That truly means so much ♥️thank you for watching and for your kind words!

more like a council of common sense

An atheist and a vegan walk into a bar. I only know because they told everyone in the first two minutes.

@izzykhach Come on, if you are going to make a joke, make it a good one. Try another. There are books filled with religious jokes.

@@atheistcomments Unfortunately there are churches filled with them too.

Hey there, thanks for your comment. No intelligent person has gone through life without reconsidering their beliefs. So yes, we have considered that, and simply come to a different conclusion.

@@TheologyandSpirituality That's great but you are on the internet spreading "misinformation" to say the least. A god isn't a conclusion. It's pure fantasy make-believe. You know there are objections to religious claims, you know a god has never been demonstrated to exist in real-life. I think especially the girl in the dark blue, she's deliberately lying for sure.

Hey Tom, thank you for your insights. I completely agree. I would add that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are reflections of a classical education- which are neither children of the enlightenment NOR fundamentalism. It’s truly a privilege to be a part of this intellectual tradition!

Thank you!

Hey there, thanks for your thoughts. To get to the heart of your question, I agree that we need to start by defining Christian Fundamentalism. I asked Chat GPT, and heres what it said: "Christian fundamentalism is a conservative movement within Christianity that emphasizes a strict adherence to what its followers believe are the foundational principles of the Christian faith. It originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a reaction against modernist theology, which sought to reconcile Christianity with new scientific discoveries, critical approaches to biblical interpretation, and cultural changes. Fundamentalism stresses the authority of Scripture and traditional Christian doctrines." It continued by stating that its primary key belief is "Biblical Inerrancy- Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and literal Word of God. This means that the Bible is without error in all its teachings, including history, science, and morality." Which is what we discuss here. Your other thoughts- such as the Catholic belief in transubstantiation or the heinous way the Church handled the clergy sex abuse scandals, does not apply to Fundamentalism specifically.

@@TheologyandSpirituality Thank you for the, somewhat strange, response. I have already made it clear that I fully understand the technical definition of fundamentalism. My premise is that the word may be used slightly differently to cover the insistence within Catholicism of certain dogmas and traditions and the way the church has always placed its own authority, prosperity and security above all else. It is important to recognise that dictionary definitions are arrived at through common usage of words and that usage often changes over time. The dictionary or current definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, it is a merely a guide. My proposal was that the word fundamentalism could be expanded to include other things that the church insists upon, despite being patently false or morally wrong. As for Chat GPT, why would I have any interest in what a commuter programme states from whatever data it was fed? Especially when it makes a clear error. The fundamentalist view of scripture did not begin in the late 19th century. Indeed, for much of the church's history, it was the only view. The church even imprisoned and killed people who wrote anything contrary to what the bible tells us. It doesn't get more fundamental than that.

@@Outspoken.Humanist Hey there, you did not make it clear that you understand Christian Fundamentalism. You stated, "However, Catholicism does insist upon certain dogmas and ritual practices.." as your only pseudo-definition.. which is not the correct definition of fundamentalism... but merely an assertion that Catholicism is, in fact, a religion. As for the rest of the comment, it it nearly impossible to have the conversation without agreeing on the meaning of the term... so I suppose we part ways here.

@@TheologyandSpirituality You say I wasn't clear. Really? To quote myself, "Then we need to ask how do we define Christian fundamentalism? If it is only the narrow definition of a belief that the bible is God's direct word and thus without error, then Catholicism is not fundamentalist." How much clearer do you want me to be? Do you take issue with the assertion that Catholicism is a religion? That seems strange. I'm not sure whether you are deliberately misunderstanding me or if you struggle with English. Perhaps it's not your first language. I have not and do not have an issue with the standard definition of the term and I am not saying you are wrong. I am merely proposing a fresh idea. You don't have to agree with me but why not just say so? Why does it upset you so much? Anyway, thanks for playing.

Thank you so much for watching and commenting!

@@tinytank808 I feel the same way! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and for your compliment ♥️

Hey Theresa, thanks for your comment and for watching! I’m so glad you love it.

Hey Devon! They were *also* astronomers, yes.

Thank you very much for this thoughtful response. I truly appreciate it! I agree with what you say here. Humility, awe and wonder are certainly necessary ingredients when approaching God, and the Magi, for their part- displayed all of these. *Anything* when used to attempt to control or manipulate, can be sinful. It would appear that scripture scholars and systematic theologians alike agree that the Magi are examples of this devotion. However, the question is, can we Christians be welcoming and open to those ‘languages’ God uses to draw others to himself, *without* condemnation when it is not due- as we see here with the Magi?

Hey there, thanks for your comment. Where did you read they caught wind of a prophecy from the Jews during the exile? Thats not in the gospel reading nor does it explain the star.

@@TheologyandSpiritualityWell take note that the wise men were gentiles. They were learned men. The only reason they would know about the star was because of the prophecy of the torah. " A star will come out of Jacob." During the babylonian exile this prophecy most likely would have been heard and pass down. Look scripture makes it clear astrology is not okay. It is not a practice of the saints of the church through out the years. There is no case to be made for it.

Hey there, thanks for your comment. So yes, they were both astronomers and astrologers. God does in fact rule the celestial bodies. New age is a modern concept, which represents what is now considered “alternative spirituality”. Many of these practices are not new at all but go back many millennia. Just because a practice originated with paganism is not enough to automatically say it is “not Christian”… being that paganism existed well before modern religions, and truly originated with humanity itself- there would be little left if we chose to only engage in practices that originated with Christianity. I suggest you watch the video, even if only to make your own argument stronger.

@TheologyandSpirituality Paganism did not predate belief in the True God. People decended into paganism as a result if the Fall. Adam and Eve worshipped the True God. Paganism came later.

@ hey Pat- thanks for sharing your thoughts. your comment is coming from a biblical literalist perspective. Roman Catholics, alongside historians and academics, do not take literally the Genesis creation story. With that being said, I am sure you are correct in that early peoples worshipped the true God. Which is why it is conspicuous that those same peoples developed the astrological language.

Thank you for this kind comment. We definitely can’t ignore what is dark out there, but we can allow the truth and the goodness found in all spiritual traditions to come to light.

I am so glad you are here and that you love it! So much of Judaism plays into the gospel of Matthew. Enjoy ♥️

Agreed!

I’m so glad you love it ❤ It’s so important for Catholics to understand the meaning behind the stories we hear, and recognize how ‘cultural commentary’ can often be misguided.

I appreciate you watching and sharing your thoughts!

Tarot tends to shift in that direction! I’m so glad you enjoyed the video 😊❤

That’s absolutely true. I’m doing what I can to normalize these practices, especially among Christians. I appreciate you!

Awe thank you so much for that. It truly means a lot that you are enjoying the content ☺️ I’m working on creating more and making it better! And yes, we are still working on ecumenism and healing those divides. I pray that my work may be a part of that- and I agree that Pope Francis has been amazing at opening up and softening that conversation as well.

I’m glad it was supportive! I totally agree.

Thank you for your love and support! ❤

Absolutely. So much has changed in this world for the better! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Hey there, thank you for this comment :) Definitely, our communication of God and understanding of Him has evolved as we've evolved as human beings. It is interesting though, that based on the failure of human beings to *communicate* and portray God accurately, you've come to the conclusion that that means he is man made. I am truly curious, why is that your conclusion?

Amen 🙏 ❤

I’m so glad you loved it. Being willing to walk alongside women during birth and then subsequent stages of womanhood is an incredible calling ❤

added notes; Rei means Ghost, the founder of reiki died of a stroke at the young age of 62, despite being “healed from reiki from his first stroke”, the founder was also a buddhist

Hey Reidi, thanks for your comment. Happy to address these points. We are in full agreement that the Church doesn't use anything demons say during exorcisms as educational material. I actually state this explicitly in the video, "the Church does not recognize information spoken by demons during exorcisms as ‘educational material’" I was specifically referring to Fr. Ripperger and other exorcists like him who DO use information supposedly extracted during exorcisms as the basis of their teachings on the demonic. When discussing 'youtube theologians', I was not referring to Jimmy Akin, I actually quote him twice during my presentation. He is an incredible Catholic Apologist and a brilliant mind. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him. When discussing 'youtube theologians' I am again, referring to the Fr. Ripperger's, the Dr. Marshalls', and others who engage in embarrassingly low scholarship and lead with fear, not love. That is a sure sign that they are not being led by God. "This is how all will know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." - John 13:35 The Magisterium has not actually said anything about Reiki being okay or not okay, as I state explicitly in this video. The Magisterium speaks specifically on New Age ideology, and why it is wrong- which I agree with wholeheartedly. Now, the arm of the Magisterium which is the USCCB, which all American Catholics are bound to obey, has spoken specifically on Reiki, which is what I address here. However, that teaching is not infallible, and specifically cites the lack of scientific evidence and incompatibility with Christian Tradition as their reasoning. The point I make here is simply, now there is scientific evidence, and a plausible reason for why it is not present in Christian Tradition. Since it is not an infallible teaching, it is open for discussion. Yes, Reiki as a spiritual practice or tradition has some funky stuff in it. I state in this presentation that its a result of when Catholicism abandons an entire category of culture, such as the way we've abandoned alternative spirituality, the category degenerates. However, as a physical practice it shows merit. That is why my conclusion is to reappropriate Reiki and energy healing as a whole, and wrap it in the light of Church Teaching. In essence, to get ahead of what science is teaching us about Quantum Healing. I also state explicitly at the beginning of the presentation, "I am not suggesting every Catholic run to their nearest Reiki healer." No. The practice first needs to be adopted and reappropriated by the Church, the way meditation and breath work has been by Hallow. I also state explicitly that just because a practice has been adopted by mainstream medicine or hospitals does not make it good, but the fact that it is proving to be effective AND is not inherently evil, is what makes it worth a second look.

Yes, the founder of the healing modality was a Buddhist, which does not make the practice inherently evil- we are again alluding to the genetic fallacy here. Regarding his death, I state very explicitly in the presentation that Reiki is not meant to heal illnesses or ailments, but rather to support the mental health, stress levels, vital signs, and comfort of the patient. In the very complex Japanese language (it has thousands of characters) rei can be used as a kanji (their word for symbol or character) for a word meaning ghost or spirit. There are actually at least 17 words for spirit in the Japanese language, each holding a different flavor (much like English gives us ghost, wraith, phantom, etc). So, while bōrei is translated to departed spirit or shinrei can be translated to heart spirit, seirei is their term for the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, shiryō means dead spirit and akuryō means bad spirit- neither of these latter examples use rei as their second symbol. However, using the etymology of a word against the current definition or common use of the word is a strawman argument. Much like the English word Easter is descended from Old English Eostrae, a pagan fertility Goddess- that does not take away from the fact that now, its meaning reflects the Holiday on which Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thank you so much ♥️🙏🙏