@@enaquasanitas7017 while you have a point, I don’t think we know her whole story. So give her the benefit of the doubt and forgiveness since finding love for Jesus and His Church is a lifelong journey.

@@enaquasanitas7017 sometimes God works through men to convert people. St. Constantine the Great was converted in part out of love for his mother St. Helena

@@enaquasanitas7017 relax! Our Lord does these things, put's people in a position where they can't deny him, if they do then they reject Our Lord. It doesn't matter how or why she came to the Catholic Church.. What matters she has come home to the Church of Our Lord!

There are many churches, Sir. As a person born in this day and age how am I supposed to know which one Jesus appointed? The answer is obvious... a church that teaches and believes what Jesus said is a real church. Just as there were seven churches divided among the region of Asia in the Book of Revelation, chapters 2 - 3. Revelation 3:22 ESV - He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’” So, how do I find a true church? Simple: I find out if it teaches the Bible without compromise. Jesus said that he did not come to judge but his words will be our judge. John 12:47-48 ESV - 47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. If I were to join a Catholic church today I would no longer be able to obey Christ. For he clearly commanded me to eat his body and drink his blood. I would no longer be allowed to drink his blood as a lowly non-priest in the Catholic Church. This is but one of the many ways the Catholic Church disagrees with Jesus. Find a new church, for the words of Jesus Christ will judge you on the last day.

@Guess Work First of all, I will believe and Obey Jesus Christ and I have no interest in my opinion... Now, I'll read the rest of your comment.

"What Gives Rise to this Dissent" as a title (at 10:44) is even better

Or you could say jewish Catholicism. Same thing.

We took our teachings from the Jewish I don’t see your point

Great title for a horrible book.

Im truely ashamed of them. The crazy part is that catholics are still considered the more conservative church amongst germans because the german evangelicals are even worse. One of my friends just converted to catholicism because he was fed up with the evangelical nonsense of homosexual female priests (of whom he met one) Eventually conservative christians are going to find their home in catholicism and the rest are going to become protestants and eventually atheists. Even now, catholics outnumber protestants because so many people in the north just left theism as a whole and the catholic south has largely remained catholic

At this point it seems like we are relying on the Africans to save the rest of us.

@@marinanguish9928 and Asia.

God bless African Priests. Absolute legends

@@ghostapostle7225 Yes them as well, of course

best priest i ever heard was from Mozambique, he was truly inspiring, passionate but firm

@YAJUN YUAN Apostasy.

@YAJUN YUAN I guess they start out trusting the Church's teaching, and then start to view this as just an ordinary job over time. Competing with the other clergy. Internal politics is tainted with external politics. If you want to get ahead as a bishop, cardinal, you may use pandering on social issues to elevate yourself. The zeitgeist today is especially favorable to woke politics. People are so eager to hear religious authorities validate their sin. So I'd say it's a form of populist pandering. These priests may have apostasized, but it's also possible they're just excessively worldly, more concerned with their own popularity than the kingdom of God. Presumably they will be called to account for this in short order, either in several years when the Church inevitably finds out that modernist pandering doesn't work and alienates sincere seekers who can smell the inconsistency and flimsiness of their principles; or when they die and are judged; whichever comes first.

That’s such a shame / sounds like your dad is saying and doing the right things

That is sad.

Because as Hume rightly stated, "you don't derive an ought from an is." Ethics is supposed to inform what is to be done with science, not vice versa.

@@richvestal767 Well, Aquinas says otherwise, so...

@@josephmoya5098 Did he?

@@vaderetro264 Yes. That is whole point of the concept "natural law." It comes from the nature of things. Or as Hume put it, the is. (I would be hesitant to agree with Hume on anything, but that's just me.) I would argue, along side many great moral theologians, from LaGrange to Pinckaers, that there is no morality based in anything else than what is. Ought is primarily a question of the state of you soul, and the state of your soul is a question of what is.

@@josephmoya5098 But all you've written has nothing to do with the comment about the necessity for Ethics to inform Science. That's why I asked 'did he'? Of course he didn't, because the law of God is not fully revealed in Nature, which means science can't discover or establish moral laws.

Brilliant

**Claps slowly**

Welcome home

AC/DC they probably listen to Rock'nRoll as well....worldly priest gonna be worldly

@@mike-cc3dd welcome home. Satan tries to bring down the church so there'll b bumps on the way but never lose faith!!!❤

It was Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire (quoting a priest) who said that if there were no gay priests there would be no priests at all.

@YAJUN YUAN sure...baby christians in 200yrs of ur existence. How self-righteous.

I don’t know about you, but general maturity and life experience helped me revert and understand why Church teachings are correct.

Great testimony. May God bless you.

Amen. I had a similar experience

But Rome denies that verse 'if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.' we have no sin, present tense. Rome claims that those in the 'state of grace's have no sin and are 'immacculate' and are righteous in God's eyes because they are internally righteous, with no sin. But Rome denies that concupscience, the inclination to sin is truly sin. But Romans chapter 7 says that concupscience is SIN. The sin that dwells within me. And Galatians says the flesh lists against the Spirit. How could God consider concupscience to be holy and righteous or somehow neutral? How can a attraction to ungodliness, a desire to ungodliness be neutral or holy in the sight of God? Concupscience is sin, so Rome has errored. That is why God declares righteous the ungodly, the ungodly Christ died for, and that He declares righteous those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Trent Horn talks about the 'church doctrine' but if official church teaching changes, and this Cardinal has authority in Rome not Trent Horn, will Horn salute and accept official Rome teaching? Notice the change on the death penalty. Or the change on NFP compared to earlier centuries. So Rome's ethics changes, just ike it changed on religious liberty and whether heretics should be burned. Not only that, Rome has contradictions of allowing those who teach Molinist and Thomist predestination which disagree, and 'Hopeful Universalism' that we can hope nobody even Judas ends up in hell as ,'Bishop Barron' teaches and the denial of that by professor Ralph Martin at Sacred Heart Seminary who rejects Hopeful Universalism. So there are two disagreements on Salvation doctrines in Rome, which is the 'real'teaching? Not to mention that Trent denies Paul wrote 14 epistles as the North African councils he appeals to taught and he claims that Deutrocanon like Judith can be fictional, even though he cites witters who taught the Deutrocanon books were historical not fictional. And course the American bishops of Rome and the England and Wales bishops have put out statements saying that Scripture can have errors in non salvation teachings Ike history or science, so called 'limited inerrancy'' while other Romanists says that the scripture teaches the truth in everything in teaches 'full inerrancy.' then you have the problem of 3rd Esdras in the Canon - was it passed over, rejected, or passed over and practically impossible to be added in the future to the Canon or would it be a positive thing to recognize 3rd Esdras as a Divinely Inspired book? Then there is the disagreement between Romanists that hold the Church teaches Geocentrism (Robert sungenis) and those who don't think that, and those Romanists that teach theistic evolution or those who teach a young earth, global flood and literal ad and eve, literal Noah, and literal Tower of Babel. And those who hold to Moses authorship of the Torah and those who reject that, and those who hold the Gospels to be eyewitness history and those who reject that, those who hold Matthew wrote Matthew and those who do not, and those who hold Just War and those who hold to pacifism, those who think Paul wrote 14 epistles or 13 or only 7 epistles, the who think special revelation is partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition and those who disagree and say it is wholly in Scripture and wholly in Tradition, whether celibacy is a tradition from the Apostles or is only a discipline, etc. Which is the true 'church teaching' on all these issues of Authority?

@@Kitiwake Hi, God bless.

Those are infiltrators who only entered the church with that purpose to destroy the church,

@@YiriUbic3793 Why are they permitted to remain? Infiltration isn't the right word when no punishment or correction are meted out.

They like the power and bling, maybe?

@@HaleStorm49 Because the infiltrators are in the highest positions.

@@littlerock5256 Infiltration is a cope. Someday God will ask you why you thought His church would be allowed to be run by Satanic infiltrators... There will not be an acceptable answer that doesnt sound foolish in retrospect. If Satans minions are at the highest level of the church, it's their church. Staying in the church of Satans minions is not really a defendable position. I think people feel like the infiltration argument is a valid explanation for what they are seeing, but it's also a fatal admission and untenable position for a truth seeker.

But doesn't that prove the other side as well lol. It's saying that there are anomalies in nature. And an anomaly isn't automatically evil but a part of the function of nature

@@Jstaman There is a concept in the natural law that we judge a thing based on how well it fulfills it’s nature or purpose. The dog in this case is suffering a privation from it’s true nature or purpose. It is not being all the dog that it can be, (through no fault of its own). It’s lack of 4 legs prevents it from being as fast or as agile as it may otherwise be. The purpose of a chair is to sit on. If the chair collapses or tips over when we sit on it, we would call that a bad chair. It isn’t fulfilling its true purpose as a chair. With chairs and dogs, there isn’t a moral component, as animals and inanimate objects do not possess a moral dimension. The concept does carry over into human behaviour as well. The purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies. If we eat 20 Big Macs, or drink poison, that is contrary to the purpose of eating. We call that immoral. Now ask yourself what the purpose of sexuality is. The Church teaches that its purpose is twofold: 1: To promote love and bonding within a marriage 2: To promote procreation By unnaturally frustrating either one of the two purposes of sex, the sex act is held to be morally wrong on natural law grounds. One could make the argument that homosexual relations could fulfill the bonding function (debatable but that’s outside the scope of this comment), but it’s obvious that homosexual sex is by its very essence, categorically, fundamentally, incapable of producing offspring and therefore cannot by its very essence fulfill one of the key purposes of sex. It is therefore contrary to the natural law and deemed to be a non-permissible act. We should ask ourselves; is it wise to look to what occurs in nature for human moral guidance? Cannibalism, rape, incest all occur in nature…all run contrary to the natural law.

@@Jstaman To more directly answer your question: Natural Law theory would define “natural”, as something like: “that which allows something to flourish as the type of thing that it is”. The natural law views such “anomalies” as privations, not as equally valid. If an apple tree gets a disease and it can no longer produce apples, we observe that it’s not flourishing as the type of thing that it is. It’s disease has caused a privation in the tree. The diseased tree and and the healthy tree both occur in nature but in natural law theory we do not are not view them as equally positive outcomes. One is flourishing as the thing it is, one is not.

@@displaychicken you bring up a point that has baffled me for years that I've actually posted on this video. What makes homosexuality immoral? The problem is your answer is flawed. If you say it is immoral because it does not bring about (or have the possibility to bring about) offspring then 90% + of all sexual activity even in marriage is immoral. Especially if the people use condoms or other forms of contraception like the pill. Yet the church is quiet on this. The second is bonding. Creating a more perfect union. Homosexuality can do this just as easily as heterosexual relationships and is not at any particular disadvantage in this regard. Most long lasting homosexual relationships have found a balance of strengths and weaknesses to support each other just as a man and woman does and they are monogamous. I do not say this as an argument to put you down or anyone but I am genuinely curious and interested in yhis aspect of the debate that no one seems to address

@@displaychicken in your second comment you bring up the idea of what makes something flourish. On a societal level it is in my opinion undeniable that the structure of the nuclear household is the best for our species to flourish. But when broken down to an individual level that is in some cases detrimental. A homosexual that aspires to live as his heterosexual brethren tend to (statistically) spiral out of control. Becoming mentally unstable and going into depression that often leads them to suicide, or going into a destructive cycle of denying themselves only to binge or even lying to their spouses and cheating on them. If a person is truly homosexual and not able to have a relationship with a woman trying to force them to conform would be extremely harmful to them and whatever poor partner they end up with.

You are probably correct, but polygamy was practiced in the Bible by prophets and predicted to occur again in the future by Isaiah. Have the popcorn ready.

make that 10, maybe even 5 years.

Honestly I think it’s already happening, or at least starting. I don’t think it’s common, thank goodness, but it certainly happens and gets glorified by some media outlets. So weird

Sadly I think it's possible the monogamy itself will be persecuted, as it was presented in Brave New World

I hope we get the first Black Pope when Pope Francis passes away, African bishops seem to be the only ones who can lead Christ's church in the right direction at the current moment

The Left fights by infiltrating into a system to gradually change it from the inside. Just as they usually don't create new LGTBQ or minority superheros but instead turn Superman gay and Spiderman black, they don't build their own 'church' but try to assimilate those of their enemies. They not only lack imagination but also the necessary conviction/sincerity to promote their ideas independently.

@@enaquasanitas7017 And when proper LGTBQ or minority characters are created with no Left-wing political connotations, they are usually ignored. Nobody in the Left has ever cared about Marvel characters such as Northstar, Shaman and Puck (all three in the comicbook Alpha Flight) or Black Panther (till recently at least), despite all of them having good potential.

@@enaquasanitas7017 Yes, all they want is power, they don't actually care about human rights and about establishing their own legitimate space. They complain there are not enough gay, black, disabled characters but that's only an excuse to exercise censorship and violence.

lmao. imagine that. a "Lust Mass" or a "Sloth Mass." Maybe a "Gluttony Mass" or a "Wrath Mass"?

@@enaquasanitas7017 The list of good or potentially good black comic characters is quite long. But, you know, too much success in the long term would damage the Left's narrative...

Not that I don’t agree that St. Paul isn’t one of the greatest Saints, teachers, and evangelists, but *technically* he was not one of the 12 Apostles. (Not that I don’t think he was inspired- I do.)

@@EpoRose1 I get what your saying but the counter is that he taught side by side with Peter and other apostles and was never corrected. Plus he was technically ordained by Christ Himself. ( I know you believe Paul was inspired just providing my response to that particular counter should it be used)

@@EpoRose1 He was still individually and personally called by Jesus, and sent (thus an apostle), as an apostle for the gentiles. He is equal, and makes that clear in his epistle to the Galatians. Peter also recognises the authority of his epistles.

There's a lot of it about these days

Exactly!

The dietary laws were about health, not morality. Mamy of the jewish laws were in place as punishment due to their disobedience starting when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and the Israelites were essentially having a naked orgy while worshipping a golden calf. They were not worthy of living the higher standards of the Gospel that Christ taught when he returned. Re: Moral laws have not changed, the problem is the church's "authority" is not applied consistently or uniformly nor has been for a long time. The question is whether the authority can continue to be considered authority if applied inconsistently or if cardinals and bishops are permitted to preach false doctrines to the laity. If policeman are allowed to commit crimes their authority is either removed immediately or the entire police force is corrupted and is actually force for evil rather than good. The moral laws have not changed... The church has.

I think we must distinguish between moral law and specific applications of the law, which may be contextual. The commandment 'do not kill' was as true when the Church accepted the possibility of death penalty (in very particular circumstances) as it is now.

@@enaquasanitas7017 I think you possibly misunderstood Gabriela's question. I don't think she is talking about society's moral ideas. They obviously change. I think she is asking about the Church's moral law or the natural law. There we have to look at the development of Church teaching over time. But development of teaching never involves a complete rejection of something that was previously taught. Development is a matter of deeper understanding not rejection.

I have never know the Church to teach that "it could be moral to apply the death penalty". I have read and heard the Church state that in certain circumstances, if there is no other possible way to keep the population safe, then the death penalty could be applied. My earliest memories of hearing of JP2 was him pleading for people on death row. The attachment to the death penalty in the US is very cultural, not religious. Most Catholics worldwide find the practice barbaric.

A teaching I found that did change quite a bit, was that of suicide. Because today we understand more about mental illness, the Church doesn't necessarily condemn someone who committed suicide. Before, a person who killed themselves couldn't be buried in a Catholic cemetery.

Jewdas

They talk past each other because more conservative people are still under the impression they can negotiate with the psychos who have captured the institutions. It's just an anti-white slur

Homosexuality is not a sin unless it is accompanied by a homosexual act.

@@Kitiwake Depends. If you choose yourself to be openly homosexual regardless of acc it's a big fat sin. If it's just temptations then it's not. Otherwise your wrong

@@bn8268 "If you choose yourself to be openly homosexual regardless of acc it's a big fat sin." How so? what's the difference between being a closeted homosexual and an out one? can you support your claims with a Church Teaching or a Bible verse? Genuine questions by the way. I don't know a lot about this topic, so I hope you'll answer me.

@@kenthdavealledbelison1977 Reweiting this response because youtube auto deleted this comment but what I was trying to say was that. What's the difference? Your just commiting the sinful act in your mind. Also as many Saints have said such as I believe St Therese of Liseux has stated that it's so evil that it bothers the demons. As they are angelic in nature they cannot handle such filth and usually tempt the person sks once they give in they flee. Hopefully this answers your worries!

@@bn8268 yes. Temptation isn't an act. That's why it's harder to sin with thought.

I can't understand why this isn't a thing already. How can you openly teach contrary morals to church teaching, and it be no big deal?

@@adamrad2220 apathy and fear of repercussions from the secular world

@@fritzimperial9210 And fear of sparking a major schism in the church. Let's be honest. 60% of Catholics would leave the church tomorrow if the church began defrocking these guys. The only issue is the longer you let a wound fester, the harder it is to heal.

@@josephmoya5098 amen

@@josephmoya5098 Many of those "Catholics" are already separated due to their own actions

The Church will not and cannot change its teaching on Homosexuality. God will not allow the Magisterium to teach error-“Infallibility of the Pope.”

@@marteld2108 The pope just changed the Catechism on the death penalty, claiming that the death penalty is never admissible, despite the Vatican having justifiably executed hundreds of people during the middle ages, when it controlled the Papal States. How is this not error? As Francis himself will tell you, infallibility is a much more complex issue that applies in very specific scenarios. I've even seen bishops get it wrong when describing what those scenarios are. The pope is not necessarily protected from error when modifying canon law or the Catechism. Although he can certainly declare a specific change to canon law or the Catechism as infallible, the mere act of changing it does not guarantee that the change is infallibly true.

@@ToxicallyMasculinelol ....you are wrong. Are you Catholic? "The Vatican executing hundreds of people..." There are plenty of people who sinned and misused their power in the Church. They were wrong for doing so. "Infallibility" means a gift given to the Office of the Pope...God will not allow the Magisterium of the Church to teach error because then there is no way of knowing what is true in faith and morals.

You have to understand this thing is going to change the church and not for the good. This will end up being an open ended license for local bishops to make their diocese they way they want it, like what's going on in Germany. If it comes from Bergoglio it isn't going to be good for the church. He has a head full of heterodox ideas that aren't Catholic teaching. He fully accepts what is going on in Germany. Think of it like this. Think Vatican III.

Is that what the serpent really says?

@@dansaber8435 you seriously think that the utterances of “the serpent” are relegated to only what’s in the Bible?

@@richvestal767 if the serpent is anything like he is in the Garden what does he say that's so tempting?

@@dansaber8435 See above what I put in quotes. "Love" is not just "love". There are in fact true loves and false loves. "Love is love" purposely obscures that fact.

@@richvestal767 you know when it's love. Just like any romantic comedy. No one has to tell you.

xD OHHH JAAAA FRESS EINEM SCHNITZEL LOL

A guy already married his computer

He agrees with them

I cant imagine the amount of cringe happening in that debate. Trent would be testing his patience

It all boils down to what God says about sexuality, marriage, and homosexual behavior. Its not about what WE think or feel. If you’re Catholic and don’t like Church teaching AND refuse to understand it, then become a Protestant, I’m sure they’d love to have you. The entire foundation of Protestantism is interpreting the teachings according to your feelings and the changing of the times. 🙄😒

@@littleone1656 I'm not a Catholic since the teachings of the church are immoral, no matter whether god exists or not. Obviously most catholics take the same stand and refuse to act against basic human dignity!

@@littleone1656 Gott sagt erst mal nichts. Die Bibel enthält Gotteswort im Menschenwort. Du musst die Texte in ihrem historischen und kulturellen Kontext verstehen. Und dann ist völlig eindeutig: Die Bibel kennt keine Homosexualität. Sie verurteilt sie also auch nicht 😘 🌈 😘 🌈 😘 🌈 😘 🌈 😘 🌈 😘

Hopefully not, and in case it will, we'll carry our crosses. God's in control.

"Communist" China has more Catholics than Western Europe & America.. God is working. Have faith.

I’m actually Eastern Orthodox

@@mcspankey4810 asked what?

@@diegobarragan4904 If you are not a Catholic then your comment was uncharitable. The Orthodox Church also has problems, but I don't write sarcastic comments about it.

@Randolph Worthington III Probably true, but not the whole truth, we are in a spiritual warfare since the time if Adam.

Is it really though? I'm no expert, just a Jesuit for 20 years, and I'd say we look a lot like the regular clergy on this.

@@FrJohnBrownSJ I mean no offence, but this is my personal experience and I had no higher authority on this so far. It can be my selection bias or there being many Jesuits just in general, it just seemed disproportionate to me. Sorry for speaking ill of your order, Father.

@@generalguy6211 No problem. I know we are on the same side here. Just remember that it doesn't do a lot of good to lump a whole bunch of Jesuits together on pretty much any issue.

@Randolph Worthington III 🔯$0R0$ 🔯 🔯 Jesuits 🔯

Zero chance you've been paying attention to Trent, because this type of video is in no way a change in course for him. What he was talking about in the video you reference is that he didn't want to have his channel turn into yet another "scandal of the day" breakdown channel. Plenty of other ones do that already, and while those can be entertaining, they don't bring good and truth into the world, they mostly bring fear and anger (I watch plenty of them, so I know). Trent is honestly above that. So, yeah, your comment doesn't even make logical sense.

@@adamrad2220 you are spot-on, Adam!

@@adamrad2220 you have made my point I did say I stopped paying attention to Trent for some time… 🤷 and the video I’m referencing is from early last year I believe. You must have not of watched the whole video. If I have time to find that video I will reference it here so you can watch it then You will know what I’m talking about. Look I get it your a Trent Horn fan boy that’s cool I know your butt hurt when some one disagrees with some one you like. I like Tent Horn to homie even read couple of his books. I’m saying that when you have a voice and platform like his use it to call out the garbage happening in the church.

Glad you've come back to watch an episode! It's fine line as to what internal Catholic issues I will talk about. One deciding factor is doctrine vs. prudence. To me this is a clear case of a Church teaching coming under attack, even if the attackers are fellow Catholics. But in other cases it's not about whether a doctrine is true or false but whether an action is prudent or imprudent (like the Latin mass motu propio) and there's lots of people who comment on those questions so another voice isn't needed.

@@TheCounselofTrent Dude there maybe a lot of voices that talk about those issues but few of them have the respect ✊ that you have. When you share your views people listen. That’s what’s different from you and all the rest. I used to follow and listen to your podcast often. But with all the controversies going on in the church and few leaders taking a stand against them and when you really weren’t addressing those issues was disheartening. But I hear what your saying. Hey your a big reason I got deeper into Catholicism, thank you for what you do 👍 and keep up the good work.

I don't know the future, but I can't see us fight human nature with such fervor for long before a hard correction comes along.

@@FrJohnBrownSJ I hope you're right, Father.

Yeah exactly. Men have trouble bonding with other men nowadays for fear of appearing “gay”.