Why I'm Hated By Both Sides of the Church w/ Timothy Gordon
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2024
- 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, Matt asks Tim to comment on what happened between him and Taylor Marshall.
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
I'm Trad and never hated you. Our SSPX priest just said "Not all in tradition is holiness , not all in modern Church is bad. " We need more culture and formation, tradition should never be prejudice.
And they’re the ones we’re supposed to believe they’re schismatic?
Run from the SSPX they're compromised.
Sounds like the SSPX has been infiltrated by modernists…who’s the priest??
@@E.C.2which traditionalist group do I join?
The SSPX is certainly not Holy. They call their buildings chappels because they aren't under any valid Bishops. So can't even use the term parish. That's a huge red flag right there
They say all kinds of nasty things about Novus Ordo Catholics, there is a real superiority complex among the SSPX crowd.
Not to mention the last 3 Pope's have all said that they are in schism. Run from the SSPX!
I consider myself a Traditional Catholic and love the Latin Mass (I have attended SSPX, ICK, and FSSP). The past year or so I've done so much reading on it and I've come to a conclusion like Tim's....we can't throw everything in and after the Council out. Too many Trads trash even the Divine Mercy devotion, the newer canonized saints, new devotions, etc......everything is suspect as if (as Pope Francis says) the Church froze in 1965. Its kind of a sad situation. How can you actually dispense yourself from Mass on Sunday because you can't find a TLM...for real!?!?!
@@jwm6314 all that is necessary is intent, form, and matter. As long as the priest intends to confect the Sacrament. I believe the story of Lanciano demonstrates this scenario.....the priest had doubts but when he consecrated the Host bled.
@@JackFalltrades some traditionalists tend to doubt it based on her book being placed on the Index which was abolished by Paul VI.....several private revelations were on the index such as Maria Valtorta, Luisa Piceretta, etc....even Padre Pio was suppressed. They just harp on that a lot despite the fact Faustina is a canonized Saint. some people are just in denial.
@@jwm6314 that's donatism, the sin of the priest does not affect the sacraments
@@jwm6314 Not a compelling argument, IMO. Just because you haven't heard of a priest's belief or nonbelief doesn't validate or invalidate the position. That's akin to quitting the Church because of the sexual abuse scandals, although with far less justification.
To declare that the Novus Ordum mass is invalid to to set yourself against John Paul II in particular, since he took that name as a declaration that he would make it his mission to continue in the tradition of his two (okay, technically three) predecessors.
I don't have a problem disregarding anything Francis has said since the Pachamama abomination, but to set yourself against JPII seems arrogant, especially since Sr. Lucy and St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta willingly submitted to his authority.
The biggest issues I have with VII:
1. The Nota Praevia in Lumen Gentium states that no VII document is infallible or dogmatic unless explicitly declared by the Council.
2. The deconstruction of ALL the Sacraments and basically creating a parallel structure between the Traditional and Modern rites. As we can see, this has done nothing but divided the faithful and has allowed modernism and heresy to creep into the Church. The Council of Trent actually clarifies that Latin is the Church's official language to guard against heresy.
3. "Ecumenism" and "dialogue" are ill-defined terms found within VII documents which have never been clearly defined after the Council and have been used as battering rams by progressive clerics and hierarchy to push their modernist agenda through the Church. Many of the bishops are either in "ipso facto" schism or bordering on it. Look at the Amazon and German Synods.
4. The focus of the Council was on "modern man." As if man has changed since his expulsion from the Garden of Eden!
OMGOSH the face at 1:49 - Matt holding back his laugh :D!!!! That was awesome AHAHAHHAH!!!
He cringed so bad... along with everyone listening. The feud it seeped in ego.
But God loves you and that’s a win💜
@@GM-uy3cm do not even call yourself a catholic. catholics are not this vicious. you are driven by pride and malice, not the love that binds us. God did not damn him, you did. because in your mind you are this highest level of holiness and knowledge and truth. check your pride!!!!. as much as i wish to attend traditional catholic mass, i can't because of where i live. But even though i hate that vatican II overthrew the first vatican council, oven though i hate that novus ordo has become a way for perverts and amoral people to adulterate our church, i do not lose faith in God because in the end, he is the divine planner. also, it was through novus ordo that my parents and my parents parents became christians.
Love your work Matt! Please keep up your vocation - you have been immensely helpful to me and many more.
That was kind of rambling, and didnt really answer the question.
As a Catholic what's with the Papal Audience Hall looking Snake like?
you can tell he loves riding the fence and stirring up drama, it’s just an annoying personality trait.
@OrganicOrganist Getting fired for speaking against BLM which is anti christian and Marxist to the core, is indeed scandalous. However, what I find strange is that he's now defending Vatican II that is the cause for all this mess in the Church. Who knows who is paying him for doing so?
@@carlomariaromano4320 Pointing out the fact that some of the trad talking points on V2 is factually wrong is not defending what happened after V2 ,,,,,
And V2 being the cause of all the problems is highly debatable. What isn’t debatable , is that we definitely have problems after V2, Those problems need to be cleaned for sure and he does address and recognize that.
Tim, I have huge respect for you. I have faith that God has good things ahead for us as He purifies His Church. These are growing pains.
Omg I’m sure nobody hates you. The saints never victimize themselves, they faced the challenges of their time with Christ. Stop complaining and stop being an instrument of division.
He's not complaining nor is he an instrument of division, Angel.
Are you sure though...
I get the impression he is victimizing and flattering himself.
@@HeisenBerg255 he isn’t victimizing himself lol . He just making a point
@@HeisenBerg255 indeed, attention-seeking writ large
I try to avoid getting into feuds between people because it doesn't seem right to choose sides. The one thing I've been noticing myself as a convert who really likes the TLM more than NO is the clear definition of the Canon in the Missal itself. My pre-convert days was seen latching onto anything I could see being the head of my own story. We tend to create nothing more than fanfiction when we neglect certain interpretations of texts in favor of others.
I wish people would refer to the differing camps as Orthodox and Modernists.
That seems like *cleaner* terms for the camps. Its so SAD to me that there are two camps. One camp believes in the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the Eucharistic and is ANTI-ABORTION.
The other camp sees the "table" as a symbolic bread & community and they refuse to stand against abortion.
I think everyone would fit into one side or the other. This isn't about *STYLE* .
This is about weather being Christian is obedience to the Gospel as written or an embrace of Social justice community.
I don't want division. I pray for UNITY.
MOST OF ALL I PRAY FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.
I believe in the REAL Presence. And so did my grandmother and my mother before me. I am ALARMED by the amount of people inside the walls of the Church who are Cafeteria Catholics and refuse to embrace the faith of our fathers and mothers.
Mother Mary, pray for us. Its *PAINFUL* to go to Church and feel estrangement from many who profess to be Catholic.
Especially painful when the priest gets on the pulpit and seems to be quoting Buddhism & not talking about Jesus at all. These kind of things are alarming.
Hearing *self help * from the priest instead of the Gospel is heartbreaking.
As a former Protestant brought into the Church by the “New Mass” I am always grateful! However I cannot ignore the fact that more Catholics have left the Church versus former Protestants like myself have entered the Church! I feel Vatican 2 had fantastic goals for good, but unfortunately so denigrated the Mass as to almost destroy the Church
I listen to both sides, hate neither...but I despise the fake spirit of Vatican II. I have no admiration of the destroyers of altars, altar rails and faithful practice.
@Glenn Kent Really like when I was going up to get Holy Communion and as I always take communion on the tongue and the Eucharistic Minister literally tried to throw the host into my mouth which hit my face and landed on the floor. Do you not believe that Jesus was heart broken to have this body thrown in my face like it was trying to hit a target at a Carnival? REVERENCE MATTERS!!! Do you treat your mother like she is another one of your friends or do you give her love and respect of someone who did everything they could to raise you so that you could become the person you are today? REVERANCE AND HOW WE WORSHIP MATTER!!
@Glenn Kent Exactly!! The current idolatry that's going on with Postmodern Catholics is the idol of the liturgy.
@Glenn Kent True, but how we worship does matter because it engenders proper reverence to the Trinity and it is a matter of justice. We owe God maximal reverence and we should retained the rituals, developed over the ages, that best preserve the true faith.
I love the traditional Latin mass, but I am so tired of the bickering between the trads and even the novus ordo. I have to accept that the traditional Latin mass is superior to the novus ordo mass. However, the novus ordo is valid. Lanciano is a perfect example.
My Syrian Church in India resisted during forced latinization of our liturgy. We went as far as to leave the church(we rejoined t in 1930). I would say Latin liturgy is in no way superior but better stick to traditions.
@@RodDop-us9ex I understand it in this kind of way, that in comparison of TLM and NO, the TLM is better, not because of invalidity of NO, or its non-licitness. None of these apply, for they are not true, NO is valid and licit, for it was authorized by the Pope. Hovewer, if we speak about authencticity, and fittingness, it is a different story, not mentiong the spiritual power, efficacy of Grace. However, Leo XIII if I remember correctly, declared, that the eastern liturgies, are as good as the Latin liturgy, and stopped the onging latinization of the east. With that saying, Latin liturgy, in comparison with all the different rites, (23 rites, i think...) should be on the same level.
@@matusbelak772 Thank you for the comment. Great food for thought.
@@matusbelak772
"It was becoming more and more clear to me that here [in the Tridentine rite] I was encountering a reality that no one had simply thought up, a reality that no official authority or great individual had created. This mysterious fabric of texts and actions had grown from the faith of the Church over the centuries. It bore the whole weight of history within itself, and yet, at the same time, it was much more than the product of human history. Every century had left its mark upon it... Not everything was logical. Things sometimes got complicated, and it was not always easy to find one's way. But precisely this is what made the whole edifice wonderful, like one's own home." - Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
The validity of Lanciano does not confer validity to the novus ordo from. The Transubstantiation that occurred at Lanciano is because of valid matter (unleaven bread) and form (correct formula.. This is My Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood....). Transubstantiation is a doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, whose principles Pius X and Pius XII wanted re-taught in seminaries, particularly in the European area, where the philosophies of Maritain and Marx held sway and was wrecking havoc to Catholic doctrines. Two contradicting philosophies (objectivity of truth of St. Thomas vs subjectivity of truth of Descartes, Kant, and down the line up to Maritain) cannot produce a hermeneutics of continuity as Gordon would want us believe. Or, as even Benedict XVI enjoined as to uphold.
We just love the worship of God and Traditionalism is the richest and most reverent and obviously, powerful way of worship
But its not really better than Novus Ordo even if you prefer it. Both masses glorify the lord, what matters is how you live the mass, not the type of mass. Of course tradition means more than just the latin mass and even the latin mass was at one point new since its not the original type of mass.
Tim Gordon likes the Latin Mass but he believes in the ideologies of Vatican 2. That’s what causes some discrepancies. But- Hate is a strong word. As an SSPX parishioner, I don’t hate Tim Gordon. I disagree with the arguments presented by him. But so what! We all have different viewpoints in trad circles. This clip is coming off as more of him having a personal distaste towards traditional Catholicism.
And as a side note, when I heard about Tim losing his job , I went in to his website and donated money for his beautiful family. I don’t hate him as a person.
Gotta love the ad before the video starts!🤣🤣🤣
This debate is emblematic of the pathetic leadership plaguing our Church. Half of these issues wouldn't even be in question if there wasn't clear, united, and unequivocal direction from our clergy, especially coming from the top. That being said, it is encouraging to see these debates unfold because it signifies that the laity is engaging and taking their faith more seriously calling into question even the most mundane subjects. Could this signify a new evangelization within the church? One thing is for certain, no side "hates" the other. There is disagreement, so much so that I believe the clergy is finally taking notice, but I have never seen disdain among Catholics despite being on one side of this debate or the other.
@Ed This goes back to my original point, confused/divided clergy and contradictory teaching. I've seen Bishops and parishes promote subjects that are completely contrary to the Catechism of the Church, yet there is no repudiation by fellow bishops/clergy or the Vatican. There just seems to be a strange complicit silence and no attempt to engage in any meaningful dialog with the laity who are increasingly concerned with the direction the Church is heading. Strict obedience is no virtue, especially in light of the recent scandals our Bishops have been involved in, with little to no consequences.
Trads are people who reject the changes after Vatican 2. I defined myself as a Trad in the 1970s and 1980s because I was a Traditional Catholics who exclusively attended the Latin Mass by the SSPX society. That is what Trad means. Newbies don't get to hijack the term.
So everything was hunky-dory before Vatican II, eh? Things were going just fine when Martin Luther came on the scene, when there was three popes, the East/West split...sigh!
Promoting traditional liturgy is not an attempt to go back to a supposed “golden age”. There have been problems in the Church at every point in her history, as you have recognized.
But the ancient liturgies (Roman, Byzantine, Ambrosian, etc.), far from being causes of these problems, can help us overcome them by ordering us toward the Lord.
Back then even the worst Popes didn't dare to attack the foundation of the faith as this Pope does.
@@carlomariaromano4320 How has he done that?
Trad is meant as a disparaging term.
When used with quotations, I would posit that those quotations are indicative of at least a distancing.
The question I would have for those who use the quotations is this: What are you untraditional about?
Peter and Paul use to disagree too. It is about loving Jesus and giving Him the Best at Mass. We need more piety.
If you feel hated by both sides Taylor Marshall could say the same thing. He has too much class to whine about it. Because people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they hate you. You got called some names I suppose. That's too bad. It shouldn't happen. If the hit pieces on Taylor Marshall didn't actually mention his name they might not upset people and be a bit more fruitful. Being that he did not attempt to defend himself only makes my admiration for him grow.
If you are hated by both sides of the Church, it is probably you do not know where you belong in the philosophical spectrum: Thomistic or Kantian. You probably side wherever wind blows.
If there were other pastoral councils, there were other pastoral councils. That’s not really a game changer. The issue is whether Vatican two was infallible. It wasn’t.
You can see from the texts they have error. We don’t worship one merciful God with the Muslims. How can we when they reject the Trinity?
If the pope said “Amoris laetitia is vested with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which supreme ordinary is so obviously authentic, that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful” Would you accept it? No.
What if the pope gets together with 1000s of bishops in Saint Peters and says im not invoking my infallibility but I’m telling you Amoris laetitia is ordinary magesterium and all the bishops sign off on it? No. The same reason you don’t accept Vatican two, because it has error.
Does that phrase make error true? If it’s wrong it’s wrong it doesn’t matter what any pope says in his non infallible capacity.
A strong argument can be made that we owe religious assent to Vatican two, but moral theologians says you can question religious assent. In contradistinction to the things we owe the assent of faith to, which we can’t doubt. The devil is in the details.
I pray no one hates you or both will be answering to God! I find you take good and interesting. I don’t always agree with you but I believe you are seeking the truth.
Just out of curiosity, what year did you and Dr Marshall has this disagreement? Because that's not the view I get from him at present. Especially with be women having a bigger role. But, maybe I missed something.
About 9 months ago
Can folks in the States not disagree without hating? I don't live there. Misquotes by T M...is that news?
I remember seeing this guy on DTM. I thought he was very prideful. Not surprised that he is anti SSPX. If it were not for the archbishop the Latin mass would have been wiped off the face of the earth.
Do you think VII was so vague that it lead to so many liturgical changes?
I don't know..
But the changes haven't led to any less Saints in the Catholic Church.
Thumbnail is quite wrong in its implication, Matt. Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Francis are not two "sides" of the Church, even though today people either "side" appeal to one or the other of them. Properly understood, they are on the same side.
I don’t “hate” Anyone. I just don’t understand how we can claim some “continuity” when I can’t find religious indifference or false ecumenism taigjt as (apparent) dogma in the pre-councilor church?
So I’m confused?
He’s not calling out specific people, he just saying in general.
I like and respect you both for your forthrightness.
If it weren't for +Lefebvre, there wouldn't be TC nor a TLM to attend or defend.
Nope. Even without Lefebre, TLM will still be alive just a minority. It was Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI that revived it.
did vatican i allow eastern churches to have liturgy in languages other than latin ?
Eastern churches were always allowed to use the vernacular
Why Jesus said if you believe in the one who sent will not be Judge (John 5:24) if you dont believe in the father who sent me will be judge in the last day (John 12:48-50) Who is The Father who sent Jesus? Who is the God of Abraham? Peter and John said The God of Abraham glorified and resurrected his servant Jesus (Acts 3:13).
Theology from a magazine...next time try Cosmo
@@chezjowy8596 I fell sorry for you
Pope Paul VI stated himself that nothing discussed in the Vatican 2 council was dogmatic. This not only means that it could(and does) contain error but also that faithful catholics are free to either accept it, reject it, or ignore it because it carries no dogmatic weight. Period End. Timothy is hated by both sides because he keeps trying to appeal to both sides. You can't be a JP2 neocon and a Trad at the same time.
It's not that black and white... It does not bear the mark of infallibility, but you cannot ignore it and be a faithful Catholic at the same time. Right after saying it wasn't infallible Pope St. Paul VI said that it's part of the ordinary Magisterium and, per Vatican I, that we need to assent to the Council with intellect and will. The task at hand then is understanding what it is that we're being told to assent to. In truth, there has been a Revolution in the Church, but the more and more I've studied this event, the more I come to realize that the Council has been weaponized and abused via Liberals. The Council itself - and not each reform or the entire time period after the Council - can be interpreted in a traditional manner, but it's challenging. One can reject the Revolution that has occurred in a Council's clothing, but still assent to the Council. I go to the Latin Mass each week and I wouldn't fully agree with neither trads nor neo-cons, though historically I've been trad. The truth is that the more you study this issue the more you realize that the reality is far more nuanced than that. I'm neither a trad or a neo-con. I'm just Catholic and I refuse to join a tribe. I think that's precisely what the devil wants us to do.
@@iliya3110 I understand exactly where you're coming from, but as you've stated Vatican 2 does not bear the mark of infallibility. This precisely means by definition that (I can) but don't HAVE to accept it. That's the difference between something that's dogma and something that's not dogma. Pope Francis could say on an airplane or in a boat that I can marry my dog and as long as hes not making an extraordinary dogmatic claim no one has to accept it, he's already said several things that contradict the faith and anyone who denies this is just completely blind. This doesn't mean hes not a valid Pope of course, do not mistake me for claiming this it just means that when it comes to his own opinion he can be dead wrong the same way that our 1st Pope Saint Peter was dead wrong and Paul corrected him on eating with gentiles. If it's not dogmatic than it's nothing more than his opinion. So the fact that Pope Paul VI explicitly said that it is not dogmatic means that it can contain error and I would argue that it does. I don't group myself in a tribe either there is no tribe. "Trad" just means traditional and that's exactly what I want to be. I love how they make it sound like we're some kind of new oddball group, No we haven't changed at all they are the ones who have changed and that's the problem. As far as I'm concerned a Catholic that's traditional is just a regular Catholic there's no other type of Catholic. Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X have already identified modernism as a heresy they're not another type of Catholic they're just straight up heretics. It's like asking me if I'm a Trinitarian or an arian. There's no arian Catholic that's just a heretic. I really used to like Timothy gordon but hes definitely going down the wrong path at this point. 1st of all hes wrong about the SPPX society being schismatic, pope Benedict unexcommunicated them so he doesn't know what hes talking about with that. Also I keep hearing Vatican 2 is part of the magisterium but says who? Pope Francis in his own opinion? I think this claim is very debatable. Vatican 2 was the 1st council to make no dogmatic claims and to have protestants and people from outside of our faith sitting in it. Seems to me it doesn't sound like any type of magesterium that's ever existed at all. That's literally the whole point of magisterium to clarify doctrine and make dogmatic claims if they are not doing that there just wasting everyone's time we don't care about their opinions we care about God's law. I mean think of all the things that have been changed that have never been changed for thousands of years. Unconsecrated hands touching the Eucharist, Eucharistic ministers, Alter girls, married deacons, Removal of the 3 hail marys after mass, Removal of the 3 exorcisms during baptism, Complete change in the liturgy and sacraments, Remove all of the minor orders( By the way the council of Trent stated anyone who do this be anathema), problematic claims concerning other religion's bordering on the heresy of ecumenism. Not only has Vatican 2 changed things that have been the same for thousands of years but it's also been a complete failure for over 50 years. Ever since Vatican 2 we see the biggest drop in mass attendance, marriages, confirmations, baptisms converts. We haven't seen an apostasy in the church like this since the Arian heresy. How could any of this possibly be good? How could our Lord Jesus Christ possibly want any of this? it makes no sense for Vatican 2 to be part of the magisterium. I'm open to discussion and I'm not closed minded, somebody please help me understand but it looks to me Vatican 2 is not something good I'm sorry if that offends someone. The evil one wants to infiltrate our church and undermine its teaching and it seems to me that's exactly what Vatican 2 does.
Just like Trump is hated by both parties. 😂😂😂
I like you Tim and really enjoy your channel.
What's the point of returning to the Latin mass? Is it just preference (good taste though)? Wouldn't we then need to go back all the way to Greek mass or Hebrew mass?
"The one "liturgical reform" Satan is always seeking is to pull the Church away from the Incarnation, from a sacramental economy rooted in the Eucharistic flesh of Christ, and from the whole structure of rites, ceremonies, and prayers that embody it. In every aspect the usus antiquior [Tridentine Rite] is like a perpetual exorcism of the devil, pointing again and again to the incarnate God's triumph over the ancient enemy of human nature. The very fact that the new liturgy abolished or abbreviated exorcisms wherever they were found - in the rite of baptism, in various blessings, in the very rite of exorcism itself! - speaks volumes." - Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright, 2020)
Because having respect for the way the Holy Spirit organically formed the Liturgy over the ages is important. Moreover, having respect for our Fathers (i.e. piety) in the faith is a lost virtue in modern times. It's important because piety promises that the next generation can pick up the torch of the Spirit and lead the next generation to Heaven. If we don't remember our Fathers and what they taught and how they prayed, we don't have a memory, and if we don't have a memory we don't have an identity. Then our enemies can remake the Church and her doctrine into whatever they want and lead souls to hell.
@@anthonyburke3000 Agreed. It suggests at the least a lack of belief in the devil which is tragic, not to mention dangerous.
@@iliya3110 Again, I get that, but wouldn't we have to go all the way back to Hebrew/Greek?
@ No, because it organically developed over centuries into the Tridentine Mass from the early liturgies. The Novus Ordo is not an organic development, but a 60 year old invention, valid though it is.
It is interesting that this video comes out at the same time Pope Francis (probably in response to the Vigano debate) is saying “acceptance” of the teachings of V II is absolutely required of Catholics. Now, let’s start with Tim’s thesis that he is subject to criticism from both Traditionalist Catholics and Concilium Catholics (after the theological journal of the same name). This is the logical fallacy of the “golden middle” where one must be right if criticized by both extremes. This is a fallacy because the argument is false and meritless. Truth is not determined by a spectrum of ideas. Secondly, Tim is far more respected by Traditionalists than by the Concilium crowd because his positions are OBVIOUSLY more in line with Tradition. Now, on the issue of V II’s place in the Magisterium, functionally the Pope asserts that it is a litmus test for being in communion for the Roman See. This is different from Paul VI’s position that its teachings are non-dogmatic and part of the Ordinary Magisterium. One is not schismatic for questioning or debating matters within the Ordinary Magisterium. Couple this with the practical reality that multiple, dogmatically proclaimed truths of the Faith are openly questioned by the Concilium crowd without any suggestion that those folks are schismatic or heretical and you can see that the argument about the “positioning of V II” within the life of the Church is not balanced, and there is no effective middle ground. Here’s the thing: what does one have to accept SPECIFIC to Vatican II that was not taught within the context of the pre-Conciliar magisterium? Most Traditionalists (me included) accept the pre-Conciliar Magisterium in its entirety without question or reservation and can literally swear on the Bible that we do so. (James Martin, for example, cannot do this.) So what, precisely, CHANGED after the promulgation of the various V II documents that requires our specific assent? Much of V II is acceptable to me and most Traditionalists if interpreted as a re-phrasing in less precise language of prior teaching (e.g. the hermeneutic of continuity). However, Francis by all appearances rejects the notion that V II simply re-phrased traditional teachings. OK. So, then, what changed? What did we believe before that we can’t believe anymore? (The answer HAS to be “nothing” because Tradition doesn’t contradict itself.) OK. So, then, what NEW stuff do we have to believe that we didn’t believe before because we failed to recognize it? (The so-called development of doctrine argument.) That Buddhists can attain perfect enlightenment? So I’m not Catholic if I have wrongthink about another religion. Honestly, it would be much more helpful if you guys didn’t go around “fact checking” Traditionalist arguments against the Magisterial authority of V II - which is shooting fish in a barrel, depending on how you phrase those arguments - and did the HARD WORK of explaining the alternative position. “Assuming acceptance of V II is obligatory, what propositions must one hold de fedei in order to avoid heresy or schism?”
@Mark Paul Francis Xavier No, the burden is on YOU, Mark Paul, (1) to characterize my "thesis" accurately and in charity - which you don't at all, not even a little bit (e.g. "seem to want to imply"; no, I'm stating things and seeming to want to imply nothing that I didn't explicitly state) - and (2) answer the ultimate question it poses. How about telling me exactly WHAT you accept from the 21st ecumenical council that is exclusive to it, as opposed to the pre-Conciliar magisterium. I am happy to be shown that there are important developments in doctrine that are consistent with the perennial truths of the Faith embedded in the various Conciliar pronouncements and that I don't fully understand or appreciate. I am UNHAPPY to be lectured, hectored, talked down to or called names. Nope. Not standing for that.
@Mark Paul Francis Xavier I am asking a simple question. When one is asked to "accept the teachings of Vatican II," what change or development is one asked to accept? For example, apply the question to Trent. One is required to reject salvation by faith alone and to accept the orthodox formulation of cooperation with God's Grace. Not difficult. Now, just do that with Vatican II. Please. I'm asking you specifically, Mark Paul. Please respond.
Sooo.... not really an answer. And to be clear, I know no one who “rejects the documents of Vatican II,” at least in the sense that one would reject every statement (or even most statements) made therein. But, for example, I reject that Muslims “together with us... adore the one merciful God...” Muslims understand the deity as a unity, but not in Trinity. So their worship of what they understand to be “god” is not “together with us,” because Nicene Christians know God as He is revealed. Now, is this proposition “magisterial” or is some nice fluff trying to show that we all get along sort of (as long as you ignore that annoying “truth” thing)? Do you know? I don’t.
@Mark Paul Francis Xavier Sola Fidei is not debatable. It is anathamtized. Promote it and you're not Catholic. The ecclesiology and ecumanism of Vatican II is debatable. So I debate it. I'm okay with that. (Francis, it seems, is not. But he's cool with Jim Martin disagreeing with Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Go figure! - the point is that criticism of pre-conciliar magisterium is allowed; cirticism of the Council is not.) So, let's get started. Allah is not the God of Abraham. Allah is a false god established by a sencretic, man-made religion (for the primary purposes of subjecting conquered peoples to a single cult - to produce a monoculture in the dar al Islam). Christians worshipping Allah "together with" the Muslims is idolatry in violation of the first commandement. The proposition itself is blasphemous. Since the "supreme ordinary magisterium" (not a "thing" theologically, the term is simply "ordinary magisterium," but whatever) can't contradict itself or command sin, (at least a part of) Lumen Gentium is non-magisterial. Which part(s)? If Lumen Gentium is "obviously authentic" teaching, does that mean all of it? Or that it's just "obvious" which parts are "authentic" and which parts are just "nice stuff to say about other religions so Catholics won't seem so harsh and jusgmental"? "And to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not? If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism." Pius X, Pascendi.
@Mark Paul Francis Xavier Brushing aside the ad hominem, the condescension and the appeals to the particular (your own experience, the key issue is the hermeneutic of continuity and its applicability to the particular text. Do we worship the god "together with" the muslims "who will judge mankind on the last day"? The Muslims do not worship a trinitarian God. Christ (whose divinity is denied by Muslims) will judge all on the last day (cf Canon 15 of the Council of Rome). So, no, no continuity. Rupture. Not Francis. The actual text.
How about having the whole latin mass, but in english
That is the practice of some Western Rite Orthodox. I think it’s worth discussing its possible introduction in the Catholic Church (as long as Latin liturgy, because of its unique benefits and venerable history, is given a place of honor).
I think that's a compromise that we could do as well. There is an Russian Orthodox parish down the road from me that does one Divine Liturgy in English and the other in Church Slavonic (their sacred tongue). Even that though is a more "progressive" reform than what is recommended in the Vatican II document on liturgical renewal, where the readings were suggested as being read in the vernacular, but still I think that'd be a charitable solution.
@@mike-cc3dd Anglican Ordinariate? I definitely want to attend that someday.
me too.. I found absurd that we can not talk simple about our love for Jesus. it is a shame as christians...
Dude-bro, it like totally has nothing to do with the skateboard I have with Our Lady's face on it which is like totally awesome to do rail grinds with.
The thumbnail is genius.
Pope Tommy Lee Jones.
If you're hated by both sides, maybe that means you're impartial and see the faults and truths of each side? I used to watch TNT all the time but when you guys disbanded I stopped watching, there were no differences of opinion and every single vid was just plain negativity and hate. Every.single.time. I'm also from the Philippines and even though I don't want Tagle to become a pope ever, there were things said about him and his supposed agenda that wasn't true. And I realized that much of these vids make malicious assumptions about people. Tagle leans on the liberal side but he is against divorce, contraception, promotion of homosexuality, etc but is trying to approach it in a modern mindset (w/c I'm wary of) compared to Cardinal Sin who was traditional through and through. people can have the right intention but go about it the wrong way you know? Also some of the comments on him were made not understanding Filpino culture, traditions, political corruption & even the people themselves, so the conclusions were all from the left-field behind keyboards w/o an understanding of what was happening in the Philippine battleground.
Maybe calling us “haters” is causing that hate???
Always considered Tim straight to the point and bluntly, “real”, as peeps say.
Is the Latin mass more holy than the regular mass? Isn’t receiving the Eucharist the pinnacle of the whole entire mass?!?
Yes. Yes there’s a form in which to do it by. Go to a Latin mass and see for yourself.
I wouldnt say so, I think the latin mass puts emphasis on different things that I consider important but at the end of the day both masses got Jesus
The Novus Ordo is a valid rite, just as the Divine Liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church is a valid rite.
"So do not be deterred from leaving your substandard parish for the sake of a better one by the argument that "the Eucharist is, after all, the Eucharist." It is for good reason that there has never been in the history of the Church a liturgy of five minutes' duration comprising only the consecration and distribution of hosts... because it would make no difference anyway. You'd still "get Jesus." - Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright, 2020)
Love you tim
"a IN THE SENSE THAT b" ... The meanings of our key terms are more or less fixed. We should be permanently hermeneutically sensitive and open - sorry for the jargon :)
Don't worry Tim, the Ozzies down here luv you !!! :)
That thumbnail tho lmao
Does Tim Gordon really think that the Pope wakes up with hatred in his heart for conservative Catholics.
The sentence "The Mohammedans, together with us, adore the One God" is a heresy in Lumen Gentium 16.
In the official Latin version, "Unum Deum" starts with a capital letter, thereby unequivocally referring to the true God.
However, since the Mohammedans reject the Trinity, they pray to a daemon, not to Our Father.
And with this formal heresy, the pseudo council goes out to window. May it end up condemned in hell where it belongs.
Therefore, Mr. Flanders, I don’t hate you as a man, but I despise what you say since it is obviously and verifiably untrue.
Is the God of the Jews (Old Testament) our God? I would definitely say yes, but the Jews had no clear belief in the Trinity. Then, belief in the Trinity is not a per-requisite for prayer to the One God; it is obviously a necessity for the true faith and the following of God's religion, but the document does not say Muslims have the true faith only that they profess to hold the faith of Abraham (they don't). Personally, I think the document should have pointed out how wrong the Mohammedans were about the nature of God, but they still try to adore Him. If we treat Islam like a concentrated Christological Heresy, then the document essentially states that heretics also adore the one God. I doubt you would deny the fact that Protestants adore the one God, despite the fact that they also believe in heretical ideas. Now of course, heresy is evil and Mohamed mislead his followers greatly, but if Muslims who have not received the Gospel truly believe that they are adoring the God of Abraham, then I think we can say that they also adore God (incorrectly).
Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. It was pastoral= practice = practical. It did not issue any canons. Even then there are details of many disciplinary or edicts of Church Councils that are not and were not put into practice. For example bishops don't request the civil authorities to warn and then expel cohabiting couples, confiscating their property as Trent called for. We don't hand over clerics guilty of sodomy to the secular authority to be executed. I accept Vatican II happened and has authority when interpreted in the way the bishops through clarifications understood what they voted on during the Council sessions. There is not doubt there were occassions of manipulation in the lack of precision in some texts. I also believe certain fashion victim bishops given their pro Nazi stances or collaboration should not have been at the Council. The Council can only be interpreted doctrinely in continuity...not rupture. It is the stage after the Council I have issue with. Its interpretation, its implementation and its distortion. The liturgical deform needs rexamination. Bugnini is discredited and was even banished by Paul VI. Any liturgical decisions he made are discredited. After the Council Council Papal authority has permitted or throigh neglect entrenched abuses or every type. What we have now is authority that is unwilling to accept it erred. Why? Because it fears discredit. This is exactly the way in which sexual abuse during the 1960's and onwards was treated. Francis was not at the Council but is a product of the much exposed and criticised by his predecessors faulty seminary/ theological formation education of that era. I think Francis is the fruit of and swan song of that generation.
And Matt of course
It's the Council that was a serious mistake, and the 'spirit' of the Council... of Ephesus.
Can one be traditional and yet embrace Vatican II ?
Yes! Vatican II is a living tradition, a continuity of the Magisterium.
I'm "traditional" and accept Vatican II but do not "embrace" it. There are many questionable things found within the documents themselves.
The most awkward thing about the documents of Vatican II is that they basically take the time to outline all of the dogma and doctrine of the Faith, as if this was something needed to be done; and yet, in the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium it states that none of the documents within VII are to be proclaimed as infallible or dogmatic unless explicitly declared by the Council.
Why take all that time and effort to outline the faith and then go on to say that nothing is dogmatic or infallible within the VII documents?
In my opinion, the Council was a front, for the modernist hierarchy, to deconstruct the Church's form of worship and turn it into a parallel watered-down, modernist version of itself. Why else are there 2 forms of the Roman Rite, one traditional and the other modern?
The idea was to split the Church in two, to cause division among the faithful.
Look at how we deride one another and try to incorporate modernism into everything Catholic.
"The opening to the world has become a veritable invasion of worldly thinking. We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent." - Pope Paul VI (Speech of November 23, 1973)
I consider myself trad, but if it weren't for Vatican 2, I wouldn't have mass in my native language. (Spanish) I don't necessarily have any objections to Mass in English, but my parents and other such individuals would not be able to effectively participate or understand the Mass if it were in its original language. It hasds its tradeoffs, mainly in the subjective interpretation of things and some of the practices, but it also has benefits.
@@StoneAgeWarfare
First, the Catholic Church is the New Israel. Our traditional liturgies mirror the Old Testament because of this fact. If you read the Old Testament you'll find that only the priests were allowed in the Sanctuary and that they couldn't even be seen by the Israelites as they performed sacrifices to the Lord. They also spoke in ancient Hebrew, the language of the Patriarchs, basically only the priests of the Temple could speak this language. The rest of the Israelites could barely make out the meaning of the words, if they could even hear them in the first place, since the sacrifices were made in the sanctuary way from the common people. This was all done for imperfect sacrifices, how much more should be done for the perfect Sacrifice of Christ our Lord?
Secondly, Latin (Ecclesiastical Latin) is universal in that it humbles every Catholic because we have to submit ourselves to a language that is beyond our comprehension. If the only reason for having Mass in the native language of any community is purely for the purpose of "understanding what is being said" then I'm afraid that the understanding is already lacking; you shouldn't have to know what is being said when you already know what is being done - the Holy Sacrifice! Besides, practice makes perfect and in a few months you'll understand basic Latin simply by going to Mass regularly.
@@anthonyburke3000 Wow, I haven't ever read that quote by Pope St. Paul VI. I get the impression that in his last years he increasingly realized that the dramatic reforms were indeed imprudent. I agree with your stance too. I assent to the Council, but I reject the Revolution that has occurred within the Church in the clothing of a Council. The Council and the Revolution are two different things. I accept the former, but I reject the latter.
I don't hate Tim.
Wow never knew you were that important until this video.
LoL Who is this hack?
There are only 8 Ecumenical councils.
The whole”we have to return to the Latin mass” is a reactionary view . Praying in a language one doesn’t understand is ridiculous, even American and British Orthodoxy realize this . many Orthodox Churches pray in multiple languages to accommodate diverse parishes usually during petitions and prayers all people know by heart . I was recently in Venice Italy at the big Orthodox there and was surprised they did the same thing . Hope this helps!
Do you know what the official language of the church is? Do you know what Latin, the official language of the church, does in exorcisms? Don’t take my word for it but look up Father ripperger on this.
Taylor Marshall is a grifter and Johnny come lately. Not a good foil.
Tim has just started thinking on this. For instance, while there are other pastoral councils, V II claims on the one hand to be pastoral and yet on the other hand has more dogmas than any Council except maybe Trent. THAT is novel.
Besides, Tim misunderstood Paul VI on "ordinary" magisterial authority of V II. It says in his very quote that it absolutely is not infallible but carries the weight as stated in the docs (and only Lumen Gentium gives such, again novel, viz "obsequium religiosum." Tim is in over his head.
I think I've misunderstood Tim Gordon previously. His defence of Vatican II was spot on. I wish he could still help struggling Taylor Marshall whose moved from convert to Catholic bad boy to anti-Francis Trump-submitting conspiracy theorist. I love the Mass, but don't get as much out of a Latin Mass - but I respect that it should be available to the big tent of Catholics particularly because people obviously spiritually benefit from that liturgy. I think we'll see the abuses of the ordinary form of the Mass come to an end, since the hippy priests are beginning to die out. I think in a spirit of Fraternity (as per Francis' encyclical) we can all come to appreciate the spiritual preferences of others in the Church and honor those preferences whenever possible.
Dear Sir, i think You can help too. You are educated and well articulated. You can also good explain how V2 doesn’t refute thomism but goes a step higher.
You are able to explain influence of Bernhard Haering. Taylor doesn’t see V2 the way JPII explained.
If we talk with much love with eachother, we protect the body of Christ.
When we are divided, no one hurts more than Christ.
Or maybe I’m wrong..
😘
@@laleydelamor1327 I think you're right
So the "pope" can constantly blaspheme Christ, support all the enemies of Christianity but if anyone speaks against him that person is a anti-Francis Trump-submitting conspiracy theorist. Right? The only thing your "fraternity" spirit has done so far is to turn people away from Christians, you do evil and call it good.
It was with the "spirit of fraternity" that all evil entered the church. And it is with the "spirit of fraternity" that the "pope" will flatter communist dictators in Latin America.
Where's the "pope" spirit of "fraternity" when he humiliated that Chinese woman in front of the whole world? Where is the spirit of "fraternity" of the "pope" with the massacred and persecuted Christians in Islamic and communist countries? Where is the "pope" spirit of "fraternity" in restricting the Latin Mass that is bringing thousands of people back into the church? Your mindset is so anti-Christian that you don't even realize it. Your fraternity spirit is a fake that you use to shut up anyone who rebels against the evils that are happening within the Catholic Church.
Even though I do not agree with everything said by neither Vatican II or Pope Francis, I have a huge respect for both of them.
I would say the problem is the infallibility (or at least commitment not to criticize) we give to both the papal office and councils. I think this is something that is doing more harm than we are eager to admit.
Man, this is one thing about considering Catholicism that's tripping me up... the politics and infighting. Doh!
There’s politics in every religion but the difference is that The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ himself. Stick to the tradition of Catholicism and you’ll be fine.
There isn't much politics or infighting actually, it is just a lot of Tridentine mass going Catholics just like to whine about Vatican II because it brought in the Novus ordo mass.
@@coldforgedcowboy nah Vatican 2 brought in more than that. Do you want a list???
@@rubenmartinez4346 ... Sure, but your list must be in the context of both the Eastern and Latin Rite. So something like receiving communion the hand would be out because in this case, the Church is just returning to previous practice.
@@coldforgedcowboy ahhh see how immediately you went to that already trying to defend communion in the hand. I can already see where this is going.
I’m on the same page as Tim vis a vis Vatican II.
Even if they say they declare something dogmatic if it is against the previous doctrine isnt dogmatic
That can't happen. And you certainly are in no position of Authority so you are schismatic and not Catholic if you believe that.
Tim is neither trad nor modern. He's based
No, Gordon, you are not a "traditionalist" - not in the sense this term was really minted by Archbishop Lefebvre. Before his time you were simply a Catholic or a Modernist Catholic. Nowadays, you are either a (from left to right); Apostate Catholic, Fallen-away Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Progressive Catholic, Conservative Catholic, or Traditional Catholic. You, Gordon, are a Conservative Catholic.
He wants to play both sides.
There is no such thing as tribalism in Catholicism. One is faithful or unfaithful.
@@iliya3110Tribalism is a new age, liberal, progressivist term that I do not subscribe to. But if you cannot see that within Catholicism there is clearly a spectrum of faithfulness vs. unfaithfulness - on the part of individual Catholics - to the Church's teachings - then you are blind to this reality. Some Catholics believe abortion is morally licit, but they adhere to every other teaching of the Church and they give full assent. Some Catholics disbelieve numerous moral and faith-based doctrines but assent to others of their own pick-n-choose mentality. Still others who are baptized Catholics disbelieve absolutely everything the Church teaches. Lastly, some Catholics hold firm to everything the Church has always taught and reject contradictory novelties that are not authentic teaching. So in the spectrum of things, Traditional Catholics would the most faithful and Apostates would be the least - with variations in between the two. Now to point out these variations in no way implies that such a position i.e. being a "progressive" Catholic is acceptable - it is just a matter of fact when trying to ascertain what level of faithfulness that person subscribes to. We of course, are all called to perfect unity in the truth and total adherence to all of the Church's authentically magisterial teachings, but only Traditional - that is to say "authentic" Catholics can make this claim. Distinctions matter - labels like tribalism are for leftists.
@@Johannes-bu6np I'm not blind to the reality here. And I do think there is a utility to labels like leftists, traditionalists, et al. However, I guess my point was that I caution for that to become the lens through which I understand myself as a Catholic since they can threaten our charity; I encourage people not to overuse those terms lest they begin to identify with the them. I don't think the use of the term tribalism makes me a leftist. I go to Latin Mass each week and pray for the social Kingship of Christ to extend throughout the whole world for the salvation of souls. Similar to the use of political labels, such labels in Catholicism can be harmful to the life of the Church and we can misjudge people. And we cannot forget that it's possible to go to Latin Mass each week and be a zealot for orthodoxy and still be as "unfaithful" as those we may call Liberal to the commandments of God in our private life. Hence, the terms "faithful" and "unfaithful" overcome worldly boundaries that we build up in the Church and includes a general sense of obedience to Christ and the Church, and not to a specific sub-culture within the Church. It's a subtle, but important distinction.
@@iliya3110Ok, here is the point that you are missing; language is always changing. Of course, there is a utility to labels (Certain labels are not pejorative but help us to identify with people who are like-minded). I am not sure what "utility" you are referring to - but there is no lack of charity in identifying what someone prescribes to in their belief structure by lumping them into a particular group. There is no charity present in denying that someone fits into a particular group/label. Charity, after all, is the love of God and then the love of neighbor because we love God. St. Thomas said, "The greatest act of charity one can perform for another is to lead them to the truth." In truth, we can never run the risk of "misjudging" anyone if we do not judge them to begin with. But, we should judge actions/beliefs (hate the sin love the sinner). What I am today, I may not be tomorrow, how I think now, could change in many respects as time goes on, and how God's just judgment would affect me today if I were to die could be different from how He will judge me if I were to die tomorrow - depending on the state of grace I was in, or its absence. The point is all is change/vanity (except God - and all that implies as revealed to His Church - see Wisdom) but some things such as personal/group actions and beliefs need to be lumped, categorized, evaluated, and discussed in the here and now in order to grasp at understanding and sift truth from untruth. I know exactly what you are implying when you say there are "only faithful and unfaithful Catholics", but do all "unfaithful" Catholics know what you are referring to (especially if they have the perception of being "faithful" when in reality they are not i.e. material heretics, those living in objective states of sin with subjective mentalities, etc.)? Where you and I have diverged (and remember you are replying to my initial comment - that uses labels (but I do not subscribe to the use of modern/liberal terms like "tribalism") is that you are equating personal virtue/sinfulness to the term(s) "faithfulness/unfaithfulness", while I am using labels i.e. conservative, liberal, traditionalist, etc. to emphasize how/what one chooses to believe in their mind i.e. what they assent to in their belief structure - not their personal level of sanctity or sinfulness. We are all sinners (this is the truth) - by your distinction, this would make all of us "unfaithful Catholics" at certain times and some of us "faithful Catholics" only some of the time (which is no doubt true in the objective sense). But for the purposes of what Gordon was referring to i.e. him being a "traditional Catholic" he and I, and Matt Fradd and everyone (mostly it seems) who has watched this video understand that he is referring to his belief structure and what he assents to regarding the Catholic Church's customs, traditions, and teachings (not his personal level of sanctity/sinfulness "faithfulness/unfaithfulness" but rather his intellectual assent and the faithfulness implied therein - which can indeed be sinful if it embraces formal heresy). So, long explanation - perhaps - but my point still stands that Gordon is not a "traditionalist", but rather a "conservative Catholic", namely because he accepts every statement from Vat. II as positive magisterial teaching and he makes no ontological distinction between the Novus Ordo and the TLM. Plus, he holds opinions that the SSPX is in some kind of quasi-schism (which it is not). "Conservative" Catholics - while generally being very devout and loving many of the customs and devotions of Catholicism also align with Gordon's positions on these issues. Traditional Catholics, on the other hand, do not accept some of the pseudo-heretical statements that were issued in Vat. II, They do see major fault(s)/mutilation in the Novus Ordo and it as inferior in every way to the TLM (all of which relates to giving proper glory to God), and they do not believe the SSPX is in schism. You can use labels or not use labels - that is your prerogative, but just know everyone else does and will continue to do so and there is nothing uncharitable, or untrue about it. Keep on hittin up that Latin Mass and trying to stay faithful and by God's grace, I will do the same!
And the ordinary magisterium is Francis’ heretical encyclicals too. The amount of serious scholarship on papal authority that must be done is certainly beyond what Tim is capable of. Earnest but ill-equipped intellectually is how I would describe him.
I’m with you Tim. I have many friends and family who attend the N.O. I prefer to attend the Latin mass whenever possible, but do not refuse to attend the
“Ordinary” form like many of my Trad friends. I believe we must stay in the Church under the Pope and help correct
abuses without separating ourselves completely from the jurisdiction of the
hierarchy. We must help rebuild the Church while remaining in it, like the saintly reformers of the past, not like Martin Luther.
Feeding the algorithms... 😅
The book listing all the doctrinal errors of Vatican II has already been written. Read Tumultuous Times by Fr. Fransico Radecki and Fr. Dominic Radecki. Also, Father Cekada has many videos here on TH-cam dissecting the modernists errors of Vatican II.
Vatican II contains no doctrinal error and to say so is gravely serious, borderline heretical.
I seriously do not understand why there is such a divisiveness between trads and charismatics. Both groups have a saddening amount of hate in them.
And we all know where that leads. Jesus and the Apostles were very clear that the only solution is love.
Just anger.
The factionalism in the church is a plague. If you're hated by both sides to a degree you're probably doing something right.
In his case, I doubt it.
I tend to agree with Tim, not because I find him especially learned or have done comparable research, but because VII, if heretical, would erode the infallibility of the Church, which gives big points to the protestant argument.
Why? When Popes prior to VII prophecied and warned about the modernist freemasonic heresies that were going to come in and set up a false church and that God was going to allow it? Not that the gates of hell would prevail against the Church, but that it would seem that way. Pope Leo XIII's original St. Michael's prayer even mentions it.
Paul VI expressly mentioned that V2 didn’t carry the mark of infallibility. If in error, the Council does not erode the infallibility of the Church.
@zedd I'm a Catholic that holds a sedevacantist view, yes. Only thing that makes sense in light of what's going on in the Church these past 60 years
@@desperados9376 Sedevancatism is a heresy. Please convert to the true faith.
@@zachbeckman2806 im not going to argue with anyone here. Do you understand the sedevacantist position? Do some research. God bless you!
I think I’ll never understand you americans.. Especially when people all over the world are waching. I bet most of trads don’t know how confusing trads can be for some of our brothers and sisters. Some Roman catholics (what you say latin rite) have had liturgy in their own language untill Vat 2.
If NO isn’t valid, how should they speak then?
New York missal?
snibet's! do some real work.
Not hated, just ignored. As another irrelevant "voice" that so desperately wants an audience.
love it! absolutely open mind chad! no one should pick sides like „we against them“, we are one church
What made me a trad is the confusion of Vatican 2.
The confusion of Vatican II was mainly in the Latin Rite side of things, Vatican II went rather well in the Eastern Rite.
@@coldforgedcowboy sounds like the confusion of Vatican 2 is all the way up from the Pope himself.
Read the book Vatican 2 (the Rhine flows into the Tiber) by Ralph Wiltgen
No thanks 👎
Even if you loved the TLM… you think that’s necessary for the world? That’s medieval nonsense
Join my ministry
Very informational! Thanks Matt. You helped in my conversion with shows like these!
I have only listened to Tim once and that was enough. He very much reminds me of Rafael Diaz . I can sense the toxic holier than though narcissism right through the screen .
I have to say I am actually quite relieved to hear that Timothy Gordan have move in this direction .. away from the poisonous rambling of fundamentalists like Marshall
I would encourage you to refrain from using words like "fundamentalist" to cast aside someone you disagree with. There is no such thing in Catholicism. Rather there are two categories of Catholics, objectively speaking: "Faithful" vs. "Unfaithful". Orthodox or heterodox. Now it is possible to be orthodox and uncharitable. But it is impossible to be overtly heterodox after having been corrected and charitable at the same time. Heresy is a most uncharitable thing and it leads souls to perdition.
Stop defaming and slandering Tony Marshall just because who don't wan to hear the truth and facts. Besides, lukewarm and fake, liberal Catholics are destroying the Church from within, and not so called fundamentalists.
@@carlomariaromano4320 You mean Taylor Marshal !!!! But anyhow , i find it a bit strange that you would accuse me of DEFAMING Taylor Marshall after his numerous and vile character assassinations he labelled against Popes and saints of the church .. I think you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a damn about Taylor Marshalls reputation .. He destroyed his own reputation a long time ago
@@iliya3110 In what universe am I to refrain from using words like fundamentalist when describing people like Marshall .. If you only had the same concern for the Popes he character assassinated over the years .. Please !!!!!!!
I named my third son after Pope St. John Paul II. Clearly I care. I care for truth. Not tribalism and ad hominem attacks, which both conservatives and trads are guilty of. Neither side makes an effort to always do their homework either. Condemn first, pray and study later. That's the current Catholic culture and it's regrettable. It’s important to be able to separate ideas, whether they be orthodox or heretical, from the people who espouse them, for whom we should love. For example, although I love St. JP II to have named my kid after him, I really don’t like the ecumenical prayer gatherings at Assisi and I don’t think that was a good idea because of the confusion and scandal it caused. I’m not assassinating St JP II’s character by questioning if that was a good prudential decision. I don’t have a problem with dialoguing with people of other religions, SO LONG if the entire point of that is to penetrate the truth (what ‘dialogue’ actually means) to convert them to the one true Faith. I have Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre‘s biography (a saintly man and may he rest it peace) on my bookshelf next to a portrait of St JPII without a moments scruple. On the other side of my bookshelf I have some spiritual works of the Eastern Orthodox. I go to Latin Mass each week. I prefer the Douay-Rhiems translation of the Holy Bible. I pray the Luminous Mysteries. I go to a diocesan parish, but I've been to an SSPX parish before. I didn't find myself agreeing with every dot and tittle of their stance, but we had a lot of common ground and it was a very welcoming parish. I made some new friends that day. I worshipped with the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics for 9 months and it was a very enlightening experience. I would probably be loved and hated by both sides of the aisle.
Am I a trad? No. Am I neo-con? No. Am I fundamentalist? No. I’m a Catholic. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist Catholic. Fundamentalists exist in Protestantism. They do not exist in Catholicism. One is faithful to what they must be faithful to (sacred Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium) or they are unfaithful.
Let’s stop putting ourselves in boxes and misjudging our brethren. And let's be peacemakers, for they are the children of God. Let's be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves. Hate error, but love the one enslaved by it. Be humble. I may be incorrect, but my perceived opponent could be correct.
As a catholic I resent the lack of JESUS in all catholic talks. So I left. I'm a non denominational Christian. Obedience comes from HEARING. And the WORD of GOD demands from us the proper love for HIS WORD. Any kind of talk has become rubbish in comparison with the knowledge of CHRIST. Leave the manure. Focus on JESUS because time is really short.
So why are you here then ??
Talk is cheap
Real presence is what matters
Nondenominational means there is NO imprimatur. They can come up with anything.
Lack of Jesus? You weren't a catholic then...
Just another troll. Boring...
He’s hated by both sides because he acts like a rad trad, but doesn’t believe everything a trad does.
I hate the term "rad trad" or even that we have to say "traditional catholic". We are Catholics, simply put. You are either Catholic or you're not and there are a lot of people who don't even know that they aren't Catholic because of poor cathechesis.
@@peace-and-quiet exactly! It is very sad, I am not angry at "fake catholics" it isn't their fault they weren't taught correctly about the Faith and what the Church teaches. I'm a convert from Protestantism and I had so many misconceptions about Catholicism because of many Catholics that I knew that told me things that didn't make sense, it wasn't until I did my own research that I found out that they just didn't know their faith, it is a real shame.
@@desperados9376 I'm afraid "we" are not Catholics, since sedevancatism is a heresy.
@@zachbeckman2806 heresy how exactly? For refusing to follow modernists and progressive teachings and stick to the Faith and Tradition of the Church?
I believe in God, not religion.
So you're a heretic then
@@Isidore_de_Sevilla Absolutely!
@@mike-cc3dd The practice of a belief is religion. The Book of James references religion, at that.
Respectfully, yours is a tired statement indicative of some misunderstanding about what religion actually is.
TIMBO join the church that has the fullness of the faith the Holy Eastern Orthodox Faith. It will never disappoint. Get out of the RC apostasy.
This helps me understand Timothy Gordon more than anything. So glad he a abandoned TNT. He was the only anchor Marshall Taylor had in rational thinking, its proven by how ridiculous and harsh he has become.
Hate?
The Lord is very clear he said you/ we Will be hated by all mankind for his name sake stay cool stay strong in the Lord and don’t sweater 🙏🏻
He is disliked by many Catholics because he is rude and crude, and openly professes that trads are better Catholics than the rest of us. He has so much hate in his heart for any Catholics who do not believe every single thing he believes, and he is openly racist! Ugh!!
Lol