1. God is of infinite worth. 2. The only sufficient offering to God must likewise be of infinite worth. 3. Only the offering of Christ is of infinite worth. 4. The offering of Christ simply is the offering of the Eucharist in the mass. 5. For this reason, only the Eucharistic offering is true worship of God. 6. Any other finite offering United to the Eucharist offering is elevated thereby unto true worship. 7. Any other finite offering apart from the Eucharist offering (that is, apart from Christ) remains finite-as nothing compared to the infinite worship due to God. 8. For this reason, the laity unite their offerings to the Eucharistic offering during the liturgy of the mass. 9. Consequently, while Protestants offer their finite worship to God, their worship is worthless, for it is offered apart from Christ. 10. In this sense, it can be rightly said that Protestants do not worship God, although the formulation “Protestant worship is worthless” may more clearly articulate what is meant by this saying.
@@rubemartur8239the rosary isn't worship. If a Catholic was in an area with no mass, he would be unable to worship God. That doesn't mean he'd be guilty of not worshiping God, since he doesn't have access to the mass. Orthodox have a valid sacrifice, so they truly worship God.
This would be a most convincing argument if not for some trouble at the beginning which I can't get to square. For surely God is even _beyond_ infinite, and can that which is beyond infinite be divided up into several infinities? Surely not, for you'd have to cut off a mere infinity, not to speak of the supra-infinity, at some point, and since you would have to begin somewhere it cannot give cause to an equal or greater infinity, for it would have to be delimited somewhere to partition it. I am equally incredulous at the proposition by implication maintaining that which contains all, the source of all, the font of fonts, the infinity of infinities would have need of anything at all. Would it not betray a lack, some part missing, should this be the case? Surely a mere mortal couldn't benefit even a lesser spirit lacking our lower natures all that much, not to speak of the One God? What does a human have to offer even an angel? And petitioning the First Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, I am struck by a difficulty here also. For despite Jesus telling us that we need but ask, if our God is a perfect one in all regards, could we hope to in any sense impact or move Him, be it by impetration, oblation or any other act of ours? It seems to me that not only cannot we offer anything even approaching the glory of God to God, but also that He has not need of it, and certainly won't be moved by it, if he is indeed as we say, perfect. I would bring forth different arguments if this came from a position of pantheism, but since this is not the case it only warrants a mention in passing. I hope anyone who reads this can see that this is an argument being made in good faith, and not rhetoric or an attempt at the regular type of internet debate, rather I seek only the truth of the matter and I lack the wisdom to see how this arrangement works by myself.
@kennethruskin2710 I have some thoughts on your response: 1. God is beyond infinity, but Christ’s sacrifice is not a division of infinity, God is absolute Unity and cannot be understood mathematically. Christ’s sacrifice is not a "part" of God but an infinite offering because it flows from God’s nature, not from dividing infinity. 2. God does not need worship, but gives it to people for their salvation, Worship is not about fulfilling a need in God but about our response to His love. Through the Eucharist, we draw closer to God, which is for our spiritual benefit. 3. An unchanging God can be “moved” through a relationship with humanity, God’s will eternally encompasses human acts. Prayer or offering does not change God but allows creation to become part of His plan. The Eucharist is the union of the divine and the human. 4. Protestant worship and infinite value, Protestant worship is sincere, but without the Eucharist, it lacks an infinite dimension. The Eucharist brings Christ’s presence and His infinite sacrifice, which Protestant forms of worship do not fulfill. 5. The Eucharist as the summit of worship, The Eucharistic sacrifice is not a “need” of God but a gift from God to humanity. It enables true union with God and corresponds to His infinite glory, which other forms of worship cannot achieve. I hope this helps, Fallen brother
As a Protestant, I would agree, our worship IS meaningless. I pray to God in his infinite glory and mercy to take this meaningless worship and through his holy spirit make it into something worthy of Him. I pray equally that your wholly worthy sacrifice and worship is accepted by God a thousandfold. For if not, how terrible would it be for a mere worthless worship to reach God before the worship by one of the only true holy apostolic Roman church. Praise be to God who humbles the prideful and glorifies the meek
When you say Angels don't have anger due to the lack of concupiscence or unruly desire, do you mean a blinding anger driven solely by emotion? Which is not to say they can't express some form of anger? (e.g., righteous anger directed towards injustice) Edit: Those who have the same question, please read the responses.
Wouldn’t it be more like God’s anger which isn’t an emotion, but rather a description by analogy of God’s judgement of injustice? How do angels enact justice apart from God? It would seem they can’t be angry apart from merely their being instruments of divine judgment.
why is prudence connected to the intellect rather than the will? It would seem that because prudence is the virtue of making wise decisions, or acts of the will, it would be connected to the will as well.
By my understanding prudence is a perfection of knowing what the right thing to do is, and courage is a perfection of action. The perfectly prudent always knows the right thing. The perfectly courageous always acts when they need to act.
58:50 how can one know if they have human or divine faith? Like, how could one distinguish whether they believe in Christ's incarnation because their priest told them so or because God revealed it and they came to be aware of it through their priest?
Can you guys help me understand the difference between NO and TLM, in the sense of, why would a traditional rite as handed down and rightly considered sacred be suppressed and why would adherents be so denigrated? Additionally are they both equally proper worship and beneficial and efficacious?
Because progressivists exist in the Roman Curia. A more detailed explanation is that the parts of the generation of clergy immediately preceding the Council was heavily influenced by the late-stage Liturgical Movement which was all about pointing out supposed flaws in the TLM and dreaming of a "pure 7th century" Roman Rite. This generation viewed the Reform of the Roman Rite as a victory of everything they fought for. This generation passed on their views to the next generation, which now holds many offices in Vatican dicasteries.
We surely would not know how a divine being "feel emotionally". Is it the same as human emotions? I guess not. We are created beings. We can only feel as creatures at our own levels.
@ I mean like high-church Lutherans, who do think it means something. Their offering of Communion would be superstition, right? Not talking about your non-denominational memorialist evangelicals.
All protestant "communions" are invalid because they don't have valid holy orders or apostolic succession. That's basically it. Also Consubstantiation, a belief high church protestants hold is erroneous and incompatible with the growing understanding of the Eucharist throughout the church's life prior to the declaration of the word transubstantiation to describe what happens during the liturgy
No, since the destruction of the Temple they have ceased to offer sacrifice to God. They use synagogues to pray & teach, like most Protestants who don’t have proper worship.
The quick answer is no, but the long answer depends on if they chose to align their Will with God’s or not, as to if they would appear “angry” to us. In Catholic theology, angels were created with intellect and free will, and at the moment of their creation, they made an irrevocable choice either to align themselves with God's divine plan or to reject it, with those who chose rebellion becoming demons and those who chose obedience remaining eternally faithful. Good Angels: Good angels cannot experience anger in the emotional sense. However, they act as agents of God's justice (e.g., the Angel of Death in Exodus 12). Their actions may appear "angry" to us, but they are perfectly aligned with God's justice and devoid of personal malice or emotion. I hope that helps clear it up a bit. Fallen Angels (Demons): Fallen angels, due to their rejection of God, harbor hatred and malice toward God and humanity. This is not “anger” as an emotional response, but rather a fixed disposition of will against goodness. Demons do not "flare up" emotionally but act out of their permanent state of rebellion.
@@YurboyroWhen an “angel/malakh” shows up in the OT, people assume they’ve seen God. I’d assume as in Theosis/Sainthood, they’re an “extension” of God. God’s Love extends through them, and His Justice. -- So “is God’s recorded emotion similar to ours?” Can we imitate His anger when we can’t imitate His infinite Love?
@LL-bl8hd Usually, when I find it difficult to "relate" to God, it's entirely because I distanced myself from him. The best advice I can give you is to not despair. The devil often tempts with confusion. Now, of course, this may not be your situation. Keep in mind that feeling a sort of emotion, or the lack thereof, doesn't mean God is distancing himself from you. Many of the saints carried throughout their lives in darkness in hope of greater light. I'll pray for you! God bless! Edit: Do you mean relate as in you don't hear him respond in prayer?
Jesus loves you so so much! Think of the person who loves you the most? How much more is a sinless immortal God capable of loving you! God did not owe you existence, and yet, out of all the people who could've created, He made you specifically. Pray the rosary, start small, just a decade perhaps; let Mary walk you through the Gospel, Jesus looks down at you from the cross weeping for your beautiful soul's salvation.
bro what's up with this quality, get your background sorted out, a good camera and a mic, that suit you wear for weddings ain't doing much. Invest that money bruv! You need to get on another level, because the content is great but the production is lacking!
Who cares about the "quality" of the production? I think the camera and microphone are good anyway. Regardless, you can see him, you can hear him; focus on the quality of what he actually says instead.
@nathaniellowe1215 The simplest answer is that they believe in God, but they don't have the full understanding of God (in regards to the Trinity). You could say the same for Judaism.
@@nathaniellowe1215 also they do believe in God. They get almost everything wrong after believing in one God, but they do believe in God. Catholics can say this and yet pull no punches to show how wrong Islam is.
Thats why schisms exists.. Protestants think they do properly worship God and thinks Catholics do not and vice versa end of debate.. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind
@@Gloria-jv9hk Mal 1:11 Catholic priests offer sacrificial worship every day in all places at all times at the instruction of Jesus Jn 6 51-58 with the first mass at the Last Supper. Investigate the meaning of the original words “give us this day our daily bread” The Holy Mass is not a resacrificing but an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary as a propitiatory sacrifice
@@geoffjsgreat so its a representation i see.. its a representation in Protestant eucharist too.. i read the notes "because Protestants do not have eucharistic sacrifice they do not properly worship God" just curious here
@ Catholics & Orthodox have validly ordained priests in an unbroken line of apostolic succession with power to confect His Real True Presence in the Eucharist whereas Protestants don’t have validly ordained priests & are thus obliged to erroneously believe in the symbolic Eucharist
Fallacy of Equivocation: A) The blood of Christ is wine before turning to blood. Wine is made from grapes B) Cain offered grapes. Therefore, the wine turned into the blood of Christ is: (insert random connection). These poor connections undermine Scripture and the Sacrament of Communion.
I find it really interesting that once the virtue of religion is defined, the Old Testament being a pedagoge makes more sense to me. Thanks Christian!
Trent Horn won.
1. God is of infinite worth.
2. The only sufficient offering to God must likewise be of infinite worth.
3. Only the offering of Christ is of infinite worth.
4. The offering of Christ simply is the offering of the Eucharist in the mass.
5. For this reason, only the Eucharistic offering is true worship of God.
6. Any other finite offering United to the Eucharist offering is elevated thereby unto true worship.
7. Any other finite offering apart from the Eucharist offering (that is, apart from Christ) remains finite-as nothing compared to the infinite worship due to God.
8. For this reason, the laity unite their offerings to the Eucharistic offering during the liturgy of the mass.
9. Consequently, while Protestants offer their finite worship to God, their worship is worthless, for it is offered apart from Christ.
10. In this sense, it can be rightly said that Protestants do not worship God, although the formulation “Protestant worship is worthless” may more clearly articulate what is meant by this saying.
@@rubemartur8239the rosary isn't worship. If a Catholic was in an area with no mass, he would be unable to worship God. That doesn't mean he'd be guilty of not worshiping God, since he doesn't have access to the mass.
Orthodox have a valid sacrifice, so they truly worship God.
This would be a most convincing argument if not for some trouble at the beginning which I can't get to square. For surely God is even _beyond_ infinite, and can that which is beyond infinite be divided up into several infinities? Surely not, for you'd have to cut off a mere infinity, not to speak of the supra-infinity, at some point, and since you would have to begin somewhere it cannot give cause to an equal or greater infinity, for it would have to be delimited somewhere to partition it.
I am equally incredulous at the proposition by implication maintaining that which contains all, the source of all, the font of fonts, the infinity of infinities would have need of anything at all. Would it not betray a lack, some part missing, should this be the case? Surely a mere mortal couldn't benefit even a lesser spirit lacking our lower natures all that much, not to speak of the One God? What does a human have to offer even an angel?
And petitioning the First Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, I am struck by a difficulty here also. For despite Jesus telling us that we need but ask, if our God is a perfect one in all regards, could we hope to in any sense impact or move Him, be it by impetration, oblation or any other act of ours? It seems to me that not only cannot we offer anything even approaching the glory of God to God, but also that He has not need of it, and certainly won't be moved by it, if he is indeed as we say, perfect. I would bring forth different arguments if this came from a position of pantheism, but since this is not the case it only warrants a mention in passing.
I hope anyone who reads this can see that this is an argument being made in good faith, and not rhetoric or an attempt at the regular type of internet debate, rather I seek only the truth of the matter and I lack the wisdom to see how this arrangement works by myself.
@kennethruskin2710 I have some thoughts on your response:
1. God is beyond infinity, but Christ’s sacrifice is not a division of infinity,
God is absolute Unity and cannot be understood mathematically. Christ’s sacrifice is not a "part" of God but an infinite offering because it flows from God’s nature, not from dividing infinity.
2. God does not need worship, but gives it to people for their salvation,
Worship is not about fulfilling a need in God but about our response to His love. Through the Eucharist, we draw closer to God, which is for our spiritual benefit.
3. An unchanging God can be “moved” through a relationship with humanity,
God’s will eternally encompasses human acts. Prayer or offering does not change God but allows creation to become part of His plan. The Eucharist is the union of the divine and the human.
4. Protestant worship and infinite value,
Protestant worship is sincere, but without the Eucharist, it lacks an infinite dimension. The Eucharist brings Christ’s presence and His infinite sacrifice, which Protestant forms of worship do not fulfill.
5. The Eucharist as the summit of worship,
The Eucharistic sacrifice is not a “need” of God but a gift from God to humanity. It enables true union with God and corresponds to His infinite glory, which other forms of worship cannot achieve.
I hope this helps, Fallen brother
As a Protestant, I would agree, our worship IS meaningless. I pray to God in his infinite glory and mercy to take this meaningless worship and through his holy spirit make it into something worthy of Him.
I pray equally that your wholly worthy sacrifice and worship is accepted by God a thousandfold. For if not, how terrible would it be for a mere worthless worship to reach God before the worship by one of the only true holy apostolic Roman church.
Praise be to God who humbles the prideful and glorifies the meek
This all hinges on point #4. A point that needs proving, not simple assertion.
Pray for a boy named Valentin
Really appreciate this video.
When you say Angels don't have anger due to the lack of concupiscence or unruly desire, do you mean a blinding anger driven solely by emotion? Which is not to say they can't express some form of anger? (e.g., righteous anger directed towards injustice)
Edit: Those who have the same question, please read the responses.
Question 59 Article IV Summa Theologiae "The will of the angels": Whether there is an irascible and concupiscible appetite in the angels?
Wouldn’t it be more like God’s anger which isn’t an emotion, but rather a description by analogy of God’s judgement of injustice? How do angels enact justice apart from God? It would seem they can’t be angry apart from merely their being instruments of divine judgment.
@carsonianthegreat4672 Would it, therefore, follow to say that all other emotions God expresses are analogies?
@@carsonianthegreat4672 what is the basis for the claim that God's anger is not emotion?
@@vibing4282correct, when we ascribe an emotion to God (anger, joy, grief, etc.) we are speaking analogously.
Haven't even watched the video yet, but that intro goes hard
Great stream 👌
why is prudence connected to the intellect rather than the will? It would seem that because prudence is the virtue of making wise decisions, or acts of the will, it would be connected to the will as well.
By my understanding prudence is a perfection of knowing what the right thing to do is, and courage is a perfection of action.
The perfectly prudent always knows the right thing.
The perfectly courageous always acts when they need to act.
58:50 how can one know if they have human or divine faith? Like, how could one distinguish whether they believe in Christ's incarnation because their priest told them so or because God revealed it and they came to be aware of it through their priest?
We are called to cultivate both. Our humanity through baptism and our Divinity by the Eucharist.
Can you guys help me understand the difference between NO and TLM, in the sense of, why would a traditional rite as handed down and rightly considered sacred be suppressed and why would adherents be so denigrated? Additionally are they both equally proper worship and beneficial and efficacious?
Because progressivists exist in the Roman Curia.
A more detailed explanation is that the parts of the generation of clergy immediately preceding the Council was heavily influenced by the late-stage Liturgical Movement which was all about pointing out supposed flaws in the TLM and dreaming of a "pure 7th century" Roman Rite. This generation viewed the Reform of the Roman Rite as a victory of everything they fought for. This generation passed on their views to the next generation, which now holds many offices in Vatican dicasteries.
We surely would not know how a divine being "feel emotionally". Is it the same as human emotions? I guess not. We are created beings. We can only feel as creatures at our own levels.
So, because Protestants omit the proper acts of the virtue of religion, does that make Protestant communion superstition?
Considering they're not even trying to pretend it means anything at all, you're being generous calling it superstition
@ I mean like high-church Lutherans, who do think it means something. Their offering of Communion would be superstition, right?
Not talking about your non-denominational memorialist evangelicals.
All protestant "communions" are invalid because they don't have valid holy orders or apostolic succession. That's basically it. Also Consubstantiation, a belief high church protestants hold is erroneous and incompatible with the growing understanding of the Eucharist throughout the church's life prior to the declaration of the word transubstantiation to describe what happens during the liturgy
@carsonianthegreat4672
I think you can throw in the Anglicans and episcopalians in that case
@@eddardgreybeard the Moravians too
A question to Trent Horn, do jews worship God?
No, since the destruction of the Temple they have ceased to offer sacrifice to God. They use synagogues to pray & teach, like most Protestants who don’t have proper worship.
Considering they do not recognise our Lord, then no, they do not worship the Triune Godhead
You could say in a sense they do worship God just the incomplete version of God @@CloroxBleach-cq7tj
Of course they do, this is philosophy 101 and a dogma from Vatican I on the natural knowability of God
How can they worship that which they don't know?
Most Christians worship Church nor Christ. Pray for their growth in faith.
If God can be angry according to Scripture and we can be angry, shouldn't angels be able to be angry?
The quick answer is no, but the long answer depends on if they chose to align their Will with God’s or not, as to if they would appear “angry” to us.
In Catholic theology, angels were created with intellect and free will, and at the moment of their creation, they made an irrevocable choice either to align themselves with God's divine plan or to reject it, with those who chose rebellion becoming demons and those who chose obedience remaining eternally faithful.
Good Angels: Good angels cannot experience anger in the emotional sense. However, they act as agents of God's justice (e.g., the Angel of Death in Exodus 12). Their actions may appear "angry" to us, but they are perfectly aligned with God's justice and devoid of personal malice or emotion.
I hope that helps clear it up a bit.
Fallen Angels (Demons): Fallen angels, due to their rejection of God, harbor hatred and malice toward God and humanity. This is not “anger” as an emotional response, but rather a fixed disposition of will against goodness. Demons do not "flare up" emotionally but act out of their permanent state of rebellion.
@wilsonsclips_ I'm confused, are you saying that angels don't have emotions?
@@Yurboyro correct
@@johanr4076 Luke 15:10 "In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
@@YurboyroWhen an “angel/malakh” shows up in the OT, people assume they’ve seen God. I’d assume as in Theosis/Sainthood, they’re an “extension” of God. God’s Love extends through them, and His Justice. -- So “is God’s recorded emotion similar to ours?” Can we imitate His anger when we can’t imitate His infinite Love?
Yes, Trent W
44:44 Q&A: Best canon law commentary?
Dyer won
Rofo Chicken for the win. And the potato wedges.
I don't know how to relate to God any more. 😞
@@LL-bl8hd Are you familiar with St. John of the Cross?
@class7916 Heard of him, but haven't read anything.
@LL-bl8hd Usually, when I find it difficult to "relate" to God, it's entirely because I distanced myself from him. The best advice I can give you is to not despair. The devil often tempts with confusion.
Now, of course, this may not be your situation. Keep in mind that feeling a sort of emotion, or the lack thereof, doesn't mean God is distancing himself from you. Many of the saints carried throughout their lives in darkness in hope of greater light. I'll pray for you! God bless!
Edit: Do you mean relate as in you don't hear him respond in prayer?
Jesus loves you so so much! Think of the person who loves you the most? How much more is a sinless immortal God capable of loving you! God did not owe you existence, and yet, out of all the people who could've created, He made you specifically. Pray the rosary, start small, just a decade perhaps; let Mary walk you through the Gospel, Jesus looks down at you from the cross weeping for your beautiful soul's salvation.
The (Catholic) Church is the "fulness" of Christ (Eph1:22-23), so you relate to God by relating to and obeying his Church.
bro what's up with this quality, get your background sorted out, a good camera and a mic, that suit you wear for weddings ain't doing much. Invest that money bruv!
You need to get on another level, because the content is great but the production is lacking!
Stop being so condescending.
He’s a small, independent, theology channel with kids to feed, brother. Give him a break
Who cares about the "quality" of the production? I think the camera and microphone are good anyway.
Regardless, you can see him, you can hear him; focus on the quality of what he actually says instead.
Is Wagner related to Ted Cruz and Vivek Ramaswamy now?
How can the question even be asked when Vatican 2 states the Muslims believe in the same God as Abraham, and Catholics?
Are you referring to Nostra Aetate?
Lumen Gentium 16
Belief in God doesn’t mean worship
@nathaniellowe1215 The simplest answer is that they believe in God, but they don't have the full understanding of God (in regards to the Trinity). You could say the same for Judaism.
@@nathaniellowe1215 also they do believe in God. They get almost everything wrong after believing in one God, but they do believe in God. Catholics can say this and yet pull no punches to show how wrong Islam is.
Thats why schisms exists.. Protestants think they do properly worship God and thinks Catholics do not and vice versa end of debate.. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind
No, error exists in Protestantism & we are duty bound to point it out
@@geoffjswhy the need for priests to offer eucharistic sacrifice week in and out when Jesus had done it once and for all? (Hebrews 10:11-12)
@@Gloria-jv9hk Mal 1:11 Catholic priests offer sacrificial worship every day in all places at all times at the instruction of Jesus Jn 6 51-58 with the first mass at the Last Supper. Investigate the meaning of the original words “give us this day our daily bread”
The Holy Mass is not a resacrificing but an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary as a propitiatory sacrifice
@@geoffjsgreat so its a representation i see.. its a representation in Protestant eucharist too.. i read the notes "because Protestants do not have eucharistic sacrifice they do not properly worship God" just curious here
@ Catholics & Orthodox have validly ordained priests in an unbroken line of apostolic succession with power to confect His Real True Presence in the Eucharist whereas Protestants don’t have validly ordained priests & are thus obliged to erroneously believe in the symbolic Eucharist
The Eucharist is wine which comes from fruit. Isn’t fruit what Cain tried to force God to accept?
Twas' GRAIN 🌾 yet another source of fermentable.
Fallacy of Equivocation:
A) The blood of Christ is wine before turning to blood. Wine is made from grapes
B) Cain offered grapes.
Therefore, the wine turned into the blood of Christ is: (insert random connection).
These poor connections undermine Scripture and the Sacrament of Communion.
@@class7916 too close for comfort. I’ll stick to simple belief and trusting the spirit of God. (Acts 10).
@@jaypritchard7122 Are you inferring that trusting in the Spirit of God is to deny the Eucharist? Please explain.
@@class7916 I am saying having God’s spirit is enough and no need to entertain rituals.