Very true. We live in a slob-ocracy. But I wish the video narrator had dressed a little better. My father went to a World Series game in Chicago in 1959 -- men all wearing top hats and overcoats. You don't see that even in church now.
I agree. It was funny to hear him lamenting the loss of "pride" in appearances wearing that silly T-shirt and looking like he needed a shave, not to mention slouching back in the chair. I guess he succumbed to the lack of pride he was lamenting. Why dress up?
He has hundreds of videos sitting in his chair dressed casually. Can't expect him to be dressed in a tux and bow-tie.
C'mon, Susan. Watch old Johnny Carson videos and Tucker Carlson. They look classy and serious. I agree with what he said. It would have more impact if he practiced what he preached, at least in this one video where he's showing people dressed with dignity and pride.
His message is for liberals. What liberal would watch if he were dressed in a coat and tie? At least he had clothes on.
For the longest time, we have submitted to the modernist liberalism idea that morality is a personal choice. Parallel to that is the political response of conservatives that socio-cultural issues are not hills to die on. Let everyone do as they please. Just economy strong so that we can be wealthy, prosperous, comfortable and shop, shop, shop!Culture is *everything*. Now we know, as we plumb the depths of libertinism - absent a strong culture nothing else matters for you’re already dead (as a society). Shop all you want … it means nothing in a spiritually dead culture of the depraved. The Catholic Church saw the liberal world around it and gave up, quit, left the field of battle. The Orks, of course, then took everything. It’s time to take it back. I think many are seeing this, perhaps outside the Church even before inside.
Aqua, the Catholic Church, the Spotless Bride of Christ, did nothing of the sort. Apostates who possessed, at least legally, offices with Her, were ashamed of the Gospel, and sought to "redefine" what they thought was the Church.As a result, their intellectual and theological children followed their lead, and embraced liberalism. That is most evident in the Novus Ordo, which is essentially "formless", and thus cannot drive culture, but rather submits to culture. The NO is the product of (former) Catholics who place " the world, the flesh, and the devil " on equal platforms with Divine Revelation...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous - I didn’t like my first response to your comment, since I tend to agree with you. But what you and I are both saying (it seems to me) is at the heart of a crisis, a trial within the Church that is never seen before and as such very confusing and destructive absent precedents and guidance from Sacred Tradition.I found the following excerpt very helpful for me to come to grips with what you are saying which is the heart of the current crisis: is the Conciliar Church legitimate; is it Catholic.From the SSPX article titled “Various Churches?” - the answer is yes, with important clarifiers on implications and practical impacts on the true Catholic Faith, which is by a warrior religion of conquest.What follows is all excerpted quote:“ And it is WITHIN the Catholic Church that one finds a mixture of good and bad fishes (Mt. 13:48), of good grain and cockle (Mt. 133:25), of wheat and chaff (Mt. 3:12), of good Apostles and Judases. Never did the Catholic Church teach that it only comprised the eleven good Apostles (the part that had the note of holiness), and that Judas was the rot, outside of that faithful part. Yes, Judas was rotten, but within the Catholic Church, the only Church of Christ.Then what is the Conciliar Church? This expressed was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really. It signified a new spirit, new principles, but not a new structure, nor a separate hierarchy and separate faithful. This new spirit causes the members infected by it in the Church to rot in as much as they are infected by it; it is like a virus in the Mystical Body of Christ: some cells are entirely corrupted, others only partially infected, some more some less, and few are exempt from it. It is true to say that this spirit is not Catholic; it is a spirit of rupture, a revolutionary spirit, it is 1789 in the Church.But this spirit does not constitute a separate Church; it infects more or less the members of the Catholic Church. The separation between the sound members and the infected members is not visible, from the very fact that some members are only partially infected. It is like the separation between good and evil within the Church: the limit is within each member himself, since nobody is perfect here below! It is only at the end of the world that the separation shall be achieved, not by human judgment, but by the Judgment of Christ Himself, the Sovereign Judge, true God and true man. This does not mean that the infection is not visible: as evil members are visible in the Church (and scandals have not lacked after Vatican II), so also this conciliar infection is visible, especially in those who are fully infected: modernist theologians, modernist priests’ petitions in Austria… One sees these false principles at work in the practical ecumenical meetings (Assisi, concelebrations, visits to Synagogues, kissing of the Koran…).These false principles do not constitute a separate Church, not even a distinct part of a whole which the visible Church would be.To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality, it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre.“End quote. I firmly agree with this, which makes sense of what otherwise can seem intractable and inexplicable.
A key component of this: the Catholic Church is a warrior Church of conquest - a Church *Militant*, fighting for the Faith, not resting in everlasting peace and Beatitude … that comes next; that is Church Triumphant. But not yet.
How could Judas be within the Church when the Church wasn't even "born' yet? I can never remember if it's settled theology, but the Church started either when Our Lord was pierced in His side or at Pentecost. Judas was dead and judged before then.
Debbie,The Last Supper was the institution of Holy Eucharist, reenacted at every Mass. His Passion, our Redemption, began at that table when Judas left to betray Him.His entire public ministry is the active fulfillment of all the ancient Prophecies of Messiah, the point of the Jewish religion.Where Jesus is, there is the Church.
Aqua, I was simply saying that sense the Church was not yet in existence, Judas could not have been in it. The Eucharist and the priesthood were instituted on Holy Thursday, but the Church started when Jesus was pierced. And St. Peter became Pope and the apostles became bishops at the Ascension. The argument that Judas was IN the Church is false. Are there good and bad Catholics? Absolutely. Can the pope and the Catholic Church lead Catholics astray? Absolutely not. Curious, I've always heard the saying; wherever the Pope is, there is the Catholic Church. To now change it to; wherever Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church sounds..... Protestant, imo.
Debbie,I know we’ve disagree on pretty much everything lately. Too bad. But it seems we should at least be able to agree that Christ is at the heart of our Catholic Faith - the Pope’s existence and authority as Christ’s Vicar a function of the Divine King who loans it to him and charges the Pope with the singular task of leading souls to Christ for His Heavenly Kingdom, expanding also Christ’s Kingdom on earth.It’s Christ we worship in Mass. It’s Christ we enthrone at home and Christ we proclaim to the world. I believe this firmly, unreservedly, clearly, simply. The Pope helps us, leads us in this exclusive duty, privilege of our Faith.“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” I Cor 15:28“Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”. Col 3:11There are no verses, nor is there any Sacred Tradition that elevates the Pope over his Lord Jesus Christ.So … again where Christ is, there is the Church. Where the Pope is, there is the Church simply because he is Christ’s Vicar whose authority is on loan from God.As for Judas - you are missing the main point, “missing the forest for the trees” - the main point being evil has always been mixed within Holy Mother Church, by the very words and experience of Christ our Lord, waiting the end of time when the Church will finally be raised to heaven in the Eschaton.
Of course Jesus is at the center of His Church; that goes without saying I should think. Maybe when time permits I'll try looking into the saying, "where Peter is, there is the Church". I'm thinking it came about after the Western schism or the "Reformation". Here you say:"the Pope’s existence and authority as Christ’s Vicar a function of the Divine King who loans it to him and charges the Pope with the singular task of leading souls to Christ for His Heavenly Kingdom, expanding also Christ’s Kingdom on earth".Exactly so. Is the false ecumenism and false religious liberty promulgated by VII and it's "popes" doing that? Leading souls to Christ?Quick question as it pertains to an earlier post on this site. Are you still a '22 sede? Or has your position changed?
Debbie, I recommend this:https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-sedevacantist-position-summarized.html?m=1
Susan, you never fail to make me laugh. God bless you.