Here's why I was wrong about Vatican II w/ Timothy Gordon
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.พ. 2021
- This clip was taken from a recent interview with Timothy Gordon on "Why Catholics Can't Reject Vatican II". Watch the entire episode here: • Why Catholics Can’t Re...
In this video, Timothy talks about how important it is, as a TH-camr, to be willing to accept that you might be wrong from time to time and to change your position accordingly.
SPONSORS
EL Investments: www.elinvestments.net/pints
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Catholic Chemistry: www.catholicchemistry.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Website - mattfradd.com
Why was he wrong about Vatican II?
The title of the video was never answered.
My playlist "Tradition" and "modern errors" will give an answer or short overview on traditionalmass.org/issues/
Looking for the part where he explains why he was wrong about Vatican II.
Lol same here
He didn't talk about it really. Alot of this was just him trying not to seem cast away from the majority of "Catholics". He had Gordon on to pay homage for the Vatican 2 supporters in the Church.
Good luck.
I believe TG thinks he was wrong to denigrate Vatican-2. In other words, in the extended interview, TG liked the Catholic truth he found expressed there... and was somewhat surprised and happy about this.
Unfortunately, the problem is not the beauty of the 99.9% true Catholic Faith in Vatican-2. The problem specifically is the 0.1% -- occasionally higher -- vagueness or error deliberate inserted in the documents to be used as a battering ram to destroy, destabilize and demoralize the Church later.
In other words, TG is ignoring/missing the fact that Vatican-2 is a diabolically clever Trojan Horse deliberately designed to destroy destabilize and demoralize the Church. Of course its Catholic truth is magnificent... but, that's not the point: it's a Trojan Horse. That's the point that he misses and they do not address.
@@amascia8327 ya. I think he also fails to see, that V2 has led to Francis, who up to this point would probably be classified as an apostate 100 years ago. I pray our Church will return to Tradition and realize the vast errors Vatican 2 creates. Hopefully it will not require a chastisement for this to occur, but if it does may God have mercy on those who are loyal to him.
Did he ever answer the question why he was wrong about Vatican II?
Never addresses why he was wrong on VII
I agree, the video was mislabeled and should have been something like “Even TH-camrs can admit they’re wrong”
I just saw that these two did another video where he explains it. I think the video came out on this channel about a month ago.
@@WillHerrmann Here's the link to the video Steph is talking about. th-cam.com/video/VZc8lrqzjHY/w-d-xo.html
Tim explains on his you tube channel.
I would like to see Timothy debate someone like Dr Peter Kwasniewski or Fr. Chad Ripperger on Vatican II. Both of those men are Thomistic Philosophers too!
Yes, please! I don't know where I stand on all of this but Dr. K. is extremely knowledgeable and convincing. I'd like to see if anyone with a different viewpoint can successfully debate him.
Timothy has a good general k owledge and has a higher than average pholosophical/theological foundation. But Timothy does not have the expertise that a Dr. K has on Liturgy or thorough training in scholastic theology as Fr. Ripperger does. Timothy would admit as much be abuse he is not an arrogant dick. I do love his show and square with him 80%-90% of the time. What he says about Vatican II is generally correct. One can, with effort, read everything of V2 in continuity with tradition. It requires nuance and some serious wrestling. That's the problem most of these guys miss with docs of V2. It is not plain and transparent. It requires too much nuance to get to orthodoxy. I think most of Vatican II is overtly and excessively long. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre petitioned that for each session a document be written for the bishops and then a shorter one for the laity. This was rejected because too many of the Council fathers wanted ambiguity and length to mask their underlying intentions. V2 is so overrated and has outlived its usefulness. It gave opportunity for chaos and apostasy afterwards. Ratzinger warned that it ran the great risk of becoming a black hole that would consume everything in its midst. It ran the risk of being interpreted as a"super-Council" or "super-dogma" to try all others. Such an interpretation and preoccupation with V2 is not Catholic nor is it healthy for the Church and Her life.
I lived through VII and saw the Church torn apart afterwards. I accept that there is nothing heretical in the VII documents; however, there are statements within those documents that were used to bring about changes that caused tens of thousands of Priests and Religious to renounce their vocations and millions of Catholics to leave the Church. I would like Tim to discuss the role of VII in this disaster. I accept VII as a valid council but I believe that the Holy Spirit's role in it was less of Devine Guidance and more of damage control. Can anyone deny that the fruits of VII have been mostly rotten?
I heard Tim say that one must look at:
1. Intent
2. Text
3. Implementation
and that the Failures are in 1 and 3.
I would say the fruits have been
Demonic. Maybe not the councils
Decrees .
Give an inch , they take a mile.
@David Phillips
I am not a professional , I am only a layman , but I was born before Vatican 'll , I remember when all there was , was the Latin mass.
I remember the mayhem that
Ensued with the changes , and that it was done over top of the majority of
Catholics.
An old woman had a heart attack when a priest came on the altar dressed in a ballerina's tutu ,
Two hundred priest lined up on the steps somewhere took their
Clerical collars off and walked way into secular life.
Now this pope is trying to stamp out the Latin mass , this is reaching out to teach the four corners of the world the gospel in a new and different way.?
No , this is disaster , this is modernism with in the church .
This is not in keeping with the church teaching , I was taught as a child the church never changes.
Meaning , you can't change church teachings not even if your the pope.
Homosexuality wrong , yesterday ,
Wrong today , Wrong tomorrow.
Christ said so.
This goes for anything else the church's has taught for 2, 000 years
@David Phillips I was born before Vatican 2 and I can remember feeling so dismayed when some of the changes were revealed.
You can also think that if it wasnt for V2 the Church would be even worse right now. Sometimes i think if it wasnt for the New mass there would be 5 people at mass regularly where now, at least in spain where i live, masses are still full on weekends and pretty decent any regular weekday
I bought a TnT onesie for my grandson. Now they have another baby, so he wears it too. I miss TnT
Hi Rosanne. I prayed for you and your grandkiddos. God bless you.
we all do!
Modernism didn’t start with V2. It just took over the Church at that point. Isn’t this exactly what Marshall is saying in Infiltration? When did anyone say the rot began at V2?
Nowhere
The only people who say anything started at Vatican 2 are sedacavantists
Hey Tim read Infiltration? He never said it started in VII.
That's not what Tim said. Listen again.
@@pauljasmine353 - he did say that, listen again Paul
I agree Gwyneth; I’m currently reading Infiltration and I haven’t read that!
Taylor Marshall =Dan Brown $ in on Catholics
I love Taylor Marshall. I would like to see him on Pints with Aquinas to discuss these things.
Do you understand that Taylor Marshall has been invited on just about every show and never goes anywhere where his views will be challenged? Have you ever seen him engage with another Catholic who disagrees with his positions?
God bless
@@stooch66 you're right. To be honest I just want the divisions to end. I think youtube is starting to make camps inside the Church and it's not a good thing. To be honest everytime something happens i have to watch ten differring opinions on the same event on ten different youtube channels in order to understand it.
The point is: there is a huge elephant in the room, which is still - up to this point - not being addressed at all, and imho Timothy Gordon isn't helping at all. Back in my protestant days, for me it was normal to compartmentalize my brain in two segments: one which I would fit the religious stuff, and another which would accommodate the day-to-day things. +20 years later, after having spent most of it in atheism, and then being converted into Catholicism, I can no longer do that kind of harm to my brain, never again!
One can go on and talk 'till the blue on one's face, trying to justify why and how all the evil that is coming out of the Vatican these days are not what it seems to be. And while I do not subscribe to every thing that Dr. Taylor Marshall is saying out there, at least he is in fact talking about the elephant in the room. To accept Bergoglio's actions and sayings, while still giving him full credit, is trying to brush the dirt under the carpet, thinking that nobody is really paying attention to it, and he (Bergoglio) has already gone to the point of no defense. No matter how deep one can swimm into the theology, and tradition, trying to find an excuse for the inexcusable. An honest man, who really knows the tradition, is aware that past Popes have condemned what is happening today, to the point of telling us that if one day even one Pope appeared defending modernism, we should dismiss his sayings.
I prefer to subscribe to what people like Bishop Vigano are saying. It's certainly not an easy pill to swallow, but who said, after all, that it would be easy to follow the truth. I'm not selling myself to that caricature of Catholicism that Bergoglio is trying to make out of the real Catholicism.
You're right that former popes condemned what is taught today. If you honestly want to know the truth I highly recommend my playlist "TRADITION" esp. "Are you Catholic? Are you confused by the Church lately?" Take your time and do a little research. I know the truth has consequences but it's worth it. God bless you!
@@angelaa.4254 Vielen Dank, Angela. Done my research already, and that's how and why I found the Catholic Church, in the traditional one. There would be absolutely no way in this world that I would find any logics in the post conciliar Church, coming straight from atheism. But I always like to check what people are saying about it, I will then take a look at your videos.
@@c.maciel4828 ah sehr schön, welche traditionelle, wenn ich fragen darf?
@@angelaa.4254 hier in Brasilien man hat die "Institute Bom Pastor". Es ist nicht so hardcore wie SSPX in seiner Philosophie, aber so aufrichtig wie das.
@@c.maciel4828 Die kenne ich noch nicht...
Bei uns gibt es Gott sei Dank einige unabhängige Priester, die noch die alten gültigen Priesterweihen haben und den wahren katholischen Glauben vertreten.
Einen Buchtip habe ich noch für dich: "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", Ludwig Ott, 1952. Es enthält alle Dogmen, die ein Katholik glauben muss, ansonsten ist man außerhalb der Kirche. Alles Gute noch!
Timothy, why don't you call Taylor and talk to him as a friend off line?
It seems he tried. So, let's pray more!
They have taken divergent paths. leave them be
He did. Taylor doesn’t want to engage him
I did watch the full episode and to be honest with you I was glad not to hear a whole bunch of negative stuff in regards to disagreements I like seeing that people can go back to the old way of disagreement which means open discussion it was very calming in this divided society to see a nice video with two friends thanks
Why were they disagreeing? They are both Catholic.
Thanks guys! Yes, good, respectful, honest debate is critical! It can also be a (much needed) example for the secular world about how to disagree with someone and still treat them respectfully.
Respectful debate is a centrist cope. This isn't a debate, its a war
I would love to see more
Catholic debates, especially related to novus ordo/latin mass, V2, and state of the Church! If Marshall doesn't want to lets find one of his fans.
Debate is a skill. To keep debate amicable, keep it non-personal. Don't make it personal, don't take it personal.
DONT CLICK THE COMMENT LINKS!!!
Brothers and sisters, I've noticed lately many comments on certain catholic channel's videos posting links with timestamps. Do NOT click them, it just leads to porn. I know many likely knew this already, but I just wanted to post again so others don't get deceived like I did. Pray for those commenters and those whom were deceived like me.
One of the best books on the 2nd Vatican Council is by James Likoudis entitled, "The Pope, The Council, And The Mass." This should be a required read for every Catholic, especially those who have hangups with Vatican II.
Hangups? Catch a clue, pal. The world is in the mouth of the Satanists and you are still defending their obvious takeover of the Catholic Church? Why don't YOU read, "The Plot Against the Church," by "Maurice Pinay." This should be a required read for every psuedo-intellectual modernist pinhead on the block.
@@thedudeabides3930 Nah, it's a bunch of claptrap. Are you saying that an authentic Ecumenical Council was willed by Satan? So much for the prophecy and promise made to Peter, "and the gates of Hades will not triumph against [the Church]." By saying what you're eating, you poopoo upon the words of Christ, as well as the the life-breathing power of the Holy Spirit.
There is also a book about it by Michael Davies
@Don Bailey And you're a schismatic.
It is does not bolster confidence in a product when men have to write whole books to defend the legitimacy of sed product. What I got from book was the Novus Orso is valid and licit. But that does attest to quality, continuity, organic development, orthodoxy. The Likoudis' book brings people to the canonical level of its legitimacy. Positive law. The Church says it valid and licit. So it is. Ok. Most trads (95%) recognize the New Mass as valid and licit. That's not the debate. At least not now. 60 years in retrospect the argument now is: Was the Novus Ordo a superior expression of the Church's perennial 2000 year liturgical tradition that naturally and organically grew from that which came before it? I don't know anyone with a basic knowledge of the liturgical tradition would say "yes." If the NO was a superior expression we would expect to see greater faith, reverence, and piety. You can only find that in distilled and particular parishes. When we visit my wife's family in Milwaukee or go abroad we have to research heavily before we even consider attending a Novus Ordo. We have too scandalized by the pervasive and all too common quasi-event claimed to be the Novus Ordo. 9 out of 10 times we go TLM (FSSP or SSPX). It's safer and we know we are getting real Catholicism.
The roots go back way further than 1880. Vatican II however allowed the spigot to to be opened wide. Whether one wants to admit it or not the language is very sloppy at best.
Sports analogy was spot on, I have to hit pause just to make sure I keep it in mind. Thank you
I love taylor, and all catholic commentators online including this channel, ty!
I'm new to the game and not in the loop but this discussion felt like I was listening in on a personal conversation. I feel like this shouldn't be aired for all. We need to stick together and deal with our differences in private. Agree debate is fine, but not so much the finer points of the behind the scenes personal issues.
Agree. It’s old drama that is coming around again.
@Rachel James Taylor Marshall is the epitome of Drama though, most of his content is made for attention. He even paid a kid a while ago to start controversy and capitalize from it. Not saying Tim Gordon is innocent, but let´s not lie to ourselves that Taylor Marshall is better when he is way worst when it comes to drama.
@@fernandofunez9344 TMarsh, I'm very sad to say, has become radioactive in catholic circles. He hasn't had a guest on his show in months. He burned Tim, he burned Fr Dwight Longenecker, and probably others while not on air.
@@fernandofunez9344 this is my thought for what it's worth. I trust Tim because he is very real. He is truly a what-you-see-is-what-you-get person. He is the same in person as he is on a podcast. He is smart and I need someone who is smart and whom I trust to help me form my own understanding of the sad state the cChurch is in. We Belong to the one true Church and I will never leave it. His teachings will help me have enough Grace to make it to the end if I don't become a coward.
Love listening to Taylor & Tim. May God bless you all.
Taylor is a heretic because he denies vatican 2
Taylor didn't say the infiltration started in 1960. How could Tim get that wrong? Smh
He didn't. Listen again.
@@pauljasmine353 - he did, listen again
Infiltration started before the 60s (Vac II) which I’m sure Taylor has stated on his show and is in his book. 🙏✝️🙏
I think in this clip Tim is referring to recent vlogs/podcasts of Taylor Marshall agreeing with a letter that Archbishop Vigano recently released. In it, Vigano states that Vatican II needs to be cast aside completely and we need to go back to the way the Church was before Vatican II. In his book Marshall does date the problems in the Church going back to the mid 1800s, but after Vigano's recent statement, I think Dr. Marshall has embraced this notion of tossing out Vatican II entirely, and there are some recent videos where he discusses this.
'How could Tim get that wrong? ' it makes taking his position much easier to believe this you see
There is a debate between Dr. Robert sungenis and Michel Diamond. It gets very deep. I think Diamond won it.
Can’t leave out Chesterton when talking about CS Lewis’ conversion to Christianity. 🙂
And I think (I stand to be corrected) that him not converting to Catholicism had a lot to do with were he was from Northern Ireland home of deep sectarianism and although probably very much Catholic in thought couldn't just make that final leap.
@@pilgrim3387 You’re absolutely right. It was a cultural and historical, not a spiritual or moral bias. Poor Clive even fought with his own beloved brother who did convert all the way to Catholicism.
No human in this world is perfect, I can’t demand perfect obedience, wisdom and understanding from my personal heroes when I fall so short myself.
The person who influenced all three of them was a Presbyterian minister and fairy tale author, one of my favorite writers in history. If you have children or grandchildren I would highly recommend the works of George Macdonald. And if you love CS Lewis’ writing, read The Great Divorce wherein George MacDonald is his characters guide into Heaven. 🙂 Happy Monday
where did he say he's wrong
Does anyone have a link to the video by Tim Staples from Catholic Answers about Pope Francis that Matt mentioned?
Its almost impossible to find you have to search for it in the podcast not on TH-cam
The biggest mark that V2 was a deviatition from the perennial tradition that preceded it was when Pope John XXIII allowed the revolutionary modernists to get all the preparatory schema thrown out - that theologians spent 3-4 years preparing. They were able to appoint their own committees and rewrite the schema and documents by men with questionable intentions and orthodoxy at best
3 Tims mentioned in one video. Wew lad, I'm confused
🙂 You guys should interview Monseñor Isidro Puente (Very Conservative and does the Latin Mass), he was there in Vatican 2 at around age 17 while it was being developed and he says Vatican 2 is being missintrepid. Surprising he is actually a fan of Dr Marshall and Michael Boris.
The burrowshire podcast does an excellent job of explaining the "paracouncil" as well as many other Vatican II related topics.
Also the classical theism podcast episode 137
In Catholic teaching, and especially when debating questions on faith and morals, there is an outstanding opportunity to practice the virtues of humility and charity. Only the Triune God is perfect.
pax Christi.
I would like your take on Gaudium Spes equivocating the second greatest command with the first.
I think Timothy Gordon has some kind of hidden animus against Dr Taylor Marshall. Something within him says Dr Marshall is miles ahead of him in Catholic Church understanding. His nitpicking on Dr Marshall is regrettable.
Dr Marshall has correctly highlighted the compromises in the Catholic Church, and Catholics appreciate his longing for authentic Catholicism. He must have brought so many back to the true faith.
Perhaps, but to me, that is highly unlikely. Taylor forte is to block anybody who disagrees with him and is not a debater. Iron sharpens iron, but he has never had to answer questions posed to him. Aside from that, his "scholarly" book Infiltration, has been proven to be a disappointment by people who have analyzed it. Only his staunchest supporters refuse to see the truth due their unfortunate biases. And no, I am not a fan of Tim Gordon.
This should be an Olympic event: extreme Catholic mental gymnastics. Comes on after parkour.
lol. totally
Someone please explain why Tim Gordon should have any credibility.
He’s a narcissist.
Has Tim listened to Fr Gregory Hesse speaking on the V2 documents line by line?
No he didnt, fr Hesse is too hardcore for these two
i love the late Fr Gregory Hesse
@@marcokite me too. St Gregory the winedrinker
@Teresa d'Avila fr Hesse is on another level. These guys cant compare with him... Fr Hesse was too brilliant for this world so God took him and put him at the table with Chesterton and Belloc
Yes father Hesse was a titan of an intellect. The depth of his knowledge was something to behold.
Is a title misleading?? Even if he didn't admit it outright but to acknowledge and equate what Pope Pius X said with what the Second Vatican Council said about if Christians and Muslims worship the same God is to conclude with what the title says. But then the difference between worshiping the 'One True God' and 'God' in the form of sense and reverence is indeed something to think about but the question remains how is it even in some form of "diabolical way", to use his word, how non-Catholics worship same way as Catholics?? The reason why Vatican II in a wrong is because it dropped the idea that others need NOT to be converted into the Triune True God. The council introduced, for the first time in all 1960 years of the Church, the practice of relativism which later the awakened Pope Benedict 16th term it the "dictatorship of relativism" which is a huge block for true conversion and evangelization. I'm not sure if Christ would be pleased with the conciliatory attitude of the Church He founded on His Precious Blood.
Good points. I would say indifferentism among Catholics, including this pope, is rampant in the Church. This is the chief result of ecumenism as well as Protestantism.
Hello friend, VII did not introduce moral relativism. In respect to salvation, it introduced that if one wasn't Catholic through no fault of their own (i.e. the age old example of a tribe on a secluded island never introduced to Christianity) but did their best to live according to what they truly believed to be right, that they could still be saved. Emphasis on the "could be", no one, including Catholics, are automatically saved. God knows man's heart in other words. God Bless.
The council clearly still teaches that others need to be converted.
Tim: Muslims worship the one God
Muslims : Jesus was not God
...
Your argument here is so poor. It's been dealt with at length elsewhere.
But the narratives are full if holes!
@@decluesviews2740 link ?
Muslims believe that Jesus was not God, so they don’t worship God, who is Jesus right ?
@@sailaalias3161 The Church teaches that God (and there is only one God) can be known by natural reason alone. Knowledge of God as a Trinity requires revelation. The Muslims lack that knowledge, and they have erroneous views about the one God. But read Ed Feser's online article explaining the difference between sense and reference for a fuller explanation.
@@decluesviews2740 thanks I’ll check that out once I’m home
So, what was the issue on Vacitan II? I think egos get in the way.
yeah Tim's i think
The issue is that Tim wants to get back to a 90's kind of conservatism and let's pretent nothing really happend and it' just a missunderstanding.
As a non catholic, i have no idea what theyre talking about, yet i still watch these videos
God is calling you!
The Holy Spirit might be calling you.
Is Dr. Timothy Gordon a Tradionalist or a modernist?
4th! Lol. Love both you guys.
People are learning now,all the knowledge around
Tolkien used the great monarch as a template for Aragorn
Taylor Marshall made some good points on Vatican II I thought. Can it not be possible that these particular points need to be looked at?
Dr E M Jones think's Vatican II is fine , but he never touched on these points that Taylor Marshall did. Maybe instead of debating TM you could talk about wether the points he's made align with Catholicism.
I Agree with Tim about the designation of Trad Cat. Catholic is Catholic weather you practice the Ordinary form or the Extraordinary. This discrepancy is causing to much division in the Church. We need to respect both traditions. Bottom line, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord in both forms.
It's about the Reverence. I attend a Novis Ordo. Kneeling for Communion on the tongue. Only a Deacon and Priest distribute the Holy Eucharist. Rosary before Mass and Perpetual Adoration.
There is no extraordinary form anymore. There is only the novus ordo. The latin mass of pre 1970 is no longer catholic, and the theology and dogma are different based on the motu proprio
Well this comment aged like milk in Arizona left out on a day in July. Francis would disagree with you there and now you have to choose whether the traditional liturgy or the protestantized Novus Ordo is the real Latin rite. There can be no happy coexistence between the two.
@@annemary9680
Yes Burgolio would disagree with me. My question is who set this stage pitting reverent, faithful, Novus Ordo parishioners against the Trads. Was it God? Jesus prayed that we be one just as He and the Father are one. No couldn't be God. Then who would be causing this division in our Church? I also believe the the Novus Ordo Liturgy needs reform. Do you believe that the Bread and Wine are changed to the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ at the Novus Ordo Mass? Devout Faithful Novus Ordo Catholics believe exactly what you believe. Trads just need to be less arrogant and condescending.
I agree with Tim also. I will let it go at that but he is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get person therefore endorsement of the novus ordo has blessed me..... when the TLM types act as if we haven't really been to Mass because we went to the novus ordo Mass, I could respond I had no options but there is no point.. I live in an area where there is no TLM and I must attend the novus ordo.
First, you didn't even answer the title of the video. Second, have you read Taylor's book, because he never said it started at Vatican II? If you did read it and didn't get that out of it, I would re-read his book. Not impressed with this video at all.
Liked the interview, but don’t recall why Tim was wrong about V2. Maybe I missed it.
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species.
Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing:
Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates.
Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus.
This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature.
Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific.
The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties.
Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error.
Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded.
How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic.
I leave you to draw the conclusions????
Thank you this was a good read! Not familiar with philosophy so this definitely taught me something, makes a lot of sense
@@HueyPPLong I am glad you liked it. Not everyone appreciates this type of thing.
Fr. Blake Britton has an excellent answer to Vatican II on his burrowshire podcast.
Also on the classical theism podcast episode 137.
Yes! He's my Priest. He is so knowledgeable and reverent when he says Mass. One of the good Priest.
When did he say he was wrong?
As my priest friend warned me before I started to read and research V2 and the relevant people and texts to repeat a mantra: "Jesus is still in charge! Jesus is still in charge! Jesus..." He said that the good guys were not in charge and only by the Hy Spirit was it able to produce documents that could be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
One word, thats all you have on TM? Come on guys, contexts is important
Pope Benedict XVI gave a very deep moving talk addressing Cardinals Bishops on Vatican 2, It was very eye opening. I agree. I think The jealousy toward Pope Benedict XVI is due that he is not right left he’s Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI defended Vatican 2 explained with great depth Vatican 2. I believe Pope Benedict XVI is one of the greatest Theologians of the 20 and 21 century.
So this was click bait 🤔
Here is what Pope St. Pius X actually said: "12 Q: Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or *though* *admitting* *one* *true* God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like."
He DOES NOT say that they believe in *THE* ONE TRUE GOD, he says they admit one true God. Talk about adding words, both of them are wrong!
Previous popes and St. Robert Bellarmine had no problem saying Muslims worship the "one true God" (which we do indeed worship)
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (interpreting Jeremiah 31:33):
But if someone contends that these last words too are to be understood of the present time, one can reply that here the Prophet is not speaking of the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures but of knowledge of the one God. For since in the time of the Old Testament not only did the Gentiles adore false gods but also very frequently the people of God turned to idols and strange gods, Jeremiah predicted the future, that in the time of the New Testament all men would know the one God, which we certainly see now to have been fulfilled. For the Gentiles have been converted to the faith, and also the Jews themselves and the Turks [i.e. Muslims], although they are impious, yet worship the one God.
Pope St. Gregory VII (In a letter to a Muslim Ruler):
Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’
With that in view it's not a stretch at all to see the implication that the Catechism of Pope Pius X was affirming Muslims worship the same God.
@@aahlstrom93 The Muslims believe (in their opinion) in one true God. That is also what Pius X wrote so that is consitent. However he does nowhere say that this one God Muslims believe in is the same God Catholics know is true which is the holy trinity that contains the three persons father, son and Holy ghost in one god. Muslims reject the godliness of Jesus Christ and therefore can not be led to the true father in heaven according to the new testament and therefore also not receive the holy spirit from that one true father in heaven. So the picture of God and the philosophy is anti-trinity. There is absolutely no compatibilty between Christianity and Islam in any way of worship. The new testament clearly says that he who rejects that the son (Jesus Christ) has become flesh is an Antichrist, so that is what a Muslim objectively is according to their scriptures by rejecting son and holy ghost being judged by John himself in the new testament.
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22
@@aahlstrom93 It's difficult to interpret the written word when you cannot question it for clarification. But after reading what St. Bellarmine said he seems more clear than Pope St. Gregory VII. St. Bellarmine says that we (Catholics and Muslims) worship the one God. But if anything is clear it should be that we do not worship the same God because that would imply that Catholics and Muslims have the same conception and definition of God. The primary thing we agree on is that God is a single entity (one God). Catholics believe that the one God is composed of three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Muslims do not believe this. Specifically, they believe that Jesus Christ was merely a great prophet. When I, personally, say that Catholics worship the one true God I mean, by definition, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To me this is a very important issue of semantics. The semantics, in this case tends to clarify or muddle the theology.
Regarding Pope Gregory VII, I presume his letter was conciliatory, and as such, he strove to emphasize the beliefs common to Catholics and Muslims (one God, creator and ruler of the world). But the clarifying question I would ask him would be, 'What do you mean by (believe and confess one God) "a different way" ?' Are both ways theologically correct and valid alternatives? Or is one a false religion? There is only one Catholic answer to this question and it is that only the Catholic faith and creed are true. If he does not answer in this way then he yields to the heresy of indifferentism.
I enjoy listening to the homilies on Sensus Fidelium
Is Tim seriously doing apologetics for Vatican II?
Tim being a Catholic, believes in the documents of Vatican II.
Surprising? As Catholics we have to accept the Vatican II. I wonder why many people have this feeling that they know everything.
Those darn Catholics and their... *shuffles cards*... defending their own councils.
Tim is known to be a believer in Benedict XVI theory of hermeneutics of continuity
@@coldforgedcowboy vague absolutist statements about topics that have so many different layers of disagreement show exactly why this topic is so hotly contested. You are automatically making an enemy of anyone who has ever had questions about the council, its documents, the fruits of the church since the council or the "spirit of Vatican 2".
How can the church be effective in its mission if the right and left feet are constantly trying to trip each other? It would benefit the whole world for catholics of all kinds to allow discussion on these topics and truly hear the concerns of our brothers and sisters.
Lord please bring clarity to these issues that cause us to turn away from one another because ultimately it is you we are turning away from in our arrogance.
TG is too prideful, I told my now wife ages ago, back when TnT was a thing, that he was too envious of Marshall. Doing what he did here behind Marshall's back, throwing his book under the bus without any hints whatsoever to what makes it unworthy, was kind of low.
I do not have much respect for this kind of person.
Taylor Marshall attacks V ll when SAINT John Paul ll endorsed it. Maybe think about who you place support behind.
Tim, I think it's important to debate, but then again, because ppl (the faithful) are so easily scandalized, maybe "it" needs to be taken to the parking lot first. Not that you'll get any takers.
Young people who say ‘like’, ‘ya know’, and ‘awesome’ every other clause should not expect to convince anybody of anything. Nor someone who cannot pronounce, and presumably does not know, the Latin language, when the subject is the Roman Church.
And the usage “me and...”
Good grief. Think of "ya know," etc., as the vernacular. I did not hear egregious overuse of those phrases, myself. And, if you can see well enough while looking down your nose at Mr. Gordan, try to look at his meaning, rather than his syntax. Ransom Coates. Really?
chateaumojo I‘ll look down my nose a little further and say I have come reluctantly to the view that all of these Catholic Internet celebrities, from the ‘awesome’ Fr. Mike down, are the sort of cheap vaudevillians of Catholicism.
@@ransomcoates546 Fr. Mike Schmitz? May I ask what it is you disagree with him on?
saintd It was uncharitable of me to mention him, because I think he is a holy priest dedicated to God and the Church. Two things have begun to irritate me, though. I think he has reached the age where the full on ‘Batman’ style is undignified, and it seems to me that he speaks much less rarely in so inspiringly a Catholic way as he used to. The last ten minutes of his famous Eucharistic talk remain in my mind the best Catholic preaching since Bishop Sheen. Would he include today the story of the martyred Chinese girl? I doubt it, because now the Vatican thinks caving to the Communist Chinese government is most desirable. I guess between Francis and the possibility of his diocese getting a new thoroughly Francis style bishop, he seems to me to be hedging his bets a little, which I find disappointing. But again, these are personal feelings about someone I have greatly admired, and who I think is much closer to God in this life than I’ll ever be.
I command you , come out TIM
Miss TnT...wish the debate would happen
would be pointless at this point
@@DescartesDooley maybe your right...
It would be wonderful if Pints of Aquinas invite theologian Fr Blake Britton on the essence of Vatican II.
Where is the Explanation??? 🤦🤦🤦
this title was clickbait....plus one of the most tedious if short videos on TH-cam
but, but, but....the literal is always carried on by the metaphysical. The spirit of Vat. 2 is just as important or more important, than the literal documents.
In a similar vein as Dr. Taylor Marshall:
I accept all creeds, canons and anathemas promulgated and codified by the Second Vatican Council.
By what account do you believe that you, as a faithful and orthodox Catholic, are only to assent to "creeds, canons and anathemas"? Be careful with that reasoning, because it's way out of line with what the Church (which you presumably consider yourself a part of) believes:
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, **even when he is not speaking ex cathedra** ; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." Lumen Gentium
"In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the magisterium , which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in **exceptional form** to all men throughout the world." Pope John VI - Opening Address
"Finally, he solemnly ratified it: “And we ... approve, establish, and decree it in
the Holy Spirit....” These reasons show that the text **greatly surpasses the ordinary declarations of the papal magisterium** , including encyclicals, with regard to the nature of the
theological obligation it entails." Cardinal Ratzinger on Vatican II
@@TheMadman911xx
I did not say that "I do not assent." I only stated that I accept all creeds, canons and anathemas.
To my understanding, assent is given when the "teachings" found within any council coincide with the perennial teachings of the Church. Which means any "teaching" found within VII must follow pereannial teachings. But because there are no pronouncements of faith or anathemas it becomes difficult to see where there is any definitive teaching at all in VII.
When invoking the Magisterium it's important that there be a differentiation between ordinary and extraordinary Magestirium.
There have been councils in the Church history which have been condemned, like the council of pistoia. Or even ordinary Magisterium teachings which have been found to be in error, like the question of Holy Orders found within the council of Florence.
This coincides with the Roman Pontiff as well. The "mind and will" of the current Pope cannot contradict his predecessors, the Magisterium or perennial Church teachings.
"At the same time, however, I join with all other theologians in saying that the new ground is non-infallible teaching. So when I say that the possibility exists that Vatican II is wrong on one or more crucial points of Dignitatis Humanae I do not simply mean that the Council's policy may prove unfruitful. I mean to signal a possibility that the Council's teaching is false. But may a Catholic theologian admit that such a possibility exists? Of course he may... the teaching which it presents is admitted to be a "new development" hence not something which is already acknowledged dogma or ex magisterio ordinario. Therefore the kind of religious assent which Catholics owe that teaching is the kind of assent which does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong." - William Marshner, chairman of the theological department of Christendom College (Faith and Reason Magazine, Fall 1983)
Many will not get the punchline here. Pope Paul VI explicitly said that Vatican II was a purely pastoral council, not proclaiming any new creed, canon or anathema!
I just care about the latin Mass being allowed and those trying to choke it out are afraid that it will take over.
You brought back Paul Stanley! Although Tim is much more handsome haha
You tube and listen to Leo's encyclical on free masonry,then Pius Xs pacendi...concerning the infiltration
If Gordon is a Thomistic philosopher, he should know that independent realities do not debate among themselves. Who debates are those who acquire the inteligibility of ontological beings in which case one may know the complete intellibigility of the nature and the other the incomplete intelligibility of the same nature. Such is not a debate but a comparison of the intelligibility of thing. Even the iuxta-position of being and non-being is not a debate.
These new theologians youtubers controversies are a new phenomenon that is only helping them. They start to think in terms of audience, patreon sponsorships, crows, debates, etc. This is clearly misleading people into sterile grounds while they serve their ego. I recommend Matt Fradd to invite catholic scholars who really have a deep knowledge of their field and who can have respectful and mature conversation. Catholic youtuber apologetics need to know that acting in a childish and immature way is not going to help but actually worsen our actual state of crisis.
Church councils are never wrong. Remember these councils do not come by themselves. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are not instigated by just the pope, it involves the whole church, representted by the college or groups of cardinals. We should look at its purpose and what it achieves to accomplish. All we have to do is obey. Debates just tend to confuse. Read the scriptures it talks about the evils of debating,
I need to copy paste this for personal use. I wish all think like this. This division, "pseudo-debates" and "anti-Francis" agenda needs to stop. IT is what is hurting the church... not the pope, not V2, not any of these youtubers who claim to be experts by their comments.
@@lvlc5 true Sis Ledya. We should always guided by the Holy Spirit in everything. Catholicism is Jesus' design not by us. Not even by any pope. God is its founder and head. It is the authentic true group founded by Him in 33AD on St. Peter. History will prove it. No other church can claim that. Senseless debates and doubts hurt the church.
The Second Vatican Council is not part of the Church's doctrine so it could be 100% wrong. I don't think that something that has only made the church worse and caused millions of people to abandon the Catholic faith is something inspired by God.
@@brendabrenda6782 people leave the church because of their fallen state, that is normal. The church councils are not doctrines. They are meetings called by the church to define, clear or settle matters. You can find that in the bible, the first council held at Jerusalem with Paul and Peter. Nothing the church does is wrong for it 100% guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. Plus He will be with it until the end of times.
@@gracianomendoza8671 And you talk as if this isn't going to result in thousands of souls going to hell and physical persecution of Christians. The Catholic Church died after the Second Vatican Council that is a fact.
CS Lewis is somewhat wrong.
Aquinas Fraternal Correction
Public Disagreement is the Last Resort
I am so grateful that you spoke as you did about the NO....as I have said, we have no options here.
With all due respect this doesn’t talk about where he was wrong about Vatican II unless we’re only talking about the statement about the one true God. Can someone enlighten me? They seem to be more of an opportunity to just talk about the skirmish he had with Taylor Marshall. Which I did see happen in real time and I thought it was silly I should not have been brought into the public airwaves.
Dear Matt I like you intro pour 🍺 try a stout next time cheers 🍻. I will order Tim Staples book on our Lady. Thx.
I was heartbroken cause I really enjoyed watching them together!!
@Rachel James I think Tim is truly hurt, and wants friendship. . I don’t understand two real Catholic men ( which is what we need right now) can’t just shake hands and agree to disagree!
we all did
I'm happy to debate on Vatican II. That has never happened. Tim and Taylor really don't know what they are talking about here. It could be a really fruitful discussion (and I'm more that than a polemicist).
Caveat: V II is never discussed. Better for me to debate someone who doesn't think he knows it all. Those who think they do will just get angry and shut it down.
Although debate - vigorous, well-honed, and even in-your-face - is the Catholic Way .. whether on the Spotlessness of the Blessed Virgin or the advisability of Communion in the Hand or transferring Holy Days/ Public Devotions/ Weekly Confessions (in emergency situations), etc .. it is not the only way open to (and at times necessary among) Catholics. When two good-hearted souls, and best buds, fail to agree - due in large part to mutual (trivial/ rival) misunderstanding - boyso .. husband and wife huffs ain't got nuthin' on it. TNT was .. and always is liable to be .. explosive - but then, sometimes explosions are needed ......
St Joseph : Stand by us.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Taylor Marshall is very knowledgeable and has help me understand many things!
I think Taylor and Timothy split up from friendship.
The One God is the Blessed Trinity. The Muslims adamantly reject the Blessed Trinity. Ergo, Muslims cannot possibly adore the same "One God" as do Catholics.
Trent is great and great teacher
So, why were you wrong about Vatican II? I think everyone is wrong about Vatican II. It is not something anyone can be right about. Let's ask a couple questions: What were the objectives of the council? Have they been met?
If we are right about the answers to the first question and can answer the second in the affirmative, then it was a good thing. If not, it was not a good thing. Is there anything else we need to be right about? If you have the answers, please let me know. I don't. I only have confusion on the matter which leads me to the suspicion that whatever the answer to the first question, the answer to the second is "no."
I guess my suggestion may fail if the objective was to cause confusion and dissension in the church and lead many souls into heretical beliefs that are never addressed and corrected. If that was the objective, the council was a resounding success.
For those angry about the Church (and Tim) saying Muslims worship the same God as us: it's more nuanced than the standard "Jesus is God, they don't worship Him, therefore that's not true" -- many popes and even St. Bellarmine, a pillar of orthodoxy, attested that Muslims worship the same God. Observe below in the quotes:
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (interpreting Jeremiah 31:33):
"But if someone contends that these last words too are to be understood of the present time, one can reply that here the Prophet is not speaking of the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures but of knowledge of the one God. For since in the time of the Old Testament not only did the Gentiles adore false gods but also very frequently the people of God turned to idols and strange gods, Jeremiah predicted the future, that in the time of the New Testament all men would know the one God, which we certainly see now to have been fulfilled. For the Gentiles have been converted to the faith, and also the Jews themselves and the Turks [i.e. Muslims], although they are impious, yet worship the one God."
Pope St. Gregory VII (In a letter to a Muslim Ruler):
"Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’"
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X
12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
---
Is the Church, Doctor Bellarmine, the popes, and Tim claiming they get His nature and everything He has done correct? No. It's not such a black-and-white subject... consider how Saint Paul in Acts went to preach Christ in the synagogues. Jews don't worship the Son as God. So logically shouldn't have Saint Paul been preaching first and foremost about the one true God to the Jews? Yes. But he didn't, though they deny the divinity of Christ. It's possible for people to worship the same God as us though they have a deficient knowledge of him, or be misled about His nature or what He has done.
well God would mean YHWH correct? when this question is asked of allah followers they say they believe in Allah not YHWH? so is the God they believe in actually the One?
@@liberator275 Yes, just because they lack knowledge of His personal Name doesn't mean they don't worship Him. The Jews lacked the personal Name of God (Jesus Christ), yet again, in Acts we don't see Saint Paul trying to preach about how they need to accept the one true God, do we?
@@aahlstrom93 so you think that walking around a stone in the desert is an act of worshipping YHWH? if it's the case then can catholics go and worship in the mosque? same God isn't it?
@@liberator275 You need to reread my post, brother. I addressed everything you just typed out before you even typed it out.
@@aahlstrom93 i have read your post. you are saying in it they lack knowledge of God including God's name however the church states they worship the same God as Christians. can they really believe in the same God when this very God had nothing to do with the way they worship. Same God didn't ask followers to walk around rocks in the desert, mistreat everyone, etc. it is an odd concept. islamic practices have more to do with pagan desert arabia than worshipping YHWH. as a matter of fact, the entire religion is contrary to Christianity so how can this be said that they believe in the same God? if it were the case, the religion would've been aligned with Christianity, but it's not.
How do you look at the meetings in Assissi with all the different religions, including pagan religions, praying to their false gods in the presence of the Pope. How does this not go against the first commandment as well? how about the church always spoke, condemning this idea or even St Paul;
But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. So, can't we apply to praying to false gods? I am not saying the popes prayed to the false gods but the allowed it, I am not trying to attack the the popes who were involved it's not for me to judge them I don't have the authority but by what the church has always taught and the 1st Commandment I can say how can this be right? I love listening to your videos. btw thanks for your work.
You don't need to debate Tim. Just state your side of the argument and where you based it on. You seem to be obsessed about winning a debate.
Check 2Timothy 2:23. All you display is your savy and disobedience when you initiate debates. Less talk, less mistake guys.
Is not Taylor a hardcore Cristian and a kind of conspiracy theories supporter. I have that feeling. More mercy!!
Vatican 2 statement that Muslims worship THE ONE GOD to me is the same as saying the ONE TRUE GOD.
Tim, you’re splitting hairs.
Do you think Protestants worship the same God as Catholics though they don’t worship the eucharist ?
Bruh idk - yes. They accept the Trinity and they accept Jesus as God and Savior. They’re heretics not apostates.
@@Crusader33ad Jews don't believe in the Trinity, do they not worship the same God? If a Protestant does not hold to divine simplicity, do they worship the same God?
Abel J - semantic argument.
@@Crusader33ad hello, hope you are well.
Can you point out what definition I am changing ? Or if that's not what you mean can you show me how my questions are irrelevant?
You said adoring The One God is the same as adoring the One True God. And please correct me if I am wrong, it was as if - if I am adoring God, it means I'm adoring the true version of Him, and nothing false ( perhaps that's why you set the Trinity as the/a standard). If so protestants who don't hold Divine Simplicity are way off and don't adore God, because they don't hold the full truth of God when they are raising their adoration. Also the Jewish people who Paul talks about their relation to Christians in the book of Paul, would not be adoring the same God.
If these are irrelevant why did you justify how protestants adore God because they believe in the Trinity and believe in Jesus Christ? You basically said in order to adore God you must be aiming your adoration towards the true God. Many protestants and the Jewish people fail that test, and so I don't think those standards work. None of us have a perfect understanding of God, does that mean we will never adore Him ?
I hope this let's you see where I'm coming from. Cheers, have a good one. God bless.
Recent Catholic commentary has become legalistic and nit-picking. Pretty much every protestant movement was founded not on how hard line the church of the time was, but how sloppy its thinking. I don't know if this is because converts have brought a reductionist-literalist approach to scripture with them, or the young have transferred their passion for (rock music?) minutiae to theology, but simple faith has been replaced by exegesis through philosophical exhaustion. Indifference has swung to a kind of mental mortification that is Calvinist in nature. It's politics, basically, with a religious spin.
Yes. Which makes me tend to suspect these sites are actually anti-catholic. This is not how a catholic "sees" life
TG and TM DEBATE??
THAT would be raaaad! TH-cam would blow up
grifters gotta grift
I agree with Archbishop Vigano. You have to follow truth, Tim, wherever it leads. It may be uncomfortable like changing our understanding of infallibility and primacy. Nostra aetate is used to justify worshiping idols in a Catholic Church. Idolatry offends God. We go with God, not idols. We were sold a bill of goods by so many Catholic apologists who idolized Pope John Paul II and made it seem like he could do no wrong because of papal infallibility and because he put on a good show at mass gatherings.
He (correctly) accuses VII criticizers of taking the Council out of context, and then takes Pope Pius X out of context.
Where you at Tim Gordon?! Oh how the “turn tables”
Taylor Marshall has ingrained protestant attitudes. I guess he doesn't see it.
Your discussion of Taylor Marshall turned into judging him behind his back although I haven't seen any of his mistakes. I give this video my thumb down. Regretfully.
Hi Illya, genuine question for clarification because I haven’t seen it all yet; was Tim judging “him”? Or judging his beliefs? The latter would make a big difference, and the distinction is important. Would you be so kind as to time stamp the moment(s) where Tim allegedly judged Taylor Marshall’s character? That would be so helpful for us all. Thanks 😊
@@wanaspola216 Matt's and Tim's discussion led to pretty unfortunate commentaries under the video. You right, Tim wasn't judging Taylor Marshall if we take the precise meaning of it but his words of him somehow leave a shadow of judgement leading to listener's conclusion that Taylor Marshall is wrong and is mistaken. Even that he lies.
me too
@@ElijahDovgy if judgement is done righteousnessly, it's a good thing. Read 2 Corinthians 2:10
Sadly, Dr Marshall makes me depressed in how he wines like an unbeliever. Little charity coming from that man’s argumentation.
V2 isn’t Theocentric. Period it’s modernism & man centered