Him" and understand Him sort of kind of, or at least what's important. Or perhaps to adapt to changing times, and most importantly know what *cannot* change irrespective of the times.
What if I disagree with the church because I think it’s too soft and open minded on moral and theological issues for example usury being allowed if the interest is not excessive vs any interest at all being a sin, or saying capitalism and libertarianism in general isn’t inherently evil when it is, or accepting tattoos if they are Christian vs considering all tattoos at all a sin, or embracing the idea of theistic evolution, vs rejecting the notion that God allowed a deadly process for human and animal creation prior to the fall. What if the Catholic Church is just too open minded and lukewarm on morals and faith, can we disagree with it? What if we feel Catholicism is affirming sin as being ok? This is actually one of the biggest problems with post Vatican 2 Popes and the church, it’s too open minded to the unconverted world.
I work for my parish, and I am good with the idea of following church authority, but because of COVID, my bishop wants things a certain way and my pastor (and boss) wants things another way. What can I do?
Hrm, here's another question I might add. If the majority in the parish are in active dissent, does trying to follow authority become the disruptive element?
Whoa! you cited Richard Gallardetz??? He is the lead theologian at Boston College if I remember correctly. However, if you read his book "By What Authority" his views are a bit radical when compared to Ratzinger. Example:(Using Gallardetz book verses Ratzinger) Gaillardetz agrees that the Pope is the “Pastor of the Church”; however, he limits the authority by relegating him as another bishop, claiming that the pope “is neither the head of the whole church or the bishop of the whole church.” Ratzinger on the other hand, argues that to be in communion with the Pope is to be in “the true communion of the Body of the Lord, that is, in the true Church.” Moreover, Gaillardetz argues that withholding personal assent to a doctrine or teaching does not separate one from communion with the Church. Gaillardetz proposes to redefine the Magisterium so that it becomes the entirety of the faithful, thereby stripping away the juridical authority that is exclusive to the college of bishops in communion with the pope. In contrast, Ratzinger’s states “the apostles and their successors are therefore the custodians and authoritative witnesses of the deposit of truth consigned to the Church” as such the faithful can be assured that any doctrine promulgated by the Magisterium is true, and, therefore, should receive their assent. The Catechism states the faithful “have the duty of observing the constitution and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church”
I was taught we weren't aloud to disagree with anything the church taught and it was sinful. I carried this philoshophy into my adult life, and it cause grave issues for me. And when we disagreed, SHAME was FORCED upon us. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE our Catholic church, but I know why so many people have left. Satan has tempted me to leave for sure because of all the rules, and many Catholics are Sooooo judgemental, they make it impossible to attend Mass with them. Satan attacks his church HARD. Let us pray: Almighty God, you gave us your Church, But now evil has infilitrated even into it. Even our Pope suffers from poor judgement at times. Please look upon your faithful and guide as we strive to live in accordance with your true Divine Will. Amen.
How could one believe out of obedience? The lower levels make sense: if the Catholic Church teaches something, it has a good reason to do so. So if you notice you disagree with something, carefully trying to understand why it is taught is the right response. But with the highest levels there seems to be a duty to believe not matter what, and I don't see how that would work. If someone, for example, thinks the trinity is impossible, that believe wouldn't change if you simply told them the Church orders them to believe it, would it? I guess it would make sense if the Church would then say: "If you don't believe it, please leave the church." But the Church doesn't do that. If I remember correctly the Church even says that it is actually impossible to leave once baptized.
What I believe you're thinking is that some sacraments - such as baptism - are undeletable, and thus once baptized, always baptized. We don't exactly ask people to leave the Church because that would be counter productive to the project of salvation. Instead, we try to convince them. However, as Fr. Casey said, if you fail to follow any dogma, you are not a Catholic, just like someone can't claim to be a vegan and regularly eat meat
@@MinecraftHubblle But eating meat is an action, not a belief. I can decide what I do, but I don't think I can decide what I believe. I guess it makes sense (logically) to say: everyone who doesn't believe any specific dogma of the Catholic Church is automatically not a Catholic. But the title of the video is "Do I have to obey?" not "Am I Catholic?".
Photon No, you can’t decide what you believe, but you can certainly study the subject (just as the video suggested). Believe me, I also had some disagreement with Church teaching, but I delved deeper, studied further and always came to the conclusion that the Church was right and I was wrong. If there is any specific teaching you do not agree with, I would be happy to have a discussion
If you don't believe Muhammad to be the prophet of Allah, even if you like the Quram, you're not a Muslim. If you don't believe in reincarnation, even if you follow Buddah's way of life, you're not a Buddhist. There are things that simply define a religion, and must be highlied as crucial. If not, we simply wouldn't be transmiting the faith. In the case of the Holy Trinity, the belief is clearly deductive from the Bible and all Christians believe it. Part of it is precisely that no one can totally understand it ever, it's above our understanding, a mistery. This said, you don't need to worry for doubting. Doubt is fine, we all have doubts and grow in faith because. You can research in peace, no one is going to come and excommunicate you.
Im a cradle catholic, and have recently found the dogma pf purgatory difficult. Especially having been recently exposed to the Orthodox objection. Their own St. Mark of Ephesus and contemporaries make great arguments, and i am stumped as a layman. Your parting words in this video helped me remember. Question, understand the dogma no matter how difficult. And have faith that Jesus is at work in the Church's teachings.
That's interesting. As an Episcopal Protestant, Purgatory is one of the things that draws me to Catholicism. I know darn well that I would be a misfit in Heaven with my character as it is, grouchy, cowardly, judgemental, and selfish. Yet, I believe with all my heart that Christ loves me and will never reject me. Technically he could wave a magic wand and clean me up for Heaven. But if he can do that why not before I die? I think that he wants my activity and cooperation in the process, to be aware of the steps that God has set me on is getting me to the right place.
Dear Father. I have watched your show for years even before you were ordained. I remembered this on too and was a bit tentative on the way the end I’m was presented. No I think I know why. It’s been 4 years! Much has happened in our world and the Church. So many priests openly criticize and disagree with the latest church ideas in offensive, hostile and contradictory ways that one might say there is a discrepancy between your ideas presented here and many in the Priesthood. What do you think about this now and what are your thoughts about what’s happening. ?
Yes, probably. It is certainly not dogma, and it is not explaining dogma (definitive doctrine), but rather a reflection on current moral problems based on our understanding of faith. For this reason, it holds tremendous weight and is clearly defined, but there is a *possibility* that it may not stand forever. (This is not to imply that it is wrong or that it should change, only that it is not among the irreformable doctrine of the Church.)
Where does birth control, which many Catholics use, come into the mix? I found growing up it was the one issue some priests or deacons overlooked or didn't push, why lose a soul who might change over one thing. I was told not to use the pill but I needed to be conscious of what we logically could afford.. I listened to so much anxiety and angst on natural family planning forums, many unplanned pregnancies, switching methods, etc and stress between spouses. I always felt it caused some to leave the church and sadly not something that should have.
I'm not sure, I would guess definitive doctrine because it's been articulated since the first century but it may be authoritative, regardless I have a hard time with that teaching too, but I try to support it
If he does this, the statement could not be irreformable. In order for it to be infallible, it must satisfy three criteria: 1. Speak with full authority, 2. On faith and morals, 3. With the Tradition of the Church.
Thank you Fr Casey, hope you had a good break. **I do believe this video is essential for clarification - especially with the confusion at this present time over the Latin Mass being dropped/discontinued. **There is extreme anger over this decision by Pope Francis over this issue. **Mass being conducted in Latin is not Dogma (Hierarchy of Truth) or Scriptural & is therefore changeable at anytime by the Pontiff.
Who is confused? I’m not. I can read. The accusation of confusion is a slur when one doesn’t agree with the pope’s action. Just be honest The two percenters are getting desperate
Hi father.. this may sound a bit silly but for months now I’ve been searching for a little bit of clarity regarding smoking marijuana and the churches stance regarding this. For some context, I’m a music producer and I genuinely enjoy creating music while being high, it truly changes how I create. (I view my ability to create music as a direct gift from God) It also has helped me greatly with my anxiety as well. I’ll admit there have been times in my life I have over used and even abused the substance which I clearly know is wrong. I’ve actually quit cold turkey and have been sober for about 2 months now, but I do genuinely miss the benefits that I was obtaining through smoking. The reason I’ve quit is because I assume that it would be a grave sin. Is this true? This video was extremely helpful in a lot of ways but I’d truly like to have a clear cut answer regarding this.. obviously my overindulgence would absolutely be sinful, surely. But what if it was used with temperance? Is this something so punishable or that would separate me from the church?
Re “Dogmas” there are a few, like the relatively new Marian dogmas of her Immaculate Conception and Assumption, that are neither explicitly nor implicitly revealed through Holy Scripture. Therefore dogmas can be extra-biblical, and do not necessarily “come directly from Scripture” as Fr. Casey erroneously propounds here.
Praise God. There is no more divine revelation other than what has been given to use - the Bible. That's true because the Catholic Church declared there were inspired by God . There is however private revelation but that is subject to a person's belief. As to how that is not made up, you can check if there were miracles which were scientifically investigated, you can check if the church has accepted it, it should not contradict natural(Science, nature, reason, conscious, moral law) or divine revelation(Bible). (The church may take a long time for some private revelation but that doesn't mean you have to wait for it). There are many factors but i would go with what the church believes on private revelation unless you personally disagree which is ok. Praise God.
@@whitevortex8323 Science only investigates the natural. To claim that something natural is supernatural is false. If something is true because the catholic church says it's true, is a circular argument. Therefore refuted.
@@rjskeptic5273 Praise God. No my point was scientist could investigate if the miracle had natural causes but if the disease or illness was completely not causes by natural scientific explanations and there are eyewitnesses that the person was previously sick then it shows credibility in the miracle. It may not be healing, if it is an apparition the visionaries experience something called ecstasy and scientists don't know how to explain it. The point is if there is a supernatural phenomena which cannot be explained and there is good evidence for it being true it shows credibility. The point about the Catholic Church was that they do a thorough investigation and make sure there are no heresies. It takes a long time to approve for some things. Praise God.
@@whitevortex8323 I standby my original comment. If you have any evidence for anything supernatural, I'll listen. But it must be verified by a reputable scientific paper.
@@rjskeptic5273 Praise God. I never said i have a private revelation. You have to tell me which private revelation you are talking about. Anyways, i don't have to provide anything because i never said any private revelations are true. You can go check what scientific paper says depending on the revelation but not all revelation is given to one person. The church does not force anyone to believe private revelation that's down to a person's choice but the church itself accepts them so long as they are true. You find out for yourself which ones to believe and which ones are not true. I don't compel you to believe anything. Praise God.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
When I was a kid, the nuns who educated me told me that if I disagreed with some thing the church taught (aside from the creed) I was required to study the issue, to pray about it, to meditate on it, and to do what my conscience demanded. It has worked for me.
She sounds like she was a fantastic teacher, or at the very least a wise one
Thank you very much, Nancy. I only knew that it is not acceptable to have the Holy Communion through your hands. The New Mass does not allow the Holy Host on the tongue because of the pandemic. I attended a mass through SSPX to have the acceptable communion. However, there are questions about them. I am very confused what to do. Your comment helps me.
Nancy, my Uncle was a priest. He said exactly the same thing. And I agree too
Sounds like Protestantism.
If your conscience supersedes the Dogmas and the Magisterium, then your conscience wasn’t formed by the Dogmas and Magisterium.
Your conscience is equal to God. God’s Word becomes the servant of your “conscience”.
That’s Protestantism, you’re just making it up as you go along.
@@harryallenpearce89 not true. Doctrine can be reinterpreted and evolve. Dogmas are static, so denying them would be bad news for any Catholic, but one could in theory dissent from certain doctrines and still remain a Catholic in good standing.
As a college student, I for one would love to bring back prohibitions on usury
here here!!
@@Otaku155 If a Catholic is charging high-interest rates then they are sinning. Matters not what the curch says.
Usury has changed meaning over history, from being predatory lending, excessive rates, or any interest at all.
But the economy has also changed over history and also varies by country.
Usury is now a civil law matter in most Western countries, and that alone probably explains much of why the Church avoids being overly rigid on the topic. Also, the economic systems of the European Union, UK, US, Switzerland, and most major countries is based on interest generated by interbank loans, which makes the idea this is somehow sinful highly problematic in practice. In short, the way money works now is way different than when people just bartered to bought thing using precious metal coils, and these countries with developed economic systems have the best standards of living.
Also, alternatives to interest are not that great. At best, they reduce consumer choice, and at worse, they force people to surrender their equity rights to investors instead of offering a fixed interest rate. For example, many Islamic banks insist on partial ownership to reap returns, which can be a way worse deal to someone wanting to borrow money to start a business idea, or to you the student borrower who may find your future earnings docked.
@@jenniferh7163 very interesting perspective. I'm going to do some research online about that.
@@jenniferh7163 What you said is true. But for hundreds of years, the Catholic church was the lender because it had the most money to lend. They charged high interest rates and if you could not pay then they would ruin you and your family.
"Blessed are those who haven't seen me yet still believes".
Man, if I could go back in time to that resurrection Sunday! I'd know the truth and sadly many would probably think I was nuts!
@@richardmagale8405 yes that's what's happening right now. False science calls this as hallucination. Sad.
gnostic interpretation of that text is that Thomas was praised for asking questions not a trace remain because Nicean Christianity destroyed it all
Jesus was talking about the other disciples.
@@dhhbtd Not really. Jesus is a Genius in the way His mind works. Because whatever answer He gives, He does so as to punch the connection between the present(thosedays) and the future. That's the reason why His teachings are Alive and knocking even the hardest Hearts till today.
This channel helps me grow in my Catholic faith. I am so blessed to have found it. I watch it daily. Thank you so much!
Its all about the bacon
@@6969smurfy ???I don't get it
Its all about the bacon
This is the clearest explanation of the different types of Church teaching that I've seen on RUclips. Thank you!
Church teaches lawlessness, not Gods word.
“Of there’s one thing the Catholic Church has an abundance of, it’s rules.”
*laughs in Jewish*
Rafi Schon Wirtschafter What language is “ Jewish”? Do you refer to Aramaic? The language the Messiah Christ spoke while teaching people about Himself and His Church is Aramaic. The Jewish people rejected God and His Religion, and crucified Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Yes, there are a lot of rules to be found, after 2,000 years of men arguing. The Catholic Church is also full of God. Full of saints who united themselves with God through His Sacraments, and lived in heroic Charity. Rules can be like background music if your eyes are already fused with God’s.
@@granmabern5283 There are many Jewish languages. There is also a meme with "laughs in/cries in ___" it's often not a language.
Add "Catholic guilt" to that as well.😂
dont forget Mithra worship
God Loves You the Jewish language is not Jewish it is a Canaanite language that Abraham had to learn
Gosh! Fr. Casey. The title of your video drag me here. The times we're going through make people think about these things. Let's hope we all keep loving God and following the main teachings that Jesus told us. At the end of the day, we are all mortals. When we meet God, He will tell us what did we miss. God bless us all. Keep healthy.
I really appreciate how you tackle and teach these Catholic issues (how u tackle the hard questions) and answer them as succinctly and as honestly and directly as you do. Thank you for this and may God bless your ministry!
Father you're a very eloquent, concise and clear speaker.
It's always a treat to hear you and this cleared up a lot of confusion. 🙂
Thanks!
@@BreakingInTheHabit when are you going to do a video on Catholic Teaching on the sanctity of Marriage being between one man and one woman?? Or you scared to cover that one?
Agree! ❤
Why do to offer him a burnt offering to 😅go with your fawning isodolitrous iworship,
Any dissent is disruptive to a community, but oftentimes that disruption leads to improvement in the community.
I’m not sure that I would agree with “oftentimes,” but there is certainly truth in saying that disruption can be beneficial.
Especially if the intention to it is good, and if dialogue is intended.
only if that disruption leads people closer to Gospel Truth and Church Teaching.
If 'dissent' is taken to be a matter of dispute .. not a cause for rebellion.
@@anthonyhulse1248 That is part of the problem of the protestantised/ protestantising thought process at work in the Church since the mid-20th century. How does one know one is drawing closer to this or that opinion on Gospel Truth, especially if Church teachings are disposable, malleable, or temorary? The answer is simple - and easy - enough, but involves a disruption that Modernism cannot accept (at any price) i.e. measuring all dispute by a standard of sound words (aka principles, rules, authorities, witnesses) = Sacred Tradition.
God bless.
Another video full of edifying and useful content. This is all stuff that you don't get taught in Sunday school...or at least I didn't. Thank you, Fr. Casey.
I can’t put my finger on it exactly but I’m thinking there’s a renewed clarity and punchiness in your videos post-break, which is great. I hope and am sure you’ll keep taking risks (and flak) with the controversial contemporary stuff - there’s a desperate need for a clear perspective anchored with God and not bogged down in the current ideological mire. The yoke is light etc. Sincerely, from London
Thanks, it means a lot!
Personally I think it is a waste of time & money. But do priests get paid for conversions they do? I mean seriously? Whats the point of converting someone externally when they have their hearts unconverted? The ones who believe in Supreme Power, believe no matter what. The three gifts are God given. Some oversmart Catholic cant pressure, these gifts in anyone's head. Why try so hard to convert? What is the benefit? God's calling cant be pressurized. Why do they convert ppl forcibly (according to allegations)? A blot on Catholic church because of these insane priests in India. I Condemn Them Wholeheartedly.
@@Sonu-tz2js ... according to allegations.... there ya go.
"For the skeptics throughout the ages inherit nothing except a negation. Their positive policy or ideal varies, not only from century to century, but even from father to son....Those who leave the tradition of truth do not escape into something which we call Freedom. They only escape into something else, which we call *Fashion.*
That is really the crux of the controversy between the two views of history and philosophy. If it were true that by leaving the temple we walked out into a world of truths, the question would be answered; but it is not true. By leaving the temple, we walk out into a world of idols; and the idols of hedonism and socialism are more perishable and passing than the gods of the temple we have left."
- G.K. Chesterton
The problem orthodox Catholics face right now is similar to a problem I suspect many orthodox Catholics faced in Nazi German. Namely that many of their fellow Catholics were brainwashed by the Nazi culture. Secular Culture, as Chesterton said, is just a bunch of fads and fashions. These fashions change with each successive generation. Cultural Fascism was popular in the 1930s. Cultural Marxism, the opposite, became popular in the 1960s. It is already being rejected by the generation that grew up in the 1990s. Sadly, Vatican II was heavily influenced by theological fads that existed at the time.
The "hierarchy of truths" idea exists is in all ideologies. Suppose I walked into a feminist club with a T-Shirt that said, "The bodies of men and women are biologically different". Most of them would be annoyed. But If I walked in with a T-Shirt that said, "Women don't belong in the workplace", they would ask me to leave - and rightfully so. Similarly, if an unrepentant-openly-h0m0seuxal couple walk into a church, they should be asked to leave. Everyone instinctively knows what crosses the line. And many of our lay people and clergy have not only crossed that line but gone way, way past it.
I suspect that positing a central conflict between Tradition and Cultural Marxism, fighting on with the rusted armour of centuries, will ensure victory for the latter. Are you so confident that Jesus would stand there and order your homosexual couple to leave? Haven’t you just fallen into a trap? The higher dangers of the 20th century and current ideologies (leading to Gulags and modern day Chinese versions e.g.) can be avoided but there must be a better way of tackling them, applying reason and engagement, anchored of course in the foundations but not sunk by the accretions.
Father, I appreciate your deep Spirituality on the Scriptures and the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. Being a young Priest, God has bestowed on you, a Special Charism to break the Word and catechise on the teachings of the Church open to anyone and everyone. God bless you and strengthen you on your mission of Evangelisation.
Thanks! As a new catholic this was quite informative and has cleared up much confusion!
@Harley Mann thank you sir! God bless!
I’m in RCIA now:) entering the Church in Easter 2021. I’ll become a Roman Catholic in a few months!!
@@leifewald5117 that's awesome! Welcome to the fam!
@@leifewald5117 Amazing! I recommend you read the Catechism if you haven’t already.
@@leifewald5117 Are you saved. Have you made Jesus your Savior? No church can save your soul. You must make Jesus your Savior and you don't need a church to do that.
Father your videos are always so good, pray for me as I’m entering the Church this year and may our Lord continue to bless your ministry.
Welcome home!
How is it going?
Raised in the church, parochial school, now a middle aged practicing member of the faith, the first half of this video perfectly confounded me! Glad I stuck it out, as the 2nd half spoke more my language...
Fr. Casey, thank you for such an enlightening explanation about these confusing practices in the church which we, as lay members seem not able to comprehend the differences among the clergy in terms of how clearly they preach them or even how they live their lives as alter Christus✝️
This isn't spoken on nearly enough. I've been fighting a pull to the church for 15 years because no one talks about this stuff. Thank you.
Thank you for this, Fr. Casey. I wonder if you have any video or if you can talk about "responsible dissent". I use some of your videos in my classes. God bless you a hundredfold!
I appreciate your time and effort to help educate us with your videos. Feeling blessed that I can watch your videos from another country and during a pandemic!🙏🏻. Thank you!
Remember that even Moses, and even Jesus himself, were skeptical and offered questions to God. God does not condemn questions, and we should never fear to ask why or how. Questions are the fundamental basis of wisdom.
More importantly, remember that it is wisdom, and the desire to strengthen your knowledge and faith, that should always be the end goal. Even Martin Luther, in his famous argument with Cardinal Tommaso Cajetan, stated that his original end goal was not to quarrel with the Pope or the Holy See, but rather, to 'defend them with more than the mere opinions of man.'
When the Catholic Church was certain that the soul of an unbaptised baby that dies - effectively went into Limbo, has to be one of the cruellest and manipulative pieces that the planet has ever known. Imagine being a parent that on top of dealing with their child's passing, also has to deal with being told that even after death - they'll never be reunited with the child they never got the chance to truly know. Now add to that, being told that the church has changed it's mind on that. What type of psychological damage must that have caused? And how can such a claim have been made in the past, only to have that claim changed?
I understand what you mean. To me it shows what Fr. Casey presented about levels of Church teaching. Some are time and culturally bound. I think it was Aquinas. It’s not based in scripture which today is so important. In the Middle Ages it was not the priority. So I think God who is all wisdom and love will make His own decision separate from us as to what He will do with those babies who die without baptism. What ever God decides will be right. What we decide because we are human may be flawed. I think Fr Casey made a good point about dogma being the essential part of our faith and it cannot change. Limbo was not a part of that. The Church has much to do to teach the people about this. When VII occurred my dear grandmother was upset because St Christopher was no longer a saint. She thought “ How can God change his mind?” Well God didn’t the Church did because it learned that legends can distort.
if only scripture were more clear on this point
It had been explained to me that it eas never a dogma, only a speculation. But I agree, what sorrow it was for parents.
As people higher have pointed out it was never part of official teaching so Church wasn’t erroneous. Of course this may have caused pain for parents but priests that perpetuated this believe weren’t some insensitive monsters. They genuinely tried to explain matters with resources they had at the time. It’s unfair to call it cruel and manipulative. People today have that sense of being self-righteous and knowing everything about morality (I’m not pointing out OP, in general many people are angry at Church for doing x or y in the past without actually doing thorough scrutiny of the issue). Truth is that morality evolved throughout human history, from Christian perspective God was wary of our hardened hearts and he tailored revelation according to our moral capabilities that’s why for example Moses Law would allow for divorce and even after revelation was complete in Jesus Christ we still have limited cognitive abilities. Perhaps many things we accept today as moral will be deemed “cruel” by future generations. It’s quite easy to judge from current perspective.
Jesus Christ, what an insufferable post. It was never taught with certainty, in fact it was never taught at all. It was considered among priests as it underwent discussion and very, VERY quickly settled that no, they just straight up go to Heaven. Yes, terrible for the parents that were around and only had access to priests that supported that view, but it never stuck in the Church, in none of those 4 categories of the video.
When? At what time period is this disagreement? ...
Can you do a video explaining the SSPX and their relations with the Roman Catholic Church.
Sspx and every other sedavaticantist is outside the church. They preach a different gospel
@@versatilelord8893 SSPX aren't sedevacantist. They always put Pope Francis in the mass.
Thank you, Father. Your videos are so much more important than you know!
Great video! Perhaps the most authoritative book on this is, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," by Dr. Ludwig Ott. Get the 2018 edition by Baronius Press.
How many families of six or more do you see at church ?
In my grade school, my religion teacher was a fine nun. She said that to be a Christian, only two things really matter. Love God and respect for others.
Too bad other Christians would call you a heretic if you only followed these principles and not everything else in their doctrine.
I think this must be taught in secondary catechism ... authority is such a big problem faced by many adults ... it will certainly help to think about our approach to authority systematically
I want to know what is expected in courtship and dating as a Catholic single.
Moral reason, due self-respect, and respect for the welfare of other immortal soul, also having a jolly time together .. while avoiding the occasion of sin. God bless. ;o)
Prayer prayer prayer, for clarity and Godly Love, wanting the best for the other, which is Heaven....is God.
Praise God. God should be first priority in both you and the person you date's life. If not then the relationship should be extinguished as it is not pushing u closer to God but moving you away from God and leading to eternal damnation for both you and your partner. May God help you. Praise God.
No bookie until the wedding night. There's much emphasis on the bride actually being entitled to wear white. After the wedding, produce a baby every nine months and ten minutes. Try very hard not to enjoy any of it, but by the fifth child, it will definitely feel like duty not pleasure.
What the Church teaches through its documents can be quite different from what it teaches through its actions. For example, if the Church on paper is supposed to be evangelical yet there are no institutional efforts on the parish level in most places to regularly witness to the Gospel in the greater community, then how is anyone supposed to recognize the Church in the world as the Church on paper?
Thank you for explaining things in an interesting way that I am able to understand 😊
I’m really conflicted on this. On one hand, I admire a church that is willing to reconsider some of its teachings and rules. On the other hand, if an entity is willing to change on 2/3s of its rules, then those rules were on shaky ground to begin with. Why not just dispense with everything except the top-level dogma. It’s like a community having bylaws and codes but only enforcing it some of the time, or even worse, having it on the books and never doing anything about it.
I'm fine with it. Take that idea about not always enforcing laws, this is something we have, police officers have discretion to not charge someone they catch speeding, but do need to arrest you if they see a dead body in the car. Judges can use a great deal of discretion when deciding sentences and and verdicts and can even ignore and establish precedents , but somethings still have a minimum penalty they must abide by.
The church is meant to be a spiritual leader, a guiding hand for people as they rarely have the time/ability to familiarize themselves with thousands of years of philosophy, theology and history on a myriad of topics. As faith should play a part in every aspect of our lives its only natural they have an opinion on pretty much everything, but like the law makers who gave the police and judges discretion, the church can recognize that they can't always think of everything and that some things are more important then others.
@@Mathayas_ Yh. Jesus did the same thing when he answered something akin to the Sabbath. When someone asked if he should save his sheep if it’s trapped on a Sabbath and Jesus basically gave an instance to have an exception
@vermontmike think of it like the constitution. Clerical law and even the bible themselves are living documents.
Great video! To often opponents of the Catholic Faith view everything as strict dogma. And that is why they like to denounce it as a Cult. This video was very clear. You sort of said this, but I think if you have a question about anything the Church requires, recommends, or suggests you think about, go talk to your Priest. It may simply be a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding that simply needs clarification. If it is a teaching that significantly and personally affects you, then you definitely need to talk through it with your Priest. They are there to help you.
Thank you Fr Casey for this video. Very informative. This is what I have requested also last time.
And boy was I wrong... I thought it would be less controversial but based on the comments, your video seems to be controversial again.
"Jesus promised his followers three things: that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble!" - G.K. Chesterton
Controversy has been with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church right from the beginning, for 2000 years, because the enemy is so jealous of God's perfect love for us and our imperfect love for Him. Whenever I come across someone who is critical of the Church, I'm reminded that it's far better to struggle for what is right than to excell at what is wrong.
The Catechism of the Catholic church has greatly helped me to understand more about my catholic faith.
Not everything about the catholic faith is in the Bible, I totally agree with you Fr.
Keep up the good work of enlightening the world.
'that does not give us license to outright deny them'.
Would this also, in retrospect, be true for a Catholic who denied that slavery was justified, while the church still taught that it was?
Slavery was a result of us disobeying our creator . If God chooses punished us then it justified
I have been considering leaving the church, you have helped me clarify my situation.
@Vicente Blasco Ibanez I took 60 years to decide. I have found a very welcoming Episcopal church that better expresses my relationship with God. I don't believe there is only one way to God. My own family is a mix of Christians of various denominations, Buddhists, Jews, and plenty that are non believers.we each must find our path. I hope you find peace wherever you land.
@@eileenmurphy2019 Jesus as Savior is the only path. Buddhism now being Jewish will Save your soul. Do not follow a church, follow Jesus.
@Why So Serious? They disobeyed God. They have been punished for disobedience many times. The Reformation was a form of punishment. They are being punished now by the split in the church. They will be punished more because they are not following Jesus but follow aspirations, Maryism, the lack of knowledge of the Bible, and the end times. It is not for me to say how or when. God has His own timing.
@@eileenmurphy2019 Jesus is the only Way
I have a question: should one be happy that a person wants to be a reader in church? Is it ok to say to a person who wants to read, but cannot because (perhaps due to nerves) they stumble, stutter, miss and mispronounce words and therefore render the reading , to try and serve the church in a different role? How would you do it? I really need to know. Thank you.
Public speaking is a fear many face when first introduced to it. With practice that fear goes away.
I would suggest participating in Toast Masters as a way to practice public speaking. This will give you the practice you need to over come stage fright/nerves.
As for other ways you can serve, the church has many ministries that need the help of volunteers. Just ask a member of the clergy and they can discuss options with you and you can decide what works best for your skills and comfort.
I like this ...very nice. Can I use/share this video in the future? God bless you
I have a question. I have 4 children and another on the way so that makes 5 children total. When can a couple say they are done and since contraception is a sin and nfp is not always effective what does a couple do?
Alfred S. Chastity
God will let you know when you are done. It is generally known as menopause.
Move to Canada for the Winnipeg Statement :p
In all seriousness, 86% of American Catholics feel the teaching on contraception is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a second thought. But ultimately you need to do what Fr Casey has suggested, critically study out the issue, and be earnest in your attempt to understand why the church teaches what it does. Maybe speak to a spiritual director during this process too.
Personally I don't agree with the teaching, but I'm not Catholic so my disagreement doesn't particularly bother me.
The church I attend (Orthodox) doesn't have official teaching on the matter, but generally accepts that non-abortifacient contraception is permissible in delaying, spacing, or preventing pregnancy for health or other reasons. But also, that you should consult your spiritual father about your particular situation and examine your motivations. Often St John Chrysostom is quoted regarding not needing to use procreation as an excuse to come together. However, the Orthodox Church places emphasis on "economia" or "personal economy" (deviation from the letter of the law to fulfil the spirit of the law), that the Catholic Church does not necessarily regard in the same way.
@@therese4089 YES
You're done when the mother dies in childbirth, goes barking mad from exhaustion, or has her uterus fall out of her.
"...As seen in things like the original acceptance of slavery, or condemnation of usury." Ironically, usury has become a type of slavery.
The Church still definitely says that some interest rates are so high that they're literally theft
Where on this scale does contraception go? Is this considered infallible by the ordinary magisterium?
Ordinatio Sacerdotis (question of women in the ministerial priesthood) comes under the second rung, right???
6:00 - that is by far the most stern I've ever seen Pope Francis look! Was this taken just after he concluded his interview with Scalfari?
As a Russian Orthodox Christian I find the Roman Catholic desire to have a schematic breakdown of "doctrine" odd, but historically speaking the Roman Church has always tended to be legalistic on faith issues. That being said, the idea that a Catholic is free to withhold assent in connection with "definitive doctrines" sounds a bit strange to me. In fact, I remember reading several years ago (probably more than a decade ago) a document issued by the Catholic Church in connection with modifications made to canon law as it concerns dissent from Catholic teachings (moral and otherwise), and that was titled something along the lines of, "Doctrinal Commentary" or "Profession of Faith Commentary", where it said that anyone who denies teachings that are "definitive" is no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. Isn't that like saying that a person is excommunicated (or has excommunicated himself) as a result of error or heresy?
God liked rules too, he gave us 10 Commandments. Without rules you have chaos. Case and point is protestants (excluding Orthodox).
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker - The difference lies in the motivation behind the Christian life. As St. Paul points out over and over again in his letters, it is not the "Law" that saves us, but the Spirit who saves. Christianity should not have a legalistic approach to the spiritual life. Now, I'm not asserting that there are no "rules" at all within Christianity, and by "rules" I mean "canons," which are not rightly speaking laws, because of course the Church's canons can be applied or not applied for the good of souls through a process called "economia" in Orthodoxy; but what I am saying is that Christianity must be distinguished from Rabbinic Judaism in what motivates the spiritual life, i.e., it must be said that a Christian does not practice the faith through an obligation to some kind of legal system.
That being said, one of the greatest differences between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity is in how the two sides approach the process of salvation. Now the question can be asked: What is salvation?
The West would answer by saying that salvation is the "justification" of a man through an application of the forgiveness achieved by Christ upon the Cross. What is justification? Protestants and Roman Catholic disagree on the nature of justification with Protestants viewing justification as something imputed to a man, but without any ontological change thereby occurring in the "justified" person. In other words, for a Protestant "justification" is a type of legal fiction in which a man remains unjust in reality, but with Christ's justice being imputed to him, so that we talk about the man as just, even though he has not been ontologically made just (n.b., think of the pile of manure analogy for "justification" used by Martin Luther). This Protestant approach is often summarized with the Latin phrase, "Simul iustus et peccator" (i.e., simultaneously just and sinful) when speaking about those who have come to Christ through faith. It is easy to see that this approach is problematic.
Now, in opposition to the Protestant Reformers, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent asserted that a man who comes to Christ by grace and faith has become truly just in the process of justification, but not with the justice whereby God Himself is just, but with a "created justice" (see the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter VII). That is to say, for the Roman Church the justification of a man comes about by a "created grace" that causes a "created justice," so that the man in question truly becomes just, and that means that he can no longer be called sinful (although concupiscence remains), but the justice received is a created reality that causes an ontological change in the justified person.
Both of these views (i.e., the Protestant and the Roman Catholic) are foreign to Orthodoxy, which first of all does not speak about "justification," but which talks about the gift of "righteousness" being bestowed upon a man who comes to God through faith and baptism. The Greek word δίκαιος, which Western theologians usually translate as "justification," is invariably understood to mean "righteousness" in the writings of the Greek Fathers and the Medieval theologians of the East, and the sense in which they take this word involves a real ontological participation in God's own uncreated righteousness by the man who comes into contact with Christ through faith and the holy mysteries. Salvation for the Orthodox is not primarily forgiveness of sins, although that is a part of it; instead, salvation involves the destruction of death through a real participation in God's uncreated energy of life that has the effect of divinizing the human person. This process of participation in God's uncreated energy is called "theosis" in Orthodoxy. Christ, by His death, destroys death and gives God's own uncreated life to those who come to Him through faith and baptism. So salvation is not some type of "imputed justification" (as it is for Protestants), nor is it some kind of "created justification" (as it is for Roman Catholics), because of course nothing created can divinize a person; instead, for Orthodox the gift of "righteousness" which is received by faith, and by participation in the holy mysteries, really makes the man who receives it righteous with the very uncreated energy of righteousness by which God Himself is righteous.
That being said, these differences boil down to different approaches in understanding the nature of salvation with the Protestant and Roman Catholic viewpoints focused upon legal concepts (applied in an imputational manner by Protestants, and applied ontologically by Roman Catholics); while Orthodox see salvation as the destruction of death through an ontological process of deification (theosis) whereby the human person is given a real participation in God's own energies (i.e., His life, His righteousness, His mercy, etc.). Thus, from an Orthodox perspective the Western approach is theologically nominalist, because it reduces salvation to a type of legal "justification," either as a legal fiction (Protestantism) or as a created reality (Roman Catholicism), rather than as a true participation in God's own uncreated righteousness.
I hope this helps to explain in more detail what I meant by "legalism" in my previous comment.
@@theomimesis Well, yeah, true, it's a cultural thing though. Even before our split it was like that. Us in the West were discussing our rules, how mass should be step-by-step, advice on the "maximum interest rate that's morally a-OK" and stuff like that, while you folks in the East focused more on the Mystical. And it was chill like that. At least most of the time.
The Roman Empire may have left the West much earlier than in the East, but its thoughts, languages, and approach to things stuck to us real hard. For better or for worse.
Thing is we tolerated each other. As I see it, it's just a different way of approaching God, and not at all something wrong or disagreeable.
Fr Casey thank you for the explanation of the rules of the church. I have been a Catholic since birth but we are not traditional Catholics so many doctrines , rules are missed . You explained them very well. Thank you.
By the way , don’t you need a Saint name when you become a priest? Was there a Saint Casey ?
Great video Father! Is there any reliable and all-encompassing source that summarizes all of the churches teachings, and where they fall in these categories?
The Catechism is a great summary of all church teaching, but is there something like that with an allotment of teachings into their categories?
The Vatican site has all the official teachings of the church and publications. Given the language differences for the website it’s not easy for people not familiar with the lexicon to find the documents you want but there are search filters to help
What are the structures for seeking review or change?
Time point 0:37
"Can a Catholic disagree with the Church and remain in Communion?"
Today is Passion Sunday in the traditional calendar of the Church, and the Epistle this morning was from the Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 8: 45-59
Jesus was in the temple and the scribes and pharisees were trying to test Him.
What did Our Lord Jesus say?
(Chapter 8, 46-57)
"If I speak the truth why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear is that you are not of God."
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
How can this Mystical Body teach anything but the truth?
Why would a Catholic not want to hear the truth?
I like this video. But how do you approach Authority and Obedience?
I think a previous commenter well stated what the core principle behind any disagreement one would have with church teaching should be--and that is the intent of that disagreement. If its purpose is to create chaos or open rebellion, then I agree with all points that such disagreement is out of line. But if it's to question a teaching so as to gain a clearer understanding of the teaching, then that seems to me to be a viable reason to do so. Ultimately, whatever obedience we have must be to God. He is, after all, the ultimate authority of what MUST be as opposed to what could be or should be. I believe that was made clear when God provided us with the 10 commandments and Jesus summarized them with two--love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself. The Catholic Church (as with most religions) provides guidance in living out those precepts and, indisputably, has spent much time and study to make sure they are viable and realistic to our relationship with God and, by correlation, our neighbor (no matter who they happen to be). Ultimately, though, it is between each individual and God how those precepts are to be lived. God is the ultimate judge--and it is to him we will always be answerable.
I do have kind of a small issue with this ranking, so any guidance or help would be appreciated: doesn't putting "scriptures" as a whole in the second category equals putting on the same level the word of God and the interpretation of the first christians? If one believes the gospels to be true, he believes the words of Jesus to be words of divine nature, which obviously makes them undisputable and as authoritative as it gets. But do the rest of the new testament holds the same weight? Isn't holding every single word of Paul infallible kind of essentially making him equal to Jesus? Even the original twelve apostles weren't exactly exempt from sinning or mistakes. Sorry for any misunderstanding, this particular point kind of puzzles me a bit.
Hey Fr. Casey, what was your process to become a Fransican Friar? Do you have to have a college degree to enter or can you be 18?
@@marcinmariuszdajczak3532 Thank you so much
@@marcinmariuszdajczak3532 Does basic education mean a bachler's(sp) degrees?
Any college at all?
thankyou ....we need this to unit all Catholics, Christians etc...
Father, to which distinction does The Church's Teaching on Homosexuality belong to?
I’m not sure but it seems like Authoritative Doctrine at a first glance BUT PLEASE don’t take my words very seriously since I haven’t give it more than a minute’s thought
The concept of sexual orientation is pretty recent. Because of that the scriptures don't contain the noun "homosexual", but it explicitly prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex, so, at least that part should be dogma.
Dogma because it comes straight from scripture.
Wondering this as well
Disappointing to see that Father Casey chose to avoid this question.
What if I disagree with the Motu Proprio?
Question please. In my parish they sell candles that are blessed before. Is that a sin ? It s a small price but just to know. Thx Fr Casey
Any Sacramental that has been blessed cannot be sold.
Hello Fr Casey, I got a question in regards to the video. You have stated four levels Dogmas, Definitive Doctrines, Authoritative Doctrines and Pastoral Application. Could you use Marian Veneration/Apparitions or Rosary as an example and show the different levels of it? Thank You
Apparitions are considered "private revelation." The Church either affirms or denies these experiences, allowing the faithful to have devotion to them, but they are never binding on the faithful (we don't have to accept them.)
Here's a video for more information: ruclips.net/video/hkVNuyP8Tpo/видео.html
Fr. Casey. I was born amd raised Catholic but currently taking online RCIA class for deeper understanding of our church's teaching. it is allowed right?
Father can't I reconcile my sins with out necessarily seeing the priest then after I go for holy communion?
Father Casey, you are on the right path, for you obey the chosen one of the LORD, and the Church. You are teacher for the lay faithfuls, who need teachings of the LORD and of his Church.
I'm still struggling in my mind with the church vs nominalism. I agree that Derida is ridiculous, and Occam's statements like "Christ could have incarnated as a donkey" are pretty insulting, I still have issues with the idea that things have a fundamental nature outside of their physical.
Everywhere that we use morally charged words, those words imply a specific goal. A "good" fork is great for eating, but terrible for digging a trench. A broken fork is no less good than a whole fork for most contexts.
Since this seems to imply that "good" is dependent on the context of a goal, how could there possibly be objective morality? I behave as if there is objective morality, for instance I follow God because I love and trust him, and I believe that it is good to follow those you love and trust. However I cannot come up with a rational reason why I believe that it is good to follow those I love and trust, rather it comes from some mental source apparently inaccessible to my ability to reason.
Since every action I take is a choice I make (the decision to act vs inaction, or which action to take), everything I do is a moral decision. Even the decision to be honest with myself in my ability to reason is a morally charged decision. Through Hume's fork, I cannot see any rational source for any moral decisions, unless that reasoning process takes as a premise some other moral assertion (thus shifting the problem without solving it). As far as I can tell, God's commandments for us are brilliant syntheses of those moral impulses, e.g. "Thou Shall Not Lie" is a great synthesis that incorporates our impulse to be rational, as well as many other things (liars make for a short-lived and unstable civilization). My desire to have a stable civilization is based on many things, one of which is my empathy for those who would be hurt by civilizational collapse. That empathy is something that seems to come from my heart, rather than my mind.
My mind can state that "those people are not you, so their suffering doesn't affect you". This statement is materially true, but I find it repulsive despite it's material truth. My revulsion to such selfishness is something I cannot rationally justify, but the existence of that revulsion is plainly observable, much like the way that I cannot rationally justify whether a car is painted red or blue without observing it. No amount of rational contemplation could tell the ancients about the existence of black holes, and no amount of rational contemplation could reveal the existence of Kangaroos to a man living in Roman Judea. Our senses are a source of truth outside of the grasp of reason, and I think we have a similar irrational source of moral truth.
I was told that this was Nominalism, which is rejected by the church, but I am having a very hard time finding a reason that it's not true, since it seems to be the inevitable conclusion of self-examination of my own mind. It's why I've been reading Aristotle, and watching lots of stuff on the Church's position on Nominalism.
I want to follow the church, but if the church were to say that 2+2 was 5, I couldn't. If the church were to say that the sky is red, while I am watching it in real time and observing that it is currently blue, then I similarly couldn't follow the church there. I currently suspect that I am either misunderstanding Nominalism, or misunderstanding the church's teachings on it. I really need to talk to someone with church authority to figure this out, because feeling like I'm forced to disagree with the church is terrifying. I love the church because God created her for us to love and trust.
Your last sentence may have been the most important one in the entire post.
This is fascinating, and it answers some questions I've had as a non-Catholic. But there seems to be a disconnect in part of what you're saying. I'm really hoping you'll actually read this and can maybe help me understand better.
For the third tier of teaching, you acknowledged that this is an area where the Catholic Church may well be wrong on matters, and you cited the Church's past acceptance of slavery as an example. But then in the final few seconds of the video, you said that we have no license to outright deny such teachings. But what about when the Church actually is wrong about something? And even more so, what about when the Church's being wrong is actually causing harm to people?
Take, for example, any Catholics who outright denied the Church's teaching on slavery back when the Church still accepted it. Would we not in retrospect say that they were actually _more_ faithful Christians, who outright denied Church teaching because of their higher allegiance to Christ's way of love for their neighbor? And assuming so, is that not still possible today?
To put a more concrete point on it, I know a ton of Catholics who, out of a higher allegiance to Christ's way of love, outright deny the Catholic Church's unquestionably harmful teachings prohibiting gay marriage, for example. Where would such people fall under these principles today? Would the Catholic church consider their dissent to a tier-three teaching acceptable? Or do they have have no license "to outright deny" such teachings and remain Catholics?
I have no doubt that if the Catholic Church survives very far into the future, it will eventually repent of its current and historical stance on LGBTQ people and their relationships, and it will look back on its past teachings no differently than it already does for what it once taught about slavery. But what about right now? Is there no room for faithful dissent in the present?
Thanks in advance for your response!
I think since homosexual relationships are condemned in the Bible there can't be a change in that.
Fr Casey, I'm struggling with why can a priest turn the host and wine to body and blood of christ, and I can't consume unleavened bread and wine and it still be the same thing.
From a scripture point of view I read Jesus saying take this and eat its my body take this and drink it is my blood do this in memory of me, all the Deciples were men like me and you and the Holy spirit was not upon them yet so why can't I have the authority to consume the body and blood of christ on my own??.
I'm a Catholic but I am a sinful man and I just want some advice and help, I have a girlfriend but I consider her to be my wife but at the same time I feel a calling from God and its tearing me inside, I don't hate God or Jesus I just don't understand alot of things.
Thank you for these videos and God bless.
Basically what the priest does is he calls on god the son, 2nd person of the blessed trinity, to come down from heaven to earth in the mass to feed his sheep his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.
@@versatilelord8893 in the bible Jesus said This is my body this is my blood take it and eat it/drink it and when you do, do it in memory of me.
There's not mention of call me down from heaven either physically or spiritually.
@@Minesaysme I don’t know what your objecting to sir. This is the teaching on the Eucharist/transubstantiation that the church has taught for 2000 years based on that verse on John 6
@@versatilelord8893 why does it take a priest to do it???.
Like in the present climate why can't we have the "authority" to do this on our own in our homes.
@@Minesaysme I think theres bunch of reasons. But here is my best interpretation of it: The followers of Jesus are called his disciples, but among ALL the disciples he still chose 12 to be his close friends (and later the witnesses and leaders of His Church). And even among the 12, there were always 3 who he chose to be around him in important moment such as the transfiguration and when Jesus prayed the night before Judah betrayed him...So with this we can see there was an important call of certain men to be leaders AND servants of the Church (his people), ...Now Jesus HIMSELF gave the people bread, theres no need for purification because he HIMSELF purified them. He knew everyone's thoughts and hearts. But also Jesus Himself gave the Disciples His Bread and Wine turned into His own Body and Blood, and later HE told THEM to do the same among the people. He gave them a special grace, not because he loves them more. Just because they were called to do more and by those standards be fully Servants of the people...Jesus is sacrificial Lamb at the altar, he is th Bread of Life, He said eat my flesh and blood. If he can multiply fish and bread abundantly and create more tangible food from his Divinity alone. How can he NOT transform plain bread and wine into his glorious DIVINE AND ALIVE Body and Blood. 😊 I hope it helped. But I can just say keep reading the Bible. And pay attention to what he says and does.
What does one’s lack of belief that Mary and saints can be prayed to and that they actually hear our prayers come under?
I love you Father. Thank you for this
It seems like Pope Francis's focus has been on teaching in the face of differences and even error. I think this is wonderful. If we had his approach 500 years ago we might have had some theological error but not the thousand protestant churches who tend to be fair reformers on 100 topics and in grave error over one or two points. Flexibility and teaching rather than punishment.
Father, that is indeed a very graceful way to put things. However, although you said that the categorisation is not to make certain teachings optional, it still may lead people into thinking so. It’s quite unfathomable to think that one can literally deny books of Scripture yet remain in communion with the Church. Despite this limitation, I still really like the classification system.
I would however, just emphasise one value: obedience. One’s reason or conscience isn’t superior to that of the Scriptures, Holy Church, or Her Magisterium. So, rejecting anything of Church teaching is just wrong, so we should just obey, for it is God’s will and hence in our interest. Greetings from Spain!
I would live to hear you explain why God seems to put such an emphasis on choosing the correct faith, or denomination. It’s hard to understand why a divine creator would have a care for doctrines like Trinitarianism, or the correct name of God for that matter. You’re an impressive communicator, I enjoy your presentations.
Our Lord Jesus did not establish "denominations", He left us ONE Church, the Catholic Church, and that's the Church that He expects us to chose.
@Everything Burns If you were so eager to see the evidence for the existence of Jesus, you would have done your own private research. Yes, a few contemporary non-Christian Roman writers mentioned his crucifixion in their letters
Hard to explain why God decides things. Unless you're asking him to speculate, and if so it would be interesting, but to argue *why exactly did Christ decide to make One Church,* well I don't know if a human can just answer that with any authority, not even all the Popes put together. Order? Unity of faith? To keep the record straight?
Maybe God just really wants us to "get Him" and understand Him sort of kind of, or at least what's important. Or perhaps to adapt to changing times, and most importantly know what *cannot* change irrespective of the times.
What if I disagree with the church because I think it’s too soft and open minded on moral and theological issues for example usury being allowed if the interest is not excessive vs any interest at all being a sin, or saying capitalism and libertarianism in general isn’t inherently evil when it is, or accepting tattoos if they are Christian vs considering all tattoos at all a sin, or embracing the idea of theistic evolution, vs rejecting the notion that God allowed a deadly process for human and animal creation prior to the fall.
What if the Catholic Church is just too open minded and lukewarm on morals and faith, can we disagree with it?
What if we feel Catholicism is affirming sin as being ok?
This is actually one of the biggest problems with post Vatican 2 Popes and the church, it’s too open minded to the unconverted world.
I work for my parish, and I am good with the idea of following church authority, but because of COVID, my bishop wants things a certain way and my pastor (and boss) wants things another way. What can I do?
Hrm, here's another question I might add. If the majority in the parish are in active dissent, does trying to follow authority become the disruptive element?
Thanks Fr Casey. Well taken.
What is disagreeing with the condemnation of lgbtq unions be considered?
Reformable
He said their moral teachings are reformable
Whoa! you cited Richard Gallardetz??? He is the lead theologian at Boston College if I remember correctly. However, if you read his book "By What Authority" his views are a bit radical when compared to Ratzinger. Example:(Using Gallardetz book verses Ratzinger) Gaillardetz agrees that the Pope is the “Pastor of the Church”; however, he limits the authority by relegating him as another bishop, claiming that the pope “is neither the head of the whole church or the bishop of the whole church.” Ratzinger on the other hand, argues that to be in communion with the Pope is to be in “the true communion of the Body of the Lord, that is, in the true Church.” Moreover, Gaillardetz argues that withholding personal assent to a doctrine or teaching does not separate one from communion with the Church. Gaillardetz proposes to redefine the Magisterium so that it becomes the entirety of the faithful, thereby stripping away the juridical authority that is exclusive to the college of bishops in communion with the pope. In contrast, Ratzinger’s states “the apostles and their successors are therefore the custodians and authoritative witnesses of the deposit of truth consigned to the Church” as such the faithful can be assured that any doctrine promulgated by the Magisterium is true, and, therefore, should receive their assent. The Catechism states the faithful “have the duty of observing the constitution and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church”
I was taught we weren't aloud to disagree with anything the church taught and it was sinful. I carried this philoshophy into my adult life, and it cause grave issues for me. And when we disagreed, SHAME was FORCED upon us. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE our Catholic church, but I know why so many people have left. Satan has tempted me to leave for sure because of all the rules, and many Catholics are Sooooo judgemental, they make it impossible to attend Mass with them. Satan attacks his church HARD. Let us pray: Almighty God, you gave us your Church, But now evil has infilitrated even into it. Even our Pope suffers from poor judgement at times. Please look upon your faithful and guide as we strive to live in accordance with your true Divine Will. Amen.
How could one believe out of obedience? The lower levels make sense: if the Catholic Church teaches something, it has a good reason to do so. So if you notice you disagree with something, carefully trying to understand why it is taught is the right response.
But with the highest levels there seems to be a duty to believe not matter what, and I don't see how that would work. If someone, for example, thinks the trinity is impossible, that believe wouldn't change if you simply told them the Church orders them to believe it, would it? I guess it would make sense if the Church would then say: "If you don't believe it, please leave the church." But the Church doesn't do that. If I remember correctly the Church even says that it is actually impossible to leave once baptized.
What I believe you're thinking is that some sacraments - such as baptism - are undeletable, and thus once baptized, always baptized. We don't exactly ask people to leave the Church because that would be counter productive to the project of salvation. Instead, we try to convince them. However, as Fr. Casey said, if you fail to follow any dogma, you are not a Catholic, just like someone can't claim to be a vegan and regularly eat meat
@@MinecraftHubblle But eating meat is an action, not a belief. I can decide what I do, but I don't think I can decide what I believe. I guess it makes sense (logically) to say: everyone who doesn't believe any specific dogma of the Catholic Church is automatically not a Catholic. But the title of the video is "Do I have to obey?" not "Am I Catholic?".
Photon No, you can’t decide what you believe, but you can certainly study the subject (just as the video suggested). Believe me, I also had some disagreement with Church teaching, but I delved deeper, studied further and always came to the conclusion that the Church was right and I was wrong. If there is any specific teaching you do not agree with, I would be happy to have a discussion
Faith is a God-given gift. So, if you want to believe and ask for the gift, you will certainly believe. Luke 11, 13
If you don't believe Muhammad to be the prophet of Allah, even if you like the Quram, you're not a Muslim. If you don't believe in reincarnation, even if you follow Buddah's way of life, you're not a Buddhist. There are things that simply define a religion, and must be highlied as crucial. If not, we simply wouldn't be transmiting the faith. In the case of the Holy Trinity, the belief is clearly deductive from the Bible and all Christians believe it. Part of it is precisely that no one can totally understand it ever, it's above our understanding, a mistery. This said, you don't need to worry for doubting. Doubt is fine, we all have doubts and grow in faith because. You can research in peace, no one is going to come and excommunicate you.
One of your best vid Father Casey !
Transubstantiation is not an optional belief. Paul VI declared that it is inadmissable to deny it and the Council of Trent bound it.
I never said it was an optional belief.
Im a cradle catholic, and have recently found the dogma pf purgatory difficult. Especially having been recently exposed to the Orthodox objection. Their own St. Mark of Ephesus and contemporaries make great arguments, and i am stumped as a layman. Your parting words in this video helped me remember. Question, understand the dogma no matter how difficult. And have faith that Jesus is at work in the Church's teachings.
That's interesting. As an Episcopal Protestant, Purgatory is one of the things that draws me to Catholicism. I know darn well that I would be a misfit in Heaven with my character as it is, grouchy, cowardly, judgemental, and selfish. Yet, I believe with all my heart that Christ loves me and will never reject me. Technically he could wave a magic wand and clean me up for Heaven. But if he can do that why not before I die? I think that he wants my activity and cooperation in the process, to be aware of the steps that God has set me on is getting me to the right place.
Dear Father. I have watched your show for years even before you were ordained. I remembered this on too and was a bit tentative on the way the end I’m was presented. No I think I know why. It’s been 4 years! Much has happened in our world and the Church. So many priests openly criticize and disagree with the latest church ideas in offensive, hostile and contradictory ways that one might say there is a discrepancy between your ideas presented here and many in the Priesthood. What do you think about this now and what are your thoughts about what’s happening. ?
Soo for example is not agree on stuff like non catholics can't take bread and wine prevent you from being catholic?
Would the use of birth control be authoritative doctrine?
Yes, probably. It is certainly not dogma, and it is not explaining dogma (definitive doctrine), but rather a reflection on current moral problems based on our understanding of faith. For this reason, it holds tremendous weight and is clearly defined, but there is a *possibility* that it may not stand forever. (This is not to imply that it is wrong or that it should change, only that it is not among the irreformable doctrine of the Church.)
Where does birth control, which many Catholics use, come into the mix? I found growing up it was the one issue some priests or deacons overlooked or didn't push, why lose a soul who might change over one thing. I was told not to use the pill but I needed to be conscious of what we logically could afford.. I listened to so much anxiety and angst on natural family planning forums, many unplanned pregnancies, switching methods, etc and stress between spouses. I always felt it caused some to leave the church and sadly not something that should have.
I'm not sure, I would guess definitive doctrine because it's been articulated since the first century but it may be authoritative, regardless I have a hard time with that teaching too, but I try to support it
It is authoritative. That's no. 3 down, so change is possible. I doubt any change will happen in the near future, however.
What happens if a pope speaking ex cathedra contradicts or reforms dogma? Either something is irreformable or papal infallibility exists. Which is it?
If he does this, the statement could not be irreformable. In order for it to be infallible, it must satisfy three criteria: 1. Speak with full authority, 2. On faith and morals, 3. With the Tradition of the Church.
🏌️🚀 knocked it out of the park!
Great video! I have huge respect for catholicism
What exactly is the Catholic dogma regarding Adam & Eve?
Thank you Fr Casey, hope you had a good break.
**I do believe this video is essential for clarification - especially with the confusion at this present time over the Latin Mass being dropped/discontinued.
**There is extreme anger over this decision by Pope Francis over this issue.
**Mass being conducted in Latin is not Dogma (Hierarchy of Truth) or Scriptural & is therefore changeable at anytime by the Pontiff.
Who is confused? I’m not. I can read. The accusation of confusion is a slur when one doesn’t agree with the pope’s action. Just be honest The two percenters are getting desperate
Thats my bishop on the thumbnail 🙂
Yeahhh, det var min första tanke också
Hi father.. this may sound a bit silly but for months now I’ve been searching for a little bit of clarity regarding smoking marijuana and the churches stance regarding this. For some context, I’m a music producer and I genuinely enjoy creating music while being high, it truly changes how I create. (I view my ability to create music as a direct gift from God) It also has helped me greatly with my anxiety as well. I’ll admit there have been times in my life I have over used and even abused the substance which I clearly know is wrong. I’ve actually quit cold turkey and have been sober for about 2 months now, but I do genuinely miss the benefits that I was obtaining through smoking. The reason I’ve quit is because I assume that it would be a grave sin. Is this true? This video was extremely helpful in a lot of ways but I’d truly like to have a clear cut answer regarding this.. obviously my overindulgence would absolutely be sinful, surely. But what if it was used with temperance? Is this something so punishable or that would separate me from the church?
This was very practical and helpful!👍🏻😊
Very clear father. Thank you so much.
Thank you for this teaching Fr.
Re “Dogmas” there are a few, like the relatively new Marian dogmas of her Immaculate Conception and Assumption, that are neither explicitly nor implicitly revealed through Holy Scripture. Therefore dogmas can be extra-biblical, and do not necessarily “come directly from Scripture” as Fr. Casey erroneously propounds here.
How do you distinguish between divine revelation and just something made up?
Praise God. There is no more divine revelation other than what has been given to use - the Bible. That's true because the Catholic Church declared there were inspired by God . There is however private revelation but that is subject to a person's belief. As to how that is not made up, you can check if there were miracles which were scientifically investigated, you can check if the church has accepted it, it should not contradict natural(Science, nature, reason, conscious, moral law) or divine revelation(Bible). (The church may take a long time for some private revelation but that doesn't mean you have to wait for it). There are many factors but i would go with what the church believes on private revelation unless you personally disagree which is ok. Praise God.
@@whitevortex8323 Science only investigates the natural. To claim that something natural is supernatural is false.
If something is true because the catholic church says it's true, is a circular argument. Therefore refuted.
@@rjskeptic5273 Praise God. No my point was scientist could investigate if the miracle had natural causes but if the disease or illness was completely not causes by natural scientific explanations and there are eyewitnesses that the person was previously sick then it shows credibility in the miracle. It may not be healing, if it is an apparition the visionaries experience something called ecstasy and scientists don't know how to explain it. The point is if there is a supernatural phenomena which cannot be explained and there is good evidence for it being true it shows credibility. The point about the Catholic Church was that they do a thorough investigation and make sure there are no heresies. It takes a long time to approve for some things. Praise God.
@@whitevortex8323 I standby my original comment. If you have any evidence for anything supernatural, I'll listen. But it must be verified by a reputable scientific paper.
@@rjskeptic5273 Praise God. I never said i have a private revelation. You have to tell me which private revelation you are talking about. Anyways, i don't have to provide anything because i never said any private revelations are true. You can go check what scientific paper says depending on the revelation but not all revelation is given to one person. The church does not force anyone to believe private revelation that's down to a person's choice but the church itself accepts them so long as they are true. You find out for yourself which ones to believe and which ones are not true. I don't compel you to believe anything. Praise God.
A very useful video! Thanks, Father.
Just found this. This is really good.
One line to describe this episode Teachings of the Catholic Church in order.