This is genius!

Yo i hate division

Why can we all be one in Christ as Jesus has prayed

@@axlmendez5888 Division is a human instinct.

Protestants do have a specific theology but simply rely on pastor's definition which varies from pastor to pastors from time to time and from situation to situation.

@Julián Babilonia if you were talking to me thank you. Regardless God loves you and peace be with you too.

Same

Yup, I think I have to watch it again for the 3rd time. “A” was pretty clear, “B” got blurry, “C” was blurry and far away. 🤔

Type A: "Wait, that's illegal!"

Amen

A lot of truth to each one.

I might argue that there isn’t much “wrong” with any of the three approaches? I’m not theologically trained Father Casey.... I just read. A lot. For a dyed in the wool Protestant, I read entirely too much Catholic theology. At least according to some opinions. I’m not really sure reading too much theology is possible.

Stop stealing my name, “J. K.”

@@JK-ip5zc no u

@@j.k.6865 both of you,stop arguing!!

Modernism is the origin of all heresies

@@jacksonreese17liberalism*

Thanks so much!

@@BreakingInTheHabit Child, you do not understand two (2) realities: (1) In the Bible the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" (the church) consists of BOTH unsaved "tares/goats" who were sown by Satan and are destined to eternal torment and relatively few saved "wheat/sheep/saints" who were sown by God and are destined to eternal life. So THAT is the Biblical definition of "the church" [Mat 13] ------------ (2) In the Bible "the church" began during the lifetime of the Lord and Apostles. The "church" did not begin in 300AD. To pretend the Catholic denomination is "the church" is so naive it is PAINFUL. If fact, the RCC teaches many different heresies. ------------ Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. --------------- (3) The "church" is NOT the "Body of Christ" because, as we have seen in #1... in the broader sense "the church" contains BOTH "wheat and tares" while the "Body of Christ" contains ONLY the "wheat". ------------------- Your preaching (or theology) is sloppy at best. If you do not DEFINE the CONTEXT of "the church" then anything and everything you say can ONLY be a partial-truth. ------------------- It would be better if FIRST you explained the church consists of BOTH "wheat and tares" and SECOND you define whether you are talking about ONLY the "wheat" (the "Body of Christ" or if you are talking about the temporal "church" which contains both saved "wheat" and unsaved "tares" ------------ This is very basic and essential theology child.... I wonder why it seems to be "news" to you? -------------

Sophia Hunter Do you mean Jesus. Not Yeshua.

@@user-uu5zv9qw1y why not Yeshua? that's the name the Messianic Jews use. The name "Yeshua" is Hebrew and therefore closer to Our Lord's Jewish origins.

@BVale I, too, was raised with a penal substitution outlook and I was only in coming across Wikipedia articles like the one you mentioned that I realized there were other outlooks that I could contemplate. I feel the same regarding Christian eschatology and interpretations of the Millennium.

@@phiafacetious His name properly ia Yeshua. His mama called Him Yeshua, I'm gonna call Him Yeshua in prayer.

I attend a school which is majorly Type C. And at times it's frustrating to differ on some issues haha.

Almost all schools and universities are only type C nowadays.

Me too, and I’ve felt a bit conflicted and dressed-down by the dominant type A’s-like the TNT show and Fr Ripperger. Rules rules rules. Laws laws laws. I love them, but now I can see them more clearly as coming from a perspective-not “the right way.”

Aha I’m the opposite, definitely a type C with major urges toward B

I’m not sure if we can really split them up that easily. Case in point, another commenter said she was Dominican and associated highly with B. You might be able to make a case about the individual founders (I see Francis as a strong C with some A), but not sure about the others.

Breaking In The Habit, thanks for the clarity. :-)

Looks like q mixture of B and C.

Same

Roseann Sorrentino St. Augustine is actually a Father of the Church, being that he was around in the 4th century, whereas Aquinas came around much later. The incredible thing about Augustine is that he did not have all of the Fathers of the Church (being that he was one of them) to educate him on the doctrine... He had to formulate largely from scratch all of his work (the Greek philosophers). He was a significant contributor to the actual making of doctrine, and is considered by many to be the greatest theologian/philosopher of the Western Christian world; his ideas and work majorly influenced a ton of Aquinas’ teachings.

@@Anthony-vx6cs Yes I know.both are doctors of the church. If Augustine is a father of church remember saint Polycarp and I guess you would say saint Patrick would be fathers too. But we really look into the fathers of the church was before 1000 a.d. I know augustine is around 380 ad. Don't forget bishop nicholas. (also saint) I do know Aquinas is much later but still refuted on some of Augustine's work. But it doesnt matter they are all doctors of the church. Love them both. Not trying to argue here. Just stating facts.

Aquinas quotes Augustine more than anyone else...including Aristotle...Aquinas is more Augustinian than people give him credit for.

@@phillipmarshall2982 yes I know. I didnt say he didn't or wasn't a closely related Augustinian. He was born almost 1000 years later than Saint Augustine. Doesn't mean he had to agree with Saint Augustine 100%. Everyone is entitled to have disagreements. And builds the relationship even closer. With small minor disagreements. I love both Augustine and Aquinas. My faves. Which still I have a huge list of saints.

@@phillipmarshall2982 That's what I'm saying..! I absolutely love them both, but the shear abundance of theological and philosophical teachings that Augustine articulated nearly from scratch are not given enough credit. Truly a great Church Father.

Generally speaking, yes. There were strains of B and C throughout Western and Protestant history as well, and some aspects of A in Orthodoxy, but the dominant strains are as you suggest.

Try Fr Richard Rohr, Fr Lester Bach, Fr Murray Bodo. These are all three Franciscans, coincidentally. God bless!

Is she Protestant, Atheist, Buddhist, Agnostic, etc.?

Luz Clara Good question. I’m not sure if there is a singular “strategy” of evangelization (nor do I think that there is a book that will convince someone.) For me, people don’t become Christians because they’ve lost an argument; they become Christian because they’ve witnessed the love of Christ.

Yes, dearest Brother Casey. That is so, indeed. You are right. But books often begin the process (and prayer). In order to recommend a book to start with, it helps to know the person's background or worldview. There is no point in recommending the story of conversion of an Atheist, if the person is Protestant, for example. :) I have been watching tons of videos about personal conversions, and often one or two books were involved (the most common, for former Atheists, usually were "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, and "Orthodoxy" by Chesterton; and for Protestants, it had often been "Rome Sweet Rome" by Dr. Scott Hahn). Books make people start thinking, questioning preconceptions and begin seeking for the truth. As they are searching for it, inevitably they find and finally recognize Love. As people seek with an honest heart, they have an encounter with Jesus.

Hey, I'm planning to become one too! So awesome to see a future lay sister online :)

Plumface-sama Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” The short answer is that God created his sacraments for us, but is not bound by them Himself (we are but not Him).

No, actually, Thomas’ theology is thoroughly type A. And that’s fine. It’s doesn’t diminish him or his theology, but he is a major defining figure for that type of theology.

When we say "There is only One Truth" we are refering to the Public Revelation of God which is truth itself. If you say that there are multiple truts (religiously/philosophically) you are falling in the same posmodern relativism that Benedict XVI criticises. However, you can say that there are multiple truths outside Revelation, in other fields, like science and art, where nothing is irrefutable as everything depends on our empirical observations, our senses and our points of view.