Are People Fundamentally Good? Let's ask the Bible, Church Fathers, and Christian Anthropology.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 сер 2024
- In this video, we take a deep dive into the modern debate over Pope Francis's comment in his 60 minutes interview that referred to all people as "fundamentally good."
My new book on the history of the Novus Ordo: www.amazon.com...
Thank you so much for defending the Holy Father. I am more bothered by the Catholic podcasters who attacked the pope than the Protestant ones, because they should know better. Some Protestants are Catholic in heart and some Catholics are Protestants in heart.
I have sometimes said that every good thing in my life is all from grace. But I have always meant this in a general sense. Providence gives us many opportunities for choosing good, and that - I think - can be seen as grace. However, there is obviously a difference between recognizing God's hand in all things good versus believing in total depravation.
It seems to me that so many nitpick every cough that comes out of our dear Holy Father's mouth. That kind of attitude, to look for evil in our spiritual fathers, seems diabolical. It reminds me of Ham trying to expose his Father Noah's sins. I am not saying that the pope sinned in this case, but just that the desire to expose his alleged faults seems like an evil deception plaguing many faithful.
You are in ERROR. There is NO living magisterium .There is the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium . The ordinary magisterium can contain errors and heresies. This is church teaching and popes have taught error in their teachings in the past.
Very interesting; thanks for posting
Mark chapter 7 says it all
Jesus specifically said God alone is good. Man is prone to evil, but not depraved,or can be.Original sin does affect man in a negative way.Man needs grace to remain in God's presence. It's hard not easy to be saved. Modernism says otherwise.
Lutheran heresy. Is the Book of Genesis Modernism, then?
Genseis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day. Yes Original Sin affected man, but he is NOT depraved..
@@glennlanham6309 Man is not depraved naturally. But he is prone to sin and subject to the wiles of the devil,who has rights over him in this sinful world. Modernism belittles the effects of original sin. Traditional catholicism does not.
You said "original sin does not effect man in a negative way." That is erroneous. Of course it effects man in a negative way. That is why we need baptism even as infants - otherwise there would be no point.
You say that it is hard and not easy to be saved. Well, it depends what you mean by that. Jansenism obviously took that idea too far into error. Prayer brings salvation. Between those faithful who fall into sin and the innocent who don't, what do they both have in common? They pray. Sin in that sense is bad but not the worst thing. The worst thing is to reject God. Those who pray show a hope and desire for God. The three Hail Mary's devotion or the scapular or other simple and "easy" devotions have the promise of salvation for those who participate in them. Would you say it is hard to do the first nine Fridays for instance?
Salvation is hard in the sense that man can be cold. But it is not hard when we trust in God. That is the narrow path - trusting in Him. If we focus too much on difficulty versus loving God then most will not stick with it based on how human nature works.
You said that modernism belittles the effects of original sin but that traditional Catholicism does not. Sure, depending what you mean by that. If you mean that modernism, which is a condemned heresy, is false, then yes. If by "traditional" Catholicism you mean the Church in union with the living Magisterium & pope, then yes - absolutely. But many use "traditional" as a word to separate themselves from ordinary Catholics and to reject the living magisterium's authority. Radical traditionalism itself is a form of modernism, but simply the opposite side of the coin. Heresies can have two seemingly opposite extremes. But what is the same about them? They both reject the indefectibility of the pope and the Church.
@@vivacristorey4363 Sorry, I said original DOES effect man in a negative way. Traditionalism is adhering to the apostolic faith. A pope can , and is capable of going against the faith. He is not impeccable. Catholics are obligated to put Jesus and his teachings first. The pope must guard and pass on the faith ,not chg it.
@@dianneraimondi8382 I apologize for seeing a "does not" where it was not. My eyes must tricked me. I recant that statement then.
As for the rest, I hold to it. Adhering to the apostolic faith means adhering to the pope since He is the one has been given the reigns of it to continue until the next one. A pope cannot and is not capable of defecting against the faith based on the promise of Christ in the gospel - and that is teaching that has been passed down to us as Catholics. Yes, the pope can make a mistake. But He cannot lead us astray on matters of faith and morals. The pope must guard the faith, does guard the faith, and cannot change the faith. We put the teachings of Jesus first by accepting that He protects the keys of St Peter and his successors.
Question on the Luther quote not true, what did he actually say then? Did he draw any such basically same comparison but in different words?
Great content btw. I was looking for another channel that is deeper and theological than most general apologetics and happily found you. The other is Intellectual Catholicism.
Can i get a tldr please i just want to know if this is another Catholic calling their pope a heretic
very liberal Pope, but he has declared nothing Ex-Cathedra. I don't think he even likes Dogma.
Definitely is not calling the Pope a heretic.
First comment
Easy question - yes, in the sense that they are made in God's image. No, in the sense of the consequences of Adam's original sin. Going to far one way or the other theologically causes spiritual dysfunction.
Greatly appreciate your work. But I can't help but think you are projecting your own--and the Church’s--orthodoxy onto Francis.
As if your heuristic is, "Francis is the Pope, so he must hold orthodox views, therefore I can say what he meant by quoting the traditional Magisterium".
Yet you never quote him confirming this. You simply say, "What Francis meant was this . . .".
Also you stuck with Protestant critique of his statement, and ignored the Catholics who criticized his statements. Not all of which were polemic.
Thank you for your careful research though, has been a real blessing to me. God bless.
Hi, like your content and I would like to listen to more, but the audio quality is poor. It quickly becomes uncomfortable and even irritating to listen to. May I suggest that you consider upgrading your headset?
Geez, really?
@@frisco61 Yes, really.
popesplaining
Man was made fundamentally good, but after original sin man was prone to evil. Man now is not fundamentally goodprone to evil. If he was prone to goodness there would be loads of saints. Saints are rare.
This video addresses what the word fundamental means in this context - it does not contrast with the concept of being prone to evil, which is definitely true.
@@historiaecclesiastica This whole situation is vague. It lets to errors and heresy. Let's be clear! Man is not now fundamentally good because of the effects of original sin. Its every hard and impossible without grace to keep from mortal sin.The modernist take in all this is to tell the faithful to lay back in their easy chair and slide into heaven. This is diabolical and this attitude needs to be addressed for the good of souls.
@@dianneraimondi8382 The Church teaches what we must believe in faith and morals. Your opinion is just that, opinion.
@@frisco61 No its not! It's based infallible dogma. How your easy chair?
Original Sin anyone?
Hi Mr Sute
Hello Madden!