What a scintillating broadcast! I thank the three of you! Your broadcasts have literally been changing my life, thought by thought. Dr. Ashenten, I too am a late life convert, from the Episcopal Church (USA). But before becoming Catholic, I spent about ten years in Biblical Protestant Churches. I wanted to understand the Bible. (The Episcopal Church taught only the Gospels as I was growing up. Only the Lord knows what they teach now!) I so identified with you, Dr. Ashenten, when you spoke about the overreach of the power of the Papacy. I didn't know that it was firmly codified in Vatican I. That is an interesting gem! I had been railing to myself (as I wouldn't subject anyone else to this) that I am not an absolute monarchist! Constitutional monarchy is as far as I can say is sane. In the Catholic Church, the Pope is an absolute monarch! I think that is insane! Notice I said, "I think." It's my current opinion based on what I have onserved the Pope do and what pwople have commented about it. The idea of having an unremovable Pope was an oversight of Vatican I, as you clearly pointed out Dr. Ashenten. Honestly, I didn't know that when I converted! No one deceived me. Who would say, 'and if we have a sinful Pope, we can't remove him'? So, now I know. Is it really true there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? Well, anyway, I am stuck here, for where else is there to go? Here there are the words of truth. Thank you three for such a thought provokimg broadcast! God bless you greatly! ✝️🛐💟🕯️🕊️🙏🏻💜🌹
A Pope can be removed by the Roman church because of heresy. Pope Innocent III talked of this. I'll quote it here: “... The Roman church can dismiss the Roman pontiff only because of fornication…not carnal, but spiritual fornication…this fornication is the sin of heresy…” Whoever does not believe is already condemned.” [he] ‘is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out,’ …put out of office…be excommunicated and shunned… Since the Roman Pontiff has no other lord than God, then who can throw him out or trample him underfoot, no matter how much he may lose his savor? …Nevertheless he should not mistakenly flatter himself… for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say, ‘less’ because he can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged if he clearly loses his savor to heresy.’ since he “who does not believe, is already judged.’ -Pope Innocent III, Sermons
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church… A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” -Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vial. lus Canonicum II, p. 453
“... lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place… We enact, determine, decree and define that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop… prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy… the promotion or elevation, even if it shall been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…” Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb 15 1559
Read the letter to the seven churches in the book of Revelation. There was no mandate from the Holy Spirit to leave those churches in though it was clear not all was well. Pray about that, think about. Also, read a lot more of Church history on periods of time where there were similar problems going on. This is nothings new.
In my quest to become an RE teacher, I did a degree in Theology back in 1983 where I was introduced to Liberation Theology. I was an Anglican at the time, but even then, I just sensed the subtle subterfuge that was Liberation Theology. Not a broadening and deepening of the Christian God’s love, meaning and purpose for all, but rather a shape-shifting, psychological manipulation of those tenets in order to justify the misuse of them. Liberation Theology came over to me as a camouflage for the Church’s use of extreme action, the kind of extreme action that Christ himself rejected, and that the end justified the means. I rejected the premise then and now as a Catholic, I am utterly bemused to see it at the heart of Vatican thinking. Who does the Pope think he is, Che Guevara in white?
As to the duplicity of the that particular theology, I recall Pope John Paul II chastising a skinny raggedly dressed priest who practised liberation theology. It occurred on the airport tarmac as the Pope disembarked. At the time I felt sorry for that priest. A few years later he was interviewed after having been defrocked. He was no longer thin and pitiful, but he was residing in great wealth, expensively dressed and not a trace of humility, but he was full of arrogance. Apparently, his poor liberation theology supporters ensured that he was living in affluence. All in the space of two years. I can't help but wonder is he wasn't siphoning off money while he was still in the Church. I was amazed at the total transformation he underwent, or rather the real self that popped out of him, in the end.
@@denisjackson8310 if you listen to the drawbacks of it, explained in the video, it's not Christ like at all. It excludes Christ and it excludes the individuals and their salvation. Relisten to the video to understand what it really is.
I was watching Robert Nugent's video this morning, apparently some priests in Ireland didn't even read the first reading on Sunday!! It was skipped (although I'm beyond being surprised at this point) One of the many reasons why I returned to the Tridentine Mass a few years ago (France) Not a huge fan of censoring the New Testament 😞 Thanks for your excellent discussion.
As a first-time listener, let me say that I deeply appreciate your excellent broadcast. Can't wait to hear the other 48! I live across the pond, and all the Catholc videos that UA-cam brings up are by American podcasters. You can be sure that I'll be recommending yours in the comments of all the videos I watch. BTW, in case you're not familiar with him, I highly recommend Timothy Gordon's podcasts. His views are based in Thomistic philosophy, and, of course, are completely orthodox. God bless you, and thank you for all you do.
I live across quite a few large ponds. And I agree that these videos are excellent. The content is balanced, not sensationalist, and the discussion is fair and open.
Guys, you're just marvelous. Really, i so like the way you think and express yourself, esp. Dr Ashendeen when he talk about communism. I am from ex-communist country and we had and still have a BIG problem with 'leftists'. All you said is very true and seems to me as you yourself lived under communist regime because you know it so well, 'deeply down the core'. Thank you and God bless you 🙏😇✝️
A thoroughly enjoyable discussion. Greetings from Canada, where we are blessed with temperatures of minus 20C this week. Regarding Vatican l and papal overreach, I was listening to a discussion with a Catholic priest (Fr. Murr, can be viewed on UA-cam) who explained a problem with that Council which is often overlooked. Apparently, the participants didn’t have sufficient time to finish their deliberations on papal infallibility because of Garibaldi’s march on Rome. Garibaldi was a member of a secret bricklayers’ society and was pleased to flex his muscle against the Church by disbanding the Council. Thus, the discussion was truncated and the Church implemented what had been formally agreed. Fr. Murr added that current events are showing that the discussion needs to be resumed. Fr. Murr’s talks are very interesting because as a young priest sent to Rome, he was placed with people very high up in the hierarchy, specifically senior clergy investigating improprieties as well as the infiltration of the Church. In effect, he received his information “from the horse’s mouth”. His discussion on the death of Pope John Paul I and the surrounding corruption, and the reactions of the Popes as they received the bad news from the investigator-Cardinal Édouard Gagnon, from Quebec-is fascinating.
This is true. The three men responsible for the unification of Italy were all atheists and Freemasons - King Victor Emanuel II, Count Cavour and Garibaldi. King Victor Emanuel II did endeavour to negotiate with Pope Pius IX a voluntary surrender of his territories, however, the Pope made it clear that he would resist. When the Royal Army commenced the bombardment of the City Wall, the Pope sent out the Swiss Guard and 29 of them were killed in action before the Pope finally ordered their surrender. He wished to make it clear that he had been deprived of his territories by force of arms and not by voluntary surrender. He refused to abdicate. When Mussolini became Prime Minister, he advised the King that his claim to the territories of the former States of the Church was dubious - he advised the King to negotiate a formal surrender of sovereignty of those territories by the Pope, in exchange for a huge sum of money by way of compensation for the loss of those territories and an acknowledgment that the Pope remained sovereign of the Vatican City State, as a token remnant of his former territories. Pope Pius XI decided to agree to this. The vast wealth of the Vatican does not, in the most part, derive from the gifts of the Faithful, but represents an endowment fund from the compensation paid by the Kingdom of Italy to the Pope for the loss of his former territories.
Utter papal supremacy goes back 1,000 years i'm afraid. Surely there's been plenty of time for Vatican I to have been polished off. The problem for the RC Church is that, according to Vatican I, Vatican II and the pre-Vatican II papal documents Catholics must accept with 'docility' ALL the teachings of the pope, not only ex-Cathedra. Even his off the cuff remarks and actions. That's why i'm going to Orthodoxy.
Papal infallibility is indeed ancient, it actually goes back to the founding of the Church. Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church. Dogmas NEVER introduce new doctrine, they serve to confirm the doctrine in question as having been held since the beginning. But it is incorrect to say that everything a Pope says must be held as true. I suggest that you read the definition provided by Vatican l, which defined the belief we must hold as having been the Church’s faith from the beginning. Also, why would you believe that the Orthodox faith is true if it is fallible? The Orthodox Church has its own problems. No, the problem in the Catholic Church is that our bishops have been failing the Church for many decades, probably 100 years as Dr. Ashenden mentions. Look at how they caved in to the State in the recent experiment and allowed churches to be closed and to deny communion to the dying. Not one stood up for the rights of the faithful or the unborn, at least not in this country. The same thing happened in England under Elizabeth l, at the time of Thomas Moore’s martyrdom. Bishops were forced by Elizabeth l to take a vow of obedience to the English monarch, in effect breaking their own vows at ordination. Only one English bishop refused and remained loyal to the Pope, and he was executed too: St. John Fisher. Jesus did not found 2 or more Churches. The Orthodox church appeared 1000 years after Christ. It has no Rock and is moored to the State (Greek, Russian, Bulgarian etc.). There are seventeen independent Orthodox churches.
@@simonaheppell5676 For the first thousand years, the Church did not recognise anything at all like the modern structure of the Catholic Church, with all administrative power centred in Rome. Today. Rome not only appoints (and removes) Bishops but also individual Parish Priests. Communication was far too slow in the early Church to make such centralised micro management from Rome possible. The Pope had a very clearly defined role - to “confirm the brethren” and to “bind and loose”. However, the teaching authority of the Church resided in the Bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council. Jesus said (to all of the Apostles together) “he who hears you hears me”. Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Emperor, not the Pope. Scripture says “the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ”. This predicts the conversion of the Roman Empire and of the Roman Emperor. The Christian Emperor (Basileus) was the Vicar of Christ on earth. Following an Ecumenical Council, called by the Emperor, the Bishop of Rome would “confirm the brethren” by giving formal approval to the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The difficulty with the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870 is that it was not defined by a majority of the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Many Bishops did not travel to Rome at all and many left early, because of the military situation. Many Bishops were outspoken in their rejection of the dogma - the Archbishop of Paris and many of the American Bishops. After the Council, the consensus was that the dogma was so dubious that it would never be invoked. Pope John XXIII confirmed specifically that he considered the dogma dubious and that he, himself, would never invoke it. So, if a Pope is ‘infallible” might not Pope John XXIII have been infallible when he repudiated the dogma and therefore revoked it? The fact is, the dogma has never been invoked and all Popes since 1870 have agreed, some openly, like John XXIII and some tacitly, that it would never be invoked. If the dogma was a sound one, why did Pope Pius XII write to every Bishop to obtain consent from them to define the dogma of the Assumption? If he had the power to define dogma infallibly on his own authority alone, why would obtaining the prior formal consent of every Bishop have been necessary? I am aware of the Ultramontanist arguments, but they are not supported by the historical facts.
@@marcokite Not a convincing argument - if you are saying that “utter Papal supremacy” was not recognised for the first thousand years of the history of the Church, such a doctrine, if it does now exist (which I do not think it does) would be very dubious indeed. In fact, “Papal Infallibility” only appeared as a concept in 1870 and has, since then, never actually been invoked. The personal opinions of the Pope are not dogmatic. For example, Pope Francis has changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to state that the death penalty is never permissible. This contradicts the teaching of Council of Trent, based on the teaching of Sacred Scripture. So, faithful Catholics must ignore the erroneous teaching introduced by Pope Francis into the Catechism. A Catholic Governor of a State in the USA which provides for the death penalty may sign a warrant of execution authorising the execution of the death penalty. He must ignore Pope Francis’s personal opinion and submit to the authority of the civil government, which has the authority of Sacred Scripture in legislating for the death penalty. Then, when Pope Francis says that he does not think that there is anyone in Hell (if it exists at all) we simply ignore this sort of rambling, heretical, statement, since he is inconvenienced in his ministry by having little knowledge of (and, possibly, also, little belief in) the teachings of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis, by his behaviour, has made himself a living example of how unnecessary, and even, how damaging, any concept of Papal Infallibility is in practice.
I have read A LOT of these sex magic type occult writers (Aleister Crowley was a sick man it's a shame how the entertainment culture idolized the man). Sex plays a large part in modern/new age occultism. It isn't just them though this is a common things ancient pagan religions/occult using sex for divination. This is the reason for many cults they had temple prostitutes. Also, if you read about Freemasonry OR Satanism at the upper-level sex is a key part of the beliefs. But so was it for Joseph Smith teachings ("God" being a man and having sex in heaven for each human born on earth a polygamist's dream) or Mohammads 70 virgins etc. It's a large part of the wickedness of the world and the Holy Spirit makes this very clear in the Scriptures. The book of Enoch holds a legend of this stemming from the falling angels themselves and this seems par in parcel of how demons seem to work to lead mankind astray.
Unfortunately, many Catholic Christians claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I really don't think this is accurate at all. I would guarantee that most, if not all, Traditionalists would consider the NO as being 'valid' (though they may dispute whether it clearly expresses the Catholic faith). Moreover, I've never heard any Traditionalist dent the validity of the Eastern liturgies that do not feature Latin.....
@Satsujink3n I know many people who do claim the Traditional Latin Mass is the only valid Mass sadly! Again, every Mass approved by Rome is valid! Hence the reason for the restriction, not it's ban! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 aye, the mercy of punishing the majority for the words of a tiny few. It wasn't a good look for secondary school teachers, and it certainly isn't a good look for the Church.
I investigated The Old Catholic Church when I was exploring the Catholic Church, a group who left at Vatican I sue to papal overreach. Whilst they might not have been right to leave they were right about Papal infallibility. I bet they feel vindicated.
Pope John XXIII did not believe in Papal Infallibility either - and he is now a Saint! The problem with the doctrine of “Papal Infallibility” is that it was invented in 1870 for a specific purpose. King Victor Emanuel II tried to negotiate with Pope Pius IX. If you will voluntarily surrender your territorial sovereignty over the States of the Church, I will permit you to remain as sovereign ruler of such part of the City of Rome as lies within the Leonine Walls (in fact, a much larger area than that of the present Vatican City State) and, in addition, I shall confirm you as Primate of All Italy and as the sole and undisputed teacher in respect of the Catholic Church in the new Kingdom of Italy. The Pope was incensed at this suggestion. How dare a civil ruler, a son of the Church presume to define my teaching authority? So, before his territories were finally annexed by force, he called the First Vatican Council, at which he intended to define his teaching authority himself, while he still could. Many of the Bishops, particularly those from the USA, appreciated that the proposed new dogma (unheard of in the history of the Church) was the result of the political pressures of the time, however, many did not travel to Rome to attend the Council because they were afraid that, if the City was encircled and there was a long siege, they might be trapped there. The Archbishop of Paris was the most outspoken opponent of the novel dogma. Nevertheless, with the few Italian Bishops, personally loyal to the Pope, who still remained at the end of the Council, the Pope did manage to force it through. It has never been used and, logically, it could never be used. It would only be necessary to use it if a Pope wished to introduce a new dogma which the Bishops would not accept. If they would accept it, then the Pope would simply do what Pope Pius XII did when he wished to define the dogma of the Assumption. He wrote to every Bishop and obtained his prior consent. So, there was no need to invoke the dogma of Papal Infallibility, since the Bishops confirmed the dogma. Could any Pope survive if he endeavoured to invoke the dogma of Papal Infallibility to override an objection by the Bishops? Would the Bishops submit? The African Bishops have made their position clear - if the Pope issues a Declaration with which they do not agree, they will ignore it. If he tried to “up the ante” by invoking the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I do not consider that this would alter their position at all. It is absolutely clear in the Tradition of the Church that neither a Pope, nor even a Council of the Church, can override any teaching which is specifically stated in the Sacred Scriptures. So, for example, the Pope has recently acknowledged that he does not, personally, believe in the existence of Hell, or, if there is a Hell, he believes that no one will ever actually end up there. However, I doubt if he would be foolish enough to try to define his own personal beliefs as a dogma, by invoking Papal Infallibility - the Faithful would simply ignore him and it would, very likely, be the end of the Papacy as an institution. We know, of course, that the Pope denies much of the Faith, however, he is, at present, humble enough to admit that his apostasy is purely personal and that he will not enforce his views on the Faithful. Let us hope that he continues to adopt this sensible approach.
@@Mark3ABEAs the Vatican has stated, those remarks were not what Francis said and were essentially the misrepresentations of Eugenio Scalfari, an avowed atheist journalist. Conveniently, there is no record of this conversation, as Scalfari does not record his conversations or take notes during them. The quotes were recalled later from memory. Trust whichever party you think is more reliable, I guess.
@@st.friendship After those remarks were attributed to the Pope by Scalfari, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the Pope to have simply announced that he never said that there was no literal Hell and that he firmly believes in the existence of a real Hell where the damned are consigned after death to eternal punishment. He did not state the true teaching of the Church because he almost certainly does not believe it.
It's time for Holy (Eastern) Orthodoxy - the problem for the RC Church is that, according to Vatican I, Vatican II and the pre-Vatican I papal documents Catholics must accept with 'docility' ALL the teachings of the pope, not only ex-Cathedra. Even his off the cuff remarks and actions.
Wouldn't be hugely surprised, but then again people probably thought the same thing when the reformation was splitting Christendom..... still..... wouldn't be surprised 😐
@@johnharkness6304 At the turn of the first millennium people thought the last days were at hand. They were upset by turning into the year 1000 (Y1k). And of course at the turning of the second millennium, people were upset about the computers and Y2k. Lol! I agree with you ... I wouldn't be surprised either. But I wouldn't go to a bookie to bet on it! 😉
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY No I wouldn't bet either Anne, in any case it would be hard to collect your winnings if the end of time came upon us 😆 In any case, I believe frequenting the Sacraments is the wisest way forward, Eucharist and Confession, regularly. Cheers
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY And by the way, I believe joining the Catholic Church was hugely wise, our beloved Church is currently being governed by very mediocre Bishops (and higher up!!) Having said that, I would have to be tortured and beaten out of the Catholic Church, I hope I would resist 😐
Do NOT buy Benedict XVI's 3 part life of Christ (Jesus of Nazareth). In it he states that Our Lord did NOT eat a fish after He rose again and appeared to his disciples. He basically says St Luke LIED (in his 'zeal'). How can any Catholic read such a book?
On the reading for Jan 14th (1 Cor 6), At my mass the particular reading uses the word immorality VS sexual immorality for 1 Cor 6:13 (partial)-15 (partial) (missing v 16) v17-20. They actually butcher the passage with these selective verses (even partial), mistranslating and not reading the context. The verse they left out combined with a poor translation into immorality instead of sexual immorality seem to INTEND to change the meaning. I looked at this in the Greek and it is CLEARY sexual immorality for the proper translation. Not I needed to do so to know the meaning if you read the entire passage in context but just to see if the translation is justifiable and it isn't even without the context of the entire passage. Now it gets worse. In my Pastor's homily he mentioned a few sins with NO mention of sexual sins. He also talked about the passage where Samual was hearing God speak to him and he went to Eli asking if it was him. He used the passage to convey the idea of listening to your conscience with no mention of a properly formed conscious. The only mention of the Word of God was only in the context of coming to Mass not reading yourself or reading the CCC. No warning not everything in your mind is from God and could even be evil or from evil spirits. This happened to me several month ago in another church as well where the daily readings took out key verses that completely changed the meaning of the passage. The priest then used it in his homily to push Pope Fracis's document on climate change.
Some of the worst post Vatican I theology deals with the extension of religious submission to papal teaching when given by extension through Roman congregations and institutional offices. It was one thing in the ancient Church to deal with papal legates. I can’t imagine Constantinople or Antioch would ever have submitted to a Roman congregations teaching authority.
It seems that Tucho Fernandez is probably just a pagan in a Cardinal's hat. As a budding older catholic, I find that Fernandez is making the basic mistake of putting the gratification of physical pleasure above the holiness of mind, which is where all the spiritual growth is. Those of us that have been, or are still in long term relationships, know that staying fixated on the initial thrill of sex, rather than developing and deepening this relationship. To use a driving analogy, its like permanently being stuck in 1st gear. Tucho's obsession with sex, shows that he either never really understood this, or has become stuck in his own egotistical world view to the exclusion of concentrating on Christ's teachings themselves.
Hello, just to make you notice that the link you provided (Dr Ashenden on Fernandez) does not directs to the right article. Thank you again for an interesting conversation.
I am by no means an intellectual, so from my position it seems that the Pope's biggest flaw is that he is a people pleaser, and only reacts strongly when challenged directly by some bishops because he is afraid.
The Pope cannot avoid death penalty He has not that power, as He cannot change the teachings of the Church. He is administrator not owner. He is only right if he publishes a Dogma of faith.
Fulton Sheen skewers Communism in a few lines in Treasure in Clay, chapter 7: “I read through the writings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Their philosophy can be summarized rather simply: man has been ‘alienated’ from his true nature in two ways-by religion and by private property. Man was alienated from himself by religion, because it made him subservient to God; man was alienated from himself by private property because it made him subject to an employer. If, therefore, man was ever to be restored to his true nature, religion and private property must be destroyed. Atheism and the economics of communism are inseparable.”
Why focus Catholics, when aiming to defend the truth, so easily on errors? Learning about suspected errors or suspected 'coups in the vatican' doesn't help me to move closer to the lord. It directs my attention away from God. Isn't God far better than simply being flawless? When I'm contemplating flaws I feel sundered from God. Doesn't conversion or remorse intend to turn away from the flawed and orientate towards the holy? Doesn't knowledge of the wrong only suffice for imperfect remorse? Shouldn't we do the next step and aim for the good? I found it great when you mentioned becoming holy as our vocation, in my view the most precious idea of this conversation. Yet it got not even a chapter title. I see no reason, to assume a pope could teach something misleading. The process of teaching includes two: The one who speaks and the one who listens and interprets the spoken. I know every papal teaching has to be concordial with revelation, scripture and tradition. That knowledge guides my interpretation. How could I possibly be mislead? How could our catholic community become mislead, if we support each other in exploring the truth? I like that process, because it helps me to grow beyond my current limitations. It's like puberty or a crisis in a relationship. It's painfully chaotic, but afterwards we are maturated.
Dr Ashenten. I agree with your thoughts on Francis. Whatever he is he definitely isn't Catholic. You mentioned your concerns with Vatican I. The Church does have a means to remove a Pope that falls into heresy. Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV and others talk of this. I will offer some quotes: “... The Roman church can dismiss the Roman pontiff only because of fornication…not carnal, but spiritual fornication…this fornication is the sin of heresy…” Whoever does not believe is already condemned.” [he] ‘is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out,’ …put out of office…be excommunicated and shunned… Since the Roman Pontiff has no other lord than God, then who can throw him out or trample him underfoot, no matter how much he may lose his savor? …Nevertheless he should not mistakenly flatter himself… for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say, ‘less’ because he can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged if he clearly loses his savor to heresy.’ since he “who does not believe, is already judged.’ -Pope Innocent III, Sermons
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church… A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” -Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vial. lus Canonicum II, p. 453
“... lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place… We enact, determine, decree and define that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop… prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy… the promotion or elevation, even if it shall been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…” Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb 15 1559
Another idea is that Pope Francis doesn't at this time point out the mistakes persons are making - and Communism makes a very long list of mistakes - but concentrates on what is positive, and what there is in common, no matter how small that positive is.
Yeah, sure, Communism is positive, until the guns come out!! There has never been a Communist nation that didn't quickly turn into murderous tyranny. In 1970 the college students were all agog over Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I saw it in the windows of every bookstore near campus (I went to Boston University.) Students prominently carried that book to show how hip their intellect was. 1970 and after. In China, in 1970 and after, Mao was murdering millions of his citizens. Just like Stalin murdered millions of Russians a generation before. Yeah, sure, Communism is positive, at first blush.
The fatal, foundational error of modern Catholicism was fixed in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, so as to oppose the analysis of the American philosopher Henry George. Following standard institutional Catholic chameleon-like merger, this "infallible" edict endorsed private human property in land (as distinct from products of labour or means of exchange) and made the "church" (amongst others) "rich". Yet the land (including in its wider sense of renewable & non-renewable natural resources, waters, wavelengths, airspace, flight paths, satellite orbits) was not made by humanity; rather, it expressly belongs to the Lord [Lev.25:23], and trading it for ever is forbidden. Despite God's clear & sensible will, across the globe, military, political & financial elites have privatized the land, imposing private monopoly over patches and holding other folks at bay, forcing them into penury, wage-slavery and being mere tenants to landlords & dependents on welfare. In this sense, property in land, and especially private pocketing of its natural & community-created value, is theft from the Creator. This brutal human-fabricated system ditched the divinely-inspired Mosaic land-laws in Lev.25, which was geared to a simple agricultural world and (quite properly) allowed private tenure of cadastral lots but only for a term of years. In the modern industrial, commercial & communicative global world, this approach will still work (and will permit freehold tenure & devise of land by will to continue, with no forced nationalization & resettlement) so long as the market-set annual rental-value of all sites privately occupied (including by government agencies) is collected as the sole source of government revenue. This is all that is socialized. This approach would end all forms of taxation (these being artificial imposts on labour & transactions), force government to live within its budget, prevent large land agglomerations, give access to land unto every man willing to work with hand or brain, put labour in a strong bargaining position against capital, bring land transfer prices to nil (plus value of site improvements), enable every man to "live under own fig tree" (whilst retaining the benefit of modern industry & communications), remove the rich-poor gap and generally so simplify & beatify human existence on our planet that, within a generation, we would indwell Christ's kingdom. This entire economic-commercial-governmental edifice, spawned over the past 4000 years as Babylon the Great, will be destroyed "in one hour", as Rev. 18 tells us four times (we have been warned!) -- probably when multifold interconnected investments in fiat-currency financial derivatives are suddenly called to account and the entire house of cards falls down on the spot.
Wow! I am going to have to study this to get a better understanding of what you wrote. But from just what I do understand, this is a marvelous proposal. It would take God's help to make it happen. But if a lot of people prayed ... Thank you so much for this post
What a extrem interesting Text. I am german and have some difficulties to understand the Text, BUT I understood the main Intention very well. I am searching on this topc sins 40 years, sins I visited first time Kolkata, India and was shocked about the extrem poverty. As a women of corse it broke my heart, to see children die from hunger. The Land around Kolkata was full of extrem poor villages, but dominated by extrem corrupt landlords. Coming back to Germany, I tried to help at least a catholic orphanage from Mother Teresa near Kolkata but also studied theology, because I tried to understand, what JESUS and the Old and New Testament tells us, how to overcome such massiv unjust political system, which produce such massiv starvation of inocent people. But all studies at the theological Seminars in Berlin could not give me any answer. Then I discovered, that this theological Professors did Analysen the BIBLE from rich Western Perspektive. But in my mind Was always the real powerty of my friends and adopted children in India. Suddenly, 2016, almost 26 years after my beginning of the Theology stidies, I had an Inspiration, to get my CONCORDANC to the BIBLE and search for the Word: COMPASSION or CHARTY and then for the word: JUSTIC And what was the result? There was about 60 hints for the theme COMPASSION, but more than over 600 hints for the theme JUSTIC. WOW. That Was eccatly, what I was always thinking, but I could not find a prove before, that the hole BIBLE must have been missused by our clergy sins more then 2000 years I guess. We have the prove for this missinterpretation of the Bible. We celebrate every year after Eastern the Sunday of Mercy. According to the BIBLE is the relationship between Mercy or Compassion and Justis about 1 to 11 for JUSTIC. SO, if we would celebrate our catholic year according to the will of the BIBLE, then we should also celebrate every year 11 sundays of Justic. Why this is not happen? How can it be, that the relationship between COMPASSION and JUSTIS in the BIBLE is 1 to 11, but we dont celebrate not even ONE SUNDAY OF JUSTIC. What ever justic might mean ans in wgat way this 11 days should be celebrated. I go so far to think, that this massiv missuse of the BIBLE is relaxed to the massiv sexuall abuse within the catholic church. I can only wish, you all world also go to get the CONCORDANCE to the BIBLE and to seach unter the Theme COMPASSION and JUSTIC. By the way, its interesting, to find out, thar this themes was already in the so called Old Testament discussed. Specially the Subjekt JUSTIC. Anslysing from the Perspectiv of extrem poverty in India, I often wondered, how could the Mother of JESUS talk in HER Magnificat about poor and rich people? In India you dont find any God or Godess, who would talk openly about rich and poor people. This theme is simply not existing in Hinduismus and also not in Buddhismus. How could it be, that this very young jewish women could talk about overcome poverty and to put rich people down? I felt and stiĺ feel, she must have been a young women with a clear Vision for removing unjust out of her society. It is not any more surprising for me, that almost no one in the catholic church worldwide respect the will of the Mother of JESUS, to see more justice between poor and rich. She was a women from the specific JEWISH COMMUNION. We should hang on all Statues of Mary a jewish Star. That could help us, to remember our own jewish Heritage. About communism and Pope Francis: I think, we should respect at least his good Intention, to overcome poverty. I guess, this is his reason, to try to cooerate with communists. But I am afraid, he does not read the BIBLE, the way I do it. Otherwise, he would not need the communist for getting newinspirations, but could explane to them, why they failed on and on, with so brutal consequences in Russia, China and many other countries. His Idea for having a GLOBAL EDUCATION PACT of a GLOBAL VILLAGE seems to me quite good. The themes of such GLOBAL EDUCATION PACT could be thought directly on 11 Sundays in every catholic Parish. Then there would be a balance between Mercy or Compassion and JUSTIC, according to the Bible. In this sunday Seminars could have been thought all about, that the commentator dwspain was talking about. And maybe even more. I hope, you could understand my bit brocken english. Hope, I could help, to find a new perspektive to our own grait herritage and specially to our Mother Mary. GOD BLESS ALL OF US!!!
If you like to know more about Kolkata and the struggle of the poor, then you can get the Book: CITY OF JOY, written by Dominic Lapiere. I can explane you also in shorts, why Mother Teresa had such an spiritual darkness for soo many years. I work sins 40 years with her orphans and experienced her horrible way of bringen up more than 200 children. This Boys Was treated like children in old catholic Orphan homes in Irland and many other places, including massiv violence. All this was happen, because Mother Teresa did not had a concept for sustainible Development for her Boys, but was spiritually guided in a very limited way by jesuits priests. Boys them self told me: "Mother Teresa and the catholic church has cut of our wings to fly," That is extrem scaring for Boys, wgo lost there hole familybackground and has to bring up them self alone. The reason for all this limitations in bringen up the poorest of the poor catholic lies in the misinterpreding of the BIBLE. We still practis ONE to SIRO but the BIBLE its self demand from us ONE to ELEVEN. The BAD News is: We have to go through the EYE LF THE NEEDLE. Specially in rich countries. The GOOD News is: GOD WILL BE AT OUR SIDE, WILE GOING THROUGH. and I am sure, also OUR MOTHER MARY WILL BE AT OUR SIDE. AND THE EVEN BETTER NEWS IS: JESUS PROMISE US, THAT WE WILL BECOME A NEW LIFE FROM HIM. LETS AT LEAST TRY. GOD BLESS ALL OF US !!! And let us pray for our Pope in this Intention.
Thanks to dwspain for the Name of HENRY GEORGE !!! I did not knew him, but I am researching now more. Just to say: If the catholic church in New York would have acted according to the BIBLE, than there would not had been sooo much poverty in New York during the time, Henry Geroge visited the City. Same thing happend also in Kolkata. I live there from 1980 on. I was not surprised, that Mother Teresa left her well organised convent, to help the starving people in the streets of Kolkata. I was much more surprised, that the catholic Bishop and so many catholic priests DID NOT WENT OUT TO THE STARVING PEOPLE in Kolkata. Mother Teresa did not need a 2. Call from GOD, to go to the starving people. The need to go is 2000 and more years old. Its all writen in the BIBLE. But we need god education to start this kind of work. Otherwise, we can make many mistakes and can even do harm the poor. There for we need in fact a GLOBAL EDUCATION, as Pope Francis wants it also. It can be organised through INFORMAL EDUCATION. No need to go to theological Seminars and Universities. Professors can even do more harm, then good, if they have no experiences in Praxis. But all this has go be organised now. That will help us, to come over this debates about sexuality in the catholic church.
The enemies of ☧ are seizing upon controversies within the church to promote schism -- but they need to understand --> Mathew 16:18 Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will found my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
I love the magisterium, and I hold anyway that the pope can act alone and be infallible. But I would think that some of his documents don't necessarily reach or are intended to reach the level of infallible teaching. (Most of his writing isn't doctrinal anyway, it seems to me.)
I have a minimalist notion of papal infallibility. Go back in history and count the number of papal statements that count as infallible. All are corollary to previously and long standing doctrine. In general, it works somewhat like geometry, We start with things elementary, then postulates, then theorems, and then corollaries, In care one forgets, there are different ways of development. Different geometries, BUT all have this in common, as Father Aristotle tells us, consistency is the test, The law of noncontradiction must prevail. The first book I head about Francis was an interview of him which my daughter brought me soon after his election. What struck me as I read was the vagueness of so many of his answers. Just caution? No, I mean an ambivalence that was characteristic of his thinking. I thought of Talleyrand’s quip: the purpose of language is to conceal one’s thought about a subject. Not yes or no, but yes and no. How utterly different from the clarity of the minds of John Paul and Benedict’s. If one does not understand what they say, it is the sluggishness of one’s mind. As in the case of those who failed to understand John Henry Newman and required him to write his “Apologia”. But Francis is always the Jesuit in the worse sense of the word. The type skewered by Pascal. Through the centuries, the Cardinals had alway refused to elect a Jesuit. Now we see why?
@@denisjackson8310 Well, the word 'law' means different things in different contexts. The Hebrew Law is still valid, is given by God. We couldn't live up to the law, we are freed from it by grace, which gives us strength to fulfill the law and more. But the Magisterium is more about the way we know what is true or not true. In the Church there are three sources of truth: the Scriptures; Tradition of what the successors of Peter and the Apostles did and taught; and the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church).
@@DrGAshenden I'm reading the replies and the last thing I see in this comment section is God... Only vitriol against the Holy Father and the Church...
I was very happy when I heard you converted... Sad to see you're taking the radtrad pill... What's the use of becoming Catholic if you end up a Protestant in all but name?
There is another reason that's possible for Pope Francis' actions: if it's the end of time, his actions would match those of Jesus at the end of Jesus' earthly life. (I'm beating this dead horse.) At the end of Jesus' earthly life, out of love even for his enemies, he poured himself out. So Pope Francis is acting on love of one's enemies, and pouring out the life of the church on the world, even on its enemies.
@@mrbaker7443 Thank you! I am glad there is an explanation!! I appreciate your help. Emulating is reasonable. Now, tbh, I find his emulating JC not working for me. But that poster holds that opinion. So be it. That poster has a right to an opinion. So other than what I have just said, I will shut up, lol! I wish that poster well. And Mr. Baker, I thank you kindly for your intervention. ✝️
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY The danger of saying that was the identification of Jesus and Pope Francis - I meant that the pope is acting like Jesus did at the very end of his life, maybe.
May God assist your important work for the church in these dark days…
Thank you . Bless you.
Our SSPX Latin Mass was packed last Sunday!
What institution hasn't been infiltrated by them? Government, education, religion. Every center of power. Decades in the making.
This is so scary. Thank you for your bravery to post this. God bless you all.
It is scary that this minority view has even got an audience . It’s very sad and divisive .
Scary? Your faith is failing you. Well, your faith in nothingness (matter) over the eternal is strong. You have eyes to see, but you do not see.
Jesus loves you
Excellent discussion. So spot on.
What a scintillating broadcast! I thank the three of you! Your broadcasts have literally been changing my life, thought by thought.
Dr. Ashenten, I too am a late life convert, from the Episcopal Church (USA). But before becoming Catholic, I spent about ten years in Biblical Protestant Churches. I wanted to understand the Bible. (The Episcopal Church taught only the Gospels as I was growing up. Only the Lord knows what they teach now!)
I so identified with you, Dr. Ashenten, when you spoke about the overreach of the power of the Papacy. I didn't know that it was firmly codified in Vatican I. That is an interesting gem!
I had been railing to myself (as I wouldn't subject anyone else to this) that I am not an absolute monarchist! Constitutional monarchy is as far as I can say is sane. In the Catholic Church, the Pope is an absolute monarch! I think that is insane!
Notice I said, "I think." It's my current opinion based on what I have onserved the Pope do and what pwople have commented about it.
The idea of having an unremovable Pope was an oversight of Vatican I, as you clearly pointed out Dr. Ashenten.
Honestly, I didn't know that when I converted! No one deceived me. Who would say, 'and if we have a sinful Pope, we can't remove him'?
So, now I know.
Is it really true there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? Well, anyway, I am stuck here, for where else is there to go? Here there are the words of truth.
Thank you three for such a thought provokimg broadcast! God bless you greatly!
✝️🛐💟🕯️🕊️🙏🏻💜🌹
Thank you . Great to meet you here.
A Pope can be removed by the Roman church because of heresy. Pope Innocent III talked of this. I'll quote it here:
“... The Roman church can dismiss the Roman pontiff only because of fornication…not carnal, but spiritual fornication…this fornication is the sin of heresy…” Whoever does not believe is already condemned.” [he] ‘is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out,’ …put out of office…be excommunicated and shunned… Since the Roman Pontiff has no other lord than God, then who can throw him out or trample him underfoot, no matter how much he may lose his savor? …Nevertheless he should not mistakenly flatter himself… for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say, ‘less’ because he can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged if he clearly loses his savor to heresy.’ since he “who does not believe, is already judged.’ -Pope Innocent III, Sermons
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church… A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” -Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vial. lus Canonicum II, p. 453
“... lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place… We enact, determine, decree and define that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop… prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy… the promotion or elevation, even if it shall been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…” Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb 15 1559
Read the letter to the seven churches in the book of Revelation. There was no mandate from the Holy Spirit to leave those churches in though it was clear not all was well. Pray about that, think about. Also, read a lot more of Church history on periods of time where there were similar problems going on. This is nothings new.
In my quest to become an RE teacher, I did a degree in Theology back in 1983 where I was introduced to Liberation Theology.
I was an Anglican at the time, but even then, I just sensed the subtle subterfuge that was Liberation Theology. Not a broadening and deepening of the Christian God’s love, meaning and purpose for all, but rather a shape-shifting, psychological manipulation of those tenets in order to justify the misuse of them. Liberation Theology came over to me as a camouflage for the Church’s use of extreme action, the kind of extreme action that Christ himself rejected, and that the end justified the means.
I rejected the premise then and now as a Catholic, I am utterly bemused to see it at the heart of Vatican thinking. Who does the Pope think he is, Che Guevara in white?
As to the duplicity of the that particular theology, I recall Pope John Paul II chastising a skinny raggedly dressed priest who practised liberation theology. It occurred on the airport tarmac as the Pope disembarked. At the time I felt sorry for that priest. A few years later he was interviewed after having been defrocked. He was no longer thin and pitiful, but he was residing in great wealth, expensively dressed and not a trace of humility, but he was full of arrogance. Apparently, his poor liberation theology supporters ensured that he was living in affluence. All in the space of two years. I can't help but wonder is he wasn't siphoning off money while he was still in the Church. I was amazed at the total transformation he underwent, or rather the real self that popped out of him, in the end.
@@yj7598 Wow! That is such a valuable observation! Sounds like the defrocked priest had a lot in common with Judas! Thanks for relating this.
I think you’ve misunderstood Lib Theology, even after your studies . Don’t you think the underlying preferential option for the poor is Christlike ?
@@denisjackson8310 if you listen to the drawbacks of it, explained in the video, it's not Christ like at all. It excludes Christ and it excludes the individuals and their salvation. Relisten to the video to understand what it really is.
@@yj7598 are you talking about Ernesto Cardenal ?
I was watching Robert Nugent's video this morning, apparently some priests in Ireland didn't even read the first reading on Sunday!! It was skipped (although I'm beyond being surprised at this point) One of the many reasons why I returned to the Tridentine Mass a few years ago (France) Not a huge fan of censoring the New Testament 😞 Thanks for your excellent discussion.
As a first-time listener, let me say that I deeply appreciate your excellent broadcast. Can't wait to hear the other 48!
I live across the pond, and all the Catholc videos that UA-cam brings up are by American podcasters. You can be sure that I'll be recommending yours in the comments of all the videos I watch.
BTW, in case you're not familiar with him, I highly recommend Timothy Gordon's podcasts. His views are based in Thomistic philosophy, and, of course, are completely orthodox.
God bless you, and thank you for all you do.
I live across quite a few large ponds. And I agree that these videos are excellent. The content is balanced, not sensationalist, and the discussion is fair and open.
So glad to hear you 3 again. I listen to you individually too. Thank you all for your valuable ministry.
Very grateful indeed. Thank you.
Thank you!
Guys, you're just marvelous. Really, i so like the way you think and express yourself, esp. Dr Ashendeen when he talk about communism. I am from ex-communist country and we had and still have a BIG problem with 'leftists'. All you said is very true and seems to me as you yourself lived under communist regime because you know it so well, 'deeply down the core'. Thank you and God bless you 🙏😇✝️
Thanks for watching!
A thoroughly enjoyable discussion. Greetings from Canada, where we are blessed with temperatures of minus 20C this week.
Regarding Vatican l and papal overreach, I was listening to a discussion with a Catholic priest (Fr. Murr, can be viewed on UA-cam) who explained a problem with that Council which is often overlooked. Apparently, the participants didn’t have sufficient time to finish their deliberations on papal infallibility because of Garibaldi’s march on Rome. Garibaldi was a member of a secret bricklayers’ society and was pleased to flex his muscle against the Church by disbanding the Council. Thus, the discussion was truncated and the Church implemented what had been formally agreed. Fr. Murr added that current events are showing that the discussion needs to be resumed.
Fr. Murr’s talks are very interesting because as a young priest sent to Rome, he was placed with people very high up in the hierarchy, specifically senior clergy investigating improprieties as well as the infiltration of the Church. In effect, he received his information “from the horse’s mouth”. His discussion on the death of Pope John Paul I and the surrounding corruption, and the reactions of the Popes as they received the bad news from the investigator-Cardinal Édouard Gagnon, from Quebec-is fascinating.
This is true. The three men responsible for the unification of Italy were all atheists and Freemasons - King Victor Emanuel II, Count Cavour and Garibaldi. King Victor Emanuel II did endeavour to negotiate with Pope Pius IX a voluntary surrender of his territories, however, the Pope made it clear that he would resist. When the Royal Army commenced the bombardment of the City Wall, the Pope sent out the Swiss Guard and 29 of them were killed in action before the Pope finally ordered their surrender. He wished to make it clear that he had been deprived of his territories by force of arms and not by voluntary surrender. He refused to abdicate. When Mussolini became Prime Minister, he advised the King that his claim to the territories of the former States of the Church was dubious - he advised the King to negotiate a formal surrender of sovereignty of those territories by the Pope, in exchange for a huge sum of money by way of compensation for the loss of those territories and an acknowledgment that the Pope remained sovereign of the Vatican City State, as a token remnant of his former territories. Pope Pius XI decided to agree to this. The vast wealth of the Vatican does not, in the most part, derive from the gifts of the Faithful, but represents an endowment fund from the compensation paid by the Kingdom of Italy to the Pope for the loss of his former territories.
Utter papal supremacy goes back 1,000 years i'm afraid. Surely there's been plenty of time for Vatican I to have been polished off. The problem for the RC Church is that, according to Vatican I, Vatican II and the pre-Vatican II papal documents Catholics must accept with 'docility' ALL the teachings of the pope, not only ex-Cathedra. Even his off the cuff remarks and actions. That's why i'm going to Orthodoxy.
Papal infallibility is indeed ancient, it actually goes back to the founding of the Church. Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church. Dogmas NEVER introduce new doctrine, they serve to confirm the doctrine in question as having been held since the beginning. But it is incorrect to say that everything a Pope says must be held as true. I suggest that you read the definition provided by Vatican l, which defined the belief we must hold as having been the Church’s faith from the beginning. Also, why would you believe that the Orthodox faith is true if it is fallible? The Orthodox Church has its own problems.
No, the problem in the Catholic Church is that our bishops have been failing the Church for many decades, probably 100 years as Dr. Ashenden mentions. Look at how they caved in to the State in the recent experiment and allowed churches to be closed and to deny communion to the dying. Not one stood up for the rights of the faithful or the unborn, at least not in this country. The same thing happened in England under Elizabeth l, at the time of Thomas Moore’s martyrdom. Bishops were forced by Elizabeth l to take a vow of obedience to the English monarch, in effect breaking their own vows at ordination. Only one English bishop refused and remained loyal to the Pope, and he was executed too: St. John Fisher.
Jesus did not found 2 or more Churches. The Orthodox church appeared 1000 years after Christ. It has no Rock and is moored to the State (Greek, Russian, Bulgarian etc.). There are seventeen independent Orthodox churches.
@@simonaheppell5676 For the first thousand years, the Church did not recognise anything at all like the modern structure of the Catholic Church, with all administrative power centred in Rome. Today. Rome not only appoints (and removes) Bishops but also individual Parish Priests. Communication was far too slow in the early Church to make such centralised micro management from Rome possible. The Pope had a very clearly defined role - to “confirm the brethren” and to “bind and loose”. However, the teaching authority of the Church resided in the Bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council. Jesus said (to all of the Apostles together) “he who hears you hears me”. Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Emperor, not the Pope. Scripture says “the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ”. This predicts the conversion of the Roman Empire and of the Roman Emperor. The Christian Emperor (Basileus) was the Vicar of Christ on earth. Following an Ecumenical Council, called by the Emperor, the Bishop of Rome would “confirm the brethren” by giving formal approval to the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The difficulty with the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870 is that it was not defined by a majority of the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Many Bishops did not travel to Rome at all and many left early, because of the military situation. Many Bishops were outspoken in their rejection of the dogma - the Archbishop of Paris and many of the American Bishops. After the Council, the consensus was that the dogma was so dubious that it would never be invoked. Pope John XXIII confirmed specifically that he considered the dogma dubious and that he, himself, would never invoke it. So, if a Pope is ‘infallible” might not Pope John XXIII have been infallible when he repudiated the dogma and therefore revoked it? The fact is, the dogma has never been invoked and all Popes since 1870 have agreed, some openly, like John XXIII and some tacitly, that it would never be invoked. If the dogma was a sound one, why did Pope Pius XII write to every Bishop to obtain consent from them to define the dogma of the Assumption? If he had the power to define dogma infallibly on his own authority alone, why would obtaining the prior formal consent of every Bishop have been necessary? I am aware of the Ultramontanist arguments, but they are not supported by the historical facts.
@@marcokite Not a convincing argument - if you are saying that “utter Papal supremacy” was not recognised for the first thousand years of the history of the Church, such a doctrine, if it does now exist (which I do not think it does) would be very dubious indeed. In fact, “Papal Infallibility” only appeared as a concept in 1870 and has, since then, never actually been invoked. The personal opinions of the Pope are not dogmatic. For example, Pope Francis has changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to state that the death penalty is never permissible. This contradicts the teaching of Council of Trent, based on the teaching of Sacred Scripture. So, faithful Catholics must ignore the erroneous teaching introduced by Pope Francis into the Catechism. A Catholic Governor of a State in the USA which provides for the death penalty may sign a warrant of execution authorising the execution of the death penalty. He must ignore Pope Francis’s personal opinion and submit to the authority of the civil government, which has the authority of Sacred Scripture in legislating for the death penalty. Then, when Pope Francis says that he does not think that there is anyone in Hell (if it exists at all) we simply ignore this sort of rambling, heretical, statement, since he is inconvenienced in his ministry by having little knowledge of (and, possibly, also, little belief in) the teachings of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis, by his behaviour, has made himself a living example of how unnecessary, and even, how damaging, any concept of Papal Infallibility is in practice.
Thank you Dr Ashenden for your specifically excellent comments.
How well put was Dr Ashenden's final point. Thank you.
I am so grateful to have found this channel. So helpful.
I have read A LOT of these sex magic type occult writers (Aleister Crowley was a sick man it's a shame how the entertainment culture idolized the man). Sex plays a large part in modern/new age occultism. It isn't just them though this is a common things ancient pagan religions/occult using sex for divination. This is the reason for many cults they had temple prostitutes. Also, if you read about Freemasonry OR Satanism at the upper-level sex is a key part of the beliefs. But so was it for Joseph Smith teachings ("God" being a man and having sex in heaven for each human born on earth a polygamist's dream) or Mohammads 70 virgins etc. It's a large part of the wickedness of the world and the Holy Spirit makes this very clear in the Scriptures. The book of Enoch holds a legend of this stemming from the falling angels themselves and this seems par in parcel of how demons seem to work to lead mankind astray.
Excellent podcast. Praying for the integrity of our Pope and his Office.
My eyebrow raised like Marks at the “ he’s not stupid “ part.
Unfortunately, many Catholic Christians claim the Latin Mass is the only valid Mass, which of course would then exclude the Last Supper, also not said in Latin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I really don't think this is accurate at all. I would guarantee that most, if not all, Traditionalists would consider the NO as being 'valid' (though they may dispute whether it clearly expresses the Catholic faith). Moreover, I've never heard any Traditionalist dent the validity of the Eastern liturgies that do not feature Latin.....
@Satsujink3n I know many people who do claim the Traditional Latin Mass is the only valid Mass sadly! Again, every Mass approved by Rome is valid! Hence the reason for the restriction, not it's ban! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I@@Satsujink3ni’ve Heard many trads utubers put down novus ordo
@@antoinelemoine3036 yes, but 'putting down' isn't necessarily the same thing as questioning it's validity
@@matthewbroderick6287 aye, the mercy of punishing the majority for the words of a tiny few. It wasn't a good look for secondary school teachers, and it certainly isn't a good look for the Church.
I investigated The Old Catholic Church when I was exploring the Catholic Church, a group who left at Vatican I sue to papal overreach. Whilst they might not have been right to leave they were right about Papal infallibility. I bet they feel vindicated.
Pope John XXIII did not believe in Papal Infallibility either - and he is now a Saint! The problem with the doctrine of “Papal Infallibility” is that it was invented in 1870 for a specific purpose. King Victor Emanuel II tried to negotiate with Pope Pius IX. If you will voluntarily surrender your territorial sovereignty over the States of the Church, I will permit you to remain as sovereign ruler of such part of the City of Rome as lies within the Leonine Walls (in fact, a much larger area than that of the present Vatican City State) and, in addition, I shall confirm you as Primate of All Italy and as the sole and undisputed teacher in respect of the Catholic Church in the new Kingdom of Italy. The Pope was incensed at this suggestion. How dare a civil ruler, a son of the Church presume to define my teaching authority? So, before his territories were finally annexed by force, he called the First Vatican Council, at which he intended to define his teaching authority himself, while he still could. Many of the Bishops, particularly those from the USA, appreciated that the proposed new dogma (unheard of in the history of the Church) was the result of the political pressures of the time, however, many did not travel to Rome to attend the Council because they were afraid that, if the City was encircled and there was a long siege, they might be trapped there. The Archbishop of Paris was the most outspoken opponent of the novel dogma. Nevertheless, with the few Italian Bishops, personally loyal to the Pope, who still remained at the end of the Council, the Pope did manage to force it through. It has never been used and, logically, it could never be used. It would only be necessary to use it if a Pope wished to introduce a new dogma which the Bishops would not accept. If they would accept it, then the Pope would simply do what Pope Pius XII did when he wished to define the dogma of the Assumption. He wrote to every Bishop and obtained his prior consent. So, there was no need to invoke the dogma of Papal Infallibility, since the Bishops confirmed the dogma. Could any Pope survive if he endeavoured to invoke the dogma of Papal Infallibility to override an objection by the Bishops? Would the Bishops submit? The African Bishops have made their position clear - if the Pope issues a Declaration with which they do not agree, they will ignore it. If he tried to “up the ante” by invoking the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I do not consider that this would alter their position at all. It is absolutely clear in the Tradition of the Church that neither a Pope, nor even a Council of the Church, can override any teaching which is specifically stated in the Sacred Scriptures. So, for example, the Pope has recently acknowledged that he does not, personally, believe in the existence of Hell, or, if there is a Hell, he believes that no one will ever actually end up there. However, I doubt if he would be foolish enough to try to define his own personal beliefs as a dogma, by invoking Papal Infallibility - the Faithful would simply ignore him and it would, very likely, be the end of the Papacy as an institution. We know, of course, that the Pope denies much of the Faith, however, he is, at present, humble enough to admit that his apostasy is purely personal and that he will not enforce his views on the Faithful. Let us hope that he continues to adopt this sensible approach.
@@Mark3ABEAs the Vatican has stated, those remarks were not what Francis said and were essentially the misrepresentations of Eugenio Scalfari, an avowed atheist journalist.
Conveniently, there is no record of this conversation, as Scalfari does not record his conversations or take notes during them. The quotes were recalled later from memory.
Trust whichever party you think is more reliable, I guess.
@@st.friendship After those remarks were attributed to the Pope by Scalfari, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the Pope to have simply announced that he never said that there was no literal Hell and that he firmly believes in the existence of a real Hell where the damned are consigned after death to eternal punishment. He did not state the true teaching of the Church because he almost certainly does not believe it.
It's time for Holy (Eastern) Orthodoxy - the problem for the RC Church is that, according to Vatican I, Vatican II and the pre-Vatican I papal documents Catholics must accept with 'docility' ALL the teachings of the pope, not only ex-Cathedra. Even his off the cuff remarks and actions.
There is another possible conclusion: it is the end of the age.
I am strongly considering that!
Wouldn't be hugely surprised, but then again people probably thought the same thing when the reformation was splitting Christendom..... still..... wouldn't be surprised 😐
@@johnharkness6304 At the turn of the first millennium people thought the last days were at hand. They were upset by turning into the year 1000 (Y1k). And of course at the turning of the second millennium, people were upset about the computers and Y2k. Lol! I agree with you ... I wouldn't be surprised either. But I wouldn't go to a bookie to bet on it! 😉
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY No I wouldn't bet either Anne, in any case it would be hard to collect your winnings if the end of time came upon us 😆 In any case, I believe frequenting the Sacraments is the wisest way forward, Eucharist and Confession, regularly. Cheers
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY And by the way, I believe joining the Catholic Church was hugely wise, our beloved Church is currently being governed by very mediocre Bishops (and higher up!!) Having said that, I would have to be tortured and beaten out of the Catholic Church, I hope I would resist 😐
Do NOT buy Benedict XVI's 3 part life of Christ (Jesus of Nazareth). In it he states that Our Lord did NOT eat a fish after He rose again and appeared to his disciples. He basically says St Luke LIED (in his 'zeal'). How can any Catholic read such a book?
On the reading for Jan 14th (1 Cor 6),
At my mass the particular reading uses the word immorality VS sexual immorality for 1 Cor 6:13 (partial)-15 (partial) (missing v 16) v17-20. They actually butcher the passage with these selective verses (even partial), mistranslating and not reading the context. The verse they left out combined with a poor translation into immorality instead of sexual immorality seem to INTEND to change the meaning. I looked at this in the Greek and it is CLEARY sexual immorality for the proper translation. Not I needed to do so to know the meaning if you read the entire passage in context but just to see if the translation is justifiable and it isn't even without the context of the entire passage.
Now it gets worse. In my Pastor's homily he mentioned a few sins with NO mention of sexual sins. He also talked about the passage where Samual was hearing God speak to him and he went to Eli asking if it was him. He used the passage to convey the idea of listening to your conscience with no mention of a properly formed conscious. The only mention of the Word of God was only in the context of coming to Mass not reading yourself or reading the CCC. No warning not everything in your mind is from God and could even be evil or from evil spirits.
This happened to me several month ago in another church as well where the daily readings took out key verses that completely changed the meaning of the passage. The priest then used it in his homily to push Pope Fracis's document on climate change.
Janet Smith is great, she's stood up for truth for years.
I'm surprised that the Pope isn't at Davos this week.
Where may I find the Zmirak article?
Some of the worst post Vatican I theology deals with the extension of religious submission to papal teaching when given by extension through Roman congregations and institutional offices. It was one thing in the ancient Church to deal with papal legates. I can’t imagine Constantinople or Antioch would ever have submitted to a Roman congregations teaching authority.
It seems that Tucho Fernandez is probably just a pagan in a Cardinal's hat. As a budding older catholic, I find that Fernandez is making the basic mistake of putting the gratification of physical pleasure above the holiness of mind, which is where all the spiritual growth is. Those of us that have been, or are still in long term relationships, know that staying fixated on the initial thrill of sex, rather than developing and deepening this relationship. To use a driving analogy, its like permanently being stuck in 1st gear. Tucho's obsession with sex, shows that he either never really understood this, or has become stuck in his own egotistical world view to the exclusion of concentrating on Christ's teachings themselves.
Thank you
Hello, just to make you notice that the link you provided (Dr Ashenden on Fernandez) does not directs to the right article. Thank you again for an interesting conversation.
I am by no means an intellectual, so from my position it seems that the Pope's biggest flaw is that he is a people pleaser, and only reacts strongly when challenged directly by some bishops because he is afraid.
Bingo. Thank you.
World blinded by worship of food snd sex is evil. Man should evolve.
With some people its not going to matter how you tell it. Nobody told it any better than Jesus did, and he ended up tortured to death.
I agree all we can do is speak (when appropriate) and pray.
Yes.
All foretold by René Guénon in his 'Crisis of the Modern World.' The greatest book of the twentieth century.
I’m interested in the overreach of Papal power at Vatican 1 because l believe that St John Henry Newman warned about that at the time.
The Pope cannot avoid death penalty He has not that power, as He cannot change the teachings of the Church. He is administrator not owner. He is only right if he publishes a Dogma of faith.
So, who is the highest faithful catholic authority at the moment still in position?
Fulton Sheen skewers Communism in a few lines in Treasure in Clay, chapter 7: “I read through the writings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Their philosophy can be summarized rather simply: man has been ‘alienated’ from his true nature in two ways-by religion and by private property. Man was alienated from himself by religion, because it made him subservient to God; man was alienated from himself by private property because it made him subject to an employer. If, therefore, man was ever to be restored to his true nature, religion and private property must be destroyed. Atheism and the economics of communism are inseparable.”
Excellent.....Great synopsis !!
Regarding my remark here, not the first, the SECOND reading: Corinthians, was skipped.... sorry!
Why focus Catholics, when aiming to defend the truth, so easily on errors? Learning about suspected errors or suspected 'coups in the vatican' doesn't help me to move closer to the lord. It directs my attention away from God. Isn't God far better than simply being flawless? When I'm contemplating flaws I feel sundered from God. Doesn't conversion or remorse intend to turn away from the flawed and orientate towards the holy? Doesn't knowledge of the wrong only suffice for imperfect remorse? Shouldn't we do the next step and aim for the good?
I found it great when you mentioned becoming holy as our vocation, in my view the most precious idea of this conversation. Yet it got not even a chapter title.
I see no reason, to assume a pope could teach something misleading. The process of teaching includes two: The one who speaks and the one who listens and interprets the spoken. I know every papal teaching has to be concordial with revelation, scripture and tradition. That knowledge guides my interpretation. How could I possibly be mislead? How could our catholic community become mislead, if we support each other in exploring the truth? I like that process, because it helps me to grow beyond my current limitations. It's like puberty or a crisis in a relationship. It's painfully chaotic, but afterwards we are maturated.
All they wanted was a foot in the door as the name of the game is generational propaganda. That it was a disaster doesn't matter.
Dr Ashenten. I agree with your thoughts on Francis. Whatever he is he definitely isn't Catholic. You mentioned your concerns with Vatican I. The Church does have a means to remove a Pope that falls into heresy. Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV and others talk of this. I will offer some quotes:
“... The Roman church can dismiss the Roman pontiff only because of fornication…not carnal, but spiritual fornication…this fornication is the sin of heresy…” Whoever does not believe is already condemned.” [he] ‘is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out,’ …put out of office…be excommunicated and shunned… Since the Roman Pontiff has no other lord than God, then who can throw him out or trample him underfoot, no matter how much he may lose his savor? …Nevertheless he should not mistakenly flatter himself… for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say, ‘less’ because he can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged if he clearly loses his savor to heresy.’ since he “who does not believe, is already judged.’ -Pope Innocent III, Sermons
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church… A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” -Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vial. lus Canonicum II, p. 453
“... lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place… We enact, determine, decree and define that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop… prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy… the promotion or elevation, even if it shall been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…” Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb 15 1559
Another idea is that Pope Francis doesn't at this time point out the mistakes persons are making - and Communism makes a very long list of mistakes - but concentrates on what is positive, and what there is in common, no matter how small that positive is.
He seems to go on the idea that he talks to everyone, that a person's beliefs are secondary. It is a bad sign as to where we are in history.
Yeah, sure, Communism is positive, until the guns come out!! There has never been a Communist nation that didn't quickly turn into murderous tyranny.
In 1970 the college students were all agog over Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I saw it in the windows of every bookstore near campus (I went to Boston University.) Students prominently carried that book to show how hip their intellect was. 1970 and after. In China, in 1970 and after, Mao was murdering millions of his citizens. Just like Stalin murdered millions of Russians a generation before.
Yeah, sure, Communism is positive, at first blush.
The Pope is a Peronist.
The Pope's conceit is that of a tyrant.
I guess I said the wrong things.
Francis is not a catholic!
yes he is
The fatal, foundational error of modern Catholicism was fixed in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, so as to oppose the analysis of the American philosopher Henry George. Following standard institutional Catholic chameleon-like merger, this "infallible" edict endorsed private human property in land (as distinct from products of labour or means of exchange) and made the "church" (amongst others) "rich". Yet the land (including in its wider sense of renewable & non-renewable natural resources, waters, wavelengths, airspace, flight paths, satellite orbits) was not made by humanity; rather, it expressly belongs to the Lord [Lev.25:23], and trading it for ever is forbidden. Despite God's clear & sensible will, across the globe, military, political & financial elites have privatized the land, imposing private monopoly over patches and holding other folks at bay, forcing them into penury, wage-slavery and being mere tenants to landlords & dependents on welfare. In this sense, property in land, and especially private pocketing of its natural & community-created value, is theft from the Creator. This brutal human-fabricated system ditched the divinely-inspired Mosaic land-laws in Lev.25, which was geared to a simple agricultural world and (quite properly) allowed private tenure of cadastral lots but only for a term of years. In the modern industrial, commercial & communicative global world, this approach will still work (and will permit freehold tenure & devise of land by will to continue, with no forced nationalization & resettlement) so long as the market-set annual rental-value of all sites privately occupied (including by government agencies) is collected as the sole source of government revenue. This is all that is socialized. This approach would end all forms of taxation (these being artificial imposts on labour & transactions), force government to live within its budget, prevent large land agglomerations, give access to land unto every man willing to work with hand or brain, put labour in a strong bargaining position against capital, bring land transfer prices to nil (plus value of site improvements), enable every man to "live under own fig tree" (whilst retaining the benefit of modern industry & communications), remove the rich-poor gap and generally so simplify & beatify human existence on our planet that, within a generation, we would indwell Christ's kingdom. This entire economic-commercial-governmental edifice, spawned over the past 4000 years as Babylon the Great, will be destroyed "in one hour", as Rev. 18 tells us four times (we have been warned!) -- probably when multifold interconnected investments in fiat-currency financial derivatives are suddenly called to account and the entire house of cards falls down on the spot.
Wow! I am going to have to study this to get a better understanding of what you wrote. But from just what I do understand, this is a marvelous proposal. It would take God's help to make it happen. But if a lot of people prayed ...
Thank you so much for this post
What a extrem interesting Text. I am german and have some difficulties to understand the Text, BUT I understood the main Intention very well.
I am searching on this topc sins 40 years, sins I visited first time Kolkata, India and was shocked about the extrem poverty. As a women of corse it broke my heart, to see children die from hunger. The Land around Kolkata was full of extrem poor villages, but dominated by extrem corrupt landlords.
Coming back to Germany, I tried to help at least a catholic orphanage from Mother Teresa near Kolkata but also studied theology, because I tried to understand, what JESUS and the Old and New Testament tells us, how to overcome such massiv unjust political system, which produce such massiv starvation of inocent people.
But all studies at the theological Seminars in Berlin could not give me any answer. Then I discovered, that this theological Professors did Analysen the BIBLE from rich Western Perspektive. But in my mind Was always the real powerty of my friends and adopted children in India.
Suddenly, 2016, almost 26 years after my beginning of the Theology stidies, I had an Inspiration, to get my CONCORDANC to the BIBLE and search for the Word:
COMPASSION or CHARTY and then for the word: JUSTIC
And what was the result? There was about 60 hints for the theme COMPASSION, but more than over 600 hints for the theme JUSTIC.
WOW. That Was eccatly, what I was always thinking, but I could not find a prove before, that the hole BIBLE must have been missused by our clergy sins more then 2000 years I guess.
We have the prove for this missinterpretation of the Bible. We celebrate every year after Eastern the Sunday of Mercy.
According to the BIBLE is the relationship between Mercy or Compassion and Justis about 1 to 11 for JUSTIC.
SO, if we would celebrate our catholic year according to the will of the BIBLE, then we should also celebrate every year 11 sundays of Justic.
Why this is not happen? How can it be, that the relationship between COMPASSION and JUSTIS in the BIBLE is 1 to 11,
but we dont celebrate not even ONE SUNDAY OF JUSTIC. What ever justic might mean ans in wgat way this 11 days should be celebrated.
I go so far to think, that this massiv missuse of the BIBLE is relaxed to the massiv sexuall abuse within the catholic church.
I can only wish, you all world also go to get the CONCORDANCE to the BIBLE and to seach unter the Theme COMPASSION and JUSTIC.
By the way, its interesting, to find out, thar this themes was already in the so called Old Testament discussed.
Specially the Subjekt JUSTIC.
Anslysing from the Perspectiv of extrem poverty in India, I often wondered, how could the Mother of JESUS
talk in HER Magnificat about poor and rich people? In India you dont find any God or Godess, who would talk openly about rich and poor people.
This theme is simply not existing in Hinduismus and also not in Buddhismus.
How could it be, that this very young jewish women could talk about overcome poverty and to put rich people down?
I felt and stiĺ feel, she must have been a young women with a clear Vision for removing unjust out of her society.
It is not any more surprising for me, that almost no one in the catholic church worldwide respect the will of the Mother of JESUS,
to see more justice between poor and rich.
She was a women from the specific JEWISH COMMUNION. We should hang on all Statues of Mary a jewish Star.
That could help us, to remember our own jewish Heritage.
About communism and Pope Francis: I think, we should respect at least his good Intention, to overcome poverty.
I guess, this is his reason, to try to cooerate with communists.
But I am afraid, he does not read the BIBLE, the way I do it. Otherwise, he would not need the communist for getting newinspirations,
but could explane to them, why they failed on and on, with so brutal consequences in Russia, China and many other countries.
His Idea for having a GLOBAL EDUCATION PACT of a GLOBAL VILLAGE seems to me quite good.
The themes of such GLOBAL EDUCATION PACT could be thought directly on 11 Sundays in every catholic Parish.
Then there would be a balance between Mercy or Compassion and JUSTIC, according to the Bible.
In this sunday Seminars could have been thought all about, that the commentator dwspain was talking about.
And maybe even more.
I hope, you could understand my bit brocken english.
Hope, I could help, to find a new perspektive to our own grait herritage and specially to our Mother Mary.
GOD BLESS ALL OF US!!!
If you like to know more about Kolkata and the struggle of the poor, then you can get the Book: CITY OF JOY, written by Dominic Lapiere.
I can explane you also in shorts, why Mother Teresa had such an spiritual darkness for soo many years. I work sins 40 years with her orphans and experienced her horrible way of bringen up more than 200 children. This Boys Was treated like children in old catholic Orphan homes in Irland and many other places, including massiv violence.
All this was happen, because Mother Teresa did not had a concept for sustainible Development for her Boys, but was spiritually guided in a very limited way by jesuits priests.
Boys them self told me: "Mother Teresa and the catholic church has cut of our wings to fly,"
That is extrem scaring for Boys, wgo lost there hole familybackground and has to bring up them self alone.
The reason for all this limitations in bringen up the poorest of the poor catholic lies in the misinterpreding of the BIBLE.
We still practis ONE to SIRO but the BIBLE its self demand from us ONE to ELEVEN.
The BAD News is: We have to go through the EYE LF THE NEEDLE. Specially in rich countries.
The GOOD News is: GOD WILL BE AT OUR SIDE, WILE GOING THROUGH. and I am sure,
also OUR MOTHER MARY WILL BE AT OUR SIDE.
AND THE EVEN BETTER NEWS IS:
JESUS PROMISE US, THAT WE WILL BECOME A NEW LIFE FROM HIM.
LETS AT LEAST TRY.
GOD BLESS ALL OF US !!!
And let us pray for our Pope in this Intention.
Thanks to dwspain for the Name of HENRY GEORGE !!! I did not knew him, but I am researching now more.
Just to say: If the catholic church in New York would have acted according to the BIBLE, than there would not had been sooo much poverty in New York during the time, Henry Geroge visited the City.
Same thing happend also in Kolkata. I live there from 1980 on. I was not surprised, that Mother Teresa left her well organised convent, to help the starving people in the streets of Kolkata. I was much more surprised, that the catholic Bishop and so many catholic priests DID NOT WENT OUT TO THE STARVING PEOPLE in Kolkata.
Mother Teresa did not need a 2. Call from GOD, to go to the starving people. The need to go is 2000 and more years old. Its all writen in the BIBLE.
But we need god education to start this kind of work. Otherwise, we can make many mistakes and can even do harm the poor.
There for we need in fact a GLOBAL EDUCATION, as Pope Francis wants it also.
It can be organised through INFORMAL EDUCATION. No need to go to theological Seminars and Universities.
Professors can even do more harm, then good, if they have no experiences in Praxis.
But all this has go be organised now.
That will help us, to come over this debates about sexuality in the catholic church.
No more South American popes!
Laudatio si.
Ibbo hubass vala innaa kiyalaa hithana un modai naadha
Our lady of fatima warning .
Well, if people haven't left the church before, they will leave now.
But where shall they go?
The enemies of ☧ are seizing upon controversies within the church to promote schism -- but they need to understand --> Mathew 16:18 Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will found my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
So monasteries are communist.
I love the magisterium, and I hold anyway that the pope can act alone and be infallible. But I would think that some of his documents don't necessarily reach or are intended to reach the level of infallible teaching. (Most of his writing isn't doctrinal anyway, it seems to me.)
I have a minimalist notion of papal infallibility. Go back in history and count the number of papal statements that count as infallible. All are corollary to previously and long standing doctrine. In general, it works somewhat like geometry, We start with things elementary, then postulates, then theorems, and then corollaries, In care one forgets, there are different ways of development. Different geometries, BUT all have this in common, as Father Aristotle tells us, consistency is the test, The law of noncontradiction must prevail. The first book I head about Francis was an interview of him which my daughter brought me soon after his election. What struck me as I read was the vagueness of so many of his answers. Just caution? No, I mean an ambivalence that was characteristic of his thinking. I thought of Talleyrand’s quip: the purpose of language is to conceal one’s thought about a subject. Not yes or no, but yes and no. How utterly different from the clarity of the minds of John Paul and Benedict’s. If one does not understand what they say, it is the sluggishness of one’s
mind. As in the case of those who failed to understand John Henry Newman and required him to write his “Apologia”. But Francis is always the Jesuit in the worse sense of the word. The type skewered by Pascal. Through the centuries, the Cardinals had alway refused to elect a Jesuit. Now we see why?
I do wonder if the magisterium has embodied the notion of the old Hebrew Law ? We know we have been set free from the law of sin and death ….
@@johnschuh8616 Very interesting comment!
@@denisjackson8310 Well, the word 'law' means different things in different contexts. The Hebrew Law is still valid, is given by God. We couldn't live up to the law, we are freed from it by grace, which gives us strength to fulfill the law and more. But the Magisterium is more about the way we know what is true or not true. In the Church there are three sources of truth: the Scriptures; Tradition of what the successors of Peter and the Apostles did and taught; and the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church).
@@johnschuh8616 Interesting reply!
He seems to be wef
WHY ARE YOU THREE SMILING? WHAT IS SO AMUSING?
If they did not express amusement they would all be crying.
Exactly …..-. ua-cam.com/users/livewWN4tOD3I2I?si=bTcmkVu_-1QRv8gl
Leftist , more than a Poniff
What is the point of this? Does it help people to God?
Apparently it dos. If you read the replies.
@@DrGAshenden I'm reading the replies and the last thing I see in this comment section is God... Only vitriol against the Holy Father and the Church...
I was very happy when I heard you converted... Sad to see you're taking the radtrad pill... What's the use of becoming Catholic if you end up a Protestant in all but name?
There is another reason that's possible for Pope Francis' actions: if it's the end of time, his actions would match those of Jesus at the end of Jesus' earthly life. (I'm beating this dead horse.) At the end of Jesus' earthly life, out of love even for his enemies, he poured himself out. So Pope Francis is acting on love of one's enemies, and pouring out the life of the church on the world, even on its enemies.
what nonsense: Christ would never support an idea in its very core that hates G*D! Communism is based on envy and hate!
Pope Francis = Jesus ???
Someone please tell me no one ever said that!
@@AnneEloiseOfCNYI think they mean that maybe he’s emulating JC, not that he IS JC
@@mrbaker7443 Thank you! I am glad there is an explanation!! I appreciate your help. Emulating is reasonable. Now, tbh, I find his emulating JC not working for me. But that poster holds that opinion. So be it. That poster has a right to an opinion. So other than what I have just said, I will shut up, lol! I wish that poster well. And Mr. Baker, I thank you kindly for your intervention. ✝️
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY The danger of saying that was the identification of Jesus and Pope Francis - I meant that the pope is acting like Jesus did at the very end of his life, maybe.