An old Benedictine priest in North Carolina once told me about a young lawyer who was about to be the first Catholic appointed to be a judge in North Carolina in the 1950s or 60s. He came to the father distraught because in order to receive the appointment as a judge he had to swear to uphold the truths of the protestant faith. The wise old priest told him that’s fine, go ahead and take the oath… They’re asking you to uphold the truths of the protestant faith not the lies!
Ah yes. Truths of the Protestant Faith.....like, The Pope covers up for pedophiles? You mean things like that? Yeah, you'll stop pointing that finger unless you want to pull back a stump.
@@phantasmtheater6015 hey tough guy study your history and recognize the abuses in your own church or whatever you believe in people are weak and no damn good and that includes you just cause you believe in Jesus does not guarantee your salvation we have the sacraments im not sure what you have remember what Jesus said when they proclaim all the stuff they did in His name depart evildoer i knew you not salvstion the bible even all your misguided beliefs you owe to the catholic faith the only thing protestants have they can really call their own is pride in their own interpretation of things
Phantasm theatre At least we know what happened to the Church,her enemies could not beat her so they Infiltrated,plenty of evidence for that.where is your evidence for what your saying please don’t tell me it’s Dave Hunt the Protestant author as he has wrote some great fictional work. ( the best comment I can make about him,although Fr Jenkins was much kinder when he was asked about his book)My family is mixed Protestants and Catholics I pray for them, but you spew out some Rot. If Protestants knew their own history they would be very silent on Catholic history.
Dealing with intellectual pride ultimately getting us heading to the truth of the Catholic faith. I prayed as a Protestant with sincerity, “God show me what the truth is and I will humble myself before it”. He showed me that the Catholic faith was true. It was hard to follow through with my promise but after receiving some graces I did. I would not go back. The point is that anyone that wants to know the truth sincerely will become Catholic. The funniest parts was that my enemies did a great deal to convert me
Whoaaa, Father Ripperger is a genius! The answers are tapestries of info. & quotes from different fields of study. And Father doesn't even pause for a second before he answers. Voila! He answers as fast as Google search! I hope he becomes a professor ;-))
I believe Father R. holds triple PhDs in the following fields of study: Theology, Philosophy, and Psychology. He is also a Vatican sanctioned exorcist and all around brilliant fella. I believe he, in conjunction with Christ, has liberated thousands of the spiritually afflicted. All his lectures are highly recommended.
It bothers me that when I go to Mass I often hear very superficial theology. I recognize that there's a reason for that, but some of the most meaningful content I can find is on the internet. Thanks for providing it !
How many people at church would understand, be interested or even grasp a talk like this one or any other from Fr Ripperger, Abam Blai, Scott Hahn, etc.?
I used to think this as well but from the priests standpoint, he has to cater for a wide audience in terms of interest and IQ. I do wish a little more depth was can understand why they wouldnt be able to deep dive.
@@carlospacheco7361 Scott Hahn is NOT in the same league as Fr. Ripperger, far from it. He sells an emotive, experiential and thoroughly Modernist theology. Hahn has been selling his folksy, perpetually smiling world view and the details of his own conversion for THIRTY-FIVE years. I never learned a thing from listening to Hahn; he is also a charismatic and Fr. Ripperger, along with other traditional priests have named the charismatic movement for what it is: HERESY.
@@margaretboyle8719 that’s is a serious claim. There was a brief period I was thinking of moving to Steubenville to be in the close proximity of “pockets of good Catholics”there. However I couldn’t fully grasp what Dr Hann and his group were preaching, the move was never realized. God willing.
I'm pretty sure Fr Ripperger is the most intelligent human I have ever encountered for his knowledge is in the stuff that really matters. Thanks Padre+
Knowledge is not necessarily the product of pure intelligence. One can work hard to acheive knowlege. But the ability to synthesize ideas, especially abstract ones and turn them into an application that produces knowledge and direction is a sign of true intelligence.
The Latin Mass was used for centuries and no one wanted to change it until the 1960s. The ancient mass gave us the sense of something that endured through the centuries.
@@manny4905 think they were just joking that your abbreviation for his name, RIP, is also understood as meaning “rest in peace,” which is what people say about people who have just died.
Flamenco4U Agreed. He's a wealth of knowledge...His talks have strengthened my spiritual life by leaps and bounds. God love him. Let's always keep him in our prayers.
It's interesting to me to see how - independent of intelligence or education - the errors of the anti-trans apologists seem to follow a standard pattern: 1) insistence on "2 genders only" without identifying a source or recognizing that the Standards of Care for people who are transgender actually reinforce, more than they challenge, the notion of "gender as binary," 2) identification of chromosomes as the absolute defining characteristic of gender, 3) recognition of the existence of chromosomal anomalies, but also dismissal as so infrequent so as to be immaterial to the debate (this is the stage at which Father Rippergerger appears to have been at the time of this recording), 4) denial that transgenderism occurs (~ 10x) less frequently than chromosomal anomalies, 5) recognition of the rarity and therefore possibility that neurological morphology and external morphology may not correspond (in cis-normative terms), but insistence that gender transition is not the appropriate treatment, 6) acceptance of transgender reality as part of the natural diversity of God's creation, and gender transition as the prescribed response determined by healthcare professionals. IOW, Father Ripperger is about halfway there
@@MarcillaSmith Transgenderism tends to become an ideological position. I think it's important to accept our own and others' healthy bodies as they are. Eg to be a man and have very feminine character traits is not a pathology, malfunction or sickness of the body. Same for a woman who feels more 'masculine' than other women might. Regardless of our character being more or less 'feminine' or 'masculine', we should accept ourselves, as should others. I'm not claiming it's always easy, especially at different stages of life, eg when growing up. Yet, a man who is less 'macho' than another man, is no less a man. Same goes for women who are more 'butch' than many other women might be. Another point worth noting is that data exists to show that post-operative transsexuals have a high depression/suicide rate compared to those that haven't undergone a sex change.
@@jturon9184 yes, I certainly recognize that we are all entitled to our opinions, and I will grant you that there are those who expand the meaning of transgender issues to include political critique of the construction of gender. This is one reason I have recently started to return to the previously abandoned "transsexual" terminology in order to be more precise about what I mean. Because there is certainly a difference between the situation you discuss - variance in character traits (something that occurs to some degree in about 100% of the population), and the variance between neurological and external morphology that underlies doctors misidentifying the gender of transsexuals at birth. We can look at examples such as the "pregnant man" who made such headlines ten years ago or so, who had previously been crowned Miss Teen Hawaii USA, or at the women who are transfeminine who previously served in military combat arms roles of examples of transsexualism that does not manifest as "masculine women" or "feminine men," and yet manifests all the same. Regarding the study you mention, if be interested to see it, as the numbers I recall off the top of my head are that treatment satisfaction rates are around 98%, while the trans population as a whole has a suicide rate more than 10x the population at large
I would love to be a student of Fr. Ripperger. Not only because of his thorough knowledge of Catholic theology but also because of his fluency and mastery of philosophy, such as Kant, Aristotle, and Descartes/Hume. He is truly a wise man.
I'm not even a Christian, but as a scholar of religion I find it heartening how Chad just goes IN on everything with such a strength of will whilst being cordial at the same time. It's so refreshing compared to the amount of ordained folks who barely seem to know their own texts let alone understand them let alone apply them in their lives.
With all due respect, we NEVER refer to our priests by their first names only. We always use the title of Fr. either first or last name, They will even refer to each other as Fr. and Fr. Chad is very particular about this. It does feel strange. I am probably old enough to be one of my priest's grandmother or close but he's still FATHER Christian.
@@Meira750 I didn't realise that applied to people outside of the faith. Emic and etic viewpoints, I suppose. Do Catholics observe that with other religions, out of interest? Would they refer to "Ipsissimus Xander" or "Goði Heimgeist", for example?
Cute. It's a matter of respect. Any title that doesn't convey being under their spiritual authority is ok. I wouldn't call a minister "pastor" for example because he is not my spiritual leader. Same with an imam but I could call them "Doctor" if they have that degree.
@@KnjazNazrath No, I wouldn't call him Imam because it is an acknowledgement of his authority. Islam means "submission" and those who don't submit to the authority of Allah and his reperesentatives are seen as heretics. I could call him or any other clergy person "reverend" because that designates respect for their learning and authority WITHIN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES, withiout my essential submission to their rule. I might call King Charles "your majesty" but I would not address him as "sire" because he is NOT my sire. He has no authority over me as I am not a British citizen. But majesty shows respect for his higher position over his countrymen.
Modern physics does use an Aristotelian understanding of time though, in fact it states that light is the "clock" that makes time "tick" what is meant when he says time is relative is that things happen "faster" when you are moving slower. So, basically what ripperger says it really is.
I would be careful. The underlying assumptions of the Michelson Morley experiment, and hence the erroneous conclusions regarding it, are based on light being a discrete entity, apart from the Aether. In fact light and "mater" are energetic manifestations of the Aether itself. The "fluidity" of the Aether or, as I like to say the"tightness of God's box" are what govern the speed of light and the interactions of light and matter within the Aether. The speed of light is a derivative property of the material universe created by God. Modern physics is hellbent, quite literally I might add, on the speed of light being an absolute property of the universe and that time gains is permanency as a result. The uncertainty principle is the culmination of this modern scientific need for the speed of light being an absolute property of the universe. For science to be capable of approaching and conquering all knowledge of the physical world, it must be capable of measuring any and all phenomenon. If a phenomenon moves faster than the speed of light, science is de facto incapable of any absolute determination about that phenomenon, AND, as such, puts the entire moral supremacy of scientific atheism in jeopardy. It becomes vitally important therefore, for "science" to retain command of such superluminal events by referring to them as "uncertain" rather than "unknowable".....which ironically was how Heisenberg originally referred to observations of quantum phenomenon....that the were "unknowable".
It strikes me that the science of cosmology is suffering from the same defect as the arts and humanities. In the humanities, ideologies differ from theories in that they start with an opinion and then look for 'facts' to bolster it. And now science is following the same course. Cosmologists have to find ways to 'explain' how it was possible for nothing to become something so they invent this notion of multiverses and simply speculate portentiously on it. God forbid that they could admit of a Creator, a first cause, a prime mover ect, then they might have to follow His laws and be accountable for the way they live their lives
Excellent talk Fr. Chad, especially on the point of priests and universal time. Before I ever heard of anything like what Aquinas has to say on time, it (should be)/is common sense that there is a universal time because there is only one reality (corresponding to Ripperger's use of "universe"), and all things are consisting of that reality. Assuming that time is primarily relative means that time is not always necessarily forward moving, which is insane because change is always forward moving. To me, to say that time is relative smells like saying that truth is grounded in relativism... ...there are certainly some things that are relative according to the terms of perspective, but all relative things are rooted in their relationship to the singular reality that exists. Because that reality cannot be relative to anything but itself (which means it is not relative), the truth is primarily grounded in what must be an absolute thing.
Ryan Reeves is one of my absolute favorites and Rippenger is excellent. PS DC now has the “Dark Multiverse” of very evil, inverted universes where say Batman killed The Flash etc., and there are all kinds of freaky bizzare incarnations of characters. I agree there’s ONE universe.
According to the writers the Marvel characters are based on pagan pantheons, and from what you have said theey are also in kabbalah territory, the astonishing heresy that the creation was bodged and there is an anti - kabbalah of the "shells of evil"
Technically a woman cannot be a priest for the same reason a woman cannot be a king. A female monarch is a queen and a woman ordained to the priesthood (whether Catholic or pagan) would be a PRIESTESS. Words have consequences. When I’m in a discussion with someone about why the Catholic Church won’t ordain women, all I have to say is that the Catholic Church doesn’t have priestesses. It always amazes me how that just seems to end the discussion.
When a woman asserts her "rights to the altar".... she is surely not speaking with the voice of the humility that Jesus asks from all His children. Saint Mother Teresa of calcutta suggests HUMILITY for us as daughters of Mary! I don't think these women fill Jesus with unbridled joy!
Mother teresa is a heretic in her book she claims "respect all religions” she also said that she and the sisters would give muslims muslim funerals and hindus hindu funerals, that is heretical read her book and you’ll see
Scripture says God opened Hagar's eyes and she saw the well in the desert. Did the well already exist like in another reality and she couldn't see it, or did God just create the well then and there for her? I've always wondered. Thanks for your great videos.
Think of an elephant. Now answer this question: Did the elephant already exist like in another reality and you couldn't see it, or did I just create the elephant then and there for you? I think that's similar to what you're asking. God made knowledge available to her mind. That's what happened. You're interpreting it too literally.
Didn't a people walk the desert for decades looking for the land of milk and honey promised them by God? Sometimes our expectations can blind us from the truth ... they were walking on the land that they were promised, the entire time.
Thank you Father! Glory to the Name of Jesus our Savior! I am reading Saint Augustine's Confessions. I just got to his writings on time, and it was confusing to me. The Thomistic version makes more sense to me. I am not sure that it contradicts with Augustine's view, though it seems to. Anyway, thanks and may God bless you and keep you!
Pride. Many times my faults could have been prevented had I only not given into my pride. How I hope Jesus gives me the Grace to put my pride to bed for good
Regarding women in the priesthood, and I know that this is far from a well-constructed argument, but it seems obvious from the effects that women never have the vocation. Have you ever heard of a woman who wanted to be a priest, but was otherwise orthodox? A scrupulously accurate theologian who paid humble submission to the Church's rubrics, apart from being a woman who wanted to be a priest? I never have!
@@goldenarrow3 I know that. If G-d wanted women to be priests He probably would have concectated Blessed Mother and St Mary Magdalen etc when He concecrated the apostels! He did not! It's clear as day that only men are to be ministerial priests, NEVER women!
Those types of women always think that if they aren't allowed into any and every position, then that means people think they are garbage. Totally not true. God loves me even though He did not give me the means to be a basketball player, etc.
Fr Ripperger, Have you seen the excellent documentary "Journey to the Center of the Universe" It provides game changing insight to the fundamental error of modern cosmology.
Can someone help me with this? Fr. Ripperger mentions prayers of those outside the church being displeasing to God. I was raised an athiest and it's taken me 26 years to find Catholic teaching. I am drawn to it and continually molding my life to its teachings, being rather convinced of its explication. I'm going to start RCIA, but haven't stepped foot in a church before. I've been praying Hail Mary's, the Our Father, and the Jesus prayer. Should I be? I understood that these prayers had been helping me, and offering comfort when I'm tempted or scared. I've been saying a rite of contrition when I stumble as well.
Prayers of those inside the church also displease to God. It depends. There are Catholics praying to win the lottery, and promise they will give to the parish and help the poor, while spending all of their hard earn money in casino every week. Beside, anyone was baptised is inside the Church. The Church on earth is not perfect like the triumphant church in heave or the suffering church in purgatory. Its not like when a Catholic committed a mortal sin he is outside and when he in the state of grace he is inside. No, the church on earth is full of sinners and why the prayers of sinners displease God if they are sincere and and not manipulative. You know prayer is communion with God and the highest form of prayer is the mass and the Eucharist. You can watch the Catechism of the Catholic Church by fr. Corapi or fr. Mahan.
I understood that to mean prayers not sanctioned by the Church. Check with your RCIA director but I think since the Hail Mary and Our Father are Church approved, if you pray them with a pure heart for the intention of being led to the truth, you are ok.
I’m a Catholic that has kept the faith, but I left the church years ago for many reasons. The doctrines are over-complicated and exclusionary, and quite frankly…many sound contrived. My relationship with God is personal, and I don’t need an institution or middle men dictating my every move for fear of damnation. Organized religion is man-made and devoid of God…and has been a scourge on this earth ever since it’s inception. God would be offended by my praying with a Protestant? I think God would be pleased that any of his children turn to him in any capacity. Protestantism would never have come about if the Church hadn’t gotten so corrupt…it has always been corrupt, and the scandals within it show just how bad it still is. Try to tell that to die-hard Catholics though…religious programming is a very tough nut to crack.
Can anyone clarify, or point to the right source? I pray aloud Grace before/after Meals no matter who is at the table with me (at home; silently on my own when with friends), and I often have my non-Catholic husband's children (both younger than 7 and not baptized) pray the rosary with me. We all pray goodnight prayers together and go to Mass. Should I stop? My husband once caught me reading the Bible and meditating in the closet and he chastised me because if I thought it was spiritually beneficial, why would I not include everyone. Now I schedule meditation for times he is not home so I can still do this without complaint. Should I do the same with my other religious practices?
@@JC_0007 I don't think that is what our sister was saying. You overlooked it, and kind of over-explained, IMHO. But God bless you. We can agree to disagree. You may just be more smart than the rest of us.
I think we CAN know that time had a beginning via what father Ripperger talked about, namely, the philosophical arguments. I think that we can know that time had a beginning because you cannot have an infinite regress of distinct finite consecutive moments. Because, no matter how far you go, there will always be an infinite more amount of moments to traverse before you get to the present moment.
Today's young understand the concept of virtual reality. If God thought out a universe, in a sense 'only in his mind' and wished it to be real he would have to exist in it himself. By being conceived, having lived in it and dying in it, he turned the whole universe from virtual to real.
My question is do the demons see our baptismal mark on our souls, even the protestant ones? Are the protestant baptisms recognized? And if so by baptism are they required then to follow catholic teachings like that of going to Holy Mass on Sunday and all holy days of obligation?
I am Catholic but sometimes I listen to worship music that is Christian but isn’t actually Catholic. Is that considered sinful? I have no problem cutting out non Catholic worship music anyway I love Gregorian Chants and hymns sung by the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles
I researched this one time. Yes ans no Yes when it agrees with Catholic theology no when it proposes something that is not in conformity with that theology. So.... For example.. Amazing Grace is a protestant hymn that talks about faith and belief.... It doesn't mention works... Yet I have heard Amazing Grace sung at Mass. But it has Faith Grace and nothing else in it.. So that seems to be ok. "Mary did you know" is a popular song with a nice Melody but it's heresy Of course marry knew... That's what the angel Gabriel was sent to announce to her. Plus there is one deeply heretical line in the lyrics that states Jesus will "deliver" Mary. As a Catholic we believe that the blessed virgin was saved from original and other sin, not delivered from sin.
And of course, this is why I think Fr.'s explanation was overbroad. It is not sinful. You are praying with non-Catholics. Singing is praying, as St. Augustine said. And in singing along, you are doing so. It's fine, as Pat says (below). Just be sure it is the truth and not an incorrect statement of faith (and most of the songs are CORRECT--saying Jesus is Lord, etc.)
@@Kitiwake I have heard it at Mass too. I think it is not ok because it promotes salvation strictly thru porclaiming faith in Jesus. It is also all about what WE can do to get saved, not the Saving work of Christ Crucified. I would stick with the accepted traditional Catholic music. You can look to other cultural traditions within Catholicism if you want some variety. Look for "Panis Angelicus" on CZcams. It is gorgeous. The words are from Aquinas and Cesàr Franck wrote the music.
“Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” - Nikola Tesla
This are very important observations, supporting the flat, geocentric earth. Heliocentric cosmology has always been promoted by pagan philosophers and scientists and remains a contradictory theory based not in observable, empirical science, but notions within the sphere of the mind.
CZcams!! So naughty!! Censoring conservatives from hearing sound preaching......difficult to listen and hear when it's full of hiccups..every other word. Listening anyway.
40:13 All it means is, DON'T BUDGE, keep you're mouth shut, smile, nod you're head, and pray for their Souls after you leave, and then for you're self when you get back to the Rectory.
If one one passes through the continuum at the same speed as another wouldn’t they both speed up time at exactly the same pace? If so then the speed one can accelerate time is still constant and not relative, right? Also it seems to me that the appearance of motion is relative but actual motion is not, it is governed by constants., right?
Relying upon charitably interpreted texts, St. Bonaventure supposes that Aristotle considered the world as made by God from eternal elements. The philosopher's error was therefore double, since it rested on the eternity of the elements and on ignorance of creation ex nihilo, but it had at least an advantage over Plato in not supposing that matter could ever have existed without its form. The error of Plato, which assumed God, matter and the idea in separation, seemed to him then more objectionable (multo vilior) than that of Aristotelianism which assumed God and a matter eternally perfected by its form: ideo et ipse etiam defecit licet minus quam alii. Later St. Bonaventure expresses harsher opinions about Aristotle, but yet he will never expressly deny that his God without ideas and without providence made the world eternally, of eternally existent matter and form. So it clearly appears that those who of all philosophers came nearest to the truth yet failed to reach it. Now it is just there, at the precise point at which the skill of philosophers breaks down, that revelation comes to our aid, teaching us that all has been created and that things have been brought into being in the totality of what they are: ubi autem deficit philosophorum peritia, subvenit nobis sacrosancta Scriptura, quae dicit omnia esse creata, et secundum omne quod sunt in esse producta. Thus it is that the reason when better informed perceives and confirms with decisive arguments the truth that Scripture affirms. For it is certain that the more a productive cause is primary and perfect in the order of being, the more profoundly its action penetrates its effects. In the case where the cause considered is the absolutely primary and perfect being, the action that it exercises must extend its efficacy to the total substance of each of its effects. In other words, if God produces a thing, He can only produce it integrally, and His action necessarily engenders its constitutive principles, matter and form, at the same time as the compositum. Similarly, the less aid it requires for its action, the more noble and the more perfect is the agent. If then we consider the most perfect agent possible, his action must be completely sufficient in itself and must be exercised without recourse to any external aid. Now the case of God is exactly this; He is then capable, in Himself, of producing things without the help of pre-existing principles. On the other hand, God is perfectly simple; His essence is not divisible into particular beings; He does not extract things from Himself by dissecting His own substance; so He necessarily extracts them from nothing. In the same way, lastly, if God is truly perfect and absolute simplicity, He cannot act in a part of Himself; in each of His actions, it is His whole being that is concerned and comes into play; now the nature of the effect is necessarily proportioned to that of the cause; so just as the action of a being composed of matter and form can engender a form in a matter which is already present, so an absolutely simple being such as God can produce the integral being of a thing. Acting in all His being, His effect can only be being; the natural result then of the divine action is the bringing into existence of that which nothing preceded, except God and the void. A second problem, and one inseparable from the foregoing, is the question when this integral production of beings can have taken place. The human reason, incapable of discovering with its own resources the true nature of the creative act, is similarly incapable of determining accurately the moment of creation. Either we know that creation consists in producing the very being of things, without employing any pre-existing matter, and so it is obvious that the world was created in time; or, on the contrary, we believe that the creator used in His work principles which were anterior to the world itself, and thus the created universe seems logically eternal. The kernel of St. Bonaventure's argument on this point was always that there is a contradiction in terms in supposing that what is created out of nothing is not created in time. The idea of a universe created by God out of nothing and from all eternity, an idea which St. Thomas Aquinas considered logically possible, seemed to St. Bonaventure so glaring a contradiction that he could not imagine a philosopher so incompetent as to overlook it. His thought, which he does not develop at length, although he states it with the greatest energy, seems here to follow St. Anselm very closely and to proceed from a vigorously literal interpretation of the formula ex nihilo. The particle ex, in fact, seems to him capable of only two interpretations. Either it designates a matter existing before the divine action, or it simply marks the starting point of this action, implies and establishes a relation of order, fixes an initial term anterior to the appearance of the world itself. Now the word ex cannot signify a matter, for it here determines the word "nothing," the very significance of which is absence of being, which could not therefore designate a material in which things could be shaped. It can only signify the starting point of the divine action and establish the initial term of a relation of anteriority and posteriority. It follows that to say that the world was created ex nihilo is either to say nothing or to say that the non-existence of the universe preceded the existence of the universe; that before there was nothing of the world and that only afterwards the world appeared; to suppose, in a word, the beginning of things in time and to deny their eternity. Although this seems to have been the central and decisive argument in St. Bonaventure's eyes, since it makes the eternity of a world created out of nothing seem contradictory, it is presented to us from the time of the Commentary on the Sentences flanked by other arguments of no less historical importance, based on the impossibility of the created infinite. It is easy to prove on this point how inaccurate it is to explain St. Bonaventure's thought by his ignorance of the Aristotelianism of Albert and St. Thomas. For it is with the help of Aristotelian arguments and in opposition to Aristotle himself that he shows the impossibility of a world created from all eternity; better still he expressly refutes the thesis which St. Thomas was to believe supportable; St. Bonaventure therefore is fully aware of the position that he takes up, and he dismisses the teaching of which he is alleged to be ignorant on the ground of maturely considered principles. In the first place, the eternity of the world contradicts the principle that it is impossible to add to the infinite; for if the world had no beginning, it has already experienced an infinite duration; now every new day which passes adds a unit to the infinite number of days already gone; the eternity of the world supposes therefore an infinite capable of being augmented. If it is objected that this infinite is so only, as it were, at one end, and that the number of days gone, infinite in the past, is finite in the present, nothing substantial is asserted. For it is evident that, if the world is eternal, it has already passed through an infinite number of solar revolutions and also that there are always twelve lunar revolutions to one solar; so that the moon would have accomplished a number of revolutions in excess of the infinite. So, even considering this infinite bounded by the present, and considering it infinite only where it really is so, in the past, we end by supposing a number larger than the infinite, which is absurd. In the second place, the eternity of the world contradicts the principle that it is impossible to order an infinity of terms. All order, in fact, starts from a beginning, passes through a middle point and reaches an end. If then there is no first term there is no order; now if the duration of the world and therefore the revolutions of the stars had no beginning, their series would have had no first term and they would possess no order, which amounts to saying that in reality they do not in fact form a series and they do not precede or follow one another. But this the order of the days and seasons plainly proves to be false. This argument may seem sophistical from the Aristotelian and Thornist point of view. If Aristotle declares that it is impossible to order an infinite series of terms, he refers to terms essentially ordered; in other words, he denies that a series of essences can be infinite if it is hierarchically ordered, if its existence or causality is conditioned from top to bottom, but he does not deny that a series of causes or of beings of the same degree can be infinite. For example, there is no progression to the infinite in the ascending series of the causes of local movement in terrestrial bodies, for superior movers are required, requiring in their turn an immobile first mover to account for them, but we can suppose without contradiction that this hierarchical system of moving causes exists and operates from all eternity, the displacement of each body being explained by a finite number of superior causes, but being preceded by an infinite number of causes of the same order. St. Bonaventure is not ignorant of this distinction and, if he does not accept it, it is not because he cannot grasp it, it is because it implies a state of the universe which is incompatible with his profoundest metaphysical tendencies. In St. Bonaventure's Christian universe there is, in reality, no place for Aristotelian accident; his thought shrinks from supposing a series of causes accidentally ordered, that is to say, without order, without law and with its terms following one another at random. (Gilson 1938)
In philosophy and other mumbo jumbo "sciences" the term "dimension" usually has a meaning different from real science. And multiverse can also simply mean that there are areas of the universe which are outside any communication from each other. We can't get any information about anything outside the observable universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe just ends. There is no reason why the universe doesn't just continue with an average matter distribution the same as in the part we can observe.
Go away. You probably couldn't read philosophy. And real science does not include a multiverse. That, like evolution, is a THEORY based on suppositions which are based on wishful thinking. Project much?
Please excuse my ignorance, I don't have a degree, yet I do wish to seek the truth, and I'm a faithful Catholic, although one with a long way to go. I have shared prayer with friend's who are Christian but not Catholic. I thought that in Luke 9. 50 when John said to Jesus, they are casting out demon's in your name, and they are not with us, Jesus responding, to not stop them, if they are not against you they are with you. I realize this means something different than just praying with other's who are for Jesus, yet not Catholic. I took it though that they were OK to include in union with our prayer, it light of the fact that when two or more are gathered etc. I realize I'm sadly lacking in understanding the Scripture's, and as grateful to be educated. And am painfully aware of how much I don't know. Am I in sin, as I was unaware at the time this was not allowed?
No your not under sin because you didnt have full knowledge that it was a sin. Maybe now just do more formation on your faith. And if you know any priests or religous ask them for spiritual direction.
Would it be possible to upload these interviews, sermons etc. without any images attached to them? I have a hard time concentrating and would rather just have a black image than these stock images. I like to add the automatically generated subtitles at the bottom, so that's why an audio file wouldn't be "enough". Pax
now I understand why our parish priest insisted we should not join our class mates in public school in prayer even though they were saying the Our Father. Now that I understand, it seems to me it means that priest who are speaking at a public mixed group should not pray with the audience. And attending the church of a non catholic spouse is not pleasing to God. God must be first, the spouse knows what they married into and we should too.
I think the good priest was wrong about that. And your parish priest is not consistent with what our parish priests have taught us. You can even attend non-Catholic Protestant Christian churches BUT it does not count for your Mass obligation on Sunday (and I believe the Catechism says that), and you CANNOT take Communion. Your parish priest is not teaching what the Church teaches, but something "extra," in my opinion. I was taught by an orthodox, faithful Catholic priest who confirmed this. He told me I could not go to a Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon service, but a Protestant church that believes in the Trinity was okay...just don't take Communion with them. But yes, you can pray with them...while you are there. We call Protestants (in the CATECHISM) our separated brothers and sisters...not heretics. Not heathens. (Those are other people). You can pray with your brothers and sisters.
Yep! I switched to a public high school. Big mistake but it was in the 60's and pre Vat2. We were supposed to read a Bible verse and do the Our Father every morning with someone in each homeroom leading. When it came my turn, I refused to read the KJV or to do the prayer. I got a lot of scorn since we had a mixed group of Christians and Jews and the Jews had no problem with it as long as they could read from the O.T.
Actually the faster you go the slower your time passes. If someone goes in a spaceship away from the earth near the speed of light they will age much slower than those on earth.
tdw ...no one has been in "outer space" firmament can not be crossed in our earthly body's... 500 years ago Satan began his lie of the solar system... God made 2 lights ..the sun and moon are inside Gods firmament... God makes it clear the earth is not spinning around the sun... the sun circles the earth... like a flashlight going around a large pizza....
God created a fixed and flat earth, covered by a firmament on which stars are fixed and rotate without changing their relative positions to each other, and with two luminaries, sun and moon, which run circles between that firmament and the flat surface of land and water. And this is what we indeed perceive with our God-given senses and reason. No one has ever seen the earth move nor has anyone seen any curvature to the land or the water that constitute the surface of the earth. Anyone who says otherwise, Catholic or not, is a modernist heretic who loves the words of men at the expense of the Word of God. In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Patti yes it has. It can be tested on a jetliner with an atomic clock. The GPS satellites (essentially orbiting clocks) have this correction so you get accurate position readings and timing signals.
I got confused by Fr. Ripperger's comments on modern Physics. Philosophy and Physics have always been linked and back in the past there wasn't a strong divide between humanities and sciences. As he said, Descartes made contributions to physics but physicists also made contributions to humanities. So it felt like this was being taken out of context. I'm also not entirely sure that Fr. Ripperger has rightly characterized Einstein's concept of time. When judging the difference in perception of time, Einstien noticed that the speed has to remain a constant, and the location has to be a constant, but there had to be a variable. Einstein interpreted this to mean that time was the variable, which meant that time was relative to the observer. That it can move differently for different people. I'm not sure how well this fits with Descartes' ideas. He seemed to be mentioning Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum". The cogito may be more in line with the later concept in quantum mechanics of atoms changing as we observe them, a concept that Einstein himself believed was absurd and lead Schrodinger to create his cat paradox. I don't know that the idea of time relativity came out of a response to Descartes. I'm not sure exactly what Father is referencing when he says that Einstein was expanding on Descartes' idea of time. I would like to know the source because I'm not familiar with it at all and feel a bit ignorant. Just some thoughts. As always, Fr. Ripperger presented a very intelligent discussion and it's certainly thought provoking!
Love the Lord God Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Peace and Holy Love. Love the Lord God Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Peace and Holy Love. Love the Lord God Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Peace and Holy Love.
Lord Jesus Christ ,the Lord God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Lord Jesus Christ ,the Lord God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Lord Jesus Christ ,the Lord God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
1 Corinthians 11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Jesus Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Jesus Christ is God. 4 Every man who prayeth or prophesieth, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, for that is one and the same as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the God Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of Lord God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it comely that a woman should pray unto Lord God uncovered? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of Lord God. 17 Now in this I declare unto you that I praise you not: that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye therefore come together into one place, this is not to eat the God Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, every one taketh his own supper ahead of another, and one is hungry and another is drunken. 22 What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of Lord God, and shame those who have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not! 23 For I have received from the Lord God that which also I delivered unto you: that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped, saying, “This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death until He come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Therefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
2:50 ..."the claim that matter goes in and out of existence." Ever heard of annihilation of matter and antimatter or how for example a top quark ceases to exist, after a very very short existence, and instead two other particles are born?
He probably refers to virtual particles, because they can violate the law of conservation of energy but for a very short time, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there.
I'm not quite understanding the argument against the idea of being a man trapped in a female body. Why is it ridiculous? His explanation isn't clear to me. I have a gay child. He was not taught to be gay. Looking back on his childhood, as his parent, there were very early signs that he was born that way, not taught and not learned behaviour.
God doesn't put anyone in the wrong body. A lot of times this does come from social situations, trauma, psychological issues, maybe autistic, etc... also there are generational curses that fall on families that also contribute. Check out this priests talk on the generational curses/spirits. Just cause a boy is a little feminine or a girl a little boyish does not mean they are gay but society accepts they are and unknowingly teach the child they are. Some kids learn their sexuallity from friends, who are children themselves, instead of talking to their parents or a proper adult about their feelings. A lot of times it's just their body changing. If the child is not helped through these changes, their friends and others will teach them. Some teens will experiment and watch things they should not be learning and because it's pleasurable they think it must be right. Too many children are teaching themselves through their friends because the child feels they can't go to their parent about these things. And in these days there are teachers in the schools also teaching these kids that their feelings are correct. No child or teenager know they are gay. Plus the brain is not fully formed until 25. The child only feels they are and then when you affirm it, they just keep going in that direction because now they think it correct and ok.
The whole thing about examples of the cat in the box being both alive and dead from the rat poison until an observer sees it, or the tree is both standing or have fallen until an observer sees it seems like a twisted sort of logic to entertain hypothetical philosophical questions, not to be taken at face value. When an observer sees the cat is dead, it already was dead before he saw it. If it was alive, then it was already alive before the observer saw it. The both possibilities were only "true" in the person's mind, but not so in reality. Not knowing something doesn't make it not-reality. Reality doesn't care whether you know something or believe in it.
I think modern science is in error about the base premise of science which is the photon. I think they are wrong about the photon. I like The Primer Fields parts 1 to 3.
How can their be an end to the universe if you went like a rocket from where you stand out to space keep going even if your reach the end and bang into a wall how thick is the wall Jesus said I am the alpha and the omega
Sigh..Fr, R is so eloquent but seems to have a problem with brevity. I am forced to decide between an hour or two of his lengthy talking to using my time better! In two hours, I can read several chapters from Scripture. My intentions for saying this? The internet is NOT a place for long, casual listening as in its inception We have many valuable and competing reads or listens and while Father R ranks high on the list, he is putting his information in jeopardy of being ignored or postponed. My comment is meant as a minor criticism and much more as a strong suggestion to EDIT these to a summary form with less talk.
True, but there's a Scripture for that. "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his eternal soul?" I would rather be a ditch digger on my way to Heaven than a king doomed to Hell.
An old Benedictine priest in North Carolina once told me about a young lawyer who was about to be the first Catholic appointed to be a judge in North Carolina in the 1950s or 60s. He came to the father distraught because in order to receive the appointment as a judge he had to swear to uphold the truths of the protestant faith. The wise old priest told him that’s fine, go ahead and take the oath… They’re asking you to uphold the truths of the protestant faith not the lies!
Ah yes. Truths of the Protestant Faith.....like, The Pope covers up for pedophiles? You mean things like that? Yeah, you'll stop pointing that finger unless you want to pull back a stump.
Yes like the 40,000 denominations haven’t got the same issue
@@phantasmtheater6015 hey tough guy study your history and recognize the abuses in your own church or whatever you believe in people are weak and no damn good and that includes you just cause you believe in Jesus does not guarantee your salvation we have the sacraments im not sure what you have remember what Jesus said when they proclaim all the stuff they did in His name depart evildoer i knew you not salvstion the bible even all your misguided beliefs you owe to the catholic faith the only thing protestants have they can really call their own is pride in their own interpretation of things
@@phantasmtheater6015 so de frocking a cardinal...Mc Carrick is covering up....hmm..
I invite to to rethink you reply.
Phantasm theatre At least we know what happened to the Church,her enemies could not beat her so they Infiltrated,plenty of evidence for that.where is your evidence for what your saying please don’t tell me it’s Dave Hunt the Protestant author as he has wrote some great fictional work. ( the best comment I can make about him,although Fr Jenkins was much kinder when he was asked about his book)My family is mixed Protestants and Catholics I pray for them, but you spew out some Rot. If Protestants knew their own history they would be very silent on Catholic history.
Dealing with intellectual pride ultimately getting us heading to the truth of the Catholic faith. I prayed as a Protestant with sincerity, “God show me what the truth is and I will humble myself before it”. He showed me that the Catholic faith was true. It was hard to follow through with my promise but after receiving some graces I did. I would not go back. The point is that anyone that wants to know the truth sincerely will become Catholic. The funniest parts was that my enemies did a great deal to convert me
Thanks for sharing, Terrence
I'm on the way
Well said. So true, so true. God bless.
God bless you, your right!!! God bless you and your whole family.
He's too smart for me ; that's why I love listening to him . Prayers and blessings
He is brilliant and I use that word rarely.
Father Ripperger's dialogues are a balm to my brain - especially when he talks about St. Thomas Aquinas.
Me too. I cherish my Catholic education pre Vat2 that taught me to think critically while viewing the world thru a Catholic lens.
Whoaaa, Father Ripperger is a genius! The answers are tapestries of info. & quotes from different fields of study. And Father doesn't even pause for a second before he answers. Voila! He answers as fast as Google search! I hope he becomes a professor ;-))
Abigail Jimenez agree.... could listen to him all day!!
i think he is a professor but don't quote me on that
I believe Father R. holds triple PhDs in the following fields of study: Theology, Philosophy, and Psychology. He is also a Vatican sanctioned exorcist and all around brilliant fella. I believe he, in conjunction with Christ, has liberated thousands of the spiritually afflicted. All his lectures are highly recommended.
Abigail Jimenez yeas !!!
He's a professor of the Church.
It bothers me that when I go to Mass I often hear very superficial theology. I recognize that there's a reason for that, but some of the most meaningful content I can find is on the internet. Thanks for providing it !
How many people at church would understand, be interested or even grasp a talk like this one or any other from Fr Ripperger, Abam Blai, Scott Hahn, etc.?
@@carlospacheco7361 Nail on the head!
I used to think this as well but from the priests standpoint, he has to cater for a wide audience in terms of interest and IQ. I do wish a little more depth was can understand why they wouldnt be able to deep dive.
@@carlospacheco7361 Scott Hahn is NOT in the same league as Fr. Ripperger, far from it. He sells an emotive, experiential and thoroughly Modernist theology. Hahn has been selling his folksy, perpetually smiling world view and the details of his own conversion for THIRTY-FIVE years. I never learned a thing from listening to Hahn; he is also a charismatic and Fr. Ripperger, along with other traditional priests have named the charismatic movement for what it is: HERESY.
@@margaretboyle8719 that’s is a serious claim. There was a brief period I was thinking of moving to Steubenville to be in the close proximity of “pockets of good Catholics”there. However I couldn’t fully grasp what Dr Hann and his group were preaching, the move was never realized. God willing.
I'm pretty sure Fr Ripperger is the most intelligent human I have ever encountered for his knowledge is in the stuff that really matters. Thanks Padre+
He has a brilliant mind and is a true intellectual.
Knowledge is not necessarily the product of pure intelligence. One can work hard to acheive knowlege. But the ability to synthesize ideas, especially abstract ones and turn them into an application that produces knowledge and direction is a sign of true intelligence.
God bless father Ripperger for helping the faith on CZcams.
I learn so much from Father Ripperger! God bless him! Thankful for his teachings that are reaching far and wide thanks to the internet.
The Latin Mass was used for centuries and no one wanted to change it until the 1960s. The ancient mass gave us the sense of something that endured through the centuries.
I am addicted to FR. RIP. May god bless him and keep him in our prayers.
Are you under the impression that Fr. Ripperger has died? I am pretty sure he is alive and well!
@@karencollins3618 I never said he was dead. I just asked for us to keep him in our prayers.
@@wilhelmeley6617 I never said he was dead. I just asked for us to keep him in our prayers.
@@manny4905 think they were just joking that your abbreviation for his name, RIP, is also understood as meaning “rest in peace,” which is what people say about people who have just died.
Thank you Father for educating the flock.We all need it.
Having a background as charismatic Lutheran, you have no idea how much i love listening to Fr Ripperger. The Church needs educated men and women!
Thanks ST. I always come away with so much from Fr. Ripperger!
Flamenco4U Be sure to pray for Father Chad and his intentions as well. God bless you.
siggymartin Yes, of course. I do believe that I owe Fr. Ripperger at least a few decades.
Flamenco4U Agreed. He's a wealth of knowledge...His talks have strengthened my spiritual life by leaps and bounds. God love him. Let's always keep him in our prayers.
Stephieandcheech right on!
21:00 Transgender discussion starts
It's interesting to me to see how - independent of intelligence or education - the errors of the anti-trans apologists seem to follow a standard pattern: 1) insistence on "2 genders only" without identifying a source or recognizing that the Standards of Care for people who are transgender actually reinforce, more than they challenge, the notion of "gender as binary," 2) identification of chromosomes as the absolute defining characteristic of gender, 3) recognition of the existence of chromosomal anomalies, but also dismissal as so infrequent so as to be immaterial to the debate (this is the stage at which Father Rippergerger appears to have been at the time of this recording), 4) denial that transgenderism occurs (~ 10x) less frequently than chromosomal anomalies, 5) recognition of the rarity and therefore possibility that neurological morphology and external morphology may not correspond (in cis-normative terms), but insistence that gender transition is not the appropriate treatment, 6) acceptance of transgender reality as part of the natural diversity of God's creation, and gender transition as the prescribed response determined by healthcare professionals.
IOW, Father Ripperger is about halfway there
@@MarcillaSmith Transgenderism tends to become an ideological position. I think it's important to accept our own and others' healthy bodies as they are. Eg to be a man and have very feminine character traits is not a pathology, malfunction or sickness of the body. Same for a woman who feels more 'masculine' than other women might. Regardless of our character being more or less 'feminine' or 'masculine', we should accept ourselves, as should others. I'm not claiming it's always easy, especially at different stages of life, eg when growing up. Yet, a man who is less 'macho' than another man, is no less a man. Same goes for women who are more 'butch' than many other women might be. Another point worth noting is that data exists to show that post-operative transsexuals have a high depression/suicide rate compared to those that haven't undergone a sex change.
@@jturon9184 yes, I certainly recognize that we are all entitled to our opinions, and I will grant you that there are those who expand the meaning of transgender issues to include political critique of the construction of gender. This is one reason I have recently started to return to the previously abandoned "transsexual" terminology in order to be more precise about what I mean.
Because there is certainly a difference between the situation you discuss - variance in character traits (something that occurs to some degree in about 100% of the population), and the variance between neurological and external morphology that underlies doctors misidentifying the gender of transsexuals at birth. We can look at examples such as the "pregnant man" who made such headlines ten years ago or so, who had previously been crowned Miss Teen Hawaii USA, or at the women who are transfeminine who previously served in military combat arms roles of examples of transsexualism that does not manifest as "masculine women" or "feminine men," and yet manifests all the same.
Regarding the study you mention, if be interested to see it, as the numbers I recall off the top of my head are that treatment satisfaction rates are around 98%, while the trans population as a whole has a suicide rate more than 10x the population at large
I would love to be a student of Fr. Ripperger. Not only because of his thorough knowledge of Catholic theology but also because of his fluency and mastery of philosophy, such as Kant, Aristotle, and Descartes/Hume. He is truly a wise man.
GOD BLESS U FATHER... AND GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!!! :)
I have learned more in this chat with Fr Riperger than any other chat I’ve heard
Great questions!
My brain synchs with his thought processes better than anyone I’ve heard in my life. No one has ever been so clear and linear.
I'm not even a Christian, but as a scholar of religion I find it heartening how Chad just goes IN on everything with such a strength of will whilst being cordial at the same time. It's so refreshing compared to the amount of ordained folks who barely seem to know their own texts let alone understand them let alone apply them in their lives.
With all due respect, we NEVER refer to our priests by their first names only. We always use the title of Fr. either first or last name, They will even refer to each other as Fr. and Fr. Chad is very particular about this. It does feel strange. I am probably old enough to be one of my priest's grandmother or close but he's still FATHER Christian.
@@Meira750 I didn't realise that applied to people outside of the faith. Emic and etic viewpoints, I suppose. Do Catholics observe that with other religions, out of interest? Would they refer to "Ipsissimus Xander" or "Goði Heimgeist", for example?
Cute. It's a matter of respect. Any title that doesn't convey being under their spiritual authority is ok. I wouldn't call a minister "pastor" for example because he is not my spiritual leader. Same with an imam but I could call them "Doctor" if they have that degree.
@@Meira750 So you wouldn't call an Imam "Imam Ghamidi", but just "Mr. Ghamidi"?
@@KnjazNazrath No, I wouldn't call him Imam because it is an acknowledgement of his authority. Islam means "submission" and those who don't submit to the authority of Allah and his reperesentatives are seen as heretics. I could call him or any other clergy person "reverend" because that designates respect for their learning and authority WITHIN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES, withiout my essential submission to their rule.
I might call King Charles "your majesty" but I would not address him as "sire" because he is NOT my sire. He has no authority over me as I am not a British citizen. But majesty shows respect for his higher position over his countrymen.
I love listening to Father he is so important in this time and space for us, and the Church and years to come.
I'll have to listen at least twice to process this. I'm truly staggered by his understanding of complex ideas.
This is 5 years old video…? My dear goodness. 2023 here and things gotten worse. However, people started to raise their voice for the truth 🥹
Modern physics does use an Aristotelian understanding of time though, in fact it states that light is the "clock" that makes time "tick" what is meant when he says time is relative is that things happen "faster" when you are moving slower. So, basically what ripperger says it really is.
I would be careful. The underlying assumptions of the Michelson Morley experiment, and hence the erroneous conclusions regarding it, are based on light being a discrete entity, apart from the Aether. In fact light and "mater" are energetic manifestations of the Aether itself. The "fluidity" of the Aether or, as I like to say the"tightness of God's box" are what govern the speed of light and the interactions of light and matter within the Aether. The speed of light is a derivative property of the material universe created by God. Modern physics is hellbent, quite literally I might add, on the speed of light being an absolute property of the universe and that time gains is permanency as a result.
The uncertainty principle is the culmination of this modern scientific need for the speed of light being an absolute property of the universe. For science to be capable of approaching and conquering all knowledge of the physical world, it must be capable of measuring any and all phenomenon. If a phenomenon moves faster than the speed of light, science is de facto incapable of any absolute determination about that phenomenon, AND, as such, puts the entire moral supremacy of scientific atheism in jeopardy. It becomes vitally important therefore, for "science" to retain command of such superluminal events by referring to them as "uncertain" rather than "unknowable".....which ironically was how Heisenberg originally referred to observations of quantum phenomenon....that the were "unknowable".
It strikes me that the science of cosmology is suffering from the same defect as the arts and humanities. In the humanities, ideologies differ from theories in that they start with an opinion and then look for 'facts' to bolster it. And now science is following the same course. Cosmologists have to find ways to 'explain' how it was possible for nothing to become something so they invent this notion of multiverses and simply speculate portentiously on it. God forbid that they could admit of a Creator, a first cause, a prime mover ect, then they might have to follow His laws and be accountable for the way they live their lives
Interesting insight.
Totally awesome, thank you and God bless Father!!!
Such a a great talk! Bless you father rip and your work
Excellent talk Fr. Chad, especially on the point of priests and universal time. Before I ever heard of anything like what Aquinas has to say on time, it (should be)/is common sense that there is a universal time because there is only one reality (corresponding to Ripperger's use of "universe"), and all things are consisting of that reality. Assuming that time is primarily relative means that time is not always necessarily forward moving, which is insane because change is always forward moving. To me, to say that time is relative smells like saying that truth is grounded in relativism...
...there are certainly some things that are relative according to the terms of perspective, but all relative things are rooted in their relationship to the singular reality that exists. Because that reality cannot be relative to anything but itself (which means it is not relative), the truth is primarily grounded in what must be an absolute thing.
Fr Ripperger is so wonderfully intelligent and so humble.
Beautiful holy mind.
Ryan Reeves is one of my absolute favorites and Rippenger is excellent.
PS DC now has the “Dark Multiverse” of very evil, inverted universes where say Batman killed The Flash etc., and there are all kinds of freaky bizzare incarnations of characters.
I agree there’s ONE universe.
According to the writers the Marvel characters are based on pagan pantheons, and from what you have said theey are also in kabbalah territory, the astonishing heresy that the creation was bodged and there is an anti - kabbalah of the "shells of evil"
So glad this is available! Amazing! Thank you, thank you
Technically a woman cannot be a priest for the same reason a woman cannot be a king. A female monarch is a queen and a woman ordained to the priesthood (whether Catholic or pagan) would be a PRIESTESS. Words have consequences. When I’m in a discussion with someone about why the Catholic Church won’t ordain women, all I have to say is that the Catholic Church doesn’t have priestesses. It always amazes me how that just seems to end the discussion.
Excellent method!
Awesome priest, God bless you Fr!
Five minutes into it and my brain sprung a leak.
O God Beyond All Praising!!!
Jimmy Massengill My favorite hymn
Time stamps of topics would be helpful. Thanks for the discussion
Father in English please 😂. This man is so smart I struggle to follow & I don't think Im stupid 😂
Thank you so much for posting this!
When a woman asserts her "rights to the altar".... she is surely not speaking with the voice of the humility that Jesus asks from all His children. Saint Mother Teresa of calcutta suggests HUMILITY for us as daughters of Mary!
I don't think these women fill Jesus with unbridled joy!
Mother teresa is a heretic in her book she claims "respect all religions” she also said that she and the sisters would give muslims muslim funerals and hindus hindu funerals, that is heretical read her book and you’ll see
Scripture says God opened Hagar's eyes and she saw the well in the desert. Did the well already exist like in another reality and she couldn't see it, or did God just create the well then and there for her? I've always wondered. Thanks for your great videos.
Think of an elephant. Now answer this question:
Did the elephant already exist like in another reality and you couldn't see it, or did I just create the elephant then and there for you?
I think that's similar to what you're asking. God made knowledge available to her mind. That's what happened. You're interpreting it too literally.
Didn't a people walk the desert for decades looking for the land of milk and honey promised them by God? Sometimes our expectations can blind us from the truth ... they were walking on the land that they were promised, the entire time.
Thank you Father! Glory to the Name of Jesus our Savior! I am reading Saint Augustine's Confessions. I just got to his writings on time, and it was confusing to me. The Thomistic version makes more sense to me. I am not sure that it contradicts with Augustine's view, though it seems to. Anyway, thanks and may God bless you and keep you!
I often wonder how much my own sin contributed to the craziness of now.🥺😥 Thank You Jesus for forgiveness of sin 🤗😊😉😁
Pride. Many times my faults could have been prevented had I only not given into my pride. How I hope Jesus gives me the Grace to put my pride to bed for good
Church stuck in the 60's LOL...I totally agree...prefer Latin Mass.
Who are you?
Glevum Rex. So a woman leaves Catholicism in order to become a Vicar? Pride before faith?
Regarding women in the priesthood, and I know that this is far from a well-constructed argument, but it seems obvious from the effects that women never have the vocation. Have you ever heard of a woman who wanted to be a priest, but was otherwise orthodox? A scrupulously accurate theologian who paid humble submission to the Church's rubrics, apart from being a woman who wanted to be a priest? I never have!
St. Theresa
@@goldenarrow3 I know that. If G-d wanted women to be priests He probably would have concectated Blessed Mother and St Mary Magdalen etc when He concecrated the apostels! He did not! It's clear as day that only men are to be ministerial priests, NEVER women!
Those types of women always think that if they aren't allowed into any and every position, then that means people think they are garbage. Totally not true. God loves me even though He did not give me the means to be a basketball player, etc.
@@millaalexandrovna9481 I think pushed for it
@@millaalexandrovna9481 But yet she submitted to the Church's doctrine.
Very cool info on Time. I agree only one universe -- though still a sci-fy fan. :)
Fr Ripperger, Have you seen the excellent documentary "Journey to the Center of the Universe" It provides game changing insight to the fundamental error of modern cosmology.
Can someone help me with this? Fr. Ripperger mentions prayers of those outside the church being displeasing to God. I was raised an athiest and it's taken me 26 years to find Catholic teaching. I am drawn to it and continually molding my life to its teachings, being rather convinced of its explication.
I'm going to start RCIA, but haven't stepped foot in a church before. I've been praying Hail Mary's, the Our Father, and the Jesus prayer. Should I be? I understood that these prayers had been helping me, and offering comfort when I'm tempted or scared. I've been saying a rite of contrition when I stumble as well.
Prayers of those inside the church also displease to God. It depends. There are Catholics praying to win the lottery, and promise they will give to the parish and help the poor, while spending all of their hard earn money in casino every week. Beside, anyone was baptised is inside the Church. The Church on earth is not perfect like the triumphant church in heave or the suffering church in purgatory. Its not like when a Catholic committed a mortal sin he is outside and when he in the state of grace he is inside. No, the church on earth is full of sinners and why the prayers of sinners displease God if they are sincere and and not manipulative. You know prayer is communion with God and the highest form of prayer is the mass and the Eucharist. You can watch the Catechism of the Catholic Church by fr. Corapi or fr. Mahan.
I understood that to mean prayers not sanctioned by the Church. Check with your RCIA director but I think since the Hail Mary and Our Father are Church approved, if you pray them with a pure heart for the intention of being led to the truth, you are ok.
I’m a Catholic that has kept the faith, but I left the church years ago for many reasons. The doctrines are over-complicated and exclusionary, and quite frankly…many sound contrived. My relationship with God is personal, and I don’t need an institution or middle men dictating my every move for fear of damnation. Organized religion is man-made and devoid of God…and has been a scourge on this earth ever since it’s inception. God would be offended by my praying with a Protestant? I think God would be pleased that any of his children turn to him in any capacity. Protestantism would never have come about if the Church hadn’t gotten so corrupt…it has always been corrupt, and the scandals within it show just how bad it still is. Try to tell that to die-hard Catholics though…religious programming is a very tough nut to crack.
Can anyone clarify, or point to the right source? I pray aloud Grace before/after Meals no matter who is at the table with me (at home; silently on my own when with friends), and I often have my non-Catholic husband's children (both younger than 7 and not baptized) pray the rosary with me. We all pray goodnight prayers together and go to Mass. Should I stop? My husband once caught me reading the Bible and meditating in the closet and he chastised me because if I thought it was spiritually beneficial, why would I not include everyone. Now I schedule meditation for times he is not home so I can still do this without complaint. Should I do the same with my other religious practices?
When Jesus said "[w]here two or three are gathered together in in my name, there I am," He didn't say "but only if the theologians decide it's o.k."
Agree with you.
@@JC_0007 I don't think that is what our sister was saying. You overlooked it, and kind of over-explained, IMHO. But God bless you. We can agree to disagree. You may just be more smart than the rest of us.
I always assumed that if there was a multiverse, God was God over them too.
The most based man on the planet, potentially
Random but what song is in the opening? I love that song and I can't place the title!
I know this question is months old, but the song is "I vow to thee my country" by Gustav Holst
Love this song too...I am glad you asked! Now I know. I couldn’t place it either even though it was so familiar.
I think we CAN know that time had a beginning via what father Ripperger talked about, namely, the philosophical arguments. I think that we can know that time had a beginning because you cannot have an infinite regress of distinct finite consecutive moments. Because, no matter how far you go, there will always be an infinite more amount of moments to traverse before you get to the present moment.
Thank you Father
Absolutely, ends do not justify the means.
The COE church where I was baptised, we have had a woman priest for years! She was Roman Catholic and left RC and just CoE so she could be a Vicar.
Look for Fr. Rippeger's video on "The Jezebel Spirit." Then you will know this woman for who she really is.
What a chad
pun intended i assume?
@@robbanks6076 Yes
Today's young understand the concept of virtual reality. If God thought out a universe, in a sense 'only in his mind' and wished it to be real he would have to exist in it himself. By being conceived, having lived in it and dying in it, he turned the whole universe from virtual to real.
"The Flash" also constantly talks about multi-verses and multi-earths.
My question is do the demons see our baptismal mark on our souls, even the protestant ones? Are the protestant baptisms recognized? And if so by baptism are they required then to follow catholic teachings like that of going to Holy Mass on Sunday and all holy days of obligation?
Why did they change the wording of the prayers? The changes are so unnecessary that it almost appears as an insult.
I am Catholic but sometimes I listen to worship music that is Christian but isn’t actually Catholic. Is that considered sinful?
I have no problem cutting out non Catholic worship music anyway I love Gregorian Chants and hymns sung by the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles
I researched this one time.
Yes ans no
Yes when it agrees with Catholic theology no when it proposes something that is not in conformity with that theology.
So.... For example.. Amazing Grace is a protestant hymn that talks about faith and belief.... It doesn't mention works... Yet I have heard Amazing Grace sung at Mass.
But it has Faith Grace and nothing else in it.. So that seems to be ok.
"Mary did you know" is a popular song with a nice Melody but it's heresy
Of course marry knew... That's what the angel Gabriel was sent to announce to her. Plus there is one deeply heretical line in the lyrics that states Jesus will "deliver" Mary. As a Catholic we believe that the blessed virgin was saved from original and other sin, not delivered from sin.
And of course, this is why I think Fr.'s explanation was overbroad. It is not sinful. You are praying with non-Catholics. Singing is praying, as St. Augustine said. And in singing along, you are doing so. It's fine, as Pat says (below). Just be sure it is the truth and not an incorrect statement of faith (and most of the songs are CORRECT--saying Jesus is Lord, etc.)
@@Kitiwake I have heard it at Mass too. I think it is not ok because it promotes salvation strictly thru porclaiming faith in Jesus. It is also all about what WE can do to get saved, not the Saving work of Christ Crucified. I would stick with the accepted traditional Catholic music. You can look to other cultural traditions within Catholicism if you want some variety. Look for "Panis Angelicus" on CZcams. It is gorgeous. The words are from Aquinas and Cesàr Franck wrote the music.
“Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” - Nikola Tesla
The heart is one but it beats as many so not to be alone.
This are very important observations, supporting the flat, geocentric earth. Heliocentric cosmology has always been promoted by pagan philosophers and scientists and remains a contradictory theory based not in observable, empirical science, but notions within the sphere of the mind.
I love it, Elaine C! That was so funny.
Not flat, but geocentric yes
Elaine C you are a moron
If you’re saying the Earth is flat and that it’s not observable, then I have no choice but to laugh at you.
CZcams!! So naughty!! Censoring conservatives from hearing sound preaching......difficult to listen and hear when it's full of hiccups..every other word. Listening anyway.
I could not find this video in my history.
40:13 All it means is, DON'T BUDGE, keep you're mouth shut, smile, nod you're head, and pray for their Souls after you leave, and then for you're self when you get back to the Rectory.
If one one passes through the continuum at the same speed as another wouldn’t they both speed up time at exactly the same pace? If so then the speed one can accelerate time is still constant and not relative, right? Also it seems to me that the appearance of motion is relative but actual motion is not, it is governed by constants., right?
Relying upon charitably interpreted texts, St. Bonaventure supposes that Aristotle considered the world as made by God from eternal elements. The philosopher's error was therefore double, since it rested on the eternity of the elements and on ignorance of creation ex nihilo, but it had at least an advantage over Plato in not supposing that matter could ever have existed without its form. The error of Plato, which assumed God, matter and the idea in separation, seemed to him then more objectionable (multo vilior) than that of Aristotelianism which assumed God and a matter eternally perfected by its form: ideo et ipse etiam defecit licet minus quam alii. Later St. Bonaventure expresses harsher opinions about Aristotle, but yet he will never expressly deny that his God without ideas and without providence made the world eternally, of eternally existent matter and form.
So it clearly appears that those who of all philosophers came nearest to the truth yet failed to reach it. Now it is just there, at the precise point at which the skill of philosophers breaks down, that revelation comes to our aid, teaching us that all has been created and that things have been brought into being in the totality of what they are: ubi autem deficit philosophorum peritia, subvenit nobis sacrosancta Scriptura, quae dicit omnia esse creata, et secundum omne quod sunt in esse producta. Thus it is that the reason when better informed perceives and confirms with decisive arguments the truth that Scripture affirms.
For it is certain that the more a productive cause is primary and perfect in the order of being, the more profoundly its action penetrates its effects. In the case where the cause considered is the absolutely primary and perfect being, the action that it exercises must extend its efficacy to the total substance of each of its effects.
In other words, if God produces a thing, He can only produce it integrally, and His action necessarily engenders its constitutive principles, matter and form, at the same time as the compositum. Similarly, the less aid it requires for its action, the more noble and the more perfect is the agent. If then we consider the most perfect agent possible, his action must be completely sufficient in itself and must be exercised without recourse to any external aid. Now the case of God is exactly this; He is then capable, in Himself, of producing things without the help of pre-existing principles. On the other hand, God is perfectly simple; His essence is not divisible into particular beings; He does not extract things from Himself by dissecting His own substance; so He necessarily extracts them from nothing. In the same way, lastly, if God is truly perfect and absolute simplicity, He cannot act in a part of Himself; in each of His actions, it is His whole being that is concerned and comes into play; now the nature of the effect is necessarily proportioned to that of the cause; so just as the action of a being composed of matter and form can engender a form in a matter which is already present, so an absolutely simple being such as God can produce the integral being of a thing. Acting in all His being, His effect can only be being; the natural result then of the divine action is the bringing into existence of that which nothing preceded, except God and the void.
A second problem, and one inseparable from the foregoing, is the question when this integral production of beings can have taken place. The human reason, incapable of discovering with its own resources the true nature of the creative act, is similarly incapable of determining accurately the moment of creation. Either we know that creation consists in producing the very being of things, without employing any pre-existing matter, and so it is obvious that the world was created in time; or, on the contrary, we believe that the creator used in His work principles which were anterior to the world itself, and thus the created universe seems logically eternal. The kernel of St. Bonaventure's argument on this point was always that there is a contradiction in terms in supposing that what is created out of nothing is not created in time. The idea of a universe created by God out of nothing and from all eternity, an idea which St. Thomas Aquinas considered logically possible, seemed to St. Bonaventure so glaring a contradiction that he could not imagine a philosopher so incompetent as to overlook it.
His thought, which he does not develop at length, although he states it with the greatest energy, seems here to follow St. Anselm very closely and to proceed from a vigorously literal interpretation of the formula ex nihilo. The particle ex, in fact, seems to him capable of only two interpretations. Either it designates a matter existing before the divine action, or it simply marks the starting point of this action, implies and establishes a relation of order, fixes an initial term anterior to the appearance of the world itself.
Now the word ex cannot signify a matter, for it here determines the word "nothing," the very significance of which is absence of being, which could not therefore designate a material in which things could be shaped. It can only signify the starting point of the divine action and establish the initial term of a relation of anteriority and posteriority. It follows that to say that the world was created ex nihilo is either to say nothing or to say that the non-existence of the universe preceded the existence of the universe; that before there was nothing of the world and that only afterwards the world appeared; to suppose, in a word, the beginning of things in time and to deny their eternity.
Although this seems to have been the central and decisive argument in St. Bonaventure's eyes, since it makes the eternity of a world created out of nothing seem contradictory, it is presented to us from the time of the Commentary on the Sentences flanked by other arguments of no less historical importance, based on the impossibility of the created infinite. It is easy to prove on this point how inaccurate it is to explain St. Bonaventure's thought by his ignorance of the Aristotelianism of Albert and St. Thomas. For it is with the help of Aristotelian arguments and in opposition to Aristotle himself that he shows the impossibility of a world created from all eternity; better still he expressly refutes the thesis which St. Thomas was to believe supportable; St. Bonaventure therefore is fully aware of the position that he takes up, and he dismisses the teaching of which he is alleged to be ignorant on the ground of maturely considered principles.
In the first place, the eternity of the world contradicts the principle that it is impossible to add to the infinite; for if the world had no beginning, it has already experienced an infinite duration; now every new day which passes adds a unit to the infinite number of days already gone; the eternity of the world supposes therefore an infinite capable of being augmented. If it is objected that this infinite is so only, as it were, at one end, and that the number of days gone, infinite in the past, is finite in the present, nothing substantial is asserted. For it is evident that, if the world is eternal, it has already passed through an infinite number of solar revolutions and also that there are always twelve lunar revolutions to one solar; so that the moon would have accomplished a number of revolutions in excess of the infinite. So, even considering this infinite bounded by the present, and considering it infinite only where it really is so, in the past, we end by supposing a number larger than the infinite, which is absurd.
In the second place, the eternity of the world contradicts the principle that it is impossible to order an infinity of terms. All order, in fact, starts from a beginning, passes through a middle point and reaches an end. If then there is no first term there is no order; now if the duration of the world and therefore the revolutions of the stars had no beginning, their series would have had no first term and they would possess no order, which amounts to saying that in reality they do not in fact form a series and they do not precede or follow one another. But this the order of the days and seasons plainly proves to be false. This argument may seem sophistical from the Aristotelian and Thornist point of view.
If Aristotle declares that it is impossible to order an infinite series of terms, he refers to terms essentially ordered; in other words, he denies that a series of essences can be infinite if it is hierarchically ordered, if its existence or causality is conditioned from top to bottom, but he does not deny that a series of causes or of beings of the same degree can be infinite. For example, there is no progression to the infinite in the ascending series of the causes of local movement in terrestrial bodies, for superior movers are required, requiring in their turn an immobile first mover to account for them, but we can suppose without contradiction that this hierarchical system of moving causes exists and operates from all eternity, the displacement of each body being explained by a finite number of superior causes, but being preceded by an infinite number of causes of the same order. St. Bonaventure is not ignorant of this distinction and, if he does not accept it, it is not because he cannot grasp it, it is because it implies a state of the universe which is incompatible with his profoundest metaphysical tendencies. In St. Bonaventure's Christian universe there is, in reality, no place for Aristotelian accident; his thought shrinks from supposing a series of causes accidentally ordered, that is to say, without order, without law and with its terms following one another at random.
(Gilson 1938)
In philosophy and other mumbo jumbo "sciences" the term "dimension" usually has a meaning different from real science. And multiverse can also simply mean that there are areas of the universe which are outside any communication from each other. We can't get any information about anything outside the observable universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe just ends. There is no reason why the universe doesn't just continue with an average matter distribution the same as in the part we can observe.
Go away. You probably couldn't read philosophy. And real science does not include a multiverse. That, like evolution, is a THEORY based on suppositions which are based on wishful thinking. Project much?
Mumbo jumbo "sciences" like physics, that depends heavily upon a number that cannot exist (sqrt -1)? Right
Please excuse my ignorance, I don't have a degree, yet I do wish to seek the truth, and I'm a faithful Catholic, although one with a long way to go. I have shared prayer with friend's who are Christian but not Catholic. I thought that in Luke 9. 50 when John said to Jesus, they are casting out demon's in your name, and they are not with us, Jesus responding, to not stop them, if they are not against you they are with you. I realize this means something different than just praying with other's who are for Jesus, yet not Catholic. I took it though that they were OK to include in union with our prayer, it light of the fact that when two or more are gathered etc. I realize I'm sadly lacking in understanding the Scripture's, and as grateful to be educated. And am painfully aware of how much I don't know. Am I in sin, as I was unaware at the time this was not allowed?
Of course you can pray with and for anyone !God knows your intention .
No your not under sin because you didnt have full knowledge that it was a sin. Maybe now just do more formation on your faith. And if you know any priests or religous ask them for spiritual direction.
You can pray with them... In ecumenical services Protestants and Catholics pray together.
But know your catechism and don't be led into heresy.
@@Kitiwake Amen!
Would it be possible to upload these interviews, sermons etc. without any images attached to them? I have a hard time concentrating and would rather just have a black image than these stock images. I like to add the automatically generated subtitles at the bottom, so that's why an audio file wouldn't be "enough".
Pax
now I understand why our parish priest insisted we should not join our class mates in public school in prayer even though they were saying the Our Father. Now that I understand, it seems to me it means that priest who are speaking at a public mixed group should not pray with the audience. And attending the church of a non catholic spouse is not pleasing to God. God must be first, the spouse knows what they married into and we should too.
I think the good priest was wrong about that. And your parish priest is not consistent with what our parish priests have taught us. You can even attend non-Catholic Protestant Christian churches BUT it does not count for your Mass obligation on Sunday (and I believe the Catechism says that), and you CANNOT take Communion. Your parish priest is not teaching what the Church teaches, but something "extra," in my opinion. I was taught by an orthodox, faithful Catholic priest who confirmed this. He told me I could not go to a Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon service, but a Protestant church that believes in the Trinity was okay...just don't take Communion with them. But yes, you can pray with them...while you are there. We call Protestants (in the CATECHISM) our separated brothers and sisters...not heretics. Not heathens. (Those are other people). You can pray with your brothers and sisters.
Emmereson Williams, protestants ARE heretics and we shouldn't participate in ANY prayer with them.
Yep! I switched to a public high school. Big mistake but it was in the 60's and pre Vat2. We were supposed to read a Bible verse and do the Our Father every morning with someone in each homeroom leading. When it came my turn, I refused to read the KJV or to do the prayer. I got a lot of scorn since we had a mixed group of Christians and Jews and the Jews had no problem with it as long as they could read from the O.T.
String theory, planck theory and evolution are firmly founded in the heliocentric model.
And the moon landing was fake right?
Elaine C evolution is a lie
Is it permissive for those who are awaiting RCIA and confirmation to join in the Church prayers?
Yes.
He is so cool.
Actually the faster you go the slower your time passes. If someone goes in a spaceship away from the earth near the speed of light they will age much slower than those on earth.
I know that is what science currently believes but has it been actually tested
tdw ...no one has been in "outer space" firmament can not be crossed in our earthly body's...
500 years ago Satan began his lie of the solar system... God made 2 lights ..the sun and moon are inside Gods firmament... God makes it clear the earth is not spinning around the sun... the sun circles the earth... like a flashlight going around a large pizza....
God created a fixed and flat earth, covered by a firmament on which stars are fixed and rotate without changing their relative positions to each other, and with two luminaries, sun and moon, which run circles between that firmament and the flat surface of land and water. And this is what we indeed perceive with our God-given senses and reason. No one has ever seen the earth move nor has anyone seen any curvature to the land or the water that constitute the surface of the earth. Anyone who says otherwise, Catholic or not, is a modernist heretic who loves the words of men at the expense of the Word of God. In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Patti yes it has. It can be tested on a jetliner with an atomic clock. The GPS satellites (essentially orbiting clocks) have this correction so you get accurate position readings and timing signals.
Bernadette and Raphael you are ignorant. Your Catholic faith calls you to more than this. It calls you to use your reason/intellect.
Wish the volume was better :(
What is the name of the song at the beginning?
Jupiter, Bringer of Jollity. Gustav Holst, The Planets.
I got confused by Fr. Ripperger's comments on modern Physics. Philosophy and Physics have always been linked and back in the past there wasn't a strong divide between humanities and sciences. As he said, Descartes made contributions to physics but physicists also made contributions to humanities. So it felt like this was being taken out of context.
I'm also not entirely sure that Fr. Ripperger has rightly characterized Einstein's concept of time. When judging the difference in perception of time, Einstien noticed that the speed has to remain a constant, and the location has to be a constant, but there had to be a variable. Einstein interpreted this to mean that time was the variable, which meant that time was relative to the observer. That it can move differently for different people. I'm not sure how well this fits with Descartes' ideas. He seemed to be mentioning Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum". The cogito may be more in line with the later concept in quantum mechanics of atoms changing as we observe them, a concept that Einstein himself believed was absurd and lead Schrodinger to create his cat paradox. I don't know that the idea of time relativity came out of a response to Descartes. I'm not sure exactly what Father is referencing when he says that Einstein was expanding on Descartes' idea of time. I would like to know the source because I'm not familiar with it at all and feel a bit ignorant.
Just some thoughts. As always, Fr. Ripperger presented a very intelligent discussion and it's certainly thought provoking!
If you're reading this before you watch the video, keep count of how many times this guy says "point of fact". Let me know.
Love the Lord God Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Peace and Holy Love.
Love the Lord God Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Peace and Holy Love.
Love the Lord God Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Peace and Holy Love.
Lord Jesus Christ ,the Lord God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Lord Jesus Christ ,the Lord God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Lord Jesus Christ ,the Lord God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
1 Corinthians 11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Jesus Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Jesus Christ is God.
4 Every man who prayeth or prophesieth, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, for that is one and the same as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the God Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of Lord God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it comely that a woman should pray unto Lord God uncovered?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of Lord God.
17 Now in this I declare unto you that I praise you not: that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye therefore come together into one place, this is not to eat the God Lord’s Supper.
21 For in eating, every one taketh his own supper ahead of another, and one is hungry and another is drunken.
22 What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of Lord God, and shame those who have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not!
23 For I have received from the Lord God that which also I delivered unto you: that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped, saying, “This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death until He come.
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Who's here after watching Loki?
2:50 ..."the claim that matter goes in and out of existence."
Ever heard of annihilation of matter and antimatter or how for example a top quark ceases to exist, after a very very short existence, and instead two other particles are born?
He probably refers to virtual particles, because they can violate the law of conservation of energy but for a very short time, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there.
Peter Carlson would be funny if the annihilated matter rematerialized behind the scientist, he just didn't notice it.
@@dragomihaljevic114 technically they don't violate that law because the sum total of the reaction is 0
This is limited by our ability to measure. So science changes with capabilities
What is the music at the start of these podcasts?
I Vow to Thee My Country
I'm not quite understanding the argument against the idea of being a man trapped in a female body. Why is it ridiculous? His explanation isn't clear to me. I have a gay child. He was not taught to be gay. Looking back on his childhood, as his parent, there were very early signs that he was born that way, not taught and not learned behaviour.
God doesn't put anyone in the wrong body. A lot of times this does come from social situations, trauma, psychological issues, maybe autistic, etc... also there are generational curses that fall on families that also contribute. Check out this priests talk on the generational curses/spirits.
Just cause a boy is a little feminine or a girl a little boyish does not mean they are gay but society accepts they are and unknowingly teach the child they are. Some kids learn their sexuallity from friends, who are children themselves, instead of talking to their parents or a proper adult about their feelings. A lot of times it's just their body changing. If the child is not helped through these changes, their friends and others will teach them. Some teens will experiment and watch things they should not be learning and because it's pleasurable they think it must be right. Too many children are teaching themselves through their friends because the child feels they can't go to their parent about these things. And in these days there are teachers in the schools also teaching these kids that their feelings are correct. No child or teenager know they are gay. Plus the brain is not fully formed until 25. The child only feels they are and then when you affirm it, they just keep going in that direction because now they think it correct and ok.
so if there is no such thing as male and female souls, then why does the Church portray saints in their respective earthly genders?
Thomas Leise we are body AND soul.
What’s the song at the beginning? The classical piece.
I vow to thee my country by Gustav Holst
@@ironcross6719 thanks!
Interviewer sounds like Robert Spencer but most Americans sound similar to me😉
The whole thing about examples of the cat in the box being both alive and dead from the rat poison until an observer sees it, or the tree is both standing or have fallen until an observer sees it seems like a twisted sort of logic to entertain hypothetical philosophical questions, not to be taken at face value. When an observer sees the cat is dead, it already was dead before he saw it. If it was alive, then it was already alive before the observer saw it. The both possibilities were only "true" in the person's mind, but not so in reality. Not knowing something doesn't make it not-reality. Reality doesn't care whether you know something or believe in it.
I think modern science is in error about the base premise of science which is the photon. I think they are wrong about the photon. I like The Primer Fields parts 1 to 3.
What does Father say at 8:54 min Avu? Avum?
David Crawford I have been trying to find that word also but so far I have been unsuccessful
Aevum
How can their be an end to the universe if you went like a rocket from where you stand out to space keep going even if your reach the end and bang into a wall how thick is the wall Jesus said I am the alpha and the omega
Sigh..Fr, R is so eloquent but seems to have a problem with brevity. I am forced to decide between an hour or two of his lengthy talking to using my time better! In two hours, I can read several chapters from Scripture. My intentions for saying this? The internet is NOT a place for long, casual listening as in its inception We have many valuable and competing reads or listens and while Father R ranks high on the list, he is putting his information in jeopardy of being ignored or postponed. My comment is meant as a minor criticism and much more as a strong suggestion to EDIT these to a summary form with less talk.
No judge or dean of Any faculty will be given an opportunity UNLESS they are part of the free masonry
True, but there's a Scripture for that. "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his eternal soul?" I would rather be a ditch digger on my way to Heaven than a king doomed to Hell.