Nice guy. Just read his book and it's not about philosophy. The vast majority of quotes and sources are C.S. Lewis. Lewis is not a philosopher. It's more of an apologetic comparison to Christianity and why C.S. Lewis finds it true. The ultimate truth is Jesus. The ring is the cross. When Christ failed he defeated death. This is common Hellenistic mythology from 300 BCE, a salvation through a savior deity. Not philosophy. Christ is the Logos. No John borrowed that from Plato and wrote a story. I thought this would be philosophy and it claims it will teach you something about philosophy. You get apologetics. Having a belief is great, calling it philosophy is misleading. There is philosophy about truth. None of it involves taking a deity in any mythology and saying "there is truth". That is a religious belief. Just call it the Religion of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Why are apologists always using false narratives? Good vs evil doesn't start with the Bible. He barely mentions much of Tolkien is taken from other myths. But it's about philosophy, not myth. And if you describe a religion or myth, you explain the philosophy as philosophy, not religious dogma. If you bought a philosophy book and it said "what is truth" and answered with, "the Quran is truth, God gave us the truth in this text", that is not philosophy. It's a personal belief. You can explain philosophy from any fictional story as philosophy, not as an apologetic to show the story must be true. Philosophy books should not be saying the Quran is truth, or Jesus is truth. A theology or apologetic book already does that, in every religion. The last Tolkien book did the same. All positive hopeful beliefs were Christian, all pessimistic beliefs were pagan. No, the ancient world was sharing philosophies and stories. The Near East had a common wisdom tradition and then became Hellenized and all shared common themes around their own deities. The metaphors they stand for are philosophy, not taking the story literal.

Very poor choice in leaving the Jewish faith. (I'm sure y'all will hate my comment :)

I have been looking for this lecture for 30 years. Thank you.

He starts out by attacking journalists and mental health workers. What the hell does this have to do with Tolkien? This guy is a terrible lecturer. Does he teach somewhere? I feel sorry for any students who have to spend an entire semester listening to this bore.

This man helped change my life...

Worth listening to a few times!

Is it wrong to have a favorite priest? 😅❤

Brilliant

May this note find us all ever closer to God, and Peace. In response to the misunderstanding @LostArchivist seems to have to my original comment, I never stated that the continuation of Popes from St. Peter was broken - and as far as the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. For the Gates of Hell to prevail I suspect means that all Traditional Catholics intending to stay loyal to the Church would have to be non-existent. It is expected - from Mary's apparitions at Fatima&Akita that the Body of Christ, Her members will be greatly reduced in the near future. The Gates of Hell do not prevail when a Counsel put forward a document which contain Heresies and is accepted by a Modernist Pope who perhaps since before accepting Office intended to betray the Office and so lacked the Grace from God for that Office, followed by others. I was asking for a reply for what seems like a solid concern that Modernists pre-post Vatican II have been trying to debase original Catholicism and replace with the 'Ape of the Church', for Pope Francis to act Openly against the unification of the Church - to cause needless internal strife between Traditional Catholics who want only to worship as the way that over 1500 years of Saints & left alone, and those willing or supporting that new Modernist 'Ape' Church replacing it. The Apostolic Mark of the Catholic Church has been threatened in Vatican II and each time one of the Dogmas that was defined by Scripture or clarified by our Apostils. And I have been working to improve my personal Catechism and understand at some way the Theology that supports it, in part because I foresee a period of time when our Modernist Leadership further shows their increased betrayal of their Duties & Office, and that they never intended anything but treachery from before accepting the offices and so even though legally (for continuation purposes) have the Office(s), they never received the Grace from God to Operate that office beyond it's secular abilities. My attempts to learn pre-Modernist's Sickness, the solid Catholic Church is to be prudent in what changes forced on us might be heretical. God Bless., Steven

Lmaooo Roland, the Black Silence??

Thank you most Holy and loyal servant, Cardinal Muller! Blessed be.

May this note find us all ever closer to God, and Peace. As I have seen in contradictions of Vatican II and following Popes from pre-Modernist Catechism in Traditional seminar courses of, for example Magisterium and scripture backed arguments against Prostatism and Catholic apologetics such as the 19th century's book 'The Church', and review of Modern Error starting with Descartes through Modernists. Also the argument that those Post-VII Popes were Popes legally, such as Pope Francis, but lack the Graces needed because they intended to violate their Popes duties and oaths from beginning and before, that their ongoing heresies are insignificant compared to this intent to create a new Church without Apostolic and Magisterial connection. Traders and Betrayers of our Catholic Faith. I respectfully ask that this be publicly addressed. God Bless., Steven

🙏🙏🙏🌟

"It's part of God's nature He doesn't have to decide what's good" So Genesis is wrong? "God said let there be light and He saw that it was good" Either God made decisions in those 6 days of creation or He didn't... Science *is* reconcilable with religion. All it shows is *how* things work from within creation, not *why* things are the way that they are. What *is* incompatible with religion is human malice, greed, and corruption that takes those understandings gifted to them by the grace of God and then uses them to destroy each other, the earth, and creatures which God placed us as custodians of. With each discovery of science I am more firm in the belief of a creator and of intelligent design. Science *is* the proof of intelligent design. God cannot be observed from within creation, or understood by the mind. This gives many scientists their hubris to assume that there is no God... Except that the start of the universe and all creation still remains elusive with even the Big Bang theory still in question. Some things will always remain outside of our limited and fallible nature. God is beautiful and God's work is beautiful. And I thank both mystics, saints, prophets, scientists, and philosophers for giving us so many ways in which to see and know God. We are truly blessed in every moment and we are surrounded by major and minor miracles each day.

27:43 Excellent and thought-provoking and sincere musings on Sauron, human psyche and narrative themes!

Fr. Rutler's videos are always too short 🙂

The lecture is most edifying, but the audio and the video are in serious need of remastering.

36

What a positive speaker Eduard is. A delight to listen to.

The seriousnes in play and delight was noted by Nietzsche, which Fr Schall read widely. This approach is beatiful and gives a better perspective on life and catholicism. I have always thought that Nietzsche himself would have aligned with catholicism if his father would not have been a lutheran priest.

Silent sermons? No homilies then at his Masses?

Whois this speaking here please?+

37:22 Apparition Approval

amazing

hmmm, the Habsburg way of family?

Wow! That's actually the most pertinent question of them all 😳 Should finally look this document up and read it.

Brilliant! Important! Should every modern liberal and so-called conservative reflect on this.

I think this would have bee much better with just Kreeft.

To be fair the critics probably read way more books than the public, and so have a better understanding of literature. Harry Potter is also very popular with the public. I mean come on.

the urgent future of the argentina: victoria villarruel-daniel scioli president.elisa carrió bs.as.gov. wagfulking

trumpresident24 magamerica.united medealgore.vice24. wagfulking

I notice Pearce is drinking *water* this time!

Why didn’t I know about this man sooner😢,this guy is a gem👍.

Peter Kreeft is as masterful a lecturer as ever. In this lecture, he presents a wonderful rhetorical and argumentative case for the all-pervasive Christian nature of The Lord of the Rings. If you enjoy LOTR, you ought to give this a listen.

After hearing so much about Chesterton, I'm currently reading "The Everlasting Man". I haven't read Wells, so I can't say for sure what Chesterton is responding to, but he seems to be disputing human evolution ("monkeys"). In light of the evidence discovered (fossil and genetic) since the book was written (about 100 years ago, 1925), Chesterton's dismissal seems rather comical. Ah yes, "comical". Chesterton the Great Wit? I read the book in the context of the Internet Age, but he seems like a particularly virulent _troll:_ sarcastically using wordplay to say a whole lot of mean-spirited nothing. And then, My God, the *racism!* Yes again, of course: 1925. It shocks me that a supposedly educated man could use the N word so flippantly (even moreso than Agatha Christie, I guess around the same time, "Ten Little {N Words}"). But it's also the repeated description of African and Latin American peoples as "savages." And it's "Chinamen" this and "Chinamen" that, but worse than the mere term, Chesterton calls "a Chinaman in a billy-cock hat, sitting opposite to us in a London tea-shop, is hardly human." I'm not saying I'm getting nothing out of the book---if I can spare the time for a hate-read!---but it's difficult to find the pearls amidst so much swine(-leavings)...

Great lecture. Thx.

I do not support women as priests because menstruation is precluded regarding three specific duties of priests: 1. Consecration of the Eucharist, and 2. distributing the Eucharist by hand, and 3. Exorcism. And, although hearing confession does not concern menstruation or blood issues, women also seem to be precluded from hearing confessions and conferring forgiveness of sins because Christ breathed only on his male Apostles when he said he was conferring the power on them to "forgive sin." The Bible makes it crystal clear by Christ's actions and words that these duties are not for women. So if anybody disagrees with Jesus, who's right? Menstruation precludes women from priests' duties of consecration & distributing of the Eucharist and also of Exorcism. These preclusions have scriptural authority that make it plain that human or animal blood is not to be introduced or present at the altar during consecration of the Eucharist, or during passing out of the Eucharist, or during Exorcisms. Biblical references are, first of all, in the Old Testament, during Elijah's contest with the priests of Bael. When the "priests" were losing the contest, what did they do? They began cutting themselves to invoke demonic powers. So from this incident we know that the presence of human blood when combined with invocation ritual attracts and feeds demonic powers. And we still see this use of human or animal blood combined with ritual invocation in such depraved practices as Voodoo and Ashura festivals in Islam. And don't forget, these priests were priests of Jezebel, again emphasizing menstruation. Do even a cursory internet search of the words "menstruation" + "occult ritual" and you will find out about the high esteem in which menstrual blood is held in the occult. The other Biblical reference regarding the presence of human or animal blood during ritual invocation is in the Book of Mark when Jesus healed the possessed man who lived in the tombs. And what did this man do continually? He CUT himself, confirming that human blood (or animal blood) when combined with religious invocation attracts demons. And Mark gives us further information on why. The legion demons in this instance beg Jesus not to send them back to the pit, and this confirms that demons must possess a body in order to stay out of their place in Hell. And what's that quintessential characteristic of the body? It's blood, of course. The Bible says on several occasions that the life of the flesh is in the blood. So demons need a body to possess, and blood is the most important characteristic of a body. The presence of blood is also indicative of our fallen state because Adam and Eve did not have blood coursing through their bodies before the fall. Eve did not menstruate before the fall. The first blood appeared when Eve was deflowered by the Devil after he seduced her and she bled. Another incident from the Bible. When Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene after his Resurrection, he did not allow her to touch him, yet, only a matter of hours later, Jesus allowed Thomas to probe, with his bare fingers, the wounds from Jesus' Crucifixion. Why? Well, what was Mary Magdalene? She's always depicted as a young, attractive woman, that is, a menstruating woman. And Jesus' body is the Eucharist, right? And he did not allow a woman to touch it. This means that the Eucharist is only to be handed out by those with consecrated hands, that is, priests. With all this said, I'm not sure if women are eligible for the position of Deaconess, mainly because I'm not sure what Deacons do. It Decons' duties involve consecrating the Eucharist or handing it out, or of exorcisms, or of taking confessions, then the position of Deacon is not appropriate for women. Adding to the confusion of women's part in the Church are the hateful and insulting writings from Paul about women. And it's not clear whether Paul's writings refer to women working in positions in the church or to all women in general. It has to be understood that Paul was using Jewish Law in his plainly prejudiced attitudes against women. Paul was a Pharisee, remember, and the clearest example of his using Jewish Law regarding women was his statement that "Cephus" (Peter) was the first to see Jesus after his Resurrection. But Paul was using Jewish law, which stated that only two MALE witnesses were valid. Yet, the Bible states it was Mary Magdalene, and Catholics believe it was Mary, Jesus' mother to whom Jesus gave the honor of appearing to first. In either case, Jesus revealed the most important news in the history of humankind to a woman first. He told Mary Magdalene to go tell others of it. This is huge. It shows Jesus believed in women's intelligence and he told her to go and teach the apostles of his Resurrection. So if Paul will "not suffer a woman to teach," then who is right? Jesus or Paul? If anybody disagrees with Jesus, who's right? Mary Magdalene has been called the "Apostle to the Apostles." It's NEVER mentioned by any man, but Jesus also revealed who he was, the Messiah, to a woman first, to the Woman at the Well. And when he told her this, she ran back to her village to tell the others, and Jesus never said to her, "I will not suffer a woman to teach." The Woman at the Well has been called the first evangelist. In the incident with Martha and Mary, when Martha protests Mary's studying with the men under Jesus, he says "This will not be denied her." At the same time, he did not criticize Martha, the traditionalist woman. Jesus loves, respects and honors both types of women, the traditionalist and the non-traditionalist. Indeed, without women teachers, writers, and saints, what on earth would the Catholic Church do? Who educates more people all over the world than ANYBODY else? It's the Catholic Church. And what would Catholic schools do without the nuns who do most of the teaching? And female saints are revered and respected and held in the highest esteem in Catholicism. No one has ever done more for women than Jesus Christ. In the incident with the woman caught in adultery, Jesus wrote the names of the male accusers in the sand, and what they were doing, stating that, "He who is without sin" should throw the first stone. And Jesus announced a new era for women when he told a group of men who were asking how they could get rid of wives they were tired of, that "in Moses time, your hearts were hardened," but that in Jesus' new covenanat, things would improve for women. The men were asking Jesus why his pronouncements on women and marriage were different from those of Moses (from Jewish Law, the Law that Paul was quoting regarding women). The new status of women is a part of Jesus' new covenant. At the Cross, who was loyal to Jesus? Although one Apostle, John, was there with him, it was mostly women (Mary his mother and a female cousin of hers, and Mary Magdalene). All of the other apostles betrayed Jesus at the Cross. And it was the women on the streets of Jerusalem who wept for Jesus, while all the male apostles except John hid to save their own hides. Veronica wiped his face with her veil, and he honored her with the image of his face permanently on her veil, a healing image. Before his Crucifixion, Jesus allowed himself to be annointed with oil by a woman, who washed his feet with her hair. So all of these duties are probably open to women: healing, annointing with oil, teaching, writing, evangelizing and the like. I'm not disregarding Paul, or saying, as some do, that he should be removed from the Bible. I respect the work he did. But Paul was not perfect. He was a murderer before Jesus changed him. The important lesson to learn from Paul is that if he could be saved, then practically anybody can. Paul was plainly mistaken by limiting his writings and pronouncements about women to Jewish Law. Paul never knew Jesus when the two of them were in physical bodies, so Paul simply didn't know of Jesus' interactions with women. Paul was not perfect, but neither were most of the other apostles either. As stated, they all, except John, betrayed Jesus at the Cross. Yet their work is valuable and respected and essential in spreading the faith.

My current priest is a woman. My previous priest was a woman. My current bishop is a woman. Our sacraments are REAL. Our church is alive, growing . . . and, oh yeah, *One Holy Catholic and Apostolic* (and True!). ☩✝☦🕈 The Roman argument against ordaining women resembles nothing so much as the one it made 400 years ago against Galileo (for Galileo's contradiction of the RCC's "Traditional" and allegedly "Biblical" assertion that the Sun moves around the Earth). “And yet it [the Earth] moves” (“Eppur si muove”), as attributed to him. *Women ARE divinely called to ordination, and women ARE priests.* That's a simple fact, a living Reality, and a beautiful Truth! 🌈 "But Jesus was a man"? [the "Icon Argument"] As a very wise (and earthy!) Benedictine once told me, "we're called to BE like Jesus, not PEE like Jesus!" 😄 God bless and defend women called to be priests (may their numbers increase! 😇)!

I see this way; the first will be the last and the last will be the first... They recive promise first, they recive Jesus first, but they also the latest to recive the faith for christ yet they will be the first to enter kingdom of God...

Mother Mary call Her kinn as Jewhis

Hardly any points in marriage these days. Maggie makes me want to throw up.

Wonderful ❤️

That background he went over regarding Benedict 16, and council, and the mass becoming like a pep rally... Wow!

Wow, what a talk. I wish Alice was still alive so I could meet her.

This is absolutely worth every minute of listening What sensible professors these two are.

Thank you so much for this insightful info

Margaret Senger was more focused on sterilising Blacks (formerly referred to as coloured peoples) more than she was Jews from my understanding of that History.

Anyone who wants to live their entire life in a tiny cell has got to be "odd" This kind of lifestyle would drive most people crazy. Maybe her "visions" were hysterical / psychotic delusions.

Best of Father !

Thank you for this studious analysis. Roland's predicament reveals his noble character, which still inspires us moderns, as any epic tale should. Keep up the good work. The parallel between Roland and Christ is especially profound.