Remain Faithful to the Today of the Church: What Did Ratzinger Mean?

[@AbsentPhilosophers]

I can’t express how much your videos are helping me.

[@reasonrules7768]

He’s doing great work! I agree

[@joshanderson8566]

Keep up the good work. I truly enjoy your videos. I'm currently in RCIA and your videos are a big help.

[@adeodata6364]

This is so, so, essential and necessary! 😏 I can't tell you how much peace it brings to my soul. I've been so tired, confused and upset by all the polemics concerning V.II, and the lack of humility (among other things) they - many times - manifest. Truly, the enemy of our souls is having a great time, sowing doubt on all sides and fostering disunity, with the best of pretexts! God bless you and all your endeavors 🌼 Keep up your courageous work 👍😁

[@robertmonteforte3422]

I’m glad you’re nuancing this quote and theology in general. Taylor used to have that: evergreen videos (podcasts at the time) that just explained theological points.

[@well_weathered]

1. So who was being deceptive? Did Bishop Barron put it up in its entirety?

[@well_weathered]

2. This was recently referred to but from a quoted text from the 1970's/1980's, prior to the mess we are in now.

[@tomthx5804]

Bishop Barron put the quote up in that form because Taylor Marshall and extremist traditionalists were all sneering endlessly at Barron when Barron said that he considered himself a traditionalist - because he accepted the entirety of church tradition, including Vatican II. After Barron said this, the entire goofy Taylor Marshall alternative universe erupted in sneering and laughter and snide comments "Ha Ha Ha, Barron wants to pretend he is a traditionalist - Ha Ha Ha". So quite correctly, Barron pointed to a quote from Pope Benedict indicating TRUE Catholic traditionalists should be defending the Council. Barron put up this section of the quote, because that part pointed out that Pope Benedict himself had said that true traditionalists defend the Council: ""“To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. . . . We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” This quote was included in a web site that totally demolished every point that Marshall tried to make in his anti Vatican II videos www.wordonfire.org/vatican-ii-faq/ So Taylor Marshall, having been proved wrong by Barron, then tried something completely disreputable and in my opinion, dishonest. He and Vigano took the quote that Barron had used, and tried to pretend that Benedict was a fool for saying that part about the "church of today." The point is, that Marshall and Vigano did not even try to see if they were giving legitimate criticism. They were just trying to divert attention away from the fact that everything they had said in all their videos was easily refuted. So they then launched this embarrassingly weak attack on POPE BENEDICT. Without even trying to represent what Benedict had really tried to say. This is really a low point for Marshall and Vigano. Suffice it to say, if you want to attack Pope Benedict and pretend he is a fool for saying something, you had better investigate the entire quote in context, and not excuse yourself by saying "Oh, well I was just lazy and I went with the part that Barron put up on his website". The lowliest Ph.D. student would be run out of town for that sort of laziness. Here is the entire quote from Benedict www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/05/cdl-ratzinger-pope-benedict-xvi-vatican-ii-authority-trent.html

[@well_weathered]

3. We know the Church will prevail but as far as Francis (title remitted by himself from Vicar to Bishop?) who is allowing The Church to be usurped by the u.n.(note small case).

[@decluesviews2740]

@@well_weathered This video literally has nothing to do with Pope Francis. I was providing the larger context of a quote that Bishop Barron excerpted, which was then portrayed by Vigano and Marshall as being problematic. I think that the fuller quote was important. I wish Word on Fire had provided the full quote, and I wish Taylor and Vigano would have also checked it.

[@well_weathered]

@@tomthx5804 This is a weak point for Bishop Barron then, as well. We all know past popes were against Modernism. Not only that but Benedict XVI has supported traditionalism. Idk whether they spoke against Benedict XVI in the way you imply. They shouldn't have and neither should Bishop Barron confused us even more!

[@maciejpieczula631]

I keep hearing that "we need to implement the 2nd Vatican council correctly." but what does that mean? What does that look like in action? If anyone could give me a good answer I would love it because quite frankly I don't know what means.

[@tomthx5804]

Basically, many priests and bishops sought to use Vatican II as an excuse to introduce many new and strange practices in the liturgy. They did many things that were not called for by Vatican II, but were things that very liberal priests thought would be a good idea. Lots of these innovations turned out to have been fads with little or no thought behind them, such as moving the tabernacle, communion in the hand, guitar masses, removing Latin and Gregorian chant, bad church architecture, changed prayers and sacramental practices, removal of altar rails, sometimes getting rid of statues ,bad weepy broadway musical style singing etc. Really implementing the council would be, for example, doing what the council said, and giving Latin and Gregorian chant pride of place. But all that is just liturgical stuff. Vatican II also called for the laity to be energized and begin to live their lives as Christian in a bolder and more dramatic way. This was pretty much ignored. All they did was try to get laity involved as Eucharist ministers, etc. But what the council really meant was to have the laity really empowered and trained to display Christianity to the world by the way they lived each day. That delicate task was pretty much forgotten. That is a short explanation, I am sure there is much more.

[@well_weathered]

@@tomthx5804 ...and it's only got worse!

[@maciejpieczula631]

@@tomthx5804 if what you are saying is true why do you think the point/goal of the council was missed so drastically? And of those who defend the council why do they have such a hard time admitting that it was implemented improperly?

[@mikazoftstrom2343]

Maciej Pieczula great question. No one knows there intent but God. But this is what most trads argue, that the ambiguity within some of VII is too easily misapplied and we’ve seen the fruits of that. We don’t say VII is invalid and do submit to its teaching but think it’s rather naive to believe everyone, especially those weakly catechized, to not use this ambiguity to distort church teaching. Because of this most of us believe it should be revised.

[@liberator275]

no one in the church seems to know. even the most ardent advocates of vatican 2. perhaps the countries that implemented it properly are the ones that lost least number of catholics over the past 50 years. Western countries should not be used as an example here.

[@0r14n583lt]

With everything that is being said, it appears to me that many wayward bishops and priests, already in place, had decided to take advantage of Vatican II’s implicit language and make their own alterations to the Church.

[@decluesviews2740]

Or ignore the explicit words altogether. Yes. That's happened.

[@tomthx5804]

Precisely. So the problem is not Vatican II itself. The problem is that some decided to pretend to use Vatican II to push forward reforms that vatican II never asked for.

[@liberator275]

@@tomthx5804 has any diocese implemented vatican 2 correctly? any examples? after 50 years there should be plenty. (sarcasm)

[@liberator275]

@@decluesviews2740 has any diocese implemented vatican 2 correctly? any examples? after 50 years there should be plenty. (sarcasm)

[@josephineblaser6631]

Thank you for this clarification, it’s opened my mind somewhat and helped to dispel my bias on these matters.

[@Franciscan_Bro]

Superlative ! Thank you for what you are doing & thank Matt Fradd for pointing me your way!! God bless >

[@michaelcorsiniart]

Thanks for this video brother!

[@albertoascari2542]

Having listened to Taylor Martial he seems to think some present Bishops are agaisnt the continuation of Latin Mass and the Latin Mass Prayers such as the in the Eucharist when Saints are mentioned, Priest cutting Short Prayers. Also he says some Catholic Churches have removed Statues of Saints and been forced to remove all altar rails and stop people receiving the Body of Christ on the tongue. I believe he was as former Anglican Lutherian Priest he was surprised his Lutherian Church to have that Higher Level of use of use of Catholic Tradition like Altar Rails, Body of Christ on the Tongue. I know Anglicans dont teach the Transubstanciation but some of his observations seem correct

[@tomthx5804]

Some of what he says is correct. The problem is that hidden in amongst the correct stuff is a lot of very poisonous stuff that is completely untrue.

[@SoggyDonuts79]

For someone who prefers a more traditional type of liturgy whether it be the TLM or a "traditional" Novus Ordo...is Ratzinger/Benedict's "Spirit of the Liturgy" book on the Liturgy worth reading through? Thank you.

[@tomthx5804]

Most people think it is a great book on the liturgy that gives great insights.

[@liberator275]

catholics that wanted to celebrate TLM were shunned and viewed as disobedient after v2. some left to join schismatic outfits like SSPX whereas the other stayed. vatican 2 never did anything for them. it has catered to liberal leftist crowd for the past 50 years. who cares about leftists and liberals? they are better off in protestant churches coming up with their own doctrines and worship. faitfhul catholics that remained should be actually listened since apparently vatican 2 is about listening and if they want to celebrate in Latin, then catholic parishes should make it happen.

[@johnmason1244]

I dare to say that those who oppose Vatican 2 oppose the Holy Spirit. Thank you for your courage and dedication to defend Vatican 2. You have the talent, calibre and knowledge to bring clarity during this confusion. Keep up the good work. Don't worry if you ruffle some feathers.

[@michaelcorsiniart]

I guess what bothers me so much about Marshall and Viganos interpretation of the quote is it’s as if they don’t know Ratzingers thought... he would never be arguing a modernist approach to tradition... he is utterly consistent on that in every work. It’s just another example of a lack of careful reading and erring on the side of discontinuity... it’s dangerous. I am so grateful for these videos.... I believe they will restore peace in the heart for many... that’s been my experience!

[@well_weathered]

Lol

[@well_weathered]

@JOYAL sounds laughable

[@well_weathered]

Bishop Barron is dangerous.

[@well_weathered]

@JOYAL Give it up! This is doing more division by trying to choose on side over the other. What is it...🛎🛎🛎and in this theological corner we have.... People can think for themselves.

[@well_weathered]

@JOYAL Taking the Ratzingervquote out of time and context now that things have changed could be error as well. Only pope Benedict knows what he thinks of those words now.

[@Lu.G.]

It *does* indeed help and I thank you.

[@piousthepious]

You’re a beast DeClue. God bless on what you’re doing. Seriously I emailed you if I could help out with research or writing with this movement of establishing firm the Living Tradition of the Church

[@tomthx5804]

This link leads you to irrefutable proof that all the bad things that happened to the church were caused by Vatican II twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1298338552942485504/photo/1

[@crisd7142]

What would you think about the fruits of Vatican II? Have they been good?

[@tomkelly4336]

Why does Taylor Marshall see at times to attack Pope Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger? Anyone who has taken the time to read Ratzinger realizes that his central theme in his papacy and through his life is the centrality of Christ and his church. Pope Benedict XVI was one of the main intellectuals of the Church in the 20th century.

[@tomgreene2282]

Agreed...R..a very Christocentric man and a very sharp intellect...even recognized by some atheists.

[@tomthx5804]

The idea of Taylor Marshall "correcting" Benedict is pretty funny. It's like a third grader presuming to correct Einstein.

[@tomgreene2282]

@@tomthx5804 If he was back in the days of Trent, for which he seems to long, he would get short shrift.

[@SoggyDonuts79]

So Taylor has a new video about a priest who was invalidly baptized..and thus, all of his subsequent sacraments were invalid and his ordination and every Mass and sacrament he himself confered. Your thoughts? My first thought was...a man who wasn't validly baptized still answered a call to the priesthood? Cool.

[@tomthx5804]

Unfortunately, Marshall took this news as yet another opportunity to exaggerate, to misinform, and to sell his book. Of course, everyone should be horrified by some church substituting a false ritual that they made up in place of the church's ritual. As usual, he takes a snippet of truth, but then exaggerates and misleads. Using that snippet of truth. Marshall tries to link the existence of an invalid form of baptism being practiced at one parish in Michigan to "modernism", infiltration of the church, and you should buy his book to find out all about it. Basically, the progressive, left wing of the church is indeed "modernist" in many respects. So we should all be upset about progressive, left wing elements in the church, because they are awful. But just because these elements exist, Marshall and his friends exaggerate and say "The Church" is modernist, or the "Novus Ordo church is modernist". This is not true .The Church itself, is not modernist. The Church is firmly against modernism. Marshall glosses over that fact. Marshall appears to try to blame this rogue deacon making up an invalid baptism formula on Paul VI, because Paul VI changed the formula for all sacraments in the period 1965-70. This is more Marshall BS. Paul VI of course gave priests a valid form of baptism to use. He did not authorize anyone to change it. Yet Marshall tries to blame Paul VI. Very bizarre. Marshall goes on to repeat the lie that Bugnini was behind all the changes, and that Bugnini was a freemason (A widely spread SSPX endorsed lie, never proven in the least). Marshall repeats the fake quote about Bugnini saying that the mass has been changed to please protestants. Bugnini never said that. Its a fake quote made up by Lefebvre and the SSPX. Marshall maintains that the baptism rite was changed to please protestants. But that makes no sense. No protestant uses the baptismal ceremony. No Protestant says "Gee I like the new baptismal ceremony, so I think I will go be baptized a catholic." So once again, Marshall makes no sense. He thinks that because a priest can choose between several different eucharistic prayers at mass, therefore all priests now believe they can alter the words of baptism. This is beyond silly. Marshall no longer is making any sense. Guess what else Marshall forgot to tell his viewers? The Vatican, in denouncing this fake baptismal practice, said "In making this clarification, the Congregation pointed to the Second Vatican Council, which established that no one “even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

[@SaltyPalamite]

Richard, thanks for posting this, but the question is, why did Bp. Barron place the redacted quote the WAY HE DID beginning of his question-begging FAQs? This is HOW he posted it: "To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. . . . We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” The ellipses are all Barron's. What HE did is wrench the quote out of its context to serve his modernist agenda. It seems that Bp. Barron seems to fully embrace the idea that the Tradition, to the extent it needs to be deferred to at all, must be interpreted in light of Vatican II, and not the other way around. (Also, it is preposterous that any ecumenical council needs a "hermeneutic" to properly understand it.). Abp. Vigano was correct call him out on it. Vatican II has been an unmitigated disaster. It drove people away from the Church. The rate of Mass attendance is way down. Infant baptisms are way down, despite the increase in population. Confirmations are way down, despite the increase in population. Religious vocations are way down, despite the increase in population. We have things like EMHCs, altar girls, guitars, pianos, drums, cheesy music, orans posture. The Novus Ordo is a mess. 2/3 of US Catholics reject transubstantiation.

[@decluesviews2740]

I appreciate your comments. Although, I explicitly stated what you said in the video itself: that the original eclipses were what Bishop Barron posted. It was the first quote I gave, so I'm not sure why you're typing it in your comment. I already pointed that out. The hermeneutic of continuity is pretty much just a Catholic approach to everything, Scripture and Tradition alike. It isn't "unique" to Vatican II. We need hermeneutics to interpret most things. Also, the sacraments, etc. aren't way down everywhere. The US is just one place. In Africa it is growing rapidly, including converts from Islam. Nevertheless, there has certainly been a lot of craziness and bad policies and practices since Vatican II. However, I don't think we can blame the documents for it. There's a huge disconnect between what the Council itself called for and the garbage that the liberals did in the following decades. By the way, I did a video on the Extraordinary Form/TLM. Check it out. You may like it. I despise all those same things you mentioned. Guess what: they aren't in Vatican II's documents. So while I agree with you on a lot of the crap that has been implemented, I do not agree that it is the Council's direct fault. The Church has had very rough periods after other ecumenical councils as well. Again, this is not unique.

[@SaltyPalamite]

​@@decluesviews2740 Yes, to be clear, I posted Barron's comment above because your video did not post the graphic. But yes, you read it aloud. I think it is right for you to call attention to the ellipses, and kudos to you for pointing it out. (You are a very careful and precise thinker, which is why I watch you.) I think Marshall and Vigano may have to acknowledge the ellipses. I'd have to re-read their comments. But my point is that Bp. Barron himself is the one who presented the quotes WITH the ellipses, do if anyone the quote out of context it is BARRON. So that is how Barron was presenting his own position, and I think it probably was fair for Marshall to confront the quote the way that Barron shaped the quote. (By the way, I like Barron some of the time. He often says insightful things. Other times, I think he dissembles, and sweeps issues away under the rug.) Re the hermeneutic, yes, I understand its importance. But not to interpret an ecumenical council! The Council of Trent needed no hermeneutic to interpret its anathemas. The documents were clear and precise. The Vatican II documents have characteristic latter 20th Century theological "mush," and were laden with what Michael Davies called "time bombs."

[@decluesviews2740]

@@SaltyPalamite I disagree that it is unique to Vatican II. It took centuries and 7 Ecumenical Councils to settle Christological disputes! (And some apostolic churches still are in schism over it). Nestorius and Cyril both appealed to Nicea for their side. Ephesus required another Council (Chalcedon) only 20 years later. And honestly the Vatican II documents aren't really as bad or hard to understand as people think, and some of them are downright brilliant. Some people just can't handle dialectic: showing multiple sides of complex issues. But saying some parts seem mushy isn't the same as claiming they are erroneous. In my experience, the biggest issue is people not even trying to interpret the documents fairly but skew them for some agenda. And as far as Trent goes: the anathemas may have been clear, but it was called too late, took a long time to complete (17 years), and never addressed the Papacy when it was supposed to counter the reformation. In its wake, Protestantism didn't shrink but grew; Christendom was lost, the Enlightenment took hold, and France lost the faith. Was Trent an abject failure?

[@SaltyPalamite]

​@@decluesviews2740 OK, but regarding the early ecumenical councils, was there ever any doubt or ambiguity about what WERE the precise doctrines that emerged from them? The point of the early councils was to CLARIFY doctrine, especially regarding the Trinity and Christology, and declare what was orthodox and what was heretical. 50 years on, we are still debating about what Vatican II "really" said (and "really" meant) in Dignitatis humanae. As far as some people not being able to "handle dialectic," is that the point of having an ecumenical council? To confuse people? To make theological concepts "complex," so only clever Concilium and/or Communio types can debate them in the journals for the next 30 years, while the rest of the Church goes up in smoke? Part of the problem of the post-conciliar Catholic intellectual culture IMO, is that it embraces modernist theological mush at the expense of Thomistic precision. Most Catholic "theologians" today, even the "conservative" ones, today remind me of contemporary "Continental" philosophers. It's a pile of mush. The "conservatives", like the Steubenville types worship JPII and Ratzinger, and embrace what they say about, e.g., the death penalty, notwithstanding what the Church and Church Doctors had been saying consistently for the preceding 1900 years. The tragedy is that someone attending Mass in the 1960s, when it was comparatively reverent, then wakes up in the early '70s, sees versus populum, hears vernacular and female Lectors, and then is forced to sing "Go Make a Difference" while accepting communion by hand by a dude in flip-flops and a Black Sabbath t-shirt. As far as Trent, well Protestantism was bound to grow as political leaders adopted it, as they seized Church property all over Europe. But it's not like the Church or Catholics stood by idly or surrendered to the Culture, as the Church has been doing the past 50 years. There were plenty of Counter-reformation heroes.

[@SaltyPalamite]

​@@decluesviews2740 Still, at the end of the day, whether Vatican II has any blame to shoulder or not, the Church right now is a mess in terms of liturgy, and also in terms of catering too much to the outside Culture. Before Vatican II, the Church, and Catholic culture, was relatively strong and healthy, and sound theologically. No, it was not perfect. But there was a reverent Mass, and the theology was sound and unapologetic.

[@ipso-kk3ft]

Having read some Ratzinger, I didn't find the quote very problematic or troubling on its own, but I can understand those who took issue with its sense and clarity. But by "not the yesterday or tomorrow", he would have meant: yesterday to the exclusion of today, and tomorrow to the exclusion of yesterday, etc.

[@CatholicAffectivity]

Your videos have been so helpful; please continue assisting us in our journey toward full loyalty to the magisterium. I am struggling with a seeming contradiction between the teachings of the CDF, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis when stacked against prior papal teaching. In the area of Church and state, there are numerous places the contemporary Popes have said they are against confessional states. The CDF, in its doctrinal note about participation of Catholics in political life, says that states do not need to profess/confess/recognize a religion How does this fit with the prior Church teaching that the state is bound, as much as any given individual within the state, to recognize, submit to, favor, and profess the Catholic Church? For example... Prior teaching: "Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect…" Pope Leo XIII, Libertas More recent teaching: "Promoting the common good of society, according to one’s conscience, has nothing to do with «confessionalism» or religious intolerance. For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church - but not from that of morality - is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization.[23] John Paul II has warned many times of the dangers which follow from confusion between the religious and political spheres. «Extremely sensitive situations arise when a specifically religious norm becomes or tends to become the law of a state without due consideration for the distinction between the domains proper to religion and to political society. In practice, the identification of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to restrict or deny other inalienable human rights».[24] All the faithful are well aware that specifically religious activities (such as the profession of faith, worship, administration of sacraments, theological doctrines, interchange between religious authorities and the members of religions) are outside the state’s responsibility." CDF, doctrinal note on Catholic participation in political life

[@tomthx5804]

I would do these things in this order: 1) Read Cardinal Avery Dulles explanation of the issue www.firstthings.com/article/2001/12/religious-freedom-innovation-and-development 2) Recognize that in Libertas, Leo XIII did not prescribe the form of government at all. In fact, he said "the Church does not disapprove of any of the various forms of government, provided they be per se capable of securing the good of the citizens" (Leo Thirteenth: Encyclical "Libertas," June 20, 1888)." c.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html 3) Read Aquinas "On Kingship" There, he discusses the various forms of government, and he ends up recommending something very like modern American form of government. wisdomhomeschooling.com/images/courses/humansociety/reading28deregnoonkingship.pdf 4) Read The Christmas Message of Pope Pius XII for 1944. There he discusses what the church thinks of modern democracies, and how Libertas is to be read. www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/1944-christmas-message-8963 5) Watch the video of professor Thomas Pink reconciling both Leo's thought and the Vatican Ii take on things kzbin.info/www/bejne/opSZeYd9p7x7kLc You will, after reading these things, realize that those who try to pretend that past popes are in conflict with more modern popes are often not telling you the whole story. They simply pick out things that they think will present a stark contrast, then tell you that something is amiss. Once you read the whole broad spectrum of Catholic teaching on the subject, you can see that this is just a trick they use. Good luck.

[@CatholicAffectivity]

@@tomthx5804 I appreciate greatly your reply. Thank you so much for the resources; I will be reading them soon. I already am familiar with Dr. Pinks approach to Dignitatis Humanae and strongly agree that the Vatican II development of religious freedom can be seen in continuity. I suppose it's just the issue of confessional states that I really struggle with. It seems like the Church went from "All states ought to recognize the Catholic Church and profess her Faith and submit to her morals " to "We are against confessionalism"

[@tomthx5804]

@@CatholicAffectivity This article seems to be focusing more on the confessional state. It states that Catholic teaching insists that the Catholic state is the ideal. But... ""Supposing we grant the continuing normativity of the Catholic confessional state, as I think we should, what does that mean for us today? The vast majority of Catholics don’t live in Catholic states, and many live in liberal regimes in which church and state are officially separated. In most of the latter, there is no Catholic supermajority, and even where there is such a supermajority, most don’t practice their faith. No pope has ever taught that in these kinds of situations Catholics should rise up and establish a confessional state by force. Catholic and liberal teaching agree that it’s never a good idea to impose a political order on a large group of people who have no desire for it. The principal point of a Catholic state, I take it, is for the Gospel to inform deeply not only the culture but the legislation too. However, we always need to work on the culture first. Of course, that doesn’t mean abandoning the political sphere. The idea is simply that without a receptive cultural base, the political superstructure will be of little value. A Catholic political order will emerge organically and freely only from a Catholic culture. Such a culture is what Catholics should focus on building today."" www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/05/21405/

[@CatholicAffectivity]

@@tomthx5804 This makes a lot of sense. It wouldn't be practical or realistic to be advocating for a state recognition and submission to Catholic morals amd the Church if we don't even have the fundamental human dignity respected yet. Thank you very much for helping put to rest my quandary

[@zacharypayne4080]

These videos are really helping, gives context..

[@peter_hobbs]

Great. Thanks. It can be easy to be drawn into the extremes. The Church has had to navigate a careful middle course many times in history. While I’m sympathetic to the concerns of traditionalists, I agree with staying faithful with the today of the Church: docility and continuity.

[@Doyomoyo]

You bring peace

[@tomgervasi4653]

Hello, thank you for clarifying the tenets of our faith, very helpful. I have to say, I have been an avid Taylor Marshall listener ever since the Pachamama incident as well as the papers that came out a few months later. I would appreciate hearing your point of view on how someone should intellectually process these Pachamama developments, so that I am not deviating to either extreme.

[@tomthx5804]

The first step is to realize that a lot of the Pachamamma stuff was actually staged by Marshall himself. He secretly met with the guy that threw them into the river, (Tschugguel), they discussed doing this, Marshall apparently paid for his plane tickets to Rome etc. Then Marshall hid all that from his viewers, and pretended he knew nothing about it, and had somehow miraculously discovered who the young man was, and had him on his show. It was classic fake reality TV. Marshalls views on youtube soared. So we get insight into what kind of a guy Marshall really is. Second, the Pachamamma event was really political, not religious. The Pachamamma statues seem to have been bought by a left wing political group called REPAM. REPAM is a leftist Marxist group that runs around the world pretending to represent the Amazonian people. When the actual people of the Amazon are asked about this, they say "They don't represent us, they are just the local Marxist group".So this political group, REPAM, was brought to the Vatican to play act as if they were the Amazonian people. The left leaning people in the Vatican probably knew they were fakes, but they brought them in anyway, since they knew how to put on a show. REPAM bought the Pachamamma statues in a market in a tourist city. The statues are meant to be sold to tourists as if they were local examples of the deity. So even the statues were fake, they were not made by real Pachamamma worshippers. They were made to sell to tourists. The whole thing was a left wing show, aided and abetted by the leftists who are prominent in the Vatican right now.

[@tomgervasi4653]

@Tom thx: no, incorrect, unfortunately this Pachamama ordeal was religious as well, both supported by the Vatican and then a document religiously justifying the cult of Pachamama by Pope Francis in like Feb or March a few months later, along with other Pagan doctrines. The document is called Querida Amazonia. The fact that a Pope is supporting violations of the 1st Commandment is definitely confusing intellectually, and scapegoating some far left group isn't a sufficient explanation, but maybe I'm wrong and looking for an actual theological explanation as opposed to paper tiger deflections.

[@tomthx5804]

@@tomgervasi4653 No, you are incorrect. You have been listening to the Taylor Marshall propaganda. No, Querida Amazonia does not promote the worship of Pachamamma. No, Pope Francis has not officially approved pagan practices. No, Pope Francis did not support violations of the First commandment. You seem to be very confused about what really happened, and you seem to believe everything these various people like Taylor Marshall told you. Now, there is lots to complain about in the Amazon Synod. The use of this political group in the little show they put on in the Vatican gardens was stupid, to say the least. To have pictures of women breast feeding pigs was bizarre. The constant use of these trinkets was a stupid leftist sop to native peoples, and someone should have stopped it all. And Francis should have said "No, we do not need to use these little fake pagan statues at all. Leftist groups love to use this stuff, and he should have stopped it. But he never went as far as you say.

[@tomgervasi4653]

Okay, thanks, I disagree with your point of view and came up with it independently months before I even knew who Taylor Marshall was. Perhaps I am mistaken, and that's the main reason I would be interested in hearing/reading a trained, professional theological scholar has to say about it, to get an actual informed view, as opposed to lame excuses. I am doing what is recommended which is be docile and listen and accept the Church's teachings, and I am simply asking for teachings to help me wrap my brain around what could easily be interpreted by an uneducated layman like myself as including false pagan idols in a Mass and then apologizing to the Satanic heretics for throwing the false gods into the Tiber, followed by a document that I perhaps actually read and perhaps misread that in fact states some confusing things. Hence I am making an appeal for further teachings/clarifications/correction of my possible erroneous thoughts, but actual corrections without errors. With that said, if you could point me to an article or video by someone with expertise that articulates your pov, I'm happy to check it out.

[@tomgervasi4653]

If it was staged as you claim, why did the Pontiff apologize for throwing them into the river and we have videos of him with the idols? That theory sounds very suspect. Do you have some kind of evidence or way of proving this?

[@davidg2840]

Good Job.

[@tomgreene2282]

The (today) living faith of the dead! Ratzinger's ''Christianity'' should be read/contemplated by anyone who can. Now is the day of Salvation!