You should check out the channels 'reason & theology' 'how to be Christian's and 'classical theist'. Can't even understand my own name afterward by how much they scrambled my brain.
@@tony1685 oh you're a brainwashed protestant who doesn't know christ founded the catholic church, got it. read the bible mate. everything Catholics believe is right there. sola scriptura however is nowhere in scripture. saying Catholics are not Christian is super disingenuous. also, you agreed with me at first when I asked if he was a freemason. you do realize freemasons have actively declared themselves to be the mortal enemies of the catholic church.
Prudence - knowing the right means (virtues, etc.) to attain the right end (Justice). Temperance - moderation of the pleasures of the flesh (appetites, senses, passions, etc.). Fortitude - willingness to engage the arduous good (suffering, hard work, etc.). All for the sake of... Justice - rendering to another what is due.
My problem is, that after having recently re-converting back to the Catholic Faith, is that I am completely overwhelmed with studying the Faith and Church history. I left Catholic school in 8th grade, and now after having joined a TLM parish, I see that my prior education was both progressive and abysmall. I simply don't know where to start to re-learn about the faith. I'm beyond interested in the early Church fathers and Augustine and Thomistic philosophy and the councils and Popes. Blah, it's too much!
Good to have you back! Well, one thing I would say is not to burn yourself out. Reading the Church Fathers is great, and the Doctors of the Church also, but never lose sight of the fact that the important part is loving God and obeying Him. As for recommendations, I like Ed Feser's books on Aquinas, though those aren't *exactly* theology or history.
@@CantusTropus Thank you the recommendation. I love Aquinas, but let's just say he's a bit difficult for me to intellectually digest. A decade of drinking, drugs, and hanging out with that "type" tend to have an impact on your intellect over time... I am eager to learn, but will of course be praying and focusing on Our Lord. God Bless
"It's too much" is such an understatement. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas, when he finished his Summa Theologica, looked at the huge volume set and said, basically, It's all straw; his way of saying it was all a waste and a waste of time, and he accomplished nothing final. Really? His point, and it is so true, is that the mystery of Christianity and the true Catholic faith continues to unfold and will never be finished until, I guess, God says it is. His point also is, just don't lose heart and keep at it. Plumb the depths to satiate your own theological curiosity, going into it in the full knowledge that you will never, ever, know it all. Finally, his point also is, God provides the destination, and the journey is as fruitful as we make it. So, I say, go for it and relish what you come to understand, knowing there is always more around the next turn. Oh, and BTW, welcome back. I did the same as you.
Wow! You're a great teacher. Even with my terrible brain fog & feeble old mind, I can understand what you're saying. It makes perfect sense. This is one of my best subscriptions. Thank you and God bless you with more and more wisdom.
Sacraments and sacramentals pre exists the gospels. The word is alive but holds external unchanging TRUTH. It is us who evolves and develop in our understanding. That is the portrait I see evolving.
This is the exact diagnosis of the problem in the Church. The crisis we are experiencing is exactly this problem. The faith is a deposit that can be more defined but never evolve into something else.
I’m not a Catholic. I’m a believer, and fairly fundamental, just not Catholic. However, I want you know, I got a lot of respect for OG church, and I think you’re a great teacher.
I love the analogy with the "unfinished", blocked-in painting that needs clarifying. But imagine the painting you could end up with if you entrusted it to, say, "Father" James Martin!
Love the line “The shapes are all composed so as to receive their placement.” The fact that something wasn’t immediately present at the beginning does not mean it’s an innovation, but means instead that it took time to establish the context in which it rightfully fits.
Catholic tradition was not 'stripped away' in the 20th Century. St. John Paul II's 'New evangalisation' had to embrace aspects of modernity to reach the end of the world. Remember, Jesus said to 'preach the gospel to all creation.' There are countries in Africa where lay Catholics do not understand English, let alone Latin. How else can be gospel be preached and Catholicism be embraced in the Global South if the Church does not embrace a different vernacular? Whether the form of the Mass is in Latin or the form of the Mass is in Swahili, the Sacrifice of the Mass remains the same.
Africa had a few million Catholics in the whole continent around the beginning of Vatican 2 and now has probably 200 million Catholics in large part the changed of Vatican 2 helped the missionaries preach the gospel and have masses in English and in native African languages that was virtually impossible with the insistence of a Latin mass and prayers in Latin and making it hard for them to understand the faith in very literate societies with a language that has a connection with Latin ie Italian and Spanish and yes English the Latin mass is much more understandable and doable in first world places. But in Africa and India and South east Asia conversions sky rocketed after Vatican 2 something the critics of Vatican 2 never bring up and yes in America the extraordinary form works better as a liturgical expression until reforms are enacted on the newer mass but one size does not fit all we are global church not an American only church something done Uber Catholics seem to have forgotten they see everything through an American and European lense and blame the loss of faith their to Vatican 2 when rampant materialism and many other factors are to blame to merely a change in the mass. The critique on JP2 and Vatican 2 have become simpleton and reactionary and yes they have their faults but it’s a whippping boy at this point without deeper reflection of other factors
Brian, your statement in the last minute was a "hard truth" to hear. I'm as guilty as many Catholics of not knowing many fundamental things. But once aware of this ignorance, I have to commit myself to fill in the missing pieces. Time to refresh on the cardinal virtues, gifts of the Spirit, etc...
The Catholic church is a gigantic mansion with a million rooms. You can open any door you want. I'm in the St. THERESA room presently. I was just in the gospel of John....we all should visit the rosary den...all arrive at the supper and true sacrifice of the mass.
A very good, technical explanation of this can be found in Orthodox theologian Lossky's essay "Tradition and traditions". It also tackles the protestant heresy of sola scriptura and how it infected modern conceptions of tradition. The distinction he makes between dogma and doctrine is very important. Dogma is the never-changing, eternal core of Christianity. It's the teaching that is kept secret from non-initiates as to not defile its character. Doctrine is the outward expression of that. As an outward expression, it changes to suit the times. But this is not the same as changing the church to suit the times. Just as God became man so He could teach us in our own language, so the church has to acknowledge the zeitgeist so it can preach in every man's tongue (the true meaning of pentecost). One example Lossky gives is the term 'homoousis', meaning 'of one substance'. Saint Paul did not know this term, he was not familiar with this doctrinal expression. But to say that later saints had, through these new doctrines, 'better' access to the dogma, the secret heart and meaning of Christianity, than St. Paul is ridiculous. The term homoousis was actually mainly used by the Valentinian Gnostics before it became integrated in the church. God works through us despite our sins, so the church adopted the term to combat the heresy of Arianism. And this is the main workings of the doctrine. Had there never been an Arian heresy, then the church would not have felt the need to express the dogma with the term homoousis. jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky-trad&trads.pdf
The development of doctrine can never oppose the original teachings of Jesus Christ. Any " development" that opposes or directly refutes the teaching of Christ in the Gospel is, in fact, a refutation of His teachings to suit our needs and desires.
False. The teachings of the Gospel needs to be interpreted with the foundations of Christian teachings. The text in the Gospel alone is not enough. Where does the Bible say you should drive a car?
@@michaelorsini9695 OK. I am glad you concur with what the presenter has said. Doctrines don't change, but it can be presented in a new way like The New Evangelisation
Just one simple comment: The churches they’re building today are neither beautiful on the outside OR on the inside either! Brian, you’re doing an excellent job in what you have to say about the Faith!!! God bless you…Fr.James
Brian, I pray that when you read the praise you get that you will stay well grounded. Gifts are just that; gifts. Keep up the good work and glory to God for someone willing to do what you do. It is desperately needed.
What? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the drumbeat of my inflated ego. Just kidding. I pray for the same thing and would greatly benefit from your prayers as well.
This was really well done! I also like the analogy of development of the Church is like the growth of a tree. Everything that the tree will ever be was contained in the seed, but it wasn't all immediately visible. It takes time to grow and mature. But the growth always follows the natural pattern of the tree, it never contradicts it. The tree will never produce a different kind of fruit, or leaves, etc. What was true will always be true. Our knowledge and understanding of it may deepen and gain nuance, but it will never be a different truth. What was true will never become false and what was false, will never become true. Regarding the Vatican 2 stuff. I've always thought that Vatican 2 didn't create the problems, rather it revealed them. The abuses that resulted afterward were the result of a lot of ideas that were already present, and problems that were already present, but they were made public and visible after the council. It has been painful, but I think exposing such things is always better in the long run, because then they can be confronted and dealt with.
Very well said 👌 as there are no more Revelations, we as the body of Christ can get to know a bit more about God this way, discerning under the Holy Spirit. Your examples are always so spot on.
Here's an anathema: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." - Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 13 Can someone please tell me how you go from this explicit anathema to the new Mass?
@Prasanth Thomas The Council of Trent abolished all Western rites (with one other exception, the Ambrosian Rite) and established (approved) the Tridentine Rite. It's called the Tridentine Rite because it is named after the Council of Trent. The anathema is very specific because it not only talks about one Mass but all Masses. It even goes beyond the Mass to encompass all rites which includes all the sacraments not just liturgies. You're right to say that it anathemizes priests who tamper with the liturgy because every bishop, including the bishop of Rome is a priest; and the anathema states that any pastor who changes the rites to new ones (a new Mass, "Novus Ordo" means "new order" of the Mass) are anathema.
@Prasanth Thomas How does the Novus Ordo fall into the category of "received", it certainly is "approved", but received? No, the Ordinary Form was created at Vatican II by a council of pastors; it wasn't received. Contrast that with the Tridentine Mass which actually was received by the pastors of the Church, which has roots traceable all the way to the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great (Gregorian Chant). The only thing Trent did was distill the Mass from several received Masses and abolished any Mass which did not conform to the teachings of the Church. In such a way, the Tridentine Mass is comparable to the Church's approval of the Biblical Canon: over time the books of the Bible were compiled, some were approved while others discarded and distilled into the Bible that we have today. Can the Church "receive and approve" new books to the Bible? Clearly, the N.O. was a change in the Mass. Their are even VII bishops and priests who have admitted this, it's well documented. Having said that, do I beleive that the Ordinary Form is valid? Yes. BUT, it is valid simply because it has a valid priesthood, just as a Greek Orthodox Liturgy is valid, because they have a valid priesthood.
@Prasanth Thomas Please bear with my long winded response. It was done to prove a point: can perennial Church teaching be changed or abrogated by a Council? SSPX is "quasi-schismatic"? Are they or aren't they in communion with the Church? I reject the notion of partial communion, simply because you can't be partially married to someone. So, either they're in communion or not. Unfortunately, nobody wants to step up and make the call. Just as with the German Church. But either situation is neither here nor there. Please stop with the "Rad Trad Heretic" trope. It's ad hominem, and a poor attempt to shut down conversation before it even starts. Just because we disagree doesn't automatically make me a "heretic" or "schismatic" besides, to echo your own words, it's not for us to decide who's a heretic. Am I bitter about the situation? Sure I am, because I feel like my traditional heritage was hidden from me or better yet stolen away; but that doesn't mean that I have to engage in attacks which demonize my opponent in an argument. I can see how you'd think I'm attacking you because I'm criticizing the New Mass and VII which on the surface appears that I'm attacking the Church, but would it be prudent of me to simply not question anything because I'm Catholic? This would only propagate the false notion that a layman should never question the hierarchy. You say, "the Mass is not doctrine or dogma..." So how can I be heretical for criticising something which is not doctrine or dogma? But to continue in the same vein, I believe it to be a poor argument to justify the changing of the Mass because it's not doctrine or dogma. What is a Creed then? A doctrine or dogma? Because this is part of the Creed of Trent and was also quoted in the Papal Bull, Iniunctum Nobis, of Pius IV: "The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church I most firmly admit and embrace." Canons, anathemas and creeds. None of which are found within VII. Yet all 3 exist in Trent. Yes VII is an ecumenical council but are there different levels of Magisterial Authority or "weight"? Are both Trent and VII equal to one another in "weight". For that matter, is every document produced by any council equal in weight to any other council document? There is a process by which one determines magisterial weight, is there not? Let's talk about the Magisterial weight of another council that of the Council of Nicea II, which was quoted by a Sainted Pope: "But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."... Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church." - Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi) Here's a Church Doctor who was adamant about retaining our ecclesiastical traditions: "It behooves us unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customary practices of the Church." - St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church What purpose did Trent's codified Mass serve? It was done to reject sacrilege, heresy and to preserve the dignity and sanctity of the Eucharist which many of the Masses prior to Trent were engaging in. Fast forward to VII and we see a reverse engineering of the situation: an opening up of the Mass to sacrilege and heresy. You can prattle on about how there have been abuses in the Tridentine Rite but it's nothing compared to what we see with the current Novus Ordo: beach ball Masses, teenage girls dressing in tank tops and extremely short shorts while wearing sandals, dancing the Tango in the sanctuary, women in the sanctuary, Pachamama and idolatry, inter-religious services and now "blessings" of "non-married lovers" in the German Church. I'd take a 15 minute Tridentine Mass over any of the aforementioned. The Pauline Rite? My understanding is that it's two forms of one rite: the Roman Rite. Unless you're admitting that a new rite was promulgated and therefore there was a change and replacement of the Mass which Trent has anathematized. Regardless, there certainly is a reason for the more widely accepted names of the Roman Rite: Ordinary versus Extraordinary. One of them is truly ordinary. Has the magisterium ever been wrong? Yes, the Council of Florence had declared that the Ordination of a priest was confected at the presentation of the chalice and ciborium. In a later document correcting the council, put out by the Pope, it was determined that this teaching was in error and that Holy Orders was conferred upon a priest by the "laying on of hands." I appreciate the Biblical Canon reference, I'll have to listen to that discussion. One thing I would like to point out is the idea of adding "new books" to the Bible. If we were, for example, to reconcile with the EO Church can "new books" be added to the Bible? This may be highly improbable but, if it did occur, I would venture to say that these "new books" aren't "new" at all rather they come from a very long standing tradition as opposed to a Concilium of pastors who decided to write new books for the Bible. Which is basically what they did with the New Mass. Sure, they may have borrowed from the Tridentine Rite but if you were going to compare the 2 Masses side by side it's far too easy to point out the differences rather than the similarities. I would like to know, however, why is it that such books are in the EO Bible and not the Catholic Bible? If these books are inspired by the Holy Spirit would it not behoove the Catholic Church to already take steps to confirm these additions to the Canon? I wonder if such books were written after the Great Schism. If so, what is the likelihood that they're not heretical? But I digress... Essentially, one of my biggest critiques about your observations is this: if the pastors who sow liturgical abuse are the ones who are anathema, as you interpret Canon 13 of Trent, doesn't it make you wonder how many Masses were valid in the Ordinary Form? Considering the only abuse most Catholic critics can point out with the Tridentine Mass is a 15 minute run through, compared to all the nonsense, indecency, sacrilege and heresy that has occurred and continues to occur with the Ordinary Mass, which form is more likely to suffer "liturgical abuse"?
Are you aware that the document (Quod a Nobis) promulgating the Roman Breviary used similar language? Yet it didn't stop Pope Pius X from changing it completely.
@Prasanth Thomas "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and *let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.* This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever. *This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom."* No other rites would include future rites.
Are you aware that the papal bull Quod a Nobis (also by Pius V), which promulgated the new Roman breviary, used similar language, establishing the breviary for "perpetuity"? And yet that didn't stop Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII from making substantial changes to it or Pope St. Pius X from completely revamping it. Clearly, they didn't understand those formulas in the way you're taking them.
Here's a quote from Quod a Nobis: "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul". Pope St. Pius X revised the breviary about as much as the Church revised the Mass after VII.
The book that introduced me to Catholicism explained it this way. You can't add anything new or change any doctrine or dogma of the church. However, you can find more clear ways to explain it, and one of the ways we explain our faith is through the liturgy, so sometimes when liturgical traditions lose the intent behind them to visually explain part of the faith, they are changed or let go entirely in order to find a way to do the same thing with a liturgy that is more clear for the time we are living in. The doctrine and dogma don't change, but their expressions change over time to better explain and express the faith. At least that's my understanding.
I think you explained that well but as a Protestant respectfully I’m not ready to agree that Catholic doctrines such as purgatory is implied in scripture In the words of Martin Luther “unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason” and to address Catholic doctrine: apostle Paul: “be not confirmed to the spirit of the age but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” Thanks Brian!
"There are Catholics who know all about Fatima but not the ten commandmends" What? "There are Catholics who can recite the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary but don't know the cardinal virtues" Oups, this sounds like me. I think there's fortitude among them…
it's important to know and pray all FIFTEEN mysteries of the Rosary, shame JPII in his typical blundering way mucked about with this sacramental but even he said his changes were only a suggestion
I can't remember where he said it, but he does it because on some places (like Facebook), the video starts playing without any user input and without any sound. This way, people watching in that situation have a few seconds to un-mute and not miss anything.
John Paul the 2nd was well intentioned and Orthodox? Wow! Naw, after reading .ore about him, i don't know who quickly motivated me more into ALMOST becoming a sedevacantist, him, Francis, or Vatican II's statement on Muslims believing in the same god as us (and no, the Vatican II documents do not preface by using the term 'profess' like the catechism does.
The Church was Orthodox until 359AD. Two minor issues use of candles and praying for the dead. By 1500 about 95 total false doctrines in the Catholic church. 25 in Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Orthodox left Catholic Church 1050 I believe. So hopefully the shows the progression of false doctrines in the Catholic Church.
Basically it goes back to knowing our Judeo-Christian story. Evangelization to receive the seed and then Catechesis to grow its roots into the fertile soil (and continuing both throughout life).
Change in Doctrine? I heard a testimony of a Irish lady. Her protestant church was build on a hill - to protest against the Catholic monastery on the next hill. On another hill was the monastry for the nuns. What people were not supposed to know is that there was a tunnel between the to monasteries. The priests used the tunnel to go to the nuns. And all the children born of those relations were thrown in the lime pit nearby. What a curse on their dedication to God. Can God forgive? Did the church ask forgiveness? I'm sick of hearing bad stories about protestant churches. But this makes me sick too.
I myself would be interested in a presentation explaining the specific sources of the doctrines of purgatory and, particularly, the perpetual virginity of Mary in relation to the views of women and virginity in the Tanach, within Roman society and in the negative views of women found in some of the church father's writings . Also on the development of these doctrines in relation to, and I'm honestly not trying to be snarky, here, the fact that we tend to see what we want to see and find what we're sure is there. I've watched, probably, 6 or 7 of Mr. Holdsworth's videos and It strikes me that I've heard a lot of description of what the Catholic church holds to be true but not much explanation of why it's true. Maybe that's basic apologetics, I don't know. I've heard a lot of people claim a lot of different things and for me personally, if someone tells me that this and this and that are true, I need to hear the explanation as to why they believe those things to be correct. Just my two cents.
I always wondered - what about the acceptance of loan interest? It was condemned on the authority of Aquinas (double consupmtion of single good + some other arguments, like that money does not reproduce naturally), but it has been accepted over time and much earlier than the whole Modernist shenanigans reared its head. Wasn't that one of the first appeasements to the modern world and the Zeitgeist?
Cardinal Newman's idea of Development of Doctrine was only introduced in 1845 or thereabouts. What about prior to Newman? What did the Church say about this?
Since revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, doctrinal development can not reach to novelty. There can never be any new doctrine that is not set forth or implied by what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles either orally or in writing. This proscription against new doctrine includes improper development of existing doctrine-- what you can't do directly, you can't do indirectly. Doctrinal development certainly can never involve contradicting what the Church has always held to be true. There can not be any 'new understanding' of existing Church teaching or of the Scriptures that can justify changing the Church's perennial teachings.
Pope Benedict XVI, who I greatly admire as a very intelligent man of deep faith and absolute loyalty to Christ and His Church, was influenced a lot by the movements towards a renewal (not a revolution!!) of the Catholic Church (for example in the liturgy) that started in the early 20th century. I think he tried to contribute to their effort towards helping people purify and deepen their faith with his contribution to Vatican II. However, he soon realised that many of the impulses of V2 were perverted by some of the other (intellectual) contributors to this council (Rahner, Küng ...) and their followers, who had only been waiting for the right moment to radically change Catholic doctrine. Benedict/Ratzinger has been spending the second part of his life trying to bring about some damage control by counteracting some of the excesses of the progressive side both in words and in deeds. But then came Bergoglio ... . There is a tragic side to Benedict's life and impact as a theologian.
How is purgatory implied? I think that got glossed over without any evidence. What is described as development of doctrine seems to still allow the unsubstantiated introduction of new doctrines. It also cannot be used as a sufficient explanation for a doctrine if the new teaching is indeed implied in prior teaching. (For the benefit of all, I assume that all teachings must be firmly grounded in the Bible and cannot have their source outside of it.) Christology is never explained by simply citing development of doctrine. Likewise, purgatory and mariology cannot be explained by citing this theory. They must be evidenced by scripture.
While Catholics believe that not _everything_ one believes must be plainly laid out in the Bible, so long as those beliefs aren't in opposition to what is taught in Scripture, the idea of Purgatory is built on the following: P1. Nothing unclean will enter Heaven. (Rev 21:27) P2. Sin makes a person unclean. (Hab 1:13; Isa 59:2) P3. All people are sinners. (1 Jn 1:8; Rom 3:23; Rom 7:18-24) C1. Therefore, all people must be cleansed of their sins in order to enter Heaven. (1 Thess 5:23; Heb 12:14; from P1 through P3) P4. The actions of the saved will be tested by fire. (1 Cor 3:11-15) P5. An action separate from an actor is impossible. (this should not need a citation) P6. Actions, no matter how slight, which are bad or impure are sins. (Ecc 12:14) P7. Fire can both purify as well as consume. (Mal 3:2-3; Mt 3:11-12; Mk 9:49; 2 Thess 1:7-8; 1 Pet 1:7) P8. God is a consuming fire. (Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29) P9. God is Love. (1 Jn 4:8) C2. Therefore, God’s love is a consuming and purifying fire. (follows from P8 and P9) C3. Therefore, the saved are cleansed by said fire. (1 Cor 3:15; follows from C1 through P7) P10. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins. (1 Jn 1:7; 1 Jn 2:1-2; Rom 5:19) C4. Therefore, Jesus is the consuming and purifying fire that cleanses sin. (from C3 and P10) This period of cleansing of our sins by God's purifying fire is what Catholics call Purgatory.
Development of doctrine is like biological development, the oak tree is the fully realized acorn, it's still the same being, same essence, but at different stages in its life. Evolution of doctrine is like the theory of biological evolution, an animal slowly mutates down through generations and becomes something that it previously was not.
This comment has nothing to do with your great video. You made many videos about music and beauty, and I wonder what you think about contemporary composers like Arvo Pärt. To me, his Credo is one of the most powerful musical representations of a spiritual journey (especially because he wrote it in the ussr), but I can understand how the music of modern composers could be seen as "degenerate" if you don't take the time to analyse the many layers of music theory that are used to construct it. (If you want to listen to this specific piece of music, I encourage you to read some of the many great analyses that are available online, and then listen multiple times)
This is a good defense of Development of Doctrine, and I (a protestant) would agree with much of it. The concept of the Trinity is a good example, and I would even say that Purgatory does have some Biblical implications. Really, when you think about it, the NT is Development of Doctrine in itself. The implications of substitutional sacrifice clearly develops into Jesus' crucifixion, and even the Eucharist is a development from Passover. But where are the "implications" of the perpetual virginity?
The teaching of the church has always changed. In the very beginning, at the council of Gerusalemme the church and Saint Peter were filled by the Spirit and removed many old rules thousands of years old that made little sense. I think the painting metaphor does work but in the past the church has removed Mountains not Just added details to them. And It must continue to do so.
I know this has been said before but one of the current main problems Is poor Catechesis. This is not a problem of finding good knowledgeble and creative Catholics willing to teach the faith. The issue is that 90% of the children enrolled in CCD do not attend Church. Of course this is because their parents do not attend or help reinforce the teachings. Then you add to the mix that most of the kids are on 2 sports, have a school extra curricula activity and homework, while CCD ends up being at the bottom of the list. And to make matters even worse, when it comes to winning there minds the world is in first place and the church just can't seem to catch up. Many would say the reason for this are the unintended consequences of Vatican 2.
Very just. Fortunately it seems that the traditionnel richeness becomes a bit more available than it has been for a long time. The clearness of this video should be available in every parish.
Changing Catholic doctrine, and part of why I will not be a Catholic is this. Rome has gone from "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" to "doesn't matter, people of any faith can be saved," and, "death penalty can be carried out by the authorities" to "no death penalty ever." "Doctrinal development" is a euphemistic way of saying "Yeah, we changed that." That is changed doctrine. Not clarified doctrine. It is CHANGED. A 180 degree flip at times. That's not God changing, that's men. Period. And yeah, 2 Timothy 3 teaches that that using the Bible and words of the Apostles are enough to complete the man of God. Also, Gehinnom in Jewish teaching is what Catholics call purgatory.
If the Catholicism of the early 20th century was to whatever extent void of faith, I'm not sure that the logical conclusion is that it was BECAUSE of a too elaborate expression/interpretation of said faith. Maybe it was rather due to historical events.
Just a brief FYI, although this has likely been said, and I maybe missed it, but CS Lewis never became Catholic. Although many of his beliefs certainly are Catholic. Hopefully this is a help for anyone who could be confused accidentally and would happen to see this.
@@BrianHoldsworth Oh, yes you did. Thank you for the correction of my mistake. Thank you also for taking the time to point it out. So to follow up on my previous statement, I missed the part when Brian said "Christianity in general". Excellent episode!
This is your painting so of course you can go back to it and add to it however the doctrines the 66 books of the King James Bible are given to us we're blessed to have them nothing is supposed to be added or taken from it
How does the Pope's change of Our Father fit into this? I'd like to understand because to me it seems wrong to have done that...but again I am no theologian. Thanks.
In Spanish the translation of the Padre Nuestro (Our Father) is "no nos dejes caer en tentasion" which would directly translate to "do not let us fall into temptation". Seeing that the Pope is from Argentina it is easy to see why he would change it to that rather than keep it "do not lead us".
"So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom." (Story of Lazarus) He was not carried to purgatory. or "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Jesus to the thief on the cross) - Not I will see you in purgatory.. or "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also". Either you have been sanctified through the blood of the Cross or not. You can't be sort of sanctified. I am a Catholic but I am also a student of theology and philosophy. I am not persuaded that there is such a thing as purgatory; it just makes no sense and is certainly not Biblical. I think it was a very convenient way to siphon money out of people to pay for indulgences to stack the coffers of Rome.
If you were really Catholic and student of philosophy and theology and you are not or are really bad at the three things you claim to know. You would know that paying for indulgences were banned at the Council of Trent and were never official Catholic teaching and the teaching of purgatory goes back to the church fathers with no link to indulgences until the abuse briefly during the Middle Ages which were wrong and rectified now can you stop pretending to be Catholic and fix the health and wealth gospel that affects large swaths is Protestantism that you seemed to have ignored.
What does Paul say he explains how the very origin of anything in this world is pure and only by man's hand is it twisted and bastardized to profit themselves
You are so intelligent that I’m not sure how to even compliment you on it. So well spoken.
Brian applied his education and arrived at the church.
You should check out the channels 'reason & theology' 'how to be Christian's and 'classical theist'. Can't even understand my own name afterward by how much they scrambled my brain.
@@tony1685Brian is a Freemason?
@@tony1685 what's he saying that is against church teaching though? He seem ls like a faithful Catholic Christian to me.
@@tony1685 oh you're a brainwashed protestant who doesn't know christ founded the catholic church, got it. read the bible mate. everything Catholics believe is right there. sola scriptura however is nowhere in scripture.
saying Catholics are not Christian is super disingenuous.
also, you agreed with me at first when I asked if he was a freemason. you do realize freemasons have actively declared themselves to be the mortal enemies of the catholic church.
Man, I have memorized all mysteries of the rosary , I pray it everyday. I'll have to memorize the cardinal virtues now.
Get a Latin Mass Missal, there's that and lots of other stuff worth memorizing in the forward.
Prudence - knowing the right means (virtues, etc.) to attain the right end (Justice).
Temperance - moderation of the pleasures of the flesh (appetites, senses, passions, etc.).
Fortitude - willingness to engage the arduous good (suffering, hard work, etc.).
All for the sake of...
Justice - rendering to another what is due.
What happened to the Doctrine of Divine?
And the Beatitudes
Same to me
Great analogies! Your explanation of the term “Development of Doctrine” with the analogy of a painting is awesome!
And yet another of your videos gets bookmarked in my "defending Catholicism" folder.
Is that a UA-cam playlist?
Can you share it with me?
@@berwynsigns4115 It's mostly catholic.com articles
@@chromebook1794 I should publish it somewhere. If/when I do, I'll stick a link here!
@@levisando alright!
My problem is, that after having recently re-converting back to the Catholic Faith, is that I am completely overwhelmed with studying the Faith and Church history.
I left Catholic school in 8th grade, and now after having joined a TLM parish, I see that my prior education was both progressive and abysmall. I simply don't know where to start to re-learn about the faith. I'm beyond interested in the early Church fathers and Augustine and Thomistic philosophy and the councils and Popes. Blah, it's too much!
Good to have you back! Well, one thing I would say is not to burn yourself out. Reading the Church Fathers is great, and the Doctors of the Church also, but never lose sight of the fact that the important part is loving God and obeying Him. As for recommendations, I like Ed Feser's books on Aquinas, though those aren't *exactly* theology or history.
It's a good problem to have. Good old catechisms like the Baltimore is the best place to start
@@CantusTropus Thank you the recommendation. I love Aquinas, but let's just say he's a bit difficult for me to intellectually digest. A decade of drinking, drugs, and hanging out with that "type" tend to have an impact on your intellect over time... I am eager to learn, but will of course be praying and focusing on Our Lord. God Bless
@@slickmechanical I'll be sure to pick one up. Thank you!
"It's too much" is such an understatement. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas, when he finished his Summa Theologica, looked at the huge volume set and said, basically, It's all straw; his way of saying it was all a waste and a waste of time, and he accomplished nothing final. Really? His point, and it is so true, is that the mystery of Christianity and the true Catholic faith continues to unfold and will never be finished until, I guess, God says it is. His point also is, just don't lose heart and keep at it. Plumb the depths to satiate your own theological curiosity, going into it in the full knowledge that you will never, ever, know it all. Finally, his point also is, God provides the destination, and the journey is as fruitful as we make it. So, I say, go for it and relish what you come to understand, knowing there is always more around the next turn. Oh, and BTW, welcome back. I did the same as you.
Wow! You're a great teacher. Even with my terrible brain fog & feeble old mind, I can understand what you're saying. It makes perfect sense. This is one of my best subscriptions. Thank you and God bless you with more and more wisdom.
Brian, you are a light in the darkness, brother. God bless you.
Sacraments and sacramentals pre exists the gospels.
The word is alive but holds external unchanging TRUTH. It is us who evolves and develop in our understanding.
That is the portrait I see evolving.
This is the exact diagnosis of the problem in the Church. The crisis we are experiencing is exactly this problem. The faith is a deposit that can be more defined but never evolve into something else.
I’m not a Catholic. I’m a believer, and fairly fundamental, just not Catholic.
However, I want you know, I got a lot of respect for OG church, and I think you’re a great teacher.
You should consider becoming Catholic...you already have the Holy Spirit to make such a declarartion.
OG?
@@stevierichiemoeller original Church. He's saying that the Catholic Church is the original.
@@stevierichiemoeller OG, it’s short for original gangster; however, it’s a colloquialism and you can you it for anything old school.
@@moosechuckle calling the church a gangster runs counter to you statement of respect.
The church is the body of Christ and the bride of Christ.
Your "in process-painting" analogy for the development of doctrine is amazing. . .dare I say inspired. Thank your for your videos!
I love the analogy with the "unfinished", blocked-in painting that needs clarifying. But imagine the painting you could end up with if you entrusted it to, say, "Father" James Martin!
I'm a protestant and I love these videos; learning about Catholicism from real, hard-thinking Catholics is incredibly useful.
Wow! That is the best illustration and explanation I have ever heard on this subject! Bishop Fulton Sheen would be proud of you! Amen brother!
Love the line “The shapes are all composed so as to receive their placement.” The fact that something wasn’t immediately present at the beginning does not mean it’s an innovation, but means instead that it took time to establish the context in which it rightfully fits.
Catholic tradition was not 'stripped away' in the 20th Century. St. John Paul II's 'New evangalisation' had to embrace aspects of modernity to reach the end of the world. Remember, Jesus said to 'preach the gospel to all creation.' There are countries in Africa where lay Catholics do not understand English, let alone Latin. How else can be gospel be preached and Catholicism be embraced in the Global South if the Church does not embrace a different vernacular? Whether the form of the Mass is in Latin or the form of the Mass is in Swahili, the Sacrifice of the Mass remains the same.
Africa had a few million Catholics in the whole continent around the beginning of Vatican 2 and now has probably 200 million Catholics in large part the changed of Vatican 2 helped the missionaries preach the gospel and have masses in English and in native African languages that was virtually impossible with the insistence of a Latin mass and prayers in Latin and making it hard for them to understand the faith in very literate societies with a language that has a connection with Latin ie Italian and Spanish and yes English the Latin mass is much more understandable and doable in first world places. But in Africa and India and South east Asia conversions sky rocketed after Vatican 2 something the critics of Vatican 2 never bring up and yes in America the extraordinary form works better as a liturgical expression until reforms are enacted on the newer mass but one size does not fit all we are global church not an American only church something done Uber Catholics seem to have forgotten they see everything through an American and European lense and blame the loss of faith their to Vatican 2 when rampant materialism and many other factors are to blame to merely a change in the mass. The critique on JP2 and Vatican 2 have become simpleton and reactionary and yes they have their faults but it’s a whippping boy at this point without deeper reflection of other factors
Good commentary, Brian, and a good explanation of organic development of doctrine. Thank you.
I shudder to think what changes will be on the table at Vatican 3 for debate.
The block painting was a very good illustration , which sticks. Superb video, packed with relevant information and a wise conclusion in my opinion.
Brian, your statement in the last minute was a "hard truth" to hear. I'm as guilty as many Catholics of not knowing many fundamental things. But once aware of this ignorance, I have to commit myself to fill in the missing pieces. Time to refresh on the cardinal virtues, gifts of the Spirit, etc...
The Catholic church is a gigantic mansion with a million rooms. You can open any door you want. I'm in the St. THERESA room presently. I was just in the gospel of John....we all should visit the rosary den...all arrive at the supper and true sacrifice of the mass.
Reason why it is universal. This is a lovely statement you wrote here.
Very cool explanation of development of Doc with your beautiful painting...great analogy.
I really appreciated your commentary on traditionalism vs the value of the tradition.
Of all your great videos this is the best (so far - I'm eagerly awaiting more😁).
Great video idea.
Excellent!
I love your videos. 🙏🏽💗 Thank you for sharing.
A very good, technical explanation of this can be found in Orthodox theologian Lossky's essay "Tradition and traditions". It also tackles the protestant heresy of sola scriptura and how it infected modern conceptions of tradition.
The distinction he makes between dogma and doctrine is very important. Dogma is the never-changing, eternal core of Christianity. It's the teaching that is kept secret from non-initiates as to not defile its character. Doctrine is the outward expression of that. As an outward expression, it changes to suit the times. But this is not the same as changing the church to suit the times. Just as God became man so He could teach us in our own language, so the church has to acknowledge the zeitgeist so it can preach in every man's tongue (the true meaning of pentecost). One example Lossky gives is the term 'homoousis', meaning 'of one substance'. Saint Paul did not know this term, he was not familiar with this doctrinal expression. But to say that later saints had, through these new doctrines, 'better' access to the dogma, the secret heart and meaning of Christianity, than St. Paul is ridiculous. The term homoousis was actually mainly used by the Valentinian Gnostics before it became integrated in the church. God works through us despite our sins, so the church adopted the term to combat the heresy of Arianism. And this is the main workings of the doctrine. Had there never been an Arian heresy, then the church would not have felt the need to express the dogma with the term homoousis.
jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky-trad&trads.pdf
This was a very thoughtful video, as always. Thank you.
The development of doctrine can never oppose the original teachings of Jesus Christ. Any " development" that opposes or directly refutes the teaching of Christ in the Gospel is, in fact, a refutation of His teachings to suit our needs and desires.
False. The teachings of the Gospel needs to be interpreted with the foundations of Christian teachings. The text in the Gospel alone is not enough. Where does the Bible say you should drive a car?
@@kelechukwuanozyk7605 I'm not talking about new inventions, I'm talking about changing long held moral teachings and/or dogma and doctrines.
@@michaelorsini9695 OK. I am glad you concur with what the presenter has said. Doctrines don't change, but it can be presented in a new way like The New Evangelisation
Great example with the blocking in painting. It makes great sense. Well done.
Great video as always, Brian. Thank you for the illumination.
I really like your closing thoughts on this. Thank you
Just one simple comment: The churches they’re building today are neither beautiful on the outside OR on the inside either! Brian, you’re doing an excellent job in what you have to say about the Faith!!! God bless you…Fr.James
Development:
Elaboration and Elucidation;
NOT: Invention and Innovation.
Brian, I pray that when you read the praise you get that you will stay well grounded. Gifts are just that; gifts. Keep up the good work and glory to God for someone willing to do what you do. It is desperately needed.
What? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the drumbeat of my inflated ego.
Just kidding. I pray for the same thing and would greatly benefit from your prayers as well.
@@BrianHoldsworth You can count on my prayers and thank you for your prayers. They are, as you know, much needed.
This was really well done! I also like the analogy of development of the Church is like the growth of a tree. Everything that the tree will ever be was contained in the seed, but it wasn't all immediately visible. It takes time to grow and mature. But the growth always follows the natural pattern of the tree, it never contradicts it. The tree will never produce a different kind of fruit, or leaves, etc.
What was true will always be true. Our knowledge and understanding of it may deepen and gain nuance, but it will never be a different truth. What was true will never become false and what was false, will never become true.
Regarding the Vatican 2 stuff. I've always thought that Vatican 2 didn't create the problems, rather it revealed them.
The abuses that resulted afterward were the result of a lot of ideas that were already present, and problems that were already present, but they were made public and visible after the council. It has been painful, but I think exposing such things is always better in the long run, because then they can be confronted and dealt with.
Very well said 👌 as there are no more Revelations, we as the body of Christ can get to know a bit more about God this way, discerning under the Holy Spirit. Your examples are always so spot on.
Wow! Your conclusion is dead on. Thank you!
A very good question, well handled and clearly articulated! Thanks!
Here's an anathema:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." - Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 13
Can someone please tell me how you go from this explicit anathema to the new Mass?
@Prasanth Thomas
The Council of Trent abolished all Western rites (with one other exception, the Ambrosian Rite) and established (approved) the Tridentine Rite. It's called the Tridentine Rite because it is named after the Council of Trent.
The anathema is very specific because it not only talks about one Mass but all Masses. It even goes beyond the Mass to encompass all rites which includes all the sacraments not just liturgies.
You're right to say that it anathemizes priests who tamper with the liturgy because every bishop, including the bishop of Rome is a priest; and the anathema states that any pastor who changes the rites to new ones (a new Mass, "Novus Ordo" means "new order" of the Mass) are anathema.
@Prasanth Thomas
How does the Novus Ordo fall into the category of "received", it certainly is "approved", but received? No, the Ordinary Form was created at Vatican II by a council of pastors; it wasn't received.
Contrast that with the Tridentine Mass which actually was received by the pastors of the Church, which has roots traceable all the way to the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great (Gregorian Chant). The only thing Trent did was distill the Mass from several received Masses and abolished any Mass which did not conform to the teachings of the Church. In such a way, the Tridentine Mass is comparable to the Church's approval of the Biblical Canon: over time the books of the Bible were compiled, some were approved while others discarded and distilled into the Bible that we have today.
Can the Church "receive and approve" new books to the Bible?
Clearly, the N.O. was a change in the Mass. Their are even VII bishops and priests who have admitted this, it's well documented.
Having said that, do I beleive that the Ordinary Form is valid? Yes. BUT, it is valid simply because it has a valid priesthood, just as a Greek Orthodox Liturgy is valid, because they have a valid priesthood.
@Prasanth Thomas
Please bear with my long winded response. It was done to prove a point: can perennial Church teaching be changed or abrogated by a Council?
SSPX is "quasi-schismatic"? Are they or aren't they in communion with the Church? I reject the notion of partial communion, simply because you can't be partially married to someone. So, either they're in communion or not. Unfortunately, nobody wants to step up and make the call. Just as with the German Church. But either situation is neither here nor there.
Please stop with the "Rad Trad Heretic" trope. It's ad hominem, and a poor attempt to shut down conversation before it even starts. Just because we disagree doesn't automatically make me a "heretic" or "schismatic" besides, to echo your own words, it's not for us to decide who's a heretic.
Am I bitter about the situation? Sure I am, because I feel like my traditional heritage was hidden from me or better yet stolen away; but that doesn't mean that I have to engage in attacks which demonize my opponent in an argument. I can see how you'd think I'm attacking you because I'm criticizing the New Mass and VII which on the surface appears that I'm attacking the Church, but would it be prudent of me to simply not question anything because I'm Catholic? This would only propagate the false notion that a layman should never question the hierarchy.
You say, "the Mass is not doctrine or dogma..."
So how can I be heretical for criticising something which is not doctrine or dogma?
But to continue in the same vein, I believe it to be a poor argument to justify the changing of the Mass because it's not doctrine or dogma. What is a Creed then? A doctrine or dogma? Because this is part of the Creed of Trent and was also quoted in the Papal Bull, Iniunctum Nobis, of Pius IV: "The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church I most firmly admit and embrace."
Canons, anathemas and creeds. None of which are found within VII. Yet all 3 exist in Trent. Yes VII is an ecumenical council but are there different levels of Magisterial Authority or "weight"? Are both Trent and VII equal to one another in "weight". For that matter, is every document produced by any council equal in weight to any other council document? There is a process by which one determines magisterial weight, is there not?
Let's talk about the Magisterial weight of another council that of the Council of Nicea II, which was quoted by a Sainted Pope: "But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."... Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church." - Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi)
Here's a Church Doctor who was adamant about retaining our ecclesiastical traditions: "It behooves us unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customary practices of the Church." - St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church
What purpose did Trent's codified Mass serve? It was done to reject sacrilege, heresy and to preserve the dignity and sanctity of the Eucharist which many of the Masses prior to Trent were engaging in. Fast forward to VII and we see a reverse engineering of the situation: an opening up of the Mass to sacrilege and heresy. You can prattle on about how there have been abuses in the Tridentine Rite but it's nothing compared to what we see with the current Novus Ordo: beach ball Masses, teenage girls dressing in tank tops and extremely short shorts while wearing sandals, dancing the Tango in the sanctuary, women in the sanctuary, Pachamama and idolatry, inter-religious services and now "blessings" of "non-married lovers" in the German Church. I'd take a 15 minute Tridentine Mass over any of the aforementioned.
The Pauline Rite? My understanding is that it's two forms of one rite: the Roman Rite. Unless you're admitting that a new rite was promulgated and therefore there was a change and replacement of the Mass which Trent has anathematized. Regardless, there certainly is a reason for the more widely accepted names of the Roman Rite: Ordinary versus Extraordinary. One of them is truly ordinary.
Has the magisterium ever been wrong? Yes, the Council of Florence had declared that the Ordination of a priest was confected at the presentation of the chalice and ciborium. In a later document correcting the council, put out by the Pope, it was determined that this teaching was in error and that Holy Orders was conferred upon a priest by the "laying on of hands."
I appreciate the Biblical Canon reference, I'll have to listen to that discussion. One thing I would like to point out is the idea of adding "new books" to the Bible. If we were, for example, to reconcile with the EO Church can "new books" be added to the Bible? This may be highly improbable but, if it did occur, I would venture to say that these "new books" aren't "new" at all rather they come from a very long standing tradition as opposed to a Concilium of pastors who decided to write new books for the Bible. Which is basically what they did with the New Mass. Sure, they may have borrowed from the Tridentine Rite but if you were going to compare the 2 Masses side by side it's far too easy to point out the differences rather than the similarities. I would like to know, however, why is it that such books are in the EO Bible and not the Catholic Bible? If these books are inspired by the Holy Spirit would it not behoove the Catholic Church to already take steps to confirm these additions to the Canon? I wonder if such books were written after the Great Schism. If so, what is the likelihood that they're not heretical? But I digress...
Essentially, one of my biggest critiques about your observations is this: if the pastors who sow liturgical abuse are the ones who are anathema, as you interpret Canon 13 of Trent, doesn't it make you wonder how many Masses were valid in the Ordinary Form? Considering the only abuse most Catholic critics can point out with the Tridentine Mass is a 15 minute run through, compared to all the nonsense, indecency, sacrilege and heresy that has occurred and continues to occur with the Ordinary Mass, which form is more likely to suffer "liturgical abuse"?
There isn’t a new sacrifice being offered at Mass. It is still Jesus.
Are you aware that the document (Quod a Nobis) promulgating the Roman Breviary used similar language? Yet it didn't stop Pope Pius X from changing it completely.
1570: The Roman Mass cannot be abrogated.
1970: Let's uh... "update" the Mass! It's not abrogated though! Definitely not...
@Prasanth Thomas The Council of Trent went from 1545 to 1563. I was referring to Pope Saint Pius V's Papal Bull, _Quo Primum,_ promulgated in 1570.
@Prasanth Thomas It doesn't strike you as problematic that _Quo Primum_ has been completely ignored?
@Prasanth Thomas
"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and *let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.* This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.
*This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom."*
No other rites would include future rites.
Are you aware that the papal bull Quod a Nobis (also by Pius V), which promulgated the new Roman breviary, used similar language, establishing the breviary for "perpetuity"? And yet that didn't stop Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII from making substantial changes to it or Pope St. Pius X from completely revamping it. Clearly, they didn't understand those formulas in the way you're taking them.
Here's a quote from Quod a Nobis: "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul". Pope St. Pius X revised the breviary about as much as the Church revised the Mass after VII.
This was extremely helpful. It makes sense to me now.
Thank you, Brian.
The book that introduced me to Catholicism explained it this way. You can't add anything new or change any doctrine or dogma of the church. However, you can find more clear ways to explain it, and one of the ways we explain our faith is through the liturgy, so sometimes when liturgical traditions lose the intent behind them to visually explain part of the faith, they are changed or let go entirely in order to find a way to do the same thing with a liturgy that is more clear for the time we are living in. The doctrine and dogma don't change, but their expressions change over time to better explain and express the faith. At least that's my understanding.
Thank you so very much, Brother.
JPII wasn't orthodox, he may have been 'well intentioned' but in a sort of blundering hapless way
So in comparison to the picture - when the picture passes from perfection to kitsch
Smart and humble young man. Absolutely a gifted Catholic. We definitely learn a lot from you Brian. Glory to God 🙏🙏🙏
I think you explained that well but as a Protestant respectfully I’m not ready to agree that Catholic doctrines such as purgatory is implied in scripture
In the words of Martin Luther “unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason”
and to address Catholic doctrine: apostle Paul: “be not confirmed to the spirit of the age but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”
Thanks Brian!
@3:11 Brian channeling Bob Ross...
"There are Catholics who know all about Fatima but not the ten commandmends" What? "There are Catholics who can recite the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary but don't know the cardinal virtues" Oups, this sounds like me. I think there's fortitude among them…
Maybe there’s a rosary prayer for the virtues ( or could be)?
it's important to know and pray all FIFTEEN mysteries of the Rosary, shame JPII in his typical blundering way mucked about with this sacramental but even he said his changes were only a suggestion
@@marcokite Well, I do know the classical fithteen ones. But I don't think St. John Paul II mocked the Rosary. He dearly loved our Blessed Mother.
@@oambitiousone7100 Good question.
I don't understand why anybody would think that the Bible needs refining in the first place
0:00 at this point it's not a Brian Holdsworth video without 3 seconds of random setup footage at the start.
I can't remember where he said it, but he does it because on some places (like Facebook), the video starts playing without any user input and without any sound. This way, people watching in that situation have a few seconds to un-mute and not miss anything.
@@markpugner9716 Oh neat.
John Paul the 2nd was well intentioned and Orthodox? Wow! Naw, after reading .ore about him, i don't know who quickly motivated me more into ALMOST becoming a sedevacantist, him, Francis, or Vatican II's statement on Muslims believing in the same god as us (and no, the Vatican II documents do not preface by using the term 'profess' like the catechism does.
Excellent ! Great analogy !
1:11 - 9:02 the song catholic 😍
The Church was Orthodox until 359AD. Two minor issues use of candles and praying for the dead. By 1500 about 95 total false doctrines in the Catholic church. 25 in Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Orthodox left Catholic Church 1050 I believe. So hopefully the shows the progression of false doctrines in the Catholic Church.
Basically it goes back to knowing our Judeo-Christian story. Evangelization to receive the seed and then Catechesis to grow its roots into the fertile soil (and continuing both throughout life).
love the channel man! i do have a question though, do you view the pope as authoritative over the catholic church?
Hello please what is the title of the Catholic song at 1:24 please. And 9:16 please
thank you
Please pray and offer some fasting for my salvation brothers and sisters in Christ! Thank you!
Change in Doctrine? I heard a testimony of a Irish lady. Her protestant church was build on a hill - to protest against the Catholic monastery on the next hill. On another hill was the monastry for the nuns. What people were not supposed to know is that there was a tunnel between the to monasteries. The priests used the tunnel to go to the nuns. And all the children born of those relations were thrown in the lime pit nearby.
What a curse on their dedication to God.
Can God forgive? Did the church ask forgiveness? I'm sick of hearing bad stories about protestant churches. But this makes me sick too.
I myself would be interested in a presentation explaining the specific sources of the doctrines of purgatory and, particularly, the perpetual virginity of Mary in relation to the views of women and virginity in the Tanach, within Roman society and in the negative views of women found in some of the church father's writings . Also on the development of these doctrines in relation to, and I'm honestly not trying to be snarky, here, the fact that we tend to see what we want to see and find what we're sure is there. I've watched, probably, 6 or 7 of Mr. Holdsworth's videos and It strikes me that I've heard a lot of description of what the Catholic church holds to be true but not much explanation of why it's true. Maybe that's basic apologetics, I don't know. I've heard a lot of people claim a lot of different things and for me personally, if someone tells me that this and this and that are true, I need to hear the explanation as to why they believe those things to be correct. Just my two cents.
I always wondered - what about the acceptance of loan interest? It was condemned on the authority of Aquinas (double consupmtion of single good + some other arguments, like that money does not reproduce naturally), but it has been accepted over time and much earlier than the whole Modernist shenanigans reared its head.
Wasn't that one of the first appeasements to the modern world and the Zeitgeist?
Cardinal Newman's idea of Development of Doctrine was only introduced in 1845 or thereabouts.
What about prior to Newman? What did the Church say about this?
Thanks Brian!
The painting looks very much like the Morskie Oko lake in the Polish Tatra Mountains
RICH .
I love the juxtaposition of serious truths with ridiculous jokes .
Well done !
Thank you .
Few things I love more than a great analogy.
Since revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, doctrinal development can not reach to novelty. There can never be any new doctrine that is not set forth or implied by what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles either orally or in writing. This proscription against new doctrine includes improper development of existing doctrine-- what you can't do directly, you can't do indirectly.
Doctrinal development certainly can never involve contradicting what the Church has always held to be true. There can not be any 'new understanding' of existing Church teaching or of the Scriptures that can justify changing the Church's perennial teachings.
Pope Benedict XVI, who I greatly admire as a very intelligent man of deep faith and absolute loyalty to Christ and His Church, was influenced a lot by the movements towards a renewal (not a revolution!!) of the Catholic Church (for example in the liturgy) that started in the early 20th century. I think he tried to contribute to their effort towards helping people purify and deepen their faith with his contribution to Vatican II. However, he soon realised that many of the impulses of V2 were perverted by some of the other (intellectual) contributors to this council (Rahner, Küng ...) and their followers, who had only been waiting for the right moment to radically change Catholic doctrine. Benedict/Ratzinger has been spending the second part of his life trying to bring about some damage control by counteracting some of the excesses of the progressive side both in words and in deeds. But then came Bergoglio ... . There is a tragic side to Benedict's life and impact as a theologian.
How is purgatory implied? I think that got glossed over without any evidence. What is described as development of doctrine seems to still allow the unsubstantiated introduction of new doctrines. It also cannot be used as a sufficient explanation for a doctrine if the new teaching is indeed implied in prior teaching. (For the benefit of all, I assume that all teachings must be firmly grounded in the Bible and cannot have their source outside of it.) Christology is never explained by simply citing development of doctrine. Likewise, purgatory and mariology cannot be explained by citing this theory. They must be evidenced by scripture.
While Catholics believe that not _everything_ one believes must be plainly laid out in the Bible, so long as those beliefs aren't in opposition to what is taught in Scripture, the idea of Purgatory is built on the following:
P1. Nothing unclean will enter Heaven. (Rev 21:27)
P2. Sin makes a person unclean. (Hab 1:13; Isa 59:2)
P3. All people are sinners. (1 Jn 1:8; Rom 3:23; Rom 7:18-24)
C1. Therefore, all people must be cleansed of their sins in order to enter Heaven. (1 Thess 5:23; Heb 12:14; from P1 through P3)
P4. The actions of the saved will be tested by fire. (1 Cor 3:11-15)
P5. An action separate from an actor is impossible. (this should not need a citation)
P6. Actions, no matter how slight, which are bad or impure are sins. (Ecc 12:14)
P7. Fire can both purify as well as consume. (Mal 3:2-3; Mt 3:11-12; Mk 9:49; 2 Thess 1:7-8; 1 Pet 1:7)
P8. God is a consuming fire. (Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29)
P9. God is Love. (1 Jn 4:8)
C2. Therefore, God’s love is a consuming and purifying fire. (follows from P8 and P9)
C3. Therefore, the saved are cleansed by said fire. (1 Cor 3:15; follows from C1 through P7)
P10. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins. (1 Jn 1:7; 1 Jn 2:1-2; Rom 5:19)
C4. Therefore, Jesus is the consuming and purifying fire that cleanses sin. (from C3 and P10)
This period of cleansing of our sins by God's purifying fire is what Catholics call Purgatory.
Development of doctrine is like biological development, the oak tree is the fully realized acorn, it's still the same being, same essence, but at different stages in its life.
Evolution of doctrine is like the theory of biological evolution, an animal slowly mutates down through generations and becomes something that it previously was not.
Trinity is not in the Bible, but the Trinity is.
This comment has nothing to do with your great video. You made many videos about music and beauty, and I wonder what you think about contemporary composers like Arvo Pärt. To me, his Credo is one of the most powerful musical representations of a spiritual journey (especially because he wrote it in the ussr), but I can understand how the music of modern composers could be seen as "degenerate" if you don't take the time to analyse the many layers of music theory that are used to construct it. (If you want to listen to this specific piece of music, I encourage you to read some of the many great analyses that are available online, and then listen multiple times)
This is a good defense of Development of Doctrine, and I (a protestant) would agree with much of it. The concept of the Trinity is a good example, and I would even say that Purgatory does have some Biblical implications. Really, when you think about it, the NT is Development of Doctrine in itself. The implications of substitutional sacrifice clearly develops into Jesus' crucifixion, and even the Eucharist is a development from Passover. But where are the "implications" of the perpetual virginity?
Good!
The teaching of the church has always changed. In the very beginning, at the council of Gerusalemme the church and Saint Peter were filled by the Spirit and removed many old rules thousands of years old that made little sense.
I think the painting metaphor does work but in the past the church has removed Mountains not Just added details to them. And It must continue to do so.
I know this has been said before but one of the current main problems Is poor Catechesis. This is not a problem of finding good knowledgeble and creative Catholics willing to teach the faith. The issue is that 90% of the children enrolled in CCD do not attend Church. Of course this is because their parents do not attend or help reinforce the teachings. Then you add to the mix that most of the kids are on 2 sports, have a school extra curricula activity and homework, while CCD ends up being at the bottom of the list. And to make matters even worse, when it comes to winning there minds the world is in first place and the church just can't seem to catch up. Many would say the reason for this are the unintended consequences of Vatican 2.
Very just. Fortunately it seems that the traditionnel richeness becomes a bit more available than it has been for a long time. The clearness of this video should be available in every parish.
I don't think C S Lewis ever converted to Catholicism.
Don’t know Ten Commandments. Don’t know bible. Know doctrine and dogma.
Meet many.
They cannot explain it.
of course it has changed. Meaning of "outside church there is no salvation" changed.
Changing Catholic doctrine, and part of why I will not be a Catholic is this. Rome has gone from "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" to "doesn't matter, people of any faith can be saved," and, "death penalty can be carried out by the authorities" to "no death penalty ever." "Doctrinal development" is a euphemistic way of saying "Yeah, we changed that." That is changed doctrine. Not clarified doctrine. It is CHANGED. A 180 degree flip at times.
That's not God changing, that's men. Period. And yeah, 2 Timothy 3 teaches that that using the Bible and words of the Apostles are enough to complete the man of God.
Also, Gehinnom in Jewish teaching is what Catholics call purgatory.
Cardinal what? Maybe you better do a video on the cardinal virtues.
It has multiple times.
If the Catholicism of the early 20th century was to whatever extent void of faith, I'm not sure that the logical conclusion is that it was BECAUSE of a too elaborate expression/interpretation of said faith. Maybe it was rather due to historical events.
What’s the artist and song title of your intro?
Just a brief FYI, although this has likely been said, and I maybe missed it, but CS Lewis never became Catholic. Although many of his beliefs certainly are Catholic. Hopefully this is a help for anyone who could be confused accidentally and would happen to see this.
That's true. That's why I mentioned converts to "Christianity in general".
@@BrianHoldsworth Oh, yes you did. Thank you for the correction of my mistake. Thank you also for taking the time to point it out. So to follow up on my previous statement, I missed the part when Brian said "Christianity in general". Excellent episode!
Of course we have been on exile in post- Vatican ii counciliar era
This is your painting so of course you can go back to it and add to it however the doctrines the 66 books of the King James Bible are given to us we're blessed to have them nothing is supposed to be added or taken from it
How does the Pope's change of Our Father fit into this? I'd like to understand because to me it seems wrong to have done that...but again I am no theologian. Thanks.
He didn't change the Our Father, he updated the English translation of it.
In Spanish the translation of the Padre Nuestro (Our Father) is "no nos dejes caer en tentasion" which would directly translate to "do not let us fall into temptation". Seeing that the Pope is from Argentina it is easy to see why he would change it to that rather than keep it "do not lead us".
@@user-sx7wt6lw2c I don't know all the details, but I know he CHANGED it from its original meaning.
@@alexcervantes6399 The original prayer in Hebrew says do not lead us into temptation.
Spanish isn't one of the original Holy languages
@@sophieg8522 I never said it was, it the only one I'm familiar with though
Amazing
"So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom." (Story of Lazarus) He was not carried to purgatory. or "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Jesus to the thief on the cross) - Not I will see you in purgatory.. or "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also". Either you have been sanctified through the blood of the Cross or not. You can't be sort of sanctified. I am a Catholic but I am also a student of theology and philosophy. I am not persuaded that there is such a thing as purgatory; it just makes no sense and is certainly not Biblical. I think it was a very convenient way to siphon money out of people to pay for indulgences to stack the coffers of Rome.
If you were really Catholic and student of philosophy and theology and you are not or are really bad at the three things you claim to know. You would know that paying for indulgences were banned at the Council of Trent and were never official Catholic teaching and the teaching of purgatory goes back to the church fathers with no link to indulgences until the abuse briefly during the Middle Ages which were wrong and rectified now can you stop pretending to be Catholic and fix the health and wealth gospel that affects large swaths is Protestantism that you seemed to have ignored.
What does Paul say he explains how the very origin of anything in this world is pure and only by man's hand is it twisted and bastardized to profit themselves
I’m confused, was C.S. Lewis Catholic? I didn’t think he was.
Limbo is an example of a "doctrine" that did not age well
As a Christ follower, I don't need all the superfluous doctrine that the Catholic church has added. The scripture is enough.
Scripture disagrees.