+LutheranSatire Hey, thanks for joining the conversation. I've seen some of your videos, which are very thought-provoking and funny. I just wanted to point out at the end of your original Hippie Pope video, you missed something important. The Council of Trent document you quoted was written hundreds of years ago when Lutherans were actively breaking away from the Catholic Church. The teaching of the Catholic Church on current Lutherans such as yourself is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was published in 1994, paragraphs 818-819 - “One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.”
+Altar Boy Well, actually, Martin Luther never repudiated the Catholic faith, rather he wanted to reform the church as it was in state of gruesome and utter turmoil due to the corruption in the church hierarchy. Luther never wanted to create a new religion or a new denomination, he merely wanted to reform Roman Catholicism and destroy what he saw as erroneous dogmas and doctrines that were advocated by the church's teachings.
Exactly. This isn't an attack on Pope Francis. It's an expression of frustration at the fact that at a moment when we ALL need him to speak up clearly in defense of the truth, he's not. He's being loving and conciliatory at a moment which cries out for confession and when all is said and done saying things in a way which invites and promotes misunderstanding.
We need clarity. Our world is very wishy washy and under the guise of being sensitive people's lives are destroyed as I saw speaking with a trans man. He did not need people to pat him on the back and say he is a woman. He needs healing. And the current pope might sometimes be a bit wishy washy when he needs to be clearer.
As a Lutheran I actually really enjoyed watching this just to be able to see how Roman Catholics actually would react to this video. It's very insightful.
"Jeff doing the work of literally every Catholic blogger after Pope Francis says literally anything." As a former Catholic, now Lutheran, this warms my heart.
I am a Lutheran and I love Pastor Fiene's videos on Lutheran Satire but I have to say I really appreciated seeing this response to it and wondered how Catholics would react. Thanks.
Many of us Catholics are ignoring all popes and doctrinal novelties since Vatican 2, and carrying on as a faithful remnant of the faith from when it was pure.
My dear Catholic brothers and sister, and yes, as an evangelical (not-Lutheran) Christian, I believe many of you who are serious Catholics are fellow Christians. Heck, I listen to EWTN and agree with about 90% of what is said. That being said, the point of the video was that Pope Francis is frequently unclear in his statements and that leaves a lot of room for others to misinterpret. It is very hard for us non-Catholics not to be a little concerned that Pope Francis in his attempt to reach out in love to the world, might soften on doctrine or on social positions leaving the liberal wing and liberal or liberation theology dominant. I as a pro-life and family advocate have appreciated the allies in the Catholic church, so I am concerned about the direction. Furthermore, I have seen many protestant denominations and pastors make the move away from sound doctrine for the sake of appearing more loving and accepting, and eventually it ends up hurting the larger body of Christ. So yes, while Pope Francis may be giving the church a more loving image at the moment, my concern is that many in the church may abandon some of the hard issues because they are perceived as unloving or harsh. If the Pontiff is not clear about these issues, will the church remain clear about them?
Yup, someone did. The original video's answer to that question is either intentionally deceptive or ignorant. See Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.
+Michiganman800 It was irrelevant to the topic we wanted to focus on, which is Pope Francis himself and the statements he's made. Pope Francis never said that non-Catholic Christians go to hell, that was thrown in there by LutheranSatire as a potshot at Catholicism in general. We skipped it so the ensuing discussion wouldn't be derailed by that separate issue.
From a practicing Catholic who has passed the orals for ordination: Jorge Bergoglio has a desperate psychological need to be liked. To gain acceptance, he will say to anyone whom he thinks may dislike him whatever it is he thinks that person wants to hear that will make him like Jorge. So to the Jew he will say that proselytizing is wrong, to the active homosexual he will say "Who am I to judge?", to Lutherans he will say that Luther may have been a saint. And so on and on. In all of this he lays aside the duty of his office, which is to teach clearly, to maintain the tradition, and to unify the Church. He is not an anti-pope, the See of Peter is not vacant, but the teaching function of the papal magisterium has been suspended. He does not, or at least has not yet, taught error, but he has not been diligent in refuting error and instead has, through his loose mouth, allowed and even at times encouraged confusion ("Make a mess"). The video is rather over the top -- hyperbolic, satiric -- but it can't be dismissed as inane or malign, because Pope Francis has provided the kernel of truth that makes it fair commentary.
Honestly, Pope Francis wouldn't be misinterpreted so much if his statements weren't as ambiguous as they are. I also do feel that Benedict XVI was better in that respect as in many other things.
Repent and trust in Jesus. He's the only way. We deserve Hell because we've sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23😊❤❤
I am Evangelical (not in protest against Roman Catholics). In my opinion Pope Benedict XVI biggest mistake as Pope was resigning. I appreciated the writings of Pope Benedict XVI.
Even conservative Roman Catholics are quite disenchanted with this pope. He is extremely popular within the culture (and the younger generation), but he is playing fast and loose with RC doctrine in order to gain more popularity.
Repent and trust in Jesus. Hes the only way. We deserve Hell because weve sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤😊❤
Repent and trust in Jesus. Hes the only way. We deserve Hell because weve sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤😊❤
1 year later it's quite clear that Rev. Hans Fiene is right in the video. It's sad that so many people have to live without good shepherding from the pontiff.
+Ethan Ceroja I'm pretty sure it's AM because she first says: "His eyes look like me when I have to wake up for my 9:30 class" and then she says again "9:30 am" :) It wouldn't make sense (for most people) to wake up for a 9:30 PM class :P
I would have to agree with them. Pope Francis seems to speak directly from what the Holy Spirit is guiding him to. Where as Pope Benedict and John Paul II both were more reserved in the way they talked. Not saying anything is wrong with either way of speech, but there is for sure a difference
I worry that Pope Francis is guided more by politics than by prophecy. But hey, the media got their leftist pope, so they dropped the pedophile priest story like a hot potato, and now the crisis is past. So maybe it was all worth it.
Repent and trust in Jesus. He's the only way. We deserve Hell because we've sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤❤❤
+Eran Carter I have a problem with cussing and using the name of God in vain. I decided a while ago to replace all my instances of "God" and "Jesus" with the names of Protestant reformers whose names I have no issue taking in vain. :)
+cc536 I don't see why we SHOULDN'T believe he is being misinterpreted. I, along with about a billion worldwide Catholics, see no reason why he would go blatantly against many of the most basic church teachings. It IS true that Pope Francis's statements are rather ambiguous, but it is easy to see what he actually means if you look at his actual words and not what you want the words to be.
+Ethan Ceroja Sorry but you are in denial. Pope Francis is capable of speaking clearly and unambiguously and has done so when it comes to politically correct issues like climate change and immigration (which are questions outside the authority and expertise of the pope btw). If he wanted to he would have defended traditional catholic teaching in the same way, but he chooses not to.
+Nikki Mitchel The reason I didn't include that part is that the main theme I was going for with the discussion is Pope Francis himself and his statements. The faith vs. works issue is a whole other can of worms and if we're going to discuss that I'd rather devote a separate video to it. -David
I'm glad it wasn't included. Comparing statements from Lumen Gentium (1964) with The Council of Trent (1545) was either an ignorant juxtaposition or intentionally misleading. I suspect the latter as LuthernSatire appears too smart in his other videos to make this type of bonehead mistake. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) if you really want to understand the church's position. If you don't want to look it up yourself, see Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.
+Nikki Mitchel See CCC 818 and 838 for the Church's teaching on modern Lutherans, as the anathema was for Lutherans hundreds of years ago, who were actively teaching against the Catholic Church, and therefore had nothing to do with LutheranSatire's video.
+Pen Writer I think the point is that Rome hasn't been consistent over the years. Their understanding has changed. Go read Unam Sanctam from around 1300 AD and then go read 838. Now, I don't care that you've guys have changed. But I'm not going to pretend you haven't really changed. Mainly because I don't have to assume your church is infallible. The bigger problem is that some of your changes into inclusivism runs counter to Scripture.
Franjo Krajinović writes: >[Vatican II] as pastoral, not dogmatic You lie sir. John XXIII said that it would reflect the Church’s MAGISTERIUM, which is predominantly pastoral IN CHARACTER. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible. John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.” Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech at Vatican II doesn’t actually matter. This is because it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept him. "“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Paul VI, solemnly closing every document of Vatican II) Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.” >So council fathers, by large majority influenced by modernism change language but not substance. No they didn't they changed the substance, they changed everything. They changed the consecration rite, they changed the ordination rite, they changed the baptismal rite (Praise be Jesus Christ He didn't allow them to change the form of it though otherwise all Vatican II baptism would be invalid), the mass and YES he changed the liturgy as well. >[the] council was pointless No it wasn't, it had a point and it was "to bring the church into modern age. It's heretical and all those who accept it have fallen into schism >but it is still valid No it's not it's heretical and thus invalid and all who accept it are in schism and ths ipso facto removed from the Body of Christ >SSPX related groups say, who are basically heretics for no good reason SSPX accepts it's heresies, they are just as much heretics as modernists like you. >Also all previous anthems are still valid Wrong again, it has allowed the eastern orthodox schismatics and protestant heretics"partial communion" with the church. The funny thing is for false traditionalists who accept the heretical counil of vatican II are sinning everytime they rebuke a protestant heretic. Vatican II has in effect turned the Catholic church into a protestant sect where all you gotta do is believe to be saved. It's a joke. So much wrong your post
+A. D Hey there, we're not undermining Jesus, just saying that the pope has a tough job. There is a pyramid in Catholicism, but one that is flipped. The Pope is underneath, carrying the weight of the Church on his shoulders.
I thought these Catholics did an excellent job expressing the problems with people in our society nowadays, and how everyone wants Christianity to conform to their personal beliefs. I am an Anglican, but I have come to respect Catholics.
4:40 yeah the Pope is touching a lot of thinks nobody else is..like kissing feet of Islamic iman's by bowing down to them..yeah I wonder how you satisfy that..or kissing koran or saying that the some God is the one we as Christians have and Muslims too..like what religion stands he for exactly??
It amazes me how fast they deny that their leader said these things and in the context he said them. When he said who was he to judge it was in CONTEXT to >ACTIVELY< gay priests!!!! The same priests that denied their vows of celibacy. What this says is he believes it is okay for his priests to break their vows of celibacy, but STRAIGHT priests has to keep their vows. He doesn't need to judge anyway!!! The rcc taught that anyone who committed the act could NOT attend mass until they repented and got right with rome!!!! BUT he seems to think it is okay for actively homosexual priests to perform the mass, even though they have no right to even attend mass!!!!
It is a satire my friends. And it is meant to present an extreme version of the Pope in order to make a point. So do not let that slip your minds as you watch this as it did the people in this video. :)
I am impressed with you guys. It is a great thing that you are open to criticism. From a person that was raised in the Lutheran Church but confirmed in the Catholic Church, I found the video hilarious but uninsulting. Let's face it, Pope Francis has created a great deal of controversy. (1:45 is a case in point. He could have easily clarified this with scripture and the Catechism, but he chose not to.😔) I definitely appreciated Pope Benedict's concrete spiritual guidance over Francis.
AS I recall, the "who am I to judge" response was an answer to a trick question. The Pope was asked, (paraphrased) "Should a homosexual with AIDS use a condom?". (the Catholic understanding being that condoms are bad) In this situation, the condom was being used to prevent spreading a disease, not birth control. The Pope responded that this could be an indication that the guy was beginning to think morally, (in a way), by being considerate of the damage that he could do to others, and maybe this could be the beginning of a moral awakening. "Who am I to judge?" What a Catholic would expect the Pope to answer would be, "He shouldn't do it at all. It's like asking if it's better for a murderer to kill a man quickly than slowly. You don't kill - period." But the Pope accepted the hypothetical, and when the quote was snipped from the question and most of the response, it sounded very odd.
+Don't Worry - Any time. When the Pope is asked a question, think of the Pharisees, and their questions about taxes to Rome, or whether to stone Mary Magdalene. They weren't trying to "learn" anything - they were setting traps. (Btw - as I recall, no sooner had the Pope said this, than everyone cried out, "The Pope said condoms are OK! The Pope said condoms are OK!". Of course, in this situation the condom was *not* being used to prevent birth!)
Okay Mr. Chthonic Apologist, obviously the video is satire, meaning it points out truths through hyperbole. Do not tell me that the statements of the Pope have not been less than coherent. While I contend that the media has conflated certain statements by the Pope, but did you ever see the media doing this with the last Pope? Honestly everyone's reactions at the beginning was enough to show your real feelings. There is nothing wrong with calling out the Pope's scheisse when you hear it. God does not make mistakes, but people do.
Actually, CatholicApologist said in one of his videos on his own channel, that the pope is morally infallible, or something along those lines, it was in his video 8 Lies About Catholics or something like that, I don't remember exactly, but basically, as far as he's concerned, the pope can't be scheisse.
Is abortion an unforgivable sin? Is it wrong for the Bishop of Rome to say that a woman can be forgiven the sin of abortion? To say that a sin can be forgiven is not to say that it is not a sin. Jesus didn't tell the woman caught in adultery that she hadn't sinned. He said, "Go and SIN no more."
If I may, here are two possible reasons why Pope Francis is misunderstood: 1. We often get the sound-bite or quote before we get the context. That decontextualized sound-bite stays with us more. 2. Pope Benedict was very analytic in his approach. Pope John Paul II, while very philosophical, was also quite unambiguous. OK, so where does the difference lie? Pope John Paul, I've heard it said, sought mercy through truth. Pope Francis seeks truth through mercy. Both approaches are beautiful and valuable, but by necessity they must proceed through different styles and methods of discourse and descriptions of our social world and of justice. Just a thought here. Don't be too critical! I really like Pope Francis and think he's done a good job in revitalizing the Church. God bless him!
+geoffrobinson Well, the pope isn't a political figure. What may sound like politics to most people; to someone well versed in Catholic social teaching they will hear the principles of the Church being echoed in his speech. The pope doesn't speak from a liberal or conservative perspective, nor a Democrat or Republican perspective, nor a socialist or capitalist perspective, but from a Catholic perspective.
+Jesus Sanchez this is about different theological wings, not political. Saying things that can be interpreted differently by different groups has been going on for a while. At least since Vatican II.
That too, indeed. I'm always hesitant to suppose intent, but I think that in some cases it may be a bit obvious as well as divisive. Co-opting the Pope inappropriately for theo-political argument is by all accounts unfortunate. Especially when the message is misconstrued.
to be fair, the last two popes were heavily criticized and often misinterpreted in mainstream media (and even by catholic media figures). I'm sure no honest and thoughtful person will say that being easily misunderstood or capable of being misrepresented means that person is inherently dishonest or that their beliefs are not true (or that they are unfit for office).
@@Procopius464 "VATICAN CITY (RNS) - In a decree signed Jan. 5 (2022) the Vatican tightened its COVID-19 regulations by requiring the use of FFP2 masks (similar to N95 masks) inside and making vaccinations and booster shots mandatory for employees and visitors wishing to enter the Vatican Museums and gardens." It's over now but they did it then. And there was no medical justification for it at all. The jab was not safe or effective at preventing transmission.
Repent and trust in Jesus. we deserve Hell for our sins. For example lying, lusing, saying God's name as a cuss word and stealing our just some examples of sin which we can all admit to doing at least one of those. For our sin we deserve death and Hell, but there is a way out. Repent anf trust in Jesus and you will be saved. Repentence is turning from sin. So repent and trust in Jesus. He will save you from Hell, and instead give you eternal life in Heaven. John 3:16 Romans 3:23❤😊❤
I love how none of the Catholics watching got the fact that Pope Francis is supposed to be high… “His eyes look like mine when I have to get up early in the morning” 😂😂😂
+Patrick McWilliams The reason I didn't include that part is that the main theme I was going for with the discussion is Pope Francis himself and his statements. The faith vs. works issue is a whole other can of worms and if we're going to discuss that I'd rather devote a separate video to it. -David
+New Catholic Generation I thought the last bit was the meat of +LutheranSatire 's original vid. The whole point was how Pontifex is inconsistently consistent. This vid goes for the softball points, unfortunately.
If that was the meat of LuthernSatire's video then I'm glad I didn't take a bite. It is so spoiled that I would have gotten food poisoning. The video's answer to that question was either intentionally deceptive or ignorant. Comparing statements from Lumen Gentium (1964) with The Council of Trent (1545) was a misleading juxtaposition. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) if you really want to understand the church's position. If you don't want to look it up yourself, see Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.
+JuwonWSB I love that show Lucifer! It's such a good show. The historicity of Satan is interesting, his story has changed a lot in the past 1500 years. In the old testament you'll find the term HaSatan or "The Satan" this is a title not a name, which means the accuser or the the adversary. According to Jewish faith HaSatan (The Satan) is an Angel In the book of Job The HaSatan makes the accusation that the only reason Job is pious is that he is rich and has a good life. God agrees to allow HaSatan to inflict Job with disease and terrible tragedy, in the end Job remains faithful and God wins the argument. You can thank Zoroaster for defining the devil. It became a battle of good and evil, one that you had to choose sides. Good people died and went into the light bad people went into darkness. So when Christianity got its start a reinterpretation took place and HaSatan became the demonic leader of hell. His form has changed a lot over the past 1500 years from the image of Pan a Greek God that was human in form, his legs are that of a goat and he has horns sprouting from his head. (Primarily because he was a popular god of the pagans). all the way to a monster with a pitchfork and then a handsome aristocrat. The show Lucifer is a cross between Satan and Hades. Hades is really a better representation of the Character of Lucifer. Hades was an unlikable God but he wasn't evil. He was the Greek God that determined your fate. It was his judgment that decided whether you went to Eleusinian (Heaven) or Tartarus (Hell) But then you have the backstory of the Christian Satan.
+Yehudi Menuhin I watched some of his videos awhile back, and as a general rule he tends to completely misunderstand the spirit of what he reads in the Bible, if not the literal facts. And he doesn't recognize when something is not supposed to be taken literally. Remember that the Bible is a collection of different writings and not one big project. The writing style differs throughout. Someone who is learned in the area can tell if something in the Bible is written as poetry and metaphor or whether it's supposed to be taken as historical fact. The Bible is not "simple", an average person reading it cover to cover with no guidance can easily get the wrong idea. In response to non-literal interpretations of Genesis, for example, Atheists often say that it's just a belated attempt to reconcile the Bible with evolution. But we know that Christians and the Church Fathers were interpreting parts of Genesis as allegorical more than a thousand years before evolutionary theory. From Saint Augustine, in his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" from the early fifth century: "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
I am Lutheran and to my fellow Catholic brothers in Christ, I am uncomfortable holding Martin Luther up as a pseudo Pope of Lutheranism because although I believe what Martin Luther wrote & taught in his body of theology, Martin Luther was a sinful man like we all are and spoke a lot of stuff near the end of his life on earth that we Lutherans cringe at, especially given that Martin Luther's rants against Jews were used by Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. I believe a figurehead we can never be ashamed of, Catholic or Protestant, is Jesus Christ. God Bless.
The Pope is trying so hard to be nice that he sometimes lets his message get blurred, and media who are hoping the Catholic Church will accept current social changes jump on any ambiguous statement. As a Lutheran pastor myself, I liked Pope Benedict better. He was a real theologian with a clear view of Catholic doctrine and a willingness to state it unequivocally. With him, you knew what you were getting.
6:00 "[The Pope's] response was like 'Who am I to judge?' There's truth in that. Like you don't know where that person's at." ----------It is a fair question to ask for every single imperfect person who does NOT have the authority of Jesus.
I want to hug all of you.
keep up the good work pastor Fiene
+LutheranSatire Hey, thanks for joining the conversation. I've seen some of your videos, which are very thought-provoking and funny. I just wanted to point out at the end of your original Hippie Pope video, you missed something important. The Council of Trent document you quoted was written hundreds of years ago when Lutherans were actively breaking away from the Catholic Church. The teaching of the Catholic Church on current Lutherans such as yourself is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was published in 1994, paragraphs 818-819 - “One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.”
+Pen Writer only took 500 years. What about the atheist though?
Love most of your work. The world needs more Horus and C&D.
+Altar Boy Well, actually, Martin Luther never repudiated the Catholic faith, rather he wanted to reform the church as it was in state of gruesome and utter turmoil due to the corruption in the church hierarchy. Luther never wanted to create a new religion or a new denomination, he merely wanted to reform Roman Catholicism and destroy what he saw as erroneous dogmas and doctrines that were advocated by the church's teachings.
"It hurts because it's true." Most accurate thing I've heard all day.
Jesus my God and savior loves you
have a nice day
lets be honest fellow catholics, as satire its gold. As commentary its accurate.
+blablabubles I agree. It seems the girl with the glasses was the only one to honestly admit that it's true instead of becoming overly defensive.
Exactly. This isn't an attack on Pope Francis. It's an expression of frustration at the fact that at a moment when we ALL need him to speak up clearly in defense of the truth, he's not. He's being loving and conciliatory at a moment which cries out for confession and when all is said and done saying things in a way which invites and promotes misunderstanding.
Thank you.
We need clarity. Our world is very wishy washy and under the guise of being sensitive people's lives are destroyed as I saw speaking with a trans man. He did not need people to pat him on the back and say he is a woman. He needs healing. And the current pope might sometimes be a bit wishy washy when he needs to be clearer.
Fatima warned us: the church will lose the faith starting from the top. And here we are. :/
As a Lutheran I actually really enjoyed watching this just to be able to see how Roman Catholics actually would react to this video. It's very insightful.
"Jeff doing the work of literally every Catholic blogger after Pope Francis says literally anything." As a former Catholic, now Lutheran, this warms my heart.
- Oh he's a pastor?
- Yeah from a Lutheran Church
- Oh....
That was gold.
God Christ Jesus loves you
have a nice day
"Unfortunately, Pope Francis gets misinterpreted a lot..."
This is disastrous for a Pope.
I am a Lutheran and I love Pastor Fiene's videos on Lutheran Satire but I have to say I really appreciated seeing this response to it and wondered how Catholics would react. Thanks.
+Steve Bliss (MackleeGreen) I'm surprised to see a Lutheran here in the comment section of this video,but I'm also glad.
I am Lutheran as well and it was interesting to hear what Catholics think of the Pope and how they would take this video.
Many of us Catholics are ignoring all popes and doctrinal novelties since Vatican 2, and carrying on as a faithful remnant of the faith from when it was pure.
So you are not Catholic you are a protestant?
He's a sedevacantist. They're one of the newest Protestant sects, so new they haven't yet realized they're Protestant.
My dear Catholic brothers and sister, and yes, as an evangelical (not-Lutheran) Christian, I believe many of you who are serious Catholics are fellow Christians. Heck, I listen to EWTN and agree with about 90% of what is said.
That being said, the point of the video was that Pope Francis is frequently unclear in his statements and that leaves a lot of room for others to misinterpret. It is very hard for us non-Catholics not to be a little concerned that Pope Francis in his attempt to reach out in love to the world, might soften on doctrine or on social positions leaving the liberal wing and liberal or liberation theology dominant.
I as a pro-life and family advocate have appreciated the allies in the Catholic church, so I am concerned about the direction. Furthermore, I have seen many protestant denominations and pastors make the move away from sound doctrine for the sake of appearing more loving and accepting, and eventually it ends up hurting the larger body of Christ. So yes, while Pope Francis may be giving the church a more loving image at the moment, my concern is that many in the church may abandon some of the hard issues because they are perceived as unloving or harsh. If the Pontiff is not clear about these issues, will the church remain clear about them?
some of these guys could probably win gold at the olympics for mental gymnastics
did anyone didn't notice they skipped over the last question about an atheist going to heaven while non-Catholic Christians go to hell?
Yup, someone did. The original video's answer to that question is either intentionally deceptive or ignorant. See Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.
But the video skipped over it
+Michiganman800 It was irrelevant to the topic we wanted to focus on, which is Pope Francis himself and the statements he's made. Pope Francis never said that non-Catholic Christians go to hell, that was thrown in there by LutheranSatire as a potshot at Catholicism in general. We skipped it so the ensuing discussion wouldn't be derailed by that separate issue.
+TitoPaul Oh it's not ignorant nor deceptive. Rome has gone inclusivist.
+New Catholic Generation you mean you avoided the issue??
From a practicing Catholic who has passed the orals for ordination: Jorge Bergoglio has a desperate psychological need to be liked. To gain acceptance, he will say to anyone whom he thinks may dislike him whatever it is he thinks that person wants to hear that will make him like Jorge. So to the Jew he will say that proselytizing is wrong, to the active homosexual he will say "Who am I to judge?", to Lutherans he will say that Luther may have been a saint. And so on and on. In all of this he lays aside the duty of his office, which is to teach clearly, to maintain the tradition, and to unify the Church. He is not an anti-pope, the See of Peter is not vacant, but the teaching function of the papal magisterium has been suspended. He does not, or at least has not yet, taught error, but he has not been diligent in refuting error and instead has, through his loose mouth, allowed and even at times encouraged confusion ("Make a mess"). The video is rather over the top -- hyperbolic, satiric -- but it can't be dismissed as inane or malign, because Pope Francis has provided the kernel of truth that makes it fair commentary.
That was a great response at the end by TheCatholicApologist "It doesn't matter who's in office. The Catholic church will go on as she always has."
Honestly, Pope Francis wouldn't be misinterpreted so much if his statements weren't as ambiguous as they are. I also do feel that Benedict XVI was better in that respect as in many other things.
+Ivan Zenteno Benedict was an actual legit scholar, a legit theologian. Francis? Not so much.
Ivan Zenteno I was fortunate enough to see Pope Benedict 3 times while at Rome. His mind is a bedrock of revealed truth.
Repent and trust in Jesus. He's the only way. We deserve Hell because we've sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him.
John 3:16
Romans 3:23😊❤❤
I am Evangelical (not in protest against Roman Catholics). In my opinion Pope Benedict XVI biggest mistake as Pope was resigning. I appreciated the writings of Pope Benedict XVI.
Thank you so much for making this video. We really needed a Catholic reaction to this.
heyyyy. Love your videos! Surprisingly I just saw a comment from Fritz on another of their videos. lol
The video is about how cavalier Pope Francis is. Catholics and Christians affirm this.
Loved your latest video
I'm a Lutheran, and I certify most of you guys took the joke pretty well.
Even conservative Roman Catholics are quite disenchanted with this pope. He is extremely popular within the culture (and the younger generation), but he is playing fast and loose with RC doctrine in order to gain more popularity.
Rick Pettey he is JESUIST!!!
Oh, yeah! XD
Repent and trust in Jesus. Hes the only way. We deserve Hell because weve sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him.
John 3:16
Romans 3:23❤😊❤
Blue shirt guy is hilariously triggered.
I think he gave Pope beelzebub his sense of humor away.
He's hard to watch...
let's be honest, most of us here are Lutherans who came here cause LutheranSatire sent us.
+Andrew Hoffer Well, some of us are, at least
Repent and trust in Jesus. Hes the only way. We deserve Hell because weve sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him.
John 3:16
Romans 3:23❤😊❤
@@lowlightpiano7110 We know.
Man, even the people who reacted to it had to run damage control!
1 year later it's quite clear that Rev. Hans Fiene is right in the video.
It's sad that so many people have to live without good shepherding from the pontiff.
He did say the thing about youth unemployment.
"It hurts because it's true." Yes, yes it is.
Coming back to this in 2019 makes it hurt more bc now we know he did mean that.
But guys.... don't you think it would be nice if he said what he, like.... MEANS?
I *like* how you (purposefully?) left out the post credits scene, and the criticism it made ...
Confessional Lutheran brother, here. Love your videos, NCG! Keep up the good work.
When you're a Lutheran and even the Catholics are kind of agreeing with you
Thank you Catholics. This is what us protestants wanted to see. God bless
Renée's reaction at 0:17 is just gold.
Edit: I made some reaction pictures out of it i.imgur.com/Qlxj6pL.png i.imgur.com/HhDmnhy.png
Wow. This comment section is a relic of an age long gone.
@@hismajesty6272 Geez. Now that's a blast from the past, thanks for bringing it back to my attention hahaha
Awesome to see this video, since I'm a lutheran and a huge Lutheran Satire fan. Its great to see the insight of Catholics into this.
9:30 am classes? Try 7 am classes, then we can talk lol xD
+Little Dream Didn't she say 9:30 PM classes? Now I'm not quite sure...........
+Ethan Ceroja I'm pretty sure it's AM because she first says: "His eyes look like me when I have to wake up for my 9:30 class" and then she says again "9:30 am" :) It wouldn't make sense (for most people) to wake up for a 9:30 PM class :P
After re-watching the video, I realized how idiotic I was in my previous statement. I apologize.
try 8am classes and waking up early at 4am to commute for 2 hours to get to early to class lmao
Whoa, brutal........
As a Catholic, well...hilarious!! Accurate!!! Needed the laugh!!! Thanks, Separated Brethren!!!
1:13 "Jeff doing the work of literally every Catholic blogger after Pope Francis says literally anything." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Pope Francis is very real and very raw" hahahaha these kids crack me up
I would have to agree with them. Pope Francis seems to speak directly from what the Holy Spirit is guiding him to. Where as Pope Benedict and John Paul II both were more reserved in the way they talked. Not saying anything is wrong with either way of speech, but there is for sure a difference
I worry that Pope Francis is guided more by politics than by prophecy. But hey, the media got their leftist pope, so they dropped the pedophile priest story like a hot potato, and now the crisis is past. So maybe it was all worth it.
"I worry that Pope Francis is guided more by politics than by prophecy." Yeah? And I worry that his detractors are.
Repent and trust in Jesus. He's the only way. We deserve Hell because we've sinned. Lied, lusted stolen, etc. But God sent his son to die on the cross and rise out of the grave. We can receive forgiveness from Jesus. Repent and put your trust in him.
John 3:16
Romans 3:23❤❤❤
That lady and her 9:30am classes. 9:30am is a GREAT time for class!
Please try one of LutheranSatire "Donnell and Connell" videos! They are the best!!!
"This video bothers me on so many levels." Me too!! I miss Pope Benedict too...
"Oh my sweet Martin Luther." Said... The Catholic...?
+Eran Carter I have a problem with cussing and using the name of God in vain. I decided a while ago to replace all my instances of "God" and "Jesus" with the names of Protestant reformers whose names I have no issue taking in vain. :)
+Tatiana Federoff
Oh. Okay. I just figured using the phrase "my sweet" meant you liked them. Now I see what you mean.
Captain Dinglepants I’m not catholic, but I love that. It’s the perfect catholic cuss word.
"His eyes look like me when I have to get up for a *9:30* [a.m., presumedly] class." Awesome! Multiple levels of humor!
I didn't know there were catholics who actually still believe that pope Francis is "just being misinterpreted"...
+cc536 I don't see why we SHOULDN'T believe he is being misinterpreted. I, along with about a billion worldwide Catholics, see no reason why he would go blatantly against many of the most basic church teachings. It IS true that Pope Francis's statements are rather ambiguous, but it is easy to see what he actually means if you look at his actual words and not what you want the words to be.
+Ethan Ceroja Sorry but you are in denial. Pope Francis is capable of speaking clearly and unambiguously and has done so when it comes to politically correct issues like climate change and immigration (which are questions outside the authority and expertise of the pope btw). If he wanted to he would have defended traditional catholic teaching in the same way, but he chooses not to.
Aloisivs he doesn't contradict doctrine, it's weaponized ambiguity
@@quantumquorum-g3u ua-cam.com/video/7EX1BjID_fE/v-deo.html
Explain this.
@@aloisivs3652 and considering how the Amazon's Synod went, it would seem that your words are confirmed
Woah, wait, why skip the best part of the entire video?? I want to see them react to the RCC anathematizing salvation by faith alone!!
+Nikki Mitchel The reason I didn't include that part is that the main theme I was going for with the discussion is Pope Francis himself and his statements. The faith vs. works issue is a whole other can of worms and if we're going to discuss that I'd rather devote a separate video to it. -David
I'm glad it wasn't included. Comparing statements from Lumen Gentium (1964) with The Council of Trent (1545) was either an ignorant juxtaposition or intentionally misleading. I suspect the latter as LuthernSatire appears too smart in his other videos to make this type of bonehead mistake. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) if you really want to understand the church's position. If you don't want to look it up yourself, see Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.
+Nikki Mitchel See CCC 818 and 838 for the Church's teaching on modern Lutherans, as the anathema was for Lutherans hundreds of years ago, who were actively teaching against the Catholic Church, and therefore had nothing to do with LutheranSatire's video.
+Pen Writer I think the point is that Rome hasn't been consistent over the years. Their understanding has changed. Go read Unam Sanctam from around 1300 AD and then go read 838.
Now, I don't care that you've guys have changed. But I'm not going to pretend you haven't really changed. Mainly because I don't have to assume your church is infallible.
The bigger problem is that some of your changes into inclusivism runs counter to Scripture.
Franjo Krajinović writes:
>[Vatican II] as pastoral, not dogmatic
You lie sir.
John XXIII said that it would reflect the Church’s MAGISTERIUM, which is predominantly pastoral IN CHARACTER. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible.
John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”
Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech at Vatican II doesn’t actually matter. This is because it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept him.
"“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Paul VI, solemnly closing every document of Vatican II)
Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”
>So council fathers, by large majority influenced by modernism change language but not substance.
No they didn't they changed the substance, they changed everything. They changed the consecration rite, they changed the ordination rite, they changed the baptismal rite (Praise be Jesus Christ He didn't allow them to change the form of it though otherwise all Vatican II baptism would be invalid), the mass and YES he changed the liturgy as well.
>[the] council was pointless
No it wasn't, it had a point and it was "to bring the church into modern age. It's heretical and all those who accept it have fallen into schism
>but it is still valid
No it's not it's heretical and thus invalid and all who accept it are in schism and ths ipso facto removed from the Body of Christ
>SSPX related groups say, who are basically heretics for no good reason
SSPX accepts it's heresies, they are just as much heretics as modernists like you.
>Also all previous anthems are still valid
Wrong again, it has allowed the eastern orthodox schismatics and protestant heretics"partial communion" with the church.
The funny thing is for false traditionalists who accept the heretical counil of vatican II are sinning everytime they rebuke a protestant heretic.
Vatican II has in effect turned the Catholic church into a protestant sect where all you gotta do is believe to be saved. It's a joke.
So much wrong your post
You should have them watch Frank the Hippie Pope and Bart the Patriarch Sing Love Songs
you guys should do a response to i don't go to church but I love jesus video
90% of misunderstandings of Pope Francis are caused by click bait headlines
I love to see young Catholics aware of everything and well informed .. St Mary protect you guys
and nobody mentioned Jesus, not even once.
+A. D Hey there, we're not undermining Jesus, just saying that the pope has a tough job. There is a pyramid in Catholicism, but one that is flipped. The Pope is underneath, carrying the weight of the Church on his shoulders.
@Aaron, meaning what?
Well, it had THAT much in common with the Pope's statements n these things...
This takes place in Sweden in October.
I thought these Catholics did an excellent job expressing the problems with people in our society nowadays, and how everyone wants Christianity to conform to their personal beliefs. I am an Anglican, but I have come to respect Catholics.
I am watching this as the Amazonian Synod looms right around the corner.
The guy is soooo uncomfortable at 00:50 and he desperately tries to hide it with a laugh lol.
4:40 yeah the Pope is touching a lot of thinks nobody else is..like kissing feet of Islamic iman's by bowing down to them..yeah I wonder how you satisfy that..or kissing koran or saying that the some God is the one we as Christians have and Muslims too..like what religion stands he for exactly??
It amazes me how fast they deny that their leader said these things and in the context he said them.
When he said who was he to judge it was in CONTEXT to >ACTIVELY< gay priests!!!! The same priests that denied their vows of celibacy. What this says is he believes it is okay for his priests to break their vows of celibacy, but STRAIGHT priests has to keep their vows.
He doesn't need to judge anyway!!! The rcc taught that anyone who committed the act could NOT attend mass until they repented and got right with rome!!!! BUT he seems to think it is okay for actively homosexual priests to perform the mass, even though they have no right to even attend mass!!!!
8 years later and nothing has changed.
It is a satire my friends. And it is meant to present an extreme version of the Pope in order to make a point. So do not let that slip your minds as you watch this as it did the people in this video. :)
I am a catholic and this is the funniest thing ever
The more this current pope talks, the more he proves Lutheran Satire to be right on the money about him.
So they snicker and make funny faces and then admit that the video was funny and had a point..... ok
I am impressed with you guys. It is a great thing that you are open to criticism. From a person that was raised in the Lutheran Church but confirmed in the Catholic Church, I found the video hilarious but uninsulting. Let's face it, Pope Francis has created a great deal of controversy. (1:45 is a case in point. He could have easily clarified this with scripture and the Catechism, but he chose not to.😔) I definitely appreciated Pope Benedict's concrete spiritual guidance over Francis.
"Oh my sweet baby Martin Luther..."
"God made butterflies and stuff" Classic Hippie Pope talk. Great for a chuckle, or a tear.....
"His eyes look like mine when I have to get up for 9.30 class"...
6 years later, and pope hippy Frank's continued shenanigans, every one of these kids need to be reinterviewed
You forgot the end credits scene
No matter what denomination you are we are all christians
Nice to see someone show the duplicity of the pope.
Hopefully some will wake up and leave Babylon before it is too late.
Ok now do a reaction video of the song Frank the Hippy pope dose with Bart the patriarch.
AS I recall, the "who am I to judge" response was an answer to a trick question. The Pope was asked, (paraphrased) "Should a homosexual with AIDS use a condom?". (the Catholic understanding being that condoms are bad) In this situation, the condom was being used to prevent spreading a disease, not birth control. The Pope responded that this could be an indication that the guy was beginning to think morally, (in a way), by being considerate of the damage that he could do to others, and maybe this could be the beginning of a moral awakening. "Who am I to judge?" What a Catholic would expect the Pope to answer would be, "He shouldn't do it at all. It's like asking if it's better for a murderer to kill a man quickly than slowly. You don't kill - period." But the Pope accepted the hypothetical, and when the quote was snipped from the question and most of the response, it sounded very odd.
+Don't Worry
- Any time. When the Pope is asked a question, think of the Pharisees, and their questions about taxes to Rome, or whether to stone Mary Magdalene. They weren't trying to "learn" anything - they were setting traps. (Btw - as I recall, no sooner had the Pope said this, than everyone cried out, "The Pope said condoms are OK! The Pope said condoms are OK!". Of course, in this situation the condom was *not* being used to prevent birth!)
Oh how things have only gotten worse. I wonder if any of these normie Catholics have been red pilled on frank since the making of this video?
Okay Mr. Chthonic Apologist, obviously the video is satire, meaning it points out truths through hyperbole. Do not tell me that the statements of the Pope have not been less than coherent. While I contend that the media has conflated certain statements by the Pope, but did you ever see the media doing this with the last Pope? Honestly everyone's reactions at the beginning was enough to show your real feelings. There is nothing wrong with calling out the Pope's scheisse when you hear it. God does not make mistakes, but people do.
Actually, CatholicApologist said in one of his videos on his own channel, that the pope is morally infallible, or something along those lines, it was in his video 8 Lies About Catholics or something like that, I don't remember exactly, but basically, as far as he's concerned, the pope can't be scheisse.
Is abortion an unforgivable sin? Is it wrong for the Bishop of Rome to say that a woman can be forgiven the sin of abortion? To say that a sin can be forgiven is not to say that it is not a sin. Jesus didn't tell the woman caught in adultery that she hadn't sinned. He said, "Go and SIN no more."
If I may, here are two possible reasons why Pope Francis is misunderstood:
1. We often get the sound-bite or quote before we get the context. That decontextualized sound-bite stays with us more.
2. Pope Benedict was very analytic in his approach. Pope John Paul II, while very philosophical, was also quite unambiguous. OK, so where does the difference lie? Pope John Paul, I've heard it said, sought mercy through truth. Pope Francis seeks truth through mercy. Both approaches are beautiful and valuable, but by necessity they must proceed through different styles and methods of discourse and descriptions of our social world and of justice.
Just a thought here. Don't be too critical! I really like Pope Francis and think he's done a good job in revitalizing the Church. God bless him!
+Charles Comer Another reason, apparently, is that translations from the Italian media to other languages are not always accurate.
+Charles Comer how about he uses language that can be interpreted by both theological liberals and conservatives in the way they want on purpose?
+geoffrobinson Well, the pope isn't a political figure. What may sound like politics to most people; to someone well versed in Catholic social teaching they will hear the principles of the Church being echoed in his speech. The pope doesn't speak from a liberal or conservative perspective, nor a Democrat or Republican perspective, nor a socialist or capitalist perspective, but from a Catholic perspective.
+Jesus Sanchez this is about different theological wings, not political. Saying things that can be interpreted differently by different groups has been going on for a while. At least since Vatican II.
That too, indeed. I'm always hesitant to suppose intent, but I think that in some cases it may be a bit obvious as well as divisive. Co-opting the Pope inappropriately for theo-political argument is by all accounts unfortunate. Especially when the message is misconstrued.
I'm a Catholic and I agree with the Lutherns... sorry
Conveniently ignored "salvation by faith alone" at the end of the video hmmmmmm
I'd like to see a response to this response video now and see how perspectives have changed or not changed.
The pope said that atheists can get into heaven. He’s not even Christian.
to be fair, the last two popes were heavily criticized and often misinterpreted in mainstream media (and even by catholic media figures). I'm sure no honest and thoughtful person will say that being easily misunderstood or capable of being misrepresented means that person is inherently dishonest or that their beliefs are not true (or that they are unfit for office).
amen my brothers and sisters. I like what Joseph: " The Catholic Church will go on as she always has"
I feel their pain. Now the Vatican has imposed vaccine mandates, which is very wrong.
Did they really do that?
@@Procopius464 "VATICAN CITY (RNS) - In a decree signed Jan. 5 (2022) the Vatican tightened its COVID-19 regulations by requiring the use of FFP2 masks (similar to N95 masks) inside and making vaccinations and booster shots mandatory for employees and visitors wishing to enter the Vatican Museums and gardens." It's over now but they did it then. And there was no medical justification for it at all. The jab was not safe or effective at preventing transmission.
Repent and trust in Jesus. we deserve Hell for our sins. For example lying, lusing, saying God's name as a cuss word and stealing our just some examples of sin which we can all admit to doing at least one of those. For our sin we deserve death and Hell, but there is a way out. Repent anf trust in Jesus and you will be saved. Repentence is turning from sin. So repent and trust in Jesus. He will save you from Hell, and instead give you eternal life in Heaven.
John 3:16
Romans 3:23❤😊❤
I love how none of the Catholics watching got the fact that Pope Francis is supposed to be high…
“His eyes look like mine when I have to get up early in the morning” 😂😂😂
They skipped the last (best) part. I was waiting to see them all nod their heads at how non-Catholics are all accursed and hellbound.
+Patrick McWilliams see my response to Lutheran Satire about what the church actually teaches about that
+Pen Writer I wonder why they didn't include that in the video?
+Patrick McWilliams The reason I didn't include that part is that the main theme I was going for with the discussion is Pope Francis himself and his statements. The faith vs. works issue is a whole other can of worms and if we're going to discuss that I'd rather devote a separate video to it. -David
+New Catholic Generation I thought the last bit was the meat of +LutheranSatire 's original vid. The whole point was how Pontifex is inconsistently consistent. This vid goes for the softball points, unfortunately.
If that was the meat of LuthernSatire's video then I'm glad I didn't take a bite. It is so spoiled that I would have gotten food poisoning. The video's answer to that question was either intentionally deceptive or ignorant. Comparing statements from Lumen Gentium (1964) with The Council of Trent (1545) was a misleading juxtaposition. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) if you really want to understand the church's position. If you don't want to look it up yourself, see Pen Writer's kind response to LutheranSatire at the top of the comments section of this video.
The girl with the Tree of Gondor hoodie!😍😍😍I think that's what that was...
as a orthodox christian i find this very entertain:))))
you should have them react to Lucifer trailer (fox show). Also messed up bible stories, or DarkMatter2525
+JuwonWSB I think these are some great suggestions. Hopefully, they'll be appearing on Lutheran Satire!
somebody needs to answer Dark Matter. His arguments are soooooo bad.
But don't "react" to them because the Fine Bros might sue you. :D
+JuwonWSB I love that show Lucifer! It's such a good show. The historicity of Satan is interesting, his story has changed a lot in the past 1500 years. In the old testament you'll find the term HaSatan or "The Satan" this is a title not a name, which means the accuser or the the adversary. According to Jewish faith HaSatan (The Satan) is an Angel In the book of Job The HaSatan makes the accusation that the only reason Job is pious is that he is rich and has a good life. God agrees to allow HaSatan to inflict Job with disease and terrible tragedy, in the end Job remains faithful and God wins the argument. You can thank Zoroaster for defining the devil. It became a battle of good and evil, one that you had to choose sides. Good people died and went into the light bad people went into darkness. So when Christianity got its start a reinterpretation took place and HaSatan became the demonic leader of hell. His form has changed a lot over the past 1500 years from the image of Pan a Greek God that was human in form, his legs are that of a goat and he has horns sprouting from his head. (Primarily because he was a popular god of the pagans). all the way to a monster with a pitchfork and then a handsome aristocrat. The show Lucifer is a cross between Satan and Hades. Hades is really a better representation of the Character of Lucifer. Hades was an unlikable God but he wasn't evil. He was the Greek God that determined your fate. It was his judgment that decided whether you went to Eleusinian (Heaven) or Tartarus (Hell) But then you have the backstory of the Christian Satan.
I think he makes pretty good arguments
+Yehudi Menuhin I watched some of his videos awhile back, and as a general rule he tends to completely misunderstand the spirit of what he reads in the Bible, if not the literal facts. And he doesn't recognize when something is not supposed to be taken literally.
Remember that the Bible is a collection of different writings and not one big project. The writing style differs throughout. Someone who is learned in the area can tell if something in the Bible is written as poetry and metaphor or whether it's supposed to be taken as historical fact. The Bible is not "simple", an average person reading it cover to cover with no guidance can easily get the wrong idea.
In response to non-literal interpretations of Genesis, for example, Atheists often say that it's just a belated attempt to reconcile the Bible with evolution. But we know that Christians and the Church Fathers were interpreting parts of Genesis as allegorical more than a thousand years before evolutionary theory. From Saint Augustine, in his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" from the early fifth century:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
Hey we Confessional Lutherans love Catholics who think well. Cheers and Peace in Christ
Maybe their comments would be different if this was done after Amoris latesia.
my only problem with Francis is that he is somewhat against capitalism because he interprets Argentina as the bad side of capitalism, which it isnt.
He isn't against capitalism, he's against the corporatism of countries like Argentina and people think he's against free market capitalism.
"his eyes look like mine when i have 9:30am klasses" yeah right girl we all need something to get us going in the morning; P
I am Lutheran and to my fellow Catholic brothers in Christ, I am uncomfortable holding Martin Luther up as a pseudo Pope of Lutheranism because although I believe what Martin Luther wrote & taught in his body of theology, Martin Luther was a sinful man like we all are and spoke a lot of stuff near the end of his life on earth that we Lutherans cringe at, especially given that Martin Luther's rants against Jews were used by Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. I believe a figurehead we can never be ashamed of, Catholic or Protestant, is Jesus Christ. God Bless.
It hurts because its true!
These kids are so modernist lol
there was a 4th one after the credits
Anyone want to see what the respondents think 4 years on?
Eh, I'm Catholic and I kind of agree.
"His eyes looked like me when I have to get up for my 9:30" - Oh my sweet, sweet, innocent child...
Traditional Liturgy and a Traditional Pope would be nice. Feels like the hierarchy is out to destroy the faith.
The Pope is trying so hard to be nice that he sometimes lets his message get blurred, and media who are hoping the Catholic Church will accept current social changes jump on any ambiguous statement. As a Lutheran pastor myself, I liked Pope Benedict better. He was a real theologian with a clear view of Catholic doctrine and a willingness to state it unequivocally. With him, you knew what you were getting.
Geddit togeder der' pope patrick!
6:00 "[The Pope's] response was like 'Who am I to judge?' There's truth in that. Like you don't know where that person's at." ----------It is a fair question to ask for every single imperfect person who does NOT have the authority of Jesus.