Michael Davies spent his whole life exposing the "spirit" of Vatican II. Michael Davies, pray for us. 🌹

Today is January 23 2022. I'm shocked 😲. By my calculations this talk was given in 1989 or 1990. But it sounds like today. In 2019 i was invited to attend the traditional Latin mass by Our Dear Lord Jesus Christ. This mass should be promoted not suppressed. Viva Christo Rey

@genemyersmyers6710

4 ай бұрын

2024 here.

GodBless this speaker for spreading the TRUTH of Catholic Doctrine...

Bravo. Wonderful talk. Very well put. What an insightful man! Great defender of the true church founded by Jesus Christ.

*More parishes conducting Latin Mass *Females wearing chapel veils *Praying of the Rosary These are 3 rich Catholic traditions that Vatican II negatively effected and we should bring back.

@canman5060

5 жыл бұрын

Our family is with Vatican II. We are ENCOURAGED to pray the Rosary every day. It is under Vatican II we have the Luminous Mystery in additional to the other three.My wife ALWAYS wear chapel veil and our parish has at least two Latin Mass per week on week day alone. What is the real problem here ? Where are these 'negative effects from Vatican II ?????? By the way Communion in our parish IS ALWAYS BY THE TONGUE.

@gtaylor178

4 жыл бұрын

@@canman5060 You need to get out more. Or, you could try reading and doing just a little research. Here in Scotland Communion on the hand was forced down our throats by clericalism and arrogance of clergy that was seriously shocking. It was under the leadership of Card. O'Brien R.I.P. - but clearly with that old nugget of clerical "obedience". That was in the late 80's. The clergy of that time are still around spouting their terrible agenda. In my Arch-diocese all the churches have been locked ( outside of Mass times) for over thirty years ( with a few exceptions -the Cathedral and a monastery in the country and a couple of parishes out of more than 100 parish churches) - we didn't need the Pandemic to lock us out of the Presence, we have been locked out for decades. As for communion in the hand, our bishops have "programmes" and "seminars" for the "teachers" of their dictate that all children making their First Holy Communion are taught to stand with their hands out. You could not make it up. The bishops, sadly, in the main are not fit for purpose and do not carry out their jobs for anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear. So if you have a Holy Priest, ( as you sound like you have) thank Almighty God, but be under no illusion of the disasters in the Church over the last decades and wake up!

@jalobajalo7271

3 жыл бұрын

Russia? Let’s be honest here....

@rosefincher7631

2 жыл бұрын

@@canman5060 You, Sir, have been very lucky indeed!! All credit must go to the Bishop, I have no doubt. Perhaps, w/ the passing of 3 years, hopefully, you have finally realized what you have so arrogantly dismissed here, Frances is coming for your Parish, your Diocese too.

@rosefincher7631

2 жыл бұрын

@@jalobajalo7271 Yeah, a common mistake most Americans make.....chalk it up to the "Cold War" & the captured education system in this country.....I'm sure the "Soviet Union" was what was meant!!

Brilliant speech, thank you Michael for your deep insight.

So glad this exists! It’s a time capsule! The accents are wonderful in the Q&A section and this audience is almost as erudite as Davies himself!

I'll try to keep the all tradition.

this is the spirit of our age; "well i never met anyone who actually believed such & such but i heard there was people who say such & such"

I met him several times at St James Spanish Place for which I am grateful

43:23 it's a pity that Pope Benedict didnt do the reform the errors of the Vatican II that he identified when he was Cardenal Ratzinger.

I really enjoy and learn so much from Mr. Davies' talks. As a V2 raised Catholic it is refreshing to listen to unambiguous truth. I do think he beatifies too much of the laity while demonizing a lot of the clerics (I exagerate to make a point). God would often allow societies to deteriorate to the level of the faith of the people of that society. Once the society experienced life without God's Grace and they realized their mistake, then God would clean it all up with a handfull of Saints. I certianly pray that is what is happening now.

@seraph7825

7 жыл бұрын

you have been dangerously misled, go to vaticancatholic.com if you seek the truth

@39knights

7 жыл бұрын

Been to the Diamond brothers site. They are following the path of Luther; despite their good intentions; just to the extreme right side of things. I learn some good stuff from them too; but the Chair of Peter is the Chair of Peter no matter who is sitting in it. If they think they know who should be in that chair better than God; then they can take that up with Him at some point. As for me I am not going anywhere near that road.

@seraph7825

7 жыл бұрын

do you ignore, that there have been many confirmed antipopes throughout history? they prove (via quotes from popes/bulls/councils/saints) that it is Catholic to discern if a pope is a heretic and therefore excluded from the Church if they take positions contrary to Catholic dogma. Are these modern popes following what has been taught throughout the centurys? It takes courage to stand for what`s RIGHT

@39knights

7 жыл бұрын

Yes but for over 50yrs!!?? Look at the alternative. Are you saying that Jesus has abandoned His Church? Are you saying that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it!? Through 6 successive Popes God was not able to figure out how to get one of His guys in there? Really? Because according to the Dimond brothers if you accept anyone after Pius XII (and some argue even Pius XII himself); then they are ALL outside the Church and not a true Pope. Are you going to wait until the Dimond brothers give their approval for a Pope or elect one themselves before you start thinking there is a 'true' Pope again. Think about it for at least a minute.

@seraph7825

7 жыл бұрын

We can only discern what is happening with the tools Jesus gave us. The brothers are just people that help us put two and two together. As pointed out in their videos, we are shown that the Church is in a state of extraordinary apostasy the likes never seen before in 2000 years. They also point out how the end times signs and prophecies given by the Saints and the Lord himself have come to pass. With all the evidence presented in various sites I believe we can come to the conclusion that something terribly wrong is about to happen. Our Lord gave us the signs for a reason, whoever is of the truth will see it and when he does he will also know that we are commanded to COME OUT of the great whore in Revelations. Of course it is scary to take a stance for the consequence will be one of two eternities but it is known that an eternal crown is earned. Standing for the truth is not easy

The oral history of the destruction of the roman catholic church

"Change the image of God and the form of worship is changed." Well! There you have it. People's experiences are lived out sacramentally at Mass?!? It is the Holy Mass that can transform the daily life of people - if people allow it - but goes on being what the Holy Mass IS whether people allow themselves to be transformed or not!

This is very dated. This praxis widespread in the 80 and 90s in catechetics failed completely and miserably. Now from the ashes of its aftermath we must start again. 'Why did God make us? ' Time for the questions

It’s getting to the point where I can hardly look at a priest without wondering if he’s gay and an intruder. I hate them.

@jennifercuddy5663

5 жыл бұрын

The people are like zombies.

@leekeith2212

4 жыл бұрын

Please hate the sin not the men

@jennifercuddy5663

4 жыл бұрын

Lee Keith I don’t hate them. But I am suspicious when I hear agenda sermons and I can not understand why that Paul VI auditorium has stood for this long. It’s unacceptable that any have stepped in it under blind trust.

Good grief there is no more ligurgy of the Eucharist in our churches. Don't know how the rest of you are doing in your parishes.

We are near the end...

Vatican II is absolutely FULL of haeresies

It's June 2024! How far we've come in heresy in the Vat 2

A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic. I leave you to draw the conclusions??

@carecc7191

2 жыл бұрын

Your comment is irrational, verbose, rambling and exposes you as a posturing show-off who craves attention.

@dinovalente2947

2 жыл бұрын

@@carecc7191 Quite a judgement of character. Who knows there may even be an element of that. I hope not. What I do know is that the Vatican II question has bothered me for over 20 years now. When I realised that the concepts of genus and species could be applied to analising the clarity of doctrinal teaching it helped me put Vatican II into perspective. One no longer needs to accuse it of certain errors nor defend it as the most perfect event the Catholic Church has experienced. What exactly did you find irrational about it? May I ask what academic background you have and what philosophy you share? Aristotelian or Platonic? PS I felt a duty to share this tool I discovered. Not everyone needs to appreciate it.

@carecc7191

2 жыл бұрын

@@dinovalente2947 My credentials do not prove that I can think critically and analytically but my sentence structure and logical flow do. I have a good degree from Boston University and a background in health care finance. One needn't have a degree in philosophy in order to understand it and to define its underlying principles. Your text reminds me of the braggard, Tim Gordon, who uses verbosity and jargon to provide a veneer of presumptuous authority. I listened to the late Fr. Malachi Martin, Fr. Gregory Hesse and others who PROVED that the heresies of Vatican II are in the documents. I also read some of the dreadful tomes of JPII and Benedict XVI and the heresies were there, if veiled. Martin was a brilliant man and an excellent speaker, he didn't NEED to boast, nor to bash his audience over the head with his erudition. He just made everything perfectly clear, what a good teacher SHOULD DO.

@dinovalente2947

2 жыл бұрын

@@carecc7191 I appreciate your message. Except you are assuming that I defend Vatican II. Which I do not. I also tend to believe, that at the very least, many parts borderline on heresy on account of the ambiguity. If not heretical as you say. However the ambiguity is so bad that even trying to reveal what is out right erroneous becomes a difficult task. Using the concepts of genus and species makes it much easier to show the likes of Timothy Gordon and other V2 defenders that something is wrong with it. In my opinion it hits the nail on the head and is virtually impossible for die hard Vatican II supporters to refute, if they are intellectually honest. I would appreciate it if you read it again slowly. And no I am not seeking attention. Regards. PS I have edited and updated the old version you read. I will post the slightly modified one.

@dinovalente2947

2 жыл бұрын

@@carecc7191 Vatican II - A normal council? Hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of inversion? The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine. Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus) This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one. The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing. One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined? How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal. I would therefore like to ask: Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.

I NEED PEACE !!!

@robert112uk

7 жыл бұрын

Juliet Watt Jesus said" Do not let your hearts be troubled, trust in God still and trust in me"

Title - sprit of Vatican 2 Video contents - corruption in the church Really makes you do a big think 🤔

When all's said and done, they can't destroy the faith, they can only destroy the practice of the faith. And never that entirely. Keep the faith!

How long ago was this?

Michael Davis gives the big brain centrists their dues.

MICHAEL OH BE !!

I truly believe that all this modern talk is so disrespectful to our Creator Almighty Father, what's important here and now ,is to keep our old customs and always center it with love for one another. Remember Our Almighty Father is watching and listening to all.

The blasphemous film is part of the COHEN collection

@rosefincher7631

2 жыл бұрын

Those 2 are a "piece of work".....they should truly be silenced!!

Not calling God He is catering to radical feminism

43:20 "Naughty Ratzinger"

Inescapable? Inescapable what?

Filmmakers Will soon be hell.not soon enuf for me

@ruthmaryrose

6 жыл бұрын

Ruth Fitzwater As I understand you, you are wishing people to be in hell. I hope I’m wrong in that because to wish anyone in hell is horrible beyond belief. If we are to be like Jesus then we must love everyone. Pray for the conversion of everyone who is on the wrong road.

All because the Mass is not in Latin but in other world languages. That's about it. Did Our Lord Jesus Christ use Latin throughout his teaching ?

@Kitiwake

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly. These are the tools of fanatics.

@paisley293

5 жыл бұрын

Lar M: you either didn't bother to listen to the whole talk, or you're just not a good listener.

@gtaylor178

4 жыл бұрын

Are you deliberately being obtuse? What is your agenda? Do not simplify as it comes across as arrogance. You know perfectly well what the problem is, I suspect you are a blether.

@michaelgibbons7281

4 жыл бұрын

Clearly you have been going around blindfolded and with rear plugs in. For the sake of your immortal soul, wake up before it is too late.

@edwinkubena9944

3 жыл бұрын

See you are so ignorant read the Alta Vendita the Errors Of Modernism or Paschendi Dominici Gregis or the Ottavianni Intervention or Quo Primum learn about The Hermeneutics of Continuity! So many lay are sheeples Vatican II changed everything per the deposit of faith. You may think you are Catholic you are not! You are a modernist a heretic!!

Gives me a huge amount of pleasure to dwell on the image of hell fire licking Mr Davies' toes, a fire created from the heat of his own hate

@MsHburnett

3 жыл бұрын

Heres another satan pop up.

@edwinkubena9944

3 жыл бұрын

The truth is NOT in you child of the lie. Your father is Satan. To wish one such damnation only brings it on yourself! Mr. Davies was a warrior unlike you a passive leftist. I pity those like you for your type know not what you do.

@1ironmikeoc

3 жыл бұрын

@Leonora Kramer Sunshine and lolipops are among my favourite things! How delightful

@spacetrains2238

3 жыл бұрын

Schitzo

@rosefincher7631

2 жыл бұрын

@@1ironmikeoc Your exuberance for wallowing in your own hatefulness has no power here, Mr. O'Connell, that hell fire will soon enough be licking at your toes!!