Well said Katherine! Sometimes it's hard to get past the first expressions of prejudice when one's known to be a Catholic. Otherwise balanced, well educated and, normally, fair-minded people can revert to playground epithets in a heartbeat.
Mark, so good to see you! Katherine and Gavin, thank you so much for taking time out of your vacation to provide us us with your wisdom! The US is a country of immigrants but you are correct that Islam does not want to assimilate and that is a dangerous and distinguishing factor. The only explanation I can fathom for our govt's (both the US and the UK) desire to allow unlimited immigration of Islamists is their hope that they will in fact stamp out Christianity. I pray and hope that with Our Blessed Mother's intercession, the opposite will happen- we will see the conversion of millions as at Guadalupe and they will aid in stamping out Marxist philosophy and wokeism thus restoring Christianity!
Prayers from New Zealand! I'm a new subscriber, having stumbled across your channel after seeing Gavin interviewed elsewhere. I'm also a convert to our beautiful Catholic Faith ... Christ is King!
I refer to the group of friends described by Gavin Ashenden as " interested in Truth" and yet who explicitly refused to listen to the Robinson/Peterson interview. Well, all one can say is perhaps they are not quite as interested in Truth as it appears. Surely we must consider all opinions on their merits free of extraneous considerations. This lack of simple intellectual discipline is noticeably and increasingly absent in the public sphere. I am not a Believer and therefore not a Roman Catholic; I firmly believe both the Gospels and Catholic social teaching are great repositories of human wisdom. Further, Catholic Unscripted is my enduring favourite podcast valuable for the great insights it regularly provides and expresses so beautifully.
!!! Well you firmly beiieve in something very close to what I believe as someone received in 2014. The dogmas of the Church require a lot of study and contemplation. My current position is that they are in the end understandable and therefore I believe them.
@@philipschaffer9414 One thing I am certain of is that God would never deceive anyone who seeks the Truth with a humble and contrite heart. He forgives sin in Confession, if you hold nothing back. Holy Communion in the state of grace. Spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Pearl of great price.
What makes you question your faith? I always try to remember that faith is a gift . And when i need more i echo St Thomas i think it was and say Lord i believe help my unbelief@philipschaffer9414
Not trivial: government silencing Christian dissension when government policy conflicts with Christian morals. Indifference may contribute to its becoming worse. Not only applicable in UK by any means. In U.S. dioceses seem to make an effort to be financially transparent, e.g. annual reports in diocesan newspapers. The thought occurred, might the same be expected of the Vatican.
Just before the case against Cardinal Pell was fabricated, Cardinal Becciu remitted a huge sum of money to Melbourne. No satisfactory explanation has ever been forthcoming from Rome as to the purpose for which the funds were remitted. To his credit, when Cardinal Pell was asked what he thought, he replied with as much Christian charity as he could. “I really do hope that those funds were not remitted to assist in building a fabricated case against me - that would reflect very badly on the Church”. The case against Cardinal Pell could not have been maintained at Canon Law. It rested upon the testimony of one witness alone. St. Paul makes it clear that any charge against a Bishop requires the testimony of at least two witnesses. At one time, the common law would not convict on the testimony of the complainant alone in a case of sexual assault. Then, the Law was changed. However, the Trial Judge should have directed the Jury that it would be highly dangerous to bring in a guilty verdict on the testimony of the complainant alone, particularly in view of the weight of alibi evidence from other witnesses. The Pope stated that he fully accepted the verdict of the Court at first instance, knowing that it could not stand at Canon Law. He never spoke up for Cardinal Pell. He must have known about the funds remitted by Cardinal Becciu to Melbourne. The Pope must have been aware that the financial misconduct at the Vatican which Cardinal Pell was uncovering would be highly damaging to the Church. It suited the Pope to have him out of the way. However, once Cardinal Becciu had served his purpose, the Pope had him tried and imprisoned for other offences. Cardinal Becciu met the same fate as Thomas Cromwell. Dictators, naturally, don’t trust those who do their dirty work for them. Men who will betray their conscience are by nature not to be trusted and might, one day, betray their Master.
I suggest what other people seem to drop like a lead balloon. The actual organization of the church needs to be studied in a business way and sociologically to ascertain what would be the best way, best organization, structure, to handle error, enable correction, and to promote efficiency. Reorganization need not threaten papacy, episcopacy, and magisterium but protect them. The current organization has evolved from borrowing from prior ways of secular government. For those who appreciate democratic ways of arriving at decisions, it should be kept in mind that faith and morals based on Divine Revelation are not determined by majority vote. Majorities may be wrong at times. Other churches, denominations, seem to be having organizational problems as well and would benefit from similar studies. 🤔
@@royquick-s5n In my view, the Papacy would have been better to have accepted the position under the “Law of Guarantees” passed by the Italian Parliament in 1871. This guaranteed the rights of the Pope as a Sovereign, and permitted the Papal Flag to fly within the Leonine City, however, this remained Italian territory, just the same. The Pope was to be given an indemnity of 3.225 million lire as compensation for the loss of his territories. However, Pope Pius IX refused to accept the validity of the legislation and continued to assert his rights as Sovereign of all of the States of the Church. It was only in 1929 that diplomatic efforts succeeded in persuading Pope Pius XI to agree to the Lateran Treaty. This gave absolute sovereignty, but only in respect of a much reduced area, the present Vatican City State and the amount of the financial indemnity was reduced. The fact that the Vatican City State is not subject to the laws of the Republic of Italy (as the area within the Leonine Walls would have been) has been fatal to the Papacy. Secure from outside intervention, dishonesty and corruption have flourished. The reputation of the Papacy has, inevitably, been tarnished by all of these financial scandals.
@@Mark3ABE I appreciate your reply, Mark. I suppose today it would be ideal for the international headquarters (central see) of any church to be free from as much interference from secular government as possible, but, probably, we get into issues of national sovereignty. Methinks one way to avoid malevolent interference would be for the international see to be mobile, e.g. a pope might move to another temporary location. It does not mean that he could not move back. It causes thought how Jesus may have envisaged the Church Militant through time. Am I right in thinking, after all, the Church is the People of God, not the church buildings and property, which are temporal anyway? 🤔
@@royquick-s5n Well, the first Bishop of Rome, St. Peter, probably owned no property and we know from the accounts in the New Testament that St. Paul lived in a rented house. So, it cannot be argued that the Bishop of Rome must have some temporal jurisdiction. The early Church met in the homes of the Faithful. There were no “Church” buildings, as such. While, in years gone by, Bishops were also temporal rulers (“Prince Bishops”) there are now no longer any Bishops having any temporal authority, apart from the Bishop of Rome, which is limited to the Vatican City State. There are various other properties which also have extraterritorial status, such as the Basilica of St John Lateran, Castel Gandolfo, etc, however, the Pope does not exercise absolute authority in the case of all of these extra territorial properties - it varies. In most cases, it simply means that the properties are exempt from taxes, but, otherwise, are subject to the Laws of Italy. Between 1870 and 1929, the Papacy had no temporal jurisdiction and this does not appear to have affected the ability of the Apostolic See to continue to operate in respect of the universal governance of the Church. So, I do not think that it can be argued that the Papacy must have temporal possessions to operate fully and effectively. All that has happened in the case of the Vatican City State is that it has become a centre for financial misconduct of various kinds. If the Republic of Italy chose to limit the extraterritorial status of the Vatican City State in some way, there is not really anything which the Pope could do about it. Having said this, even Hitler chose to respect the independence and neutrality of the Vatican City State when German troops occupied Rome in 1943. I suppose that it suited the Nazis to have money laundering centres, such as Switzerland, Monaco and the Vatican City State!
@@Mark3ABE Mark, history is my field. Upon what historical record are you familiar that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? It is my understanding that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and that there was an early church named after both Peter and Paul, not Peter alone. It is my understanding that bishops of Rome later applied Mt 16.18 to themselves, in a way more than just being successors of the apostles generally and in an interpretation of Mt 16.18 not shared by more Church fathers than not. It is hard to escape that Rome would have had significance just from the fact it had been the center of Rome Empire. I am not trying to be doctrinally correct here but historically correct, i.e. historical accuracy.🙂
Any change in perception of the Church and its teaching will depend on whoever is Pope and how well our shepherds perform. Right now it's as described in today's first reading: Jeremiah 23: 1-6
Dr. Ashenden has a deep knowledge of Islam. Probe for what he has said not only in Catholic Unscripted, but, beforehand, in the archives of Anglican Unscripted, Anglican Mainstream, Virtue On Line, and Anglican Ink. I really have asked myself whether he has come to where he is now in life because of what he dared to say.
Why is it the Christians and conservatives feelings are not treated equally? They can say anything to them no matter how offensive it is found it simply doesn’t matter. It is all one way like streets in Chicago.
The right metaphysics, the right anthropology OR in a very near end we're all be totally atomized and unable to do anything as a nation. This is true, the noted detrimental trend is true, the question that remains is how to cope with the ever increasing anxiety of a hyper inflated critical consciousness...? Because we all know this thing about metaphysics and anthropology, us getting it right collectively, will always remains a huge pie in the sky, will it not?
Friends, unfortunately one of the greatest (sorry for the hyperbole, but it does make the difference one searches for stand out) catholic philosophers, Charles Taylor, has been one of the most notable defenders of multiculturalism. His thinking in all probability too much under the influence of the rather very benign situation of Canadá.
Seven Roman Catholic blind spots: Rome says, “We will use the word “Father” as a formal and professional title for our clergy.” But Scripture says, “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Mat_23:9 ). Rome says, “Our bishops cannot be the husband of a wife.” But Scripture says, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...” (1Timothy 3:2 ). Rome says, “There is nothing wrong with having statues and icons.” But Scripture says, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Yahweh your God.” ( Lev. 26:1). Rome says, all our saints are dead. But Scripture says that EVERY member of the congregation must be a saint while they are still living. Romans 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 6:2, Ephesians 2:19, Ephesians 4:12, Ephesians 5:3, Philippians 1:1, Philippians 4:22, etc. Rome says: You are encouraged to incorporate repetitive elements in prayer with decades of ten repetitions. But Scripture says, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions..." Matthew 6:7 Rome says to honor Astarte (Easter) and Saturnalia (December 25th). These were already pagan holidays of Rome before Christianity got there. But Scripture says, “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). In other words, when He said, “this do ye as often as ye drink it” He was referring to the cup of Passover wine and the unleavened bread of the Passover meal that He was having with His disciples. Rome says, “You need to submit to our authority if you want to go to heaven.” But scripture says, “... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23). The Father and Son want to abide in you. Your body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit and not a church building or a church altar (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any religious organization to insert itself into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.
It's important that we hear what Robinson (sorry, "Tommy") has to say, but Robinson (sorry, "Tommy") would be the last person to claim to be a saint. He has past associations, about which many people will feel queasy. This is nothing to do with their being members of Gavin Ashenden's 100% corrupt establishment. Nevertheless, we must talk about the issues Robinson (sorry, "Tommy") has raised.
That bishop promoted by pf esconded in the vatican from argentina must have known of pf un sa vory acts while in argentina. Why else would pf promote and create a new ofc. I tending to see Ab. Vigano had something there, hence was excommed by pf.
Well if Vigano "had something there" now that he is excommunicated (Rather excommunicated Himself), he should as we say in the USA lay all His Cards on the table. What does he have lose? He is already excommunicated and setting Himself up as the Leader of His Sedevacantist Sect.
the next phase 4 the visible church .....preparation to strengthen 1 not to succumb and be a beneficiary of the 1st Resurrection... Pope PIZZA ,is needed asap!
Fall guy for a Pope? This just sounds like protestantism. St Francis de Sales would have some choice words with your content. You all either need to read, or perhaps need to re-read (maybe even understand) St Francis' book, "The Catholic Controversy." You need to read his stance on the indefectibility of the Church and the submission to Papal authority. Said it before and will saynit again, THIS IS NOT Catholic, at all. Thisnos just protestantism redressed.
Edward, St Francis de Sales also says that all are called to holiness, that would include the Pope. Every Catholic has the duty to avoid the near occasion of sin, whatever the source, whoever the source. Sounds to me like you might benefit yourself in this area by reading Fr Chad Ripperger's book Magisterial Authority. To quote a small bit from it relevant to your remarks: "When the Church enters into a state where a pontiff is saying things contrary to the Faith, as was seen historically with Honorius I or John XXII, one simply cannot follow them because if one were to do so one would end up in heresy." It goes on to say that in such circumstances one is duty bound to consult the remote rule of faith. Even members of the Magisterium are bound to the deposit of faith and the remote rule of faith, i.e., that which pertains to the tradition. You may enjoy his other writings, The Binding Force of Tradition, and also his work called Topics on Tradition.
It would appear that some people are confused as to what the infallibility of the Pope actually means and perphaps they think that he can do no wrong ! Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error). As always, pray for the Pope and the Church.
@@charles1738Which is circular reasoning: the pope is infallible when…when he is being infallible. That’s true of everyone. The only time we can be sure the pope is speaking infallibly is when he keeps his mouth shut. And that applies to all of us Vatican 1 was a s much a disaster for the church as Vatican 2. It shouldn’t take 1870 years to discover a new dogma (and then pretend it’s always been there).
Well said Katherine! Sometimes it's hard to get past the first expressions of prejudice when one's known to be a Catholic. Otherwise balanced, well educated and, normally, fair-minded people can revert to playground epithets in a heartbeat.
Mark, so good to see you! Katherine and Gavin, thank you so much for taking time out of your vacation to provide us us with your wisdom! The US is a country of immigrants but you are correct that Islam does not want to assimilate and that is a dangerous and distinguishing factor. The only explanation I can fathom for our govt's (both the US and the UK) desire to allow unlimited immigration of Islamists is their hope that they will in fact stamp out Christianity. I pray and hope that with Our Blessed Mother's intercession, the opposite will happen- we will see the conversion of millions as at Guadalupe and they will aid in stamping out Marxist philosophy and wokeism thus restoring Christianity!
Those people who refused to watch the Robby Tomisson video are the epitome of closed-mindedness
Prayers from New Zealand! I'm a new subscriber, having stumbled across your channel after seeing Gavin interviewed elsewhere. I'm also a convert to our beautiful Catholic Faith ... Christ is King!
Welcome home from the USA!!
I love you guys! From the USA 🇺🇸! Praying for the Church ⛪️ and content like this to thrive in the UK 🇬🇧 and throughout the world!
Enjoy all your videos. Truth Seekers so refreshing in these times. You are a great team and love the humour. God Bless✝
Greetings from East Africa 🌍
Tanzania?
@challengable ethiopia where Catholic accounts 1% of 120m population.
I refer to the group of friends described by Gavin Ashenden as " interested in Truth" and yet who explicitly refused to listen to the Robinson/Peterson interview. Well, all one can say is perhaps they are not quite as interested in Truth as it appears. Surely we must consider all opinions on their merits free of extraneous considerations. This lack of simple intellectual discipline is noticeably and increasingly absent in the public sphere. I am not a Believer and therefore not a Roman Catholic; I firmly believe both the Gospels and Catholic social teaching are great repositories of human wisdom. Further, Catholic Unscripted is my enduring favourite podcast valuable for the great insights it regularly provides and expresses so beautifully.
!!! Well you firmly beiieve in something very close to what I believe as someone received in 2014.
The dogmas of the Church require a lot of study and contemplation. My current position is that they are in the end understandable and therefore I believe them.
Excellent program, Thank You!
Thank you Mark 🙏
🙏 God save you -thank you for sharing your thoughts 💖 it matters a lot
Great show once again and thanks very much.
Very good pronunciation. Well done all.
Never miss your videos. ❤🙏🏻 Gavin, I'm descended from pirates on my dad's side, though they made their way across the pond. God bless all of you. 🙏🏻❤️
What disturbed me about Covid was how many people just went along with the abuse of power or even agreed with it
I do not give to Rome, I haven't in years. I give my parish only, and Some Carmelites in my diocese.
Met you folks at St. Mary of the Angels when you were in Chicago
Thanks for joining us here Philip 🙏
Sometimes I question my faith considering I converted to Christianity from a non Christian religion
@@philipschaffer9414 One thing I am certain of is that God would never deceive anyone who seeks the Truth with a humble and contrite heart. He forgives sin in Confession, if you hold nothing back. Holy Communion in the state of grace. Spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Pearl of great price.
What makes you question your faith? I always try to remember that faith is a gift . And when i need more i echo St Thomas i think it was and say Lord i believe help my unbelief@philipschaffer9414
"Take a number. I'll offend you shortly." 😂
thumbs up from me, you're a 'class' act
Wonderful work ✝️ God bless you all 🇬🇧
Not trivial: government silencing Christian dissension when government policy conflicts with Christian morals. Indifference may contribute to its becoming worse. Not only applicable in UK by any means. In U.S. dioceses seem to make an effort to be financially transparent, e.g. annual reports in diocesan newspapers. The thought occurred, might the same be expected of the Vatican.
Just before the case against Cardinal Pell was fabricated, Cardinal Becciu remitted a huge sum of money to Melbourne. No satisfactory explanation has ever been forthcoming from Rome as to the purpose for which the funds were remitted. To his credit, when Cardinal Pell was asked what he thought, he replied with as much Christian charity as he could. “I really do hope that those funds were not remitted to assist in building a fabricated case against me - that would reflect very badly on the Church”. The case against Cardinal Pell could not have been maintained at Canon Law. It rested upon the testimony of one witness alone. St. Paul makes it clear that any charge against a Bishop requires the testimony of at least two witnesses. At one time, the common law would not convict on the testimony of the complainant alone in a case of sexual assault. Then, the Law was changed. However, the Trial Judge should have directed the Jury that it would be highly dangerous to bring in a guilty verdict on the testimony of the complainant alone, particularly in view of the weight of alibi evidence from other witnesses. The Pope stated that he fully accepted the verdict of the Court at first instance, knowing that it could not stand at Canon Law. He never spoke up for Cardinal Pell. He must have known about the funds remitted by Cardinal Becciu to Melbourne. The Pope must have been aware that the financial misconduct at the Vatican which Cardinal Pell was uncovering would be highly damaging to the Church. It suited the Pope to have him out of the way. However, once Cardinal Becciu had served his purpose, the Pope had him tried and imprisoned for other offences. Cardinal Becciu met the same fate as Thomas Cromwell. Dictators, naturally, don’t trust those who do their dirty work for them. Men who will betray their conscience are by nature not to be trusted and might, one day, betray their Master.
I suggest what other people seem to drop like a lead balloon. The actual organization of the church needs to be studied in a business way and sociologically to ascertain what would be the best way, best organization, structure, to handle error, enable correction, and to promote efficiency. Reorganization need not threaten papacy, episcopacy, and magisterium but protect them. The current organization has evolved from borrowing from prior ways of secular government. For those who appreciate democratic ways of arriving at decisions, it should be kept in mind that faith and morals based on Divine Revelation are not determined by majority vote. Majorities may be wrong at times. Other churches, denominations, seem to be having organizational problems as well and would benefit from similar studies. 🤔
@@royquick-s5n In my view, the Papacy would have been better to have accepted the position under the “Law of Guarantees” passed by the Italian Parliament in 1871. This guaranteed the rights of the Pope as a Sovereign, and permitted the Papal Flag to fly within the Leonine City, however, this remained Italian territory, just the same. The Pope was to be given an indemnity of 3.225 million lire as compensation for the loss of his territories. However, Pope Pius IX refused to accept the validity of the legislation and continued to assert his rights as Sovereign of all of the States of the Church. It was only in 1929 that diplomatic efforts succeeded in persuading Pope Pius XI to agree to the Lateran Treaty. This gave absolute sovereignty, but only in respect of a much reduced area, the present Vatican City State and the amount of the financial indemnity was reduced. The fact that the Vatican City State is not subject to the laws of the Republic of Italy (as the area within the Leonine Walls would have been) has been fatal to the Papacy. Secure from outside intervention, dishonesty and corruption have flourished. The reputation of the Papacy has, inevitably, been tarnished by all of these financial scandals.
@@Mark3ABE I appreciate your reply, Mark. I suppose today it would be ideal for the international headquarters (central see) of any church to be free from as much interference from secular government as possible, but, probably, we get into issues of national sovereignty. Methinks one way to avoid malevolent interference would be for the international see to be mobile, e.g. a pope might move to another temporary location. It does not mean that he could not move back. It causes thought how Jesus may have envisaged the Church Militant through time. Am I right in thinking, after all, the Church is the People of God, not the church buildings and property, which are temporal anyway? 🤔
@@royquick-s5n Well, the first Bishop of Rome, St. Peter, probably owned no property and we know from the accounts in the New Testament that St. Paul lived in a rented house. So, it cannot be argued that the Bishop of Rome must have some temporal jurisdiction. The early Church met in the homes of the Faithful. There were no “Church” buildings, as such. While, in years gone by, Bishops were also temporal rulers (“Prince Bishops”) there are now no longer any Bishops having any temporal authority, apart from the Bishop of Rome, which is limited to the Vatican City State. There are various other properties which also have extraterritorial status, such as the Basilica of St John Lateran, Castel Gandolfo, etc, however, the Pope does not exercise absolute authority in the case of all of these extra territorial properties - it varies. In most cases, it simply means that the properties are exempt from taxes, but, otherwise, are subject to the Laws of Italy. Between 1870 and 1929, the Papacy had no temporal jurisdiction and this does not appear to have affected the ability of the Apostolic See to continue to operate in respect of the universal governance of the Church. So, I do not think that it can be argued that the Papacy must have temporal possessions to operate fully and effectively. All that has happened in the case of the Vatican City State is that it has become a centre for financial misconduct of various kinds. If the Republic of Italy chose to limit the extraterritorial status of the Vatican City State in some way, there is not really anything which the Pope could do about it. Having said this, even Hitler chose to respect the independence and neutrality of the Vatican City State when German troops occupied Rome in 1943. I suppose that it suited the Nazis to have money laundering centres, such as Switzerland, Monaco and the Vatican City State!
@@Mark3ABE Mark, history is my field. Upon what historical record are you familiar that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? It is my understanding that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and that there was an early church named after both Peter and Paul, not Peter alone. It is my understanding that bishops of Rome later applied Mt 16.18 to themselves, in a way more than just being successors of the apostles generally and in an interpretation of Mt 16.18 not shared by more Church fathers than not. It is hard to escape that Rome would have had significance just from the fact it had been the center of Rome Empire. I am not trying to be doctrinally correct here but historically correct, i.e. historical accuracy.🙂
Any change in perception of the Church and its teaching will depend on whoever is Pope and how well our shepherds perform. Right now it's as described in today's first reading: Jeremiah 23: 1-6
Exactly what I thought as I sat listening during Mass.
These are probably the same people who cry, "Don't judge!" while being pharisaic themselves.
What are British values?
To have some understanding of Islam is to read " Reliance of the Traveller " the classic manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misrt.
Dr. Ashenden has a deep knowledge of Islam. Probe for what he has said not only in Catholic Unscripted, but, beforehand, in the archives of Anglican Unscripted, Anglican Mainstream, Virtue On Line, and Anglican Ink. I really have asked myself whether he has come to where he is now in life because of what he dared to say.
Why is it the Christians and conservatives feelings are not treated equally? They can say anything to them no matter how offensive it is found it simply doesn’t matter. It is all one way like streets in Chicago.
The right metaphysics, the right anthropology OR in a very near end we're all be totally atomized and unable to do anything as a nation. This is true, the noted detrimental trend is true, the question that remains is how to cope with the ever increasing anxiety of a hyper inflated critical consciousness...? Because we all know this thing about metaphysics and anthropology, us getting it right collectively, will always remains a huge pie in the sky, will it not?
Friends, unfortunately one of the greatest (sorry for the hyperbole, but it does make the difference one searches for stand out) catholic philosophers, Charles Taylor, has been one of the most notable defenders of multiculturalism. His thinking in all probability too much under the influence of the rather very benign situation of Canadá.
Seven Roman Catholic blind spots:
Rome says, “We will use the word “Father” as a formal and professional title for our clergy.”
But Scripture says, “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Mat_23:9 ).
Rome says, “Our bishops cannot be the husband of a wife.”
But Scripture says, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...” (1Timothy 3:2 ).
Rome says, “There is nothing wrong with having statues and icons.”
But Scripture says, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Yahweh your God.” ( Lev. 26:1).
Rome says, all our saints are dead.
But Scripture says that EVERY member of the congregation must be a saint while they are still living. Romans 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 6:2, Ephesians 2:19, Ephesians 4:12, Ephesians 5:3, Philippians 1:1, Philippians 4:22, etc.
Rome says: You are encouraged to incorporate repetitive elements in prayer with decades of ten repetitions.
But Scripture says, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions..." Matthew 6:7
Rome says to honor Astarte (Easter) and Saturnalia (December 25th). These were already pagan holidays of Rome before Christianity got there.
But Scripture says, “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). In other words, when He said, “this do ye as often as ye drink it” He was referring to the cup of Passover wine and the unleavened bread of the Passover meal that He was having with His disciples.
Rome says, “You need to submit to our authority if you want to go to heaven.”
But scripture says, “... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23). The Father and Son want to abide in you. Your body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit and not a church building or a church altar (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any religious organization to insert itself into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.
'Only obeying orders', eh?
It's important that we hear what Robinson (sorry, "Tommy") has to say, but Robinson (sorry, "Tommy") would be the last person to claim to be a saint. He has past associations, about which many people will feel queasy. This is nothing to do with their being members of Gavin Ashenden's 100% corrupt establishment. Nevertheless, we must talk about the issues Robinson (sorry, "Tommy") has raised.
That bishop promoted by pf esconded in the vatican from argentina must have known of pf un sa vory acts while in argentina. Why else would pf promote and create a new ofc. I tending to see Ab. Vigano had something there, hence was excommed by pf.
Well if Vigano "had something there" now that he is excommunicated (Rather excommunicated Himself), he should as we say in the USA lay all His Cards on the table. What does he have lose? He is already excommunicated and setting Himself up as the Leader of His Sedevacantist Sect.
the next phase 4 the visible church .....preparation to strengthen 1 not to succumb and be a beneficiary of the 1st Resurrection... Pope PIZZA ,is needed asap!
Fall guy for a Pope? This just sounds like protestantism. St Francis de Sales would have some choice words with your content. You all either need to read, or perhaps need to re-read (maybe even understand) St Francis' book, "The Catholic Controversy." You need to read his stance on the indefectibility of the Church and the submission to Papal authority. Said it before and will saynit again, THIS IS NOT Catholic, at all. Thisnos just protestantism redressed.
Edward, St Francis de Sales also says that all are called to holiness, that would include the Pope. Every Catholic has the duty to avoid the near occasion of sin, whatever the source, whoever the source. Sounds to me like you might benefit yourself in this area by reading Fr Chad Ripperger's book Magisterial Authority. To quote a small bit from it relevant to your remarks:
"When the Church enters into a state where a pontiff is saying things contrary to the Faith, as was seen historically with Honorius I or John XXII, one simply cannot follow them because if one were to do so one would end up in heresy." It goes on to say that in such circumstances one is duty bound to consult the remote rule of faith. Even members of the Magisterium are bound to the deposit of faith and the remote rule of faith, i.e., that which pertains to the tradition.
You may enjoy his other writings, The Binding Force of Tradition, and also his work called Topics on Tradition.
It would appear that some people are confused as to what the infallibility of the Pope actually means and perphaps they think that he can do no wrong !
Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).
As always, pray for the Pope and the Church.
@@charles1738 People should contemplate how the organizational structure of church today has evolved since Christ's appearance.
@@charles1738Which is circular reasoning: the pope is infallible when…when he is being infallible. That’s true of everyone. The only time we can be sure the pope is speaking infallibly is when he keeps his mouth shut. And that applies to all of us
Vatican 1 was a s much a disaster for the church as Vatican 2. It shouldn’t take 1870 years to discover a new dogma (and then pretend it’s always been there).
That’s not what Protestantism is at all.
N