Відео

🙏🙏🙏🌟

"It's part of God's nature He doesn't have to decide what's good" So Genesis is wrong? "God said let there be light and He saw that it was good" Either God made decisions in those 6 days of creation or He didn't... Science *is* reconcilable with religion. All it shows is *how* things work from within creation, not *why* things are the way that they are. What *is* incompatible with religion is human malice, greed, and corruption that takes those understandings gifted to them by the grace of God and then uses them to destroy each other, the earth, and creatures which God placed us as custodians of. With each discovery of science I am more firm in the belief of a creator and of intelligent design. Science *is* the proof of intelligent design. God cannot be observed from within creation, or understood by the mind. This gives many scientists their hubris to assume that there is no God... Except that the start of the universe and all creation still remains elusive with even the Big Bang theory still in question. Some things will always remain outside of our limited and fallible nature. God is beautiful and God's work is beautiful. And I thank both mystics, saints, prophets, scientists, and philosophers for giving us so many ways in which to see and know God. We are truly blessed in every moment and we are surrounded by major and minor miracles each day.

27:43 Excellent and thought-provoking and sincere musings on Sauron, human psyche and narrative themes!

Fr. Rutler's videos are always too short 🙂

The lecture is most edifying, but the audio and the video are in serious need of remastering.

36

What a positive speaker Eduard is. A delight to listen to.

The seriousnes in play and delight was noted by Nietzsche, which Fr Schall read widely. This approach is beatiful and gives a better perspective on life and catholicism. I have always thought that Nietzsche himself would have aligned with catholicism if his father would not have been a lutheran priest.

Silent sermons? No homilies then at his Masses?

Whois this speaking here please?+

37:22 Apparition Approval

amazing

hmmm, the Habsburg way of family?

Wow! That's actually the most pertinent question of them all 😳 Should finally look this document up and read it.

Brilliant! Important! Should every modern liberal and so-called conservative reflect on this.

I think this would have bee much better with just Kreeft.

To be fair the critics probably read way more books than the public, and so have a better understanding of literature. Harry Potter is also very popular with the public. I mean come on.

the urgent future of the argentina: victoria villarruel-daniel scioli president.elisa carrió bs.as.gov. wagfulking

trumpresident24 magamerica.united medealgore.vice24. wagfulking

I notice Pearce is drinking *water* this time!

Why didn’t I know about this man sooner😢,this guy is a gem👍.

Peter Kreeft is as masterful a lecturer as ever. In this lecture, he presents a wonderful rhetorical and argumentative case for the all-pervasive Christian nature of The Lord of the Rings. If you enjoy LOTR, you ought to give this a listen.

After hearing so much about Chesterton, I'm currently reading "The Everlasting Man". I haven't read Wells, so I can't say for sure what Chesterton is responding to, but he seems to be disputing human evolution ("monkeys"). In light of the evidence discovered (fossil and genetic) since the book was written (about 100 years ago, 1925), Chesterton's dismissal seems rather comical. Ah yes, "comical". Chesterton the Great Wit? I read the book in the context of the Internet Age, but he seems like a particularly virulent _troll:_ sarcastically using wordplay to say a whole lot of mean-spirited nothing. And then, My God, the *racism!* Yes again, of course: 1925. It shocks me that a supposedly educated man could use the N word so flippantly (even moreso than Agatha Christie, I guess around the same time, "Ten Little {N Words}"). But it's also the repeated description of African and Latin American peoples as "savages." And it's "Chinamen" this and "Chinamen" that, but worse than the mere term, Chesterton calls "a Chinaman in a billy-cock hat, sitting opposite to us in a London tea-shop, is hardly human." I'm not saying I'm getting nothing out of the book---if I can spare the time for a hate-read!---but it's difficult to find the pearls amidst so much swine(-leavings)...

Great lecture. Thx.

I do not support women as priests because menstruation is precluded regarding three specific duties of priests: 1. Consecration of the Eucharist, and 2. distributing the Eucharist by hand, and 3. Exorcism. And, although hearing confession does not concern menstruation or blood issues, women also seem to be precluded from hearing confessions and conferring forgiveness of sins because Christ breathed only on his male Apostles when he said he was conferring the power on them to "forgive sin." The Bible makes it crystal clear by Christ's actions and words that these duties are not for women. So if anybody disagrees with Jesus, who's right? Menstruation precludes women from priests' duties of consecration & distributing of the Eucharist and also of Exorcism. These preclusions have scriptural authority that make it plain that human or animal blood is not to be introduced or present at the altar during consecration of the Eucharist, or during passing out of the Eucharist, or during Exorcisms. Biblical references are, first of all, in the Old Testament, during Elijah's contest with the priests of Bael. When the "priests" were losing the contest, what did they do? They began cutting themselves to invoke demonic powers. So from this incident we know that the presence of human blood when combined with invocation ritual attracts and feeds demonic powers. And we still see this use of human or animal blood combined with ritual invocation in such depraved practices as Voodoo and Ashura festivals in Islam. And don't forget, these priests were priests of Jezebel, again emphasizing menstruation. Do even a cursory internet search of the words "menstruation" + "occult ritual" and you will find out about the high esteem in which menstrual blood is held in the occult. The other Biblical reference regarding the presence of human or animal blood during ritual invocation is in the Book of Mark when Jesus healed the possessed man who lived in the tombs. And what did this man do continually? He CUT himself, confirming that human blood (or animal blood) when combined with religious invocation attracts demons. And Mark gives us further information on why. The legion demons in this instance beg Jesus not to send them back to the pit, and this confirms that demons must possess a body in order to stay out of their place in Hell. And what's that quintessential characteristic of the body? It's blood, of course. The Bible says on several occasions that the life of the flesh is in the blood. So demons need a body to possess, and blood is the most important characteristic of a body. The presence of blood is also indicative of our fallen state because Adam and Eve did not have blood coursing through their bodies before the fall. Eve did not menstruate before the fall. The first blood appeared when Eve was deflowered by the Devil after he seduced her and she bled. Another incident from the Bible. When Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene after his Resurrection, he did not allow her to touch him, yet, only a matter of hours later, Jesus allowed Thomas to probe, with his bare fingers, the wounds from Jesus' Crucifixion. Why? Well, what was Mary Magdalene? She's always depicted as a young, attractive woman, that is, a menstruating woman. And Jesus' body is the Eucharist, right? And he did not allow a woman to touch it. This means that the Eucharist is only to be handed out by those with consecrated hands, that is, priests. With all this said, I'm not sure if women are eligible for the position of Deaconess, mainly because I'm not sure what Deacons do. It Decons' duties involve consecrating the Eucharist or handing it out, or of exorcisms, or of taking confessions, then the position of Deacon is not appropriate for women. Adding to the confusion of women's part in the Church are the hateful and insulting writings from Paul about women. And it's not clear whether Paul's writings refer to women working in positions in the church or to all women in general. It has to be understood that Paul was using Jewish Law in his plainly prejudiced attitudes against women. Paul was a Pharisee, remember, and the clearest example of his using Jewish Law regarding women was his statement that "Cephus" (Peter) was the first to see Jesus after his Resurrection. But Paul was using Jewish law, which stated that only two MALE witnesses were valid. Yet, the Bible states it was Mary Magdalene, and Catholics believe it was Mary, Jesus' mother to whom Jesus gave the honor of appearing to first. In either case, Jesus revealed the most important news in the history of humankind to a woman first. He told Mary Magdalene to go tell others of it. This is huge. It shows Jesus believed in women's intelligence and he told her to go and teach the apostles of his Resurrection. So if Paul will "not suffer a woman to teach," then who is right? Jesus or Paul? If anybody disagrees with Jesus, who's right? Mary Magdalene has been called the "Apostle to the Apostles." It's NEVER mentioned by any man, but Jesus also revealed who he was, the Messiah, to a woman first, to the Woman at the Well. And when he told her this, she ran back to her village to tell the others, and Jesus never said to her, "I will not suffer a woman to teach." The Woman at the Well has been called the first evangelist. In the incident with Martha and Mary, when Martha protests Mary's studying with the men under Jesus, he says "This will not be denied her." At the same time, he did not criticize Martha, the traditionalist woman. Jesus loves, respects and honors both types of women, the traditionalist and the non-traditionalist. Indeed, without women teachers, writers, and saints, what on earth would the Catholic Church do? Who educates more people all over the world than ANYBODY else? It's the Catholic Church. And what would Catholic schools do without the nuns who do most of the teaching? And female saints are revered and respected and held in the highest esteem in Catholicism. No one has ever done more for women than Jesus Christ. In the incident with the woman caught in adultery, Jesus wrote the names of the male accusers in the sand, and what they were doing, stating that, "He who is without sin" should throw the first stone. And Jesus announced a new era for women when he told a group of men who were asking how they could get rid of wives they were tired of, that "in Moses time, your hearts were hardened," but that in Jesus' new covenanat, things would improve for women. The men were asking Jesus why his pronouncements on women and marriage were different from those of Moses (from Jewish Law, the Law that Paul was quoting regarding women). The new status of women is a part of Jesus' new covenant. At the Cross, who was loyal to Jesus? Although one Apostle, John, was there with him, it was mostly women (Mary his mother and a female cousin of hers, and Mary Magdalene). All of the other apostles betrayed Jesus at the Cross. And it was the women on the streets of Jerusalem who wept for Jesus, while all the male apostles except John hid to save their own hides. Veronica wiped his face with her veil, and he honored her with the image of his face permanently on her veil, a healing image. Before his Crucifixion, Jesus allowed himself to be annointed with oil by a woman, who washed his feet with her hair. So all of these duties are probably open to women: healing, annointing with oil, teaching, writing, evangelizing and the like. I'm not disregarding Paul, or saying, as some do, that he should be removed from the Bible. I respect the work he did. But Paul was not perfect. He was a murderer before Jesus changed him. The important lesson to learn from Paul is that if he could be saved, then practically anybody can. Paul was plainly mistaken by limiting his writings and pronouncements about women to Jewish Law. Paul never knew Jesus when the two of them were in physical bodies, so Paul simply didn't know of Jesus' interactions with women. Paul was not perfect, but neither were most of the other apostles either. As stated, they all, except John, betrayed Jesus at the Cross. Yet their work is valuable and respected and essential in spreading the faith.

My current priest is a woman. My previous priest was a woman. My current bishop is a woman. Our sacraments are REAL. Our church is alive, growing . . . and, oh yeah, *One Holy Catholic and Apostolic* (and True!). ☩✝☦🕈 The Roman argument against ordaining women resembles nothing so much as the one it made 400 years ago against Galileo (for Galileo's contradiction of the RCC's "Traditional" and allegedly "Biblical" assertion that the Sun moves around the Earth). “And yet it [the Earth] moves” (“Eppur si muove”), as attributed to him. *Women ARE divinely called to ordination, and women ARE priests.* That's a simple fact, a living Reality, and a beautiful Truth! 🌈 "But Jesus was a man"? [the "Icon Argument"] As a very wise (and earthy!) Benedictine once told me, "we're called to BE like Jesus, not PEE like Jesus!" 😄 God bless and defend women called to be priests (may their numbers increase! 😇)!

I see this way; the first will be the last and the last will be the first... They recive promise first, they recive Jesus first, but they also the latest to recive the faith for christ yet they will be the first to enter kingdom of God...

Mother Mary call Her kinn as Jewhis

Hardly any points in marriage these days. Maggie makes me want to throw up.

Wonderful ❤️

That background he went over regarding Benedict 16, and council, and the mass becoming like a pep rally... Wow!

Wow, what a talk. I wish Alice was still alive so I could meet her.

This is absolutely worth every minute of listening What sensible professors these two are.

Thank you so much for this insightful info

Margaret Senger was more focused on sterilising Blacks (formerly referred to as coloured peoples) more than she was Jews from my understanding of that History.

Anyone who wants to live their entire life in a tiny cell has got to be "odd" This kind of lifestyle would drive most people crazy. Maybe her "visions" were hysterical / psychotic delusions.

Best of Father !

Thank you for this studious analysis. Roland's predicament reveals his noble character, which still inspires us moderns, as any epic tale should. Keep up the good work. The parallel between Roland and Christ is especially profound.

.Women given other high ranking positions is always an option.I was first hand witness of a nun from the islands some time ago. She was undeniably high volatile personality flashing smile attractive personality. She was apparently assigned home visits to families in difficulties.I listened to her amusing recounting just how jealous the wife was of her husband's attention to her. I inadvertently found myself looking at her extremely uplifted bosom.A nun in an uplifted bra?Nope not an option it is so ordained to men for a good reason.

Complimenti Ambasciatore , Bravo Arciduca , Saluti da Claudio Remigio Minotto Businaro

Love this Brother what An inspiration

Thank you Sr. Sara for this enlightenment. 🙏

Father of God gave rights to men to lead the people of Israel by the men's prophets. Hence our god is not against women. God chooses men for priesthood. King always men, queens always women. Men priests are representing the Jesus Christ and women nuns are representing Mother Mary. Jesus is not the father of everyone, He is our God, but Mother Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ and also believers of Jesus Christ. Both are not our father and mother. Priests can't marry a Mother Mary and Nuns can't marry Jesus because Nuns are always Mother of all the priests. No nuns can say, i am going to marry Jesus Christ. Because Jesus is their son, so priests are their son. Priesthood is for men........ Which is decided by God. Amen.

That also is developed Catholic Tradition to have another set celibate male ministerial priesthood daily re- offering Christ to the Father ritually in bread and wine and receiving Him in Communion bread. The main essential matter is to receive Christ in our hearts by faith serving Him to the end.❤️🙏

All in Christ benefit from Christs Perfect Offering and enjoy Communion with Him. That is Developed Catholic Tradition to Re enact or Re Offer Sacrifice Daily and Ritually with Elements to Receive in Communion Bread.❤

More about the hobbit with Alan Lee’s travels to find the history of them which is quite amazing. The episodes are hard to find.

Didn't Jesus say ( of the church) "whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Didn't Jesus promise the Holy Spirit to us to lead us into all truth? What authority did Jesus in fact, give the church?

rug munch

Thank you for sharing this. I heard Dr. Barker on the Getty lecture a year ago and picked up her book. The book is a must-read for any fans of Artemisia. The scholarship and narrative are wonderful. Best book on the subject since Mary Garrard’s.

Firstly without maybe baptism no sacrament was even mentioned in the bible. There was no priesthood before at least the midth of the second century. In 1 Corinthians 11 20ff Paul rebukes them for abusing the common supper by overeating by rich christians and starving by poor ones. 1 Cor 1:33 "So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment" There is no priest, no eucharist cerimony, a pure commemoration. Even in the Didache, in introduction for new Christians such scaramental and sacerdotal instituions are mentioned. And last bit not least, if the apostels would be taken as basis for a priesthood, they all had been CIRCUMCISED JEWS OBBEYING THE LAW OF MOSES! So to only pick up the sexual attribute is friolous!