Thank you for visiting my channel. . . What you might see as "minutiae," as a presumable non-believer, is unfortunately necessary for those of us who want to protect the Holy Spirit and avoid false narratives about Vatican II -- realities that go to the heart of our lives as Faithful Catholics. . . as to your reference to "evidence," I do not believe I could ever point to sufficient "evidence" to make you believe. . . Nevertheless, I am convinced that when it comes to competing worldviews -- Atheism v. Catholicism -- Catholicism is more reasonable from a philosophical, existential and even scientific perspective . . . and as an aside, it's a lot easier debating atheists than the Catholic followers of Peter Kwasniewski. . .God bless you . . .

why???

@@petermartell568 It is in reality Christianity the others are offshoots. It is good to keep it from drifting back to pre-Vatican 2 days

Yes what is modernism? Catholicism, like many religions, changes because social norms change. What is your definition?

@Marc010 I use "Neomodern" to be a kind of throwback to classic modernity as a solution to problems of postmodernism. So when a postmodern says gender is fluid, a neomodern would say it's the chromosomes that make the real difference between men and women. My point of using neomodern this way is to subtly criticize trads who think they hate modernism but in fact think like classical modernists. But really, I stay away from using the term often because there isn't a consensus on the meaning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. . . please know, however, that I did not intend to promote any vision but rather serve as a Roman Catholic -- if we are Roman Catholics, we acknowledge that Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council and the last three Popes have affirmed the Holy Spirit was present . . . I am merely trying to address, in this ongoing series on Modernism, all false narratives -- which can be refuted in the historical record. . . i'll double check my military metaphors . . God Bless and thank you . . .

1. I believe in the Holy Spirit. 2. The last 3 Popes have confirmed the presence of the Holy Spirit at Vatican II -- JPII called it a seminary in the Holy Spirit 3. On the very point of the Holy Spirit and Joseph Ratzinger and the discussions regarding Dei Verbum Pope Benedict XVI states regarding Dei Verbum: "thanks, we may say, to the light of the Holy Spirit who was present at the Council" . . .

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American 1) Everyone who believes in the Holy Spirit isn't guaranteed to discern His actions correctly. 2) What Popes claim about particular actions of the Holy Spirit is no more protected to be accurate than anyone else. I think it was Cardinal Tardini who told John XXIII to call a Council without a sufficiently serious reason was to "tempt the Spirit." 3) Ratzinger has also stated that Councils were in some cases a waste of time and only the future would determine whether that's true of Vatican II. And when you read John XXIII's stated goal for Vatican II, you reallize it is a total failure considering how many of the clergy and "modern man" actually misunderstands, misinterprets and contradicts Vatican II in the name of Vatican II. Paul VI stated that they expected sunny days after the Council and a new Pentecost but they got clouds, disturbance troubles and the "auto-demolition" of the Church and the "smoke of Satan had entered the Church."

Your question seems to suggest you have missed my central points . . . I will attempt to cover your question in my ongoing series but there are simply too many false narratives and too many anti-modernists conflate all the alleged modernists of vatican II -- please see for example my latest video on Brian Holdworth's approach to alleged modernist to see how he combines congar and Kung -- altogether misleading. . .but for the record on Taylor Marshall -- until a Marshall supporter can point to one modernist teaching in DeLubac's Splendor of the Church -- my central point is unrebutted. . . please see my remaining videos on this topic-- thank you.

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American You need to establish a base of understanding. I'm not asking you about the names of the "alleged Modernists" according to those whom you claim have false narratives. I'm simply asking you if you believe or deny that ANY participant, influence of, or implementer of Vatican II was influenced in any way by Modernism/Neo-Modernism. Are any of your names matching any of the names listed by those you are rebuking? Or, do you deny the existence of any Modernist/Neo Modernist influence, on, at or after the Council? It's very simple, you either have a few names of bad actors undermining the doctrine of the Church at Vatican II or you think the whole thing was perfectly done and there was no influence from enemies of the Church at the Council on a level of purely human error below any binding magisterial pronouncements in the documents.

One of the main problems is the failure to make the distinctions between the Church's teachings and the opinions of Churchmen dressed up as teachings. Comments and opinions of non-sociologist Churchmen that are sociological in are not teachings of the Church and are often at variance with the Church's actual teachings.

Well, you have taken step 1. . . please read my challenge in the summary of the video and let us know what passage of De Lubac's Splendor of the Church which Siri demonstrates is somehow Modernistic? . . .that's the challenge for Taylor Marshall followers -- thank you for a good start . . .let us know if you have something definitive from Splendor of the Church??? thank you

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American 1) I'm not a Taylor Marshall "follower," I've been around too long and I spend most time just observing people and seeing how fast they catch up to the realities of the Church situation. So, I wasn't really interested in taking up your challenge as "Taylor Marshall follower". I'm simply pointing out that Siri demonstrated that Du Lubac had classic Modernist elements to his intellectual and theological constructs and Marshall isn't wrong if he claims that, regardless of whether he wrote one "orthodox" book late in life. Cardinal Siri actually doesn't mention that particular book of Du Lubac's since "Gethsemane" dates from 1981 while The Mystery of the Church is a later publication. Siri points to his book "Supernatural" from 1946 and it's indistinction between the natural and the supernatural, this is critiqued obliquely in Pius XII "Humani Generis." DuLubac. In 1965 Du Lubac writes "The Mystery of the Supernatural" which avoids the criticisms leveled by Humani Generis and simultaneously takes some oblique shots at Pius XII's encyclical. And then he reformulates basically the same unsupported assertions about the "gratutiousness of the supernatural being the gratuitousness the Creation" Siri comments that Du Lubac doesn't address that the gratuitousness of the Creation can also be made with a distinct order of nature and supernature. This leads Siri to point out the same threads of thought being adopted by Rahner and Maritain. Which in the end, renders Catholicism or adherence to any religion unnecessary. Had Du Lubac denounced and abandoned the principles he espoused in "Supernatural" and "The Mystery of the Supernatural" as well as his defenses of Tielhard de Chardin in his later book on The Mystery of the Church?

@@gerry30 I would recommend a fine article for starters which shows good scholarship -- sara hulse kirby - 7 persistent myths about henri de lubac. . . the reason why i point to de lubac's 1956 book -- meditation sur l'eglise -- which is available from ignatius press- The Spendor of the Church is that it reflects how he approached the Church -- it bypasses the natural paradoxes which is missing from the old framing by siri and others -- and lastly, keep in mind that De lubac has maximus the confessor -- the great Monk genius on his approach to the natural desire for God . . .not to mention St. Augustine. . .God bless you

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American I've actually read that article. Found much of it special pleading with a bit of a Straw Man thrown in. But in order to not converse past each other, because it seems to me that there is a lack of understanding concerning the modes of Modernism, who do you think are the most egregious of the theologians in the Vatican II and post-Vatican II era who carried the influence of Modernism? I honestly doubt that Maximus the Confessor or St. Augustine would have agreed with Rahner, Kung, or Tielhard de Chardin as it seems Du Lubac seems to have had at least sympathy for if not outright enthusiam in his defenses. But that's one of the hallmarks of Modernism 1 page ortodox Catholic and the other rife with ambiguity which promotes confusion and error.

I was using is solely according to the following common usage -- but I apologize if you were offended. . . see below: "To drink the Kool-Aid, of course, is to unquestioningly accept someone else's vision, program, or belief system. " . . . I hope and pray you are not one of them; but if you are I am sorry if you were hurt by the phrase. . .

Read the Paragraph of Pascendi on Reform . . .

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American It says modernists are reformers, and it explains very clearly how so: it paints a completely opposite picture of Taylor Marshall.

@@alfgand8040 ... He specifically condemns a decentralized approach to reform. . . Dr. Marshall completely twists and turns and arguably butchers the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity. . . he then uses it to argue for a decentralized approach to Church reform . . . . stay tune to see if anyone who supports Taylor Marshall can find a specific reference in De Lubac's Splendor the Church which they contend shows any semblance of Modernism -- which they cannot find. . thank you . . .

Taylor Marshal is a PROVEN LIAR. Marshall is an enemy of the Church and a servant of Satan .

Ask and you shall receive. . . Please kindly read my updated summary of the video, which I hope satisfies your request for a succinct summary of the video . . . Our Lady of Guadalupe -- pray for us!

Many nuns have accused me of similar things; but please note that my sole point was to show that Taylor Marshall's approach to Church Reform in 2018 showed more Modernism that you can show from De Lubac's approach to Mother Church . . .as part of my series on Anti-Modernists . . .thank you . . .

@stevedoetsch Charlie perfectly articulated the dichotomy between the Rad Trad humanistic (me me me I, I, I) approach vs the Divine supernatural approach to solving Church challenges. Of course, your pride will not enable you to see. Poor blind Sad-Trad. God bless you.

Thank you for viewing -- let's pray indeed. I appreciate you watching all my videos -- I hope to figure out how to edit soon!? God Bless you CtCA

Amen -- thank you Father!

That's not true at all. What has been going on has been a systematic dismantling of the Latin Church by infiltrators and anti-Catholics in positions of authority. There are no calls from "radtrads" for the "Latinization" of the Eastern Uniate Churches. The great "tell" is that the Churchmen in the hierarchy engaged in promoting that the Easterns "de-Latinize" themselves under the pretext of retaining their "authentic" traditions while the Latin Church was literally cut off from its authentic traditional roots.

Thank you enormously for your fine distinction. . . .among other things we need dialogue rooted in truth above all else. . . please see my other video comparing Pope Francis' thought with Ratzinger's/Benedict XVI's masterpiece on these matters -- Truth and Tolerance. . . God Bless you and your fine mind . .

Please know that I used the word presumptively to make sure that it would not be accusatory but please know to date not one person has shown why those who reject a Pope and a Council are not subject to St. Pius X's condemnation -- the only response to my video that I can find is from Return to Tradition who seems to think that Catholics on Social Media are somehow exempt from Pascendi -- please find someone with theological competence to show why those who reject Vatican II and a Pope are not doing what St. Pius X said was travelling in Luther's footsteps as I quote in the video. . . thank you for any efforts you can get to find someone who is up to the central challenge in the video . . .God Bless . .. . Mary Queen of Wisdom -- pray for us. . ..

All 3 are fully in accord with Vatican II -- but in failing to provide a Christological grounding -- it marks a departure. . . please review the 3 vatican website accounts of the 3 papal trip messages I reference . . .. thank you for viewing . ..

*@JohnDoe-cp3yg* You better examine your *JohnDoe* religion and see if it is on par with the one the Holy Father Pope Francis is the legitimate main shepherd here on Earth. That would be a more intelligent and clear way to put it.

careful friend, 'heresy' is actually a term most often misused in catholicism. and it actually described this 'church'.

and no true Vicar of Christ can teach it, right?

@@tonysaid6184 correct! yet catholicism mandates sin, which is transgression of His law -- 1 John 3:4 by ignoring Exodus 20:8-11, which shows us the 7th day Sabbath is the Lord's day. they are a day late.

But above all else, we ask whether or not a Catholic, much less our Pope, subordinate the centrality of truth to the process of dialogue? . . .In my last video I suggested we can balance the heart of Francis with the mind of Benedict XVI . . .thank you for your comments . . .

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American bergoglio also does all he can to trample God's Truths, but sadly, this doesn't seem to matter to catholics.

Thank you for viewing my video and for your comments. If you are interested in comparing the "thought" of Pope Francis and the "thought" of Pope Benedict XVI on the same subject matter, please see today's video, Pope Francis Tramples Benedict XVI's Truth and Tolerance. . . I would value your comments, if any . . .thank you . . .

@@Charlie_The_Catholic-American bergoglio also tries to trample God's Truths -- Psalm 119:142, 151 proving clearly that catholicism isn't Christianity, Sir.

What have you been doing for the Faith? Criticizing Pope Francis is not a virtue. Evangelize, feed the hungry, visit the lonely... You won't have time to worry about Pope Francis. God bless you.

if you're striving for Christianity, you're failing friend. 'popes' aren't Christian and neither is catholicism, according to the Word of our Creator.

@@tony1685. You sound uninformed, do you understand that this is not a good deportment to make an insane claim without any evidence. Where is your " word of Creator at?

I think you are mistaking the current social addiction to sex for the norm throughout all of history. Freud argued quite the opposite -- that people (including the Church) didn't talk enough about sex. Before him? Hardly a peep. The last century and a half is lass than one percent of the life of the Church. Sex makes headlines today. So "Fiducia Supplicans" made a lot of headlines. But how much have you heard of the longer and more profound "Dignitas Finita"? Have you read the documents of Vatican II? Did you pay attention to the recommendations that Charlie The Catholic-American? Just before his listing of the books that we should all have on our shelves, he warns against our wasting all our time on headlines. I hope that you find peace.

Thank you for adding the link . . . As to the Glenn Beck show, the topic of Deposit of the Faith is around the 7:30 mark . . . thanks for your input!

Thank you for your kind words. . . I hope to do more with her as she has a great deal of Catholic wisdom; and no woman has prayed more rosaries and few have spent more years helping young women choose life rather than have an abortion. . . We'll add your intentions when we pray the next Rosary. . . CtCA

​@Charlie_The_Catholic-American Hey CtCA! More videos!!! How about more on V2? What led up to it? According to the Trad vomitrons, it must have been bliss within (and outside) the Church, right? Everything was so holy? Why was Vatican II convened? Need your expertise and wonderful perspective. God bless you.