Great explanation, Rev. Fr. Reginald Marie, OCD, and may God bless you both very much! ❤️🙏 Greetings from your Filipino brother in Christ from Davao City, Philippines! 🙏❤️👋👋👋🇵🇭🇸🇬🇻🇦✝️
At first, I read the "OCD" in your title as "on the spectrum," so to speak, so I was prepared for a brutally detailed rundown of your vestments. 🤭 Anyway, thank you. This was plenty detailed enough for me. ❤
For me "on the spectrum" means on the Autism spectrum. OCD in Psychiatry means obsessive compulsive. Which is a separate disorder entirely. You don't need to have OCD when on the spectrum and vice versa. The autism spectrum has neurological causes OCD is now believed to be caused to have neurological caused as well. Which I find confusing because I knew people who were cured who stopped having OCD. I don't have either. But I do feel it is important to understand what it is we are talking about as we tend to treat ppl according to our expectations.
Getting rid of the maniple was pointless. But getting rid of the amice was a huge mistake. Now we have to watch Roman collars sticking out of chasubles.
@beatricec9238 *Why? Bible does not teach Roman Mass (sacrificing Jesus on a Roman altar back to God). Bible teaches Communion/The Lord's Supper (commemorating Jesus' Coming till He comes).* you said You should make a video about the traditional Latin mass celebrated in Singapore 😊
@joekeegan937 *Romans 3:1-2 says Scriptures is of Jewish origins. Not Roman Catholic origins. Jews till this day holds OT 39 books. Not Roman religion’s OT 46 books. Scriptures is always correct. So clearly pointing to Roman religionists adding 7 books. Greek LXX was merely a translation of Original Hebrew OT. Original Hebrew OT did not contain Apocrypha 7 books. So why would a translation have Apocrypha 7 books? So clearly pointing to Roman religionists adding 7 books.* you said Romans 3 does not say how many books are in the Old Testament.
@beatricec9238 *Why? Bible does not teach Roman Mass (sacrificing Jesus on a Roman altar back to God). Bible teaches Communion/The Lord's Supper (commemorating Jesus' Coming till He comes).* you said You should make a video about the traditional Latin mass celebrated in Singapore 😊
@Xytryn *Eh ... false. Christian canon is based on Romans 3:1-2 - Hebrew Scriptures containing 39 books. Not on Roman canon which added 7 books. Luther was right to follow what the Scriptures say. Scriptures is infallible. Rome is not.*
you said But you know that Protestant canon is based on Catholic canon? Martin Luther just removed some books, and it spread further to Protestant communities. The canon of the Bible began creation in the Nicean Council and later continued in the Council of Carthage. By contesting the Catholic canon, you are also contesting Protestant canon
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.* you said Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew. @Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.* you said Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.* you said Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew. @Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.* you said Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.* you said Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew. @Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.* you said Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
Romans 3 does not say how many books are in the Old Testament. The Jewish scholars disagreed on how many books were part of what we call the Old Testament. The Catholic canon is taken in the first few centuries from the the Septuagint, which was used by Jews, although not by all. These books became to be adopted as Sacred Scripture over time, and the books excluded from protestant bibles were quoted often by the early Church Fathers. Indeed they are even referenced in the New Testament, for example Tobit is quoted in Revelation, 2 Macabees is quoted in 1 Corinthians.
@maxellton *Jesus and APostles did not use any vestments or priestly garments. They were in their usual daily attire. Shouldn't we emulate their examples?* Jesus and the Apostles wore simple clothing that was typical for their time. This included: Tunics: A woven tunic made from one piece of cloth. Men's tunics usually ended slightly below the knees. Sandals: Traditional sandals of the time. Mantles: A shawl or cloak that could be large or small, thick or fine, and colored or natural. Belts: A leather belt worn around the waist. Light cloaks: Worn in cool weather. Heavy cloaks: Worn in cold weather. you said Jesus and the Apostles also did not wear jeans and shirts. So your pastor is unbiblical because they wear jeans and shirts.
*Jesus and Apostles did not wear any “vestments”. Neither does NT Church have clergy priesthood. Bible says it’s already obsolete, Heb 7,9,10. So the clergies of Rome are unbiblical. The attires of Rome are unbiblical. So what’s biblical in Roman Catholic Church? 😅*
Scripture doesn’t prescribe a specific kind of dress for priests of the New Covenant, but does that mean there shouldn’t be one? It doesn’t forbid it, and as the priest in the video explains, these clothes took on meaning over time. They should remind all who see it to put on the “armor of God.” Each piece, and indeed the priest himself, should remind us to be humble, innocent, chaste, just, and gentle. That’s biblical.
@ *You totally do not sound intelligent. Bible says clergy priesthood was already obsolete. Heb 7,9,10. There was no clergy priesthood in NT Church. So why would there be “vestments” for priests? You are just demonstrating you do not read the Bible. 😆* @ *You are talkingns. Armour of God has nothing to Roman p priest or vestments. 😆*
@@maxellton *I am pretty sure you cannot read. NT CHurch of the bible was biblical. The latter deviations were unbiblical.* you said So, you are saying that the early church is already unbiblical.
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.* you said Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew. @Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.* you said Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
Friar Reginald was delightful, giving good practical and spiritual insight into each garment. His joy was awesome to see.
Great video
Great explanation, Rev. Fr. Reginald Marie, OCD, and may God bless you both very much! ❤️🙏
Greetings from your Filipino brother in Christ from Davao City, Philippines! 🙏❤️👋👋👋🇵🇭🇸🇬🇻🇦✝️
At first, I read the "OCD" in your title as "on the spectrum," so to speak, so I was prepared for a brutally detailed rundown of your vestments. 🤭 Anyway, thank you. This was plenty detailed enough for me. ❤
Guess the order’s abbreviation is an interesting conversation starter in today’s context!
So did I 😂😂😂
For me "on the spectrum" means on the Autism spectrum. OCD in Psychiatry means obsessive compulsive. Which is a separate disorder entirely. You don't need to have OCD when on the spectrum and vice versa. The autism spectrum has neurological causes
OCD is now believed to be caused to have neurological caused as well. Which I find confusing because I knew people who were cured who stopped having OCD.
I don't have either. But I do feel it is important to understand what it is we are talking about as we tend to treat ppl according to our expectations.
I was an aspirant of the OCD (Discalced Carmelites) and also was diagnosed with OCD🤣 funny irony
Thanks I wanted to learn this. God Bless you both 🙏 ❤️ 😊
God bless you
Thank you! God bless you too ❤️🔥
Getting rid of the maniple was pointless. But getting rid of the amice was a huge mistake. Now we have to watch Roman collars sticking out of chasubles.
The Stole for priests has to be worn crossed right over left during Holy Mass right? I thought only bishops wore it straight down during Mass
That's for Deacons and I think priests concelebrating
@ at least in the Traditional Latin Mass priests have to wear the stole crossed right side over the left. Idk if that’s the same with the novus ordo
You should make a video about the traditional Latin mass celebrated in Singapore 😊
@beatricec9238 *Why? Bible does not teach Roman Mass (sacrificing Jesus on a Roman altar back to God). Bible teaches Communion/The Lord's Supper (commemorating Jesus' Coming till He comes).*
you said
You should make a video about the traditional Latin mass celebrated in Singapore 😊
We’ve not been able to have filming access yet. But perhaps in the future? :)
@joekeegan937 *Romans 3:1-2 says Scriptures is of Jewish origins. Not Roman Catholic origins. Jews till this day holds OT 39 books. Not Roman religion’s OT 46 books. Scriptures is always correct. So clearly pointing to Roman religionists adding 7 books. Greek LXX was merely a translation of Original Hebrew OT. Original Hebrew OT did not contain Apocrypha 7 books. So why would a translation have Apocrypha 7 books? So clearly pointing to Roman religionists adding 7 books.*
you said
Romans 3 does not say how many books are in the Old Testament.
Singaporeans?
@beatricec9238 *Why? Bible does not teach Roman Mass (sacrificing Jesus on a Roman altar back to God). Bible teaches Communion/The Lord's Supper (commemorating Jesus' Coming till He comes).*
you said
You should make a video about the traditional Latin mass celebrated in Singapore 😊
@Xytryn *Eh ... false. Christian canon is based on Romans 3:1-2 - Hebrew Scriptures containing 39 books. Not on Roman canon which added 7 books. Luther was right to follow what the Scriptures say. Scriptures is infallible. Rome is not.*
you said
But you know that Protestant canon is based on Catholic canon? Martin Luther just removed some books, and it spread further to Protestant communities. The canon of the Bible began creation in the Nicean Council and later continued in the Council of Carthage. By contesting the Catholic canon, you are also contesting Protestant canon
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.*
you said
Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew.
@Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.*
you said
Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.*
you said
Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew.
@Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.*
you said
Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.*
you said
Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew.
@Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.*
you said
Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha
Romans 3 does not say how many books are in the Old Testament. The Jewish scholars disagreed on how many books were part of what we call the Old Testament. The Catholic canon is taken in the first few centuries from the the Septuagint, which was used by Jews, although not by all. These books became to be adopted as Sacred Scripture over time, and the books excluded from protestant bibles were quoted often by the early Church Fathers. Indeed they are even referenced in the New Testament, for example Tobit is quoted in Revelation, 2 Macabees is quoted in 1 Corinthians.
@maxellton *Jesus and APostles did not use any vestments or priestly garments. They were in their usual daily attire. Shouldn't we emulate their examples?*
Jesus and the Apostles wore simple clothing that was typical for their time. This included:
Tunics: A woven tunic made from one piece of cloth. Men's tunics usually ended slightly below the knees.
Sandals: Traditional sandals of the time.
Mantles: A shawl or cloak that could be large or small, thick or fine, and colored or natural.
Belts: A leather belt worn around the waist.
Light cloaks: Worn in cool weather.
Heavy cloaks: Worn in cold weather.
you said
Jesus and the Apostles also did not wear jeans and shirts. So your pastor is unbiblical because they wear jeans and shirts.
*Jesus and Apostles did not wear any “vestments”. Neither does NT Church have clergy priesthood. Bible says it’s already obsolete, Heb 7,9,10. So the clergies of Rome are unbiblical. The attires of Rome are unbiblical. So what’s biblical in Roman Catholic Church? 😅*
Scripture doesn’t prescribe a specific kind of dress for priests of the New Covenant, but does that mean there shouldn’t be one? It doesn’t forbid it, and as the priest in the video explains, these clothes took on meaning over time. They should remind all who see it to put on the “armor of God.” Each piece, and indeed the priest himself, should remind us to be humble, innocent, chaste, just, and gentle. That’s biblical.
@ *You totally do not sound intelligent. Bible says clergy priesthood was already obsolete. Heb 7,9,10. There was no clergy priesthood in NT Church. So why would there be “vestments” for priests? You are just demonstrating you do not read the Bible. 😆*
@ *You are talkingns. Armour of God has nothing to Roman p priest or vestments. 😆*
So, you are saying that the early church is already unbiblical.
Jesus and the Apostles also did not wear jeans and shirts. So your pastor is unbiblical because they wear jeans and shirts.
@@maxellton *I am pretty sure you cannot read. NT CHurch of the bible was biblical. The latter deviations were unbiblical.*
you said
So, you are saying that the early church is already unbiblical.
@Xytryn *Romans 3:1-2 does prove Christians have the correct number of Books. Jews till this day use OT 39 books. Not OT 46 books of Rome. Rome added 7 books. Original OT was written in Hebrews. Not Greek. Greek LXX was merely a translation of OT Hebrew. OT Hebrew did not contain Apo 7 books. So why would a Greek translation called LXX contain Apo 7 books. Rome clearly added those 7 books.*
you said
Romans 3:1-2 doesn't prove anything about the canon. In the times of Jesus, Jews had more books. Afterwards they removed books that were written in Greek instead of Hebrew.
@Xytryn *ROme was not Christian. Let alone "Christian traditions". Roman canon was just one of many local canons (fixed by a local council called Council of Rome). Local canons and local councils had zero authority. Only a Universal Canon via an Ecumenical Council fixed by bishops of all churches have authority. No such Ecumenical Council ever existed. Council of Rome was just a council of a local church called Church of Rome (in modern days you called yourself Roman Catholic Church). Local church did not have any authority making decision for the whole of CHristendom. Only the Church/Universal Church (referring to the sum of all local churches) have such authority.*
you said
Christian tradition uses canon, which was used during Jesus' lifetime. Who decided which books are canonical and which are not? Catholic Church did. There are plenty of books from that time which were not included in the canon, like apocrypha