Wow am I glad I found your channel. This is just the kind of critical analysis of Romanism that I've been searching for. I felt like every other source I went to was heavily biased one way or the other and because of that, I couldn't come to an informed conclusion about the legitimacy of their claims. This knowledge is going to really help take the weight of utter uncertainty off my shoulders.
I think an Catholic Theologian who has has academic credentials like Dr. Cooper (while being orthodox) such as Father Thomas Joseph White (the great Thomistic theologian) would be even a better fit. But he doesn't like to do "debates" either - but to me all the more reason for a better fit.
Here's a quote from an earlier Council, regarding relations with those in schism from the Catholic Church: "[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 - Feb. 4, 1442). That seems very different from the Vatican II treatment of Separated Brethren! Development of doctrine, indeed.
There’s a difference between a person who is a schismatic or one who follows a schismatic v those born into schism hundreds of years later. “Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” - St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D. (Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John)
Thank you for this, I agree with the vast majority of our he Lutheran confessions, but I do dabble with the thought of Roman Catholicism from time to time, the papacy always stops be in my tracks. I think a large part of the appeal of becoming Roman Catholic is the romanticism of it, they have a certain appeal that a lot of Protestant denominations don’t have. I think part of it is a greater sense of community, when you join the Roman Catholic Church you know that you are part of something bigger then yourself which I think appeals to a lot of our younger people, people in my generation ( I’m 26) that don’t feel like they belong to much of anything and I think a lot of people are willing to look past theological problems with the RCC in order to just be part of that group.
Maybe romanticism is a part of it, I'm not sure the communal atmosphere is what is appealing, or at perhaps my experience has just been different to yours. I've listened to enough converts where the welcoming atmosphere was quite lacking but maybe it's just varied? The unity I would say is what's really appealing, that and the greater consistency for absolute truth. One could totally romanticise truth and unity though.
AGenZ Conservative I almost want to call it a sort of nostalgia but that’s not the right word. People want to Belong to something ancient, holy, and exotic. Roman Catholicism doesn’t stereotypically fit that bill bug it is that sort of thing, at least imo. The unity is a big part of it as well. And no the Roman Catholic Church is not the most welcoming group of people in my experience.
Capital punishment is also clearly advocated in Lateran IV: "With regard to the secular power, we affirm that it can exercise a judgment of blood without mortal sin provided that in carrying out the punishment it proceeds, not out of hatred, but judiciously, not in a precipitous manner, but with caution." (Denzinger43 sec. 795). This punishment was being advocated by the Council specifically with regard to the Waldensians.
Your videos have really sparked my interest and opened my eyes to Lutheranism. But living in Sweden I'm having difficulties coming to terms with the political and highly "progressive" direction of the Lutheran Church of Sweden which takes precedence over doctrine. The Church has basically become an organ of the political left, espousing everything "woke". The Church regularly takes political stances on the far left and lets the Church bells ring as a "warning" when there's a political event they disagree with. The church takes a clear activist stance for open borders and have never denounced persecutions of Christians in the Middle East, but it will invite imams to preach in their churches. The current archbishop's motto is "God is greater". If you want to be a Lutheran in Sweden there's really no alternative to the Church of Sweden, so I am feeling a bit lost. Given these circumstances, I can really see the appeal of turning to Catholicism if you want a traditional church.
Hi! A bit late to the party, but I thought I might offer my advice as a Swedish conservative Lutheran. First off, get a feel for your local congregation of the Church of Sweden, teachings and practices can vary between different congregations and you might be lucky enough to live nearby to one of them. Secondly is to look up ELM (Evangelisk Luthersk Mission) and/or EFS (Evangeliska fosterlandsstiftelsen), which are two organizations that are sort of within the church of Sweden (it's complicated) but hold more conservative views. Thirdly there are independent churches and other denominations in Sweden that are Lutheran but hold more to the traditional views of the church than the mainline church of Sweden. (If you want to you could send me a message of where in Sweden you are and I could potentially recommend some local congregations). Guds frid!
Convert to Roman Catholicism from Southern Baptist here -- after Mass last Sunday our carrillion played "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" and I was quite surprised.
@@richardsaintjohn8391 now that would be mixing liturgical traditions. It fits, but I would be so weirded out if 'Just As I Am' was the communion antiphon one day.
A few years gone by I had a case of "Roman Fever". I attended a few services at a RC church. I got a few weeks into the class you need to complete in order to convert (the name escapes me at the moment). I was reading a lot of online RC apologists with Mark Shea being one of my favorites. Then one day I was reading this RC blog post about how not everything written/said by past popes was dogma. Then I asked the question, "How can I know which bulls/pronouncements/etc. are considered infallible and which are not?" Suddenly a flame war erupted between different groups of RC's in the comment section. This group had one set of criteria and that group had another. Not long afterwards JP II died and along came Pope Benedict. My "fever" had come down but not gone away entirely so I kept following RC blogs. It was interesting how some RC's thought that he was just right, others thought that he wasn't conservative enough and that he was maintaining post-Vatican II 'softness', and then the liberal RC seemed to dislike him and his teaching so much that I couldn't understand what kept them in the RC church in the first place. Whatever binds the RC church together it sure isn't agreement on doctrine.
Yeah as a former catholic who has done some early church father study, i can say its not as simple as Roman Catholics would have you to believe, especially when focusing on isolated quotes. But yeah they really know how to turn a person off with their in fighting about doctrines or over opposing popes. Quite ridiculous really, between liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, and sedevacantist that even fight among each their own respective groups.🙄 As the scripture says in Romans 2:24 "For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written." NKJV
@@DrJordanBCooper "The magisterium does not unify " Yeah, sorry that is false. Unity comes by believing Christ's church because you have faith in Christ. Jesus said His Church will bind and loose infallibly; He didn't go on to say everyone would therefore agree with His church but He said "He who hears you (Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth), Hears me". That presupposes some would not hear them and therefore not hear HIm. I can go case by case through thousands of years where there were disagreements and once the Pope affirmed a decision or made a decision the case was settled. Like Jerome....It could be argued he didn't hold to the deuterocanonical books; Yet, when The Pope affirmed those books as canon in Rome then guess what Jerome did? Yep, he fell in line. Yes, there are various groups attached to the Church, that does not argue against the Church's infallible teachings. Jesus presupposed not everyone would listen. When they don't listen to "The Church" (singular), you cut them off. Regardless, Jesus left a head for the authorized teaching agent, which is the Church. For example: The Eastern Bishops in Chalcedon declaring: "Peter has spoken thus through Leo!" (Acts of Chalcedon, Session 2 [A.D. 451]) "You are set as the interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98) "Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness." (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98)
One catholic (means universal) church (because one and only one faith) and some different branches that have different eucharistic prayers (coptic, byzantine, roman, etc)
You should do a debate with a Catholic apologist, either with someone from Catholic Answers or Reason and Theology. How to be Christian just made a video in response to this video, that may be worth a debate also.
Great show Dr Cooper. I really appreciated this one. Would you be able to do a related one on the inconsistencies of Eastern Orthodoxy? I'm thinking especially of how they don't allow for doctrinal development, yet they have a radically different view of images/icons than the early Church Fathers.
I love this idea too! And I'm also really excited for part II of the "Prayers to Saints" video that happened a few months ago. No rush though... there is so much stuff to cover and I really appreciate everything you put out! (EDIT: Just got to the end of the video and was happy to see this mentioned)
I particularly wish more apologists would address the inconsistencies when it comes to the errors it shares with Rome (purgatory, merits of and prayers to saints/relics/icons etc., masses for dead, transubstantiation, work-based salvation, nulla salus extra ecclesiam, forbidding the bible in the vernacular and its perspecuity, etc. etc.), and how those teachings were officially taught in the medieval and post-Reformation periods and how these have been downplayed and reinvented recently, particularly in view of converts.
@Emil Suric Read for a start the Confessions of Dositheus and of Mohila, drafted by synods particularly in response to Cyril Lucaris holding Reformed doctrines. All of those things I mentioned are easily seen in the Greek church, and to just address purgatory for example: it is true they insist to hold it differently from Rome, at Florence merely by rejecting the imagery of fire, but look at their practices (the panikhida/mnemonsyn mass, held especially for the rest of souls and often paid for by a stipend, otherwise praying for the dead, keeping All Souls' [or seven of them!], etc.) and doctrinal statements, and you'll find it's there as much as in the Roman church: "And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance - by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction - of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not." Confession of Dositheus "In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful." Seraphim Rose, one of the seminal figures in American Orthodoxy "O Lord, may the intercession of the Church for these dead be a ladder to Heaven; O Lord, have mercy on them through the prayers of the Most Holy Mother of God and all the saints." Akathist for the Repose of Dead
@Emil Suric It's *Могила* , and in Kiev, where he was bishop, that's read as *Mohila* (or Mohyla). Mogila is the Russian reading, which is not wrong, but no more correct. To say that the faithful go to Hades and are released from their trials by prayers and works of the faithful on Earth *is* purgatory. This is the hair-splitting that muddies the waters and allows you to present your false church as being significantly more evangelical than it actually is. To say that people go to Hades and need to be freed by prayers and masses is to say: 1) Our sins are not covered by faith, but by works, as 2) Christ did not actually propitiate all of our sins, so that we must 3) avail of our own merits and those of the saints through prayers, masses, alms, and other good works 4) and if our work be insufficient, we are not succored, but cast into Hades so 5) the faithful on Earth ought transfer their merits to us for our deliverance. Do not be deceived. Most all of the horrors of Rome are found in full display in the "Orthodox" churches.
This is exactly my issue with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They claim to be the same traditions and beliefs that existed in the Church fathers, but there is far too much change and alteration throughout the centuries. How can the Catholic magisterium alter its stance on protestant schismatics, or the death penalty? Even if the magisterium works in theory, it doesn't work in practice.
Thank you for this... I enjoy the RC and EO content... I am a baptised Lutheran that recently returned to Christianity as an adult and im constantly torn between Lutheranism, RC and EO... But less and less RC with passing time and all your content helps
@@magnus8704 ill put them on my list... Its sad... Cause i think catholic devotions (rosary, novens, stations of the cross etc) are very nice but not why someone should convert
Don’t be deceived. The Roman Catholic Church is the true church that can trace its origins to the early church fathers. The early church fathers were not Lutheran, they were Román Catholic.
@@benjamind547 Thank you for the recommendations. May I ask you: in your opinion, is the papacy as is claimed by the roman catholics (its supremacy, univesal jurisdiction, infalibility etc) present in the early church? If it is not, do you think this mines the teachings of Rome and it being the "true church"?
I came to this same conclusion about subjectivity vs objectivity with the RCC years ago. It seems to be a psychological defense mechanism that Roman Catholics use because of insecurity about the inability to solve the problem of subjectivism.
Great video, you explained why I could never be Roman Catholic in a respectful but honest way. I eventually became Orthodox, and am very happy with that decision, but if I ever were to become a Protestant again Lutheranism would be the only place I could go (seeing as Anglo-Catholicism is basically dead).
Sando I was, I graduated from a Reformed Seminary. I gave the valedictorian address on the day I officially became a catechumen in the Orthodox Church, ironically enough. The best Christians I know are Calvinists, but once I came to fully understand the implications of Reformed theology I couldn’t continue to believe in it. That wasn’t the only thing, I really just came to despise the culture of evangelicalism more than anything, but Calvinism certainly didn’t help. I don’t think I’d ever go back to any form of Protestantism, unless maybe it was a deal breaker for some girl I fell in love with in the future.
Really appreciate you sir. I’m raised evangelical and catholic by marriage (well right before marriage because of marriage) and have really been searching for truth the last year or so.
@@MrKev1664 "If you are searching for Truth Come to the Catholic Church. It is Christ's Church the pillar and foundation of Truth." In his book, Vicars of Christ, Peter De Rosa, himself a Roman Catholic, points out that his church became, "...the most persecuting faith the world has ever seen, ordering in Christ's name, all those who disagreed with her dogmas to be tortured and burned, commanding the throne to impose catholicism on all its subjects under threat of torture and death. Pope Urban II, who commissioned the first crusade decreed that all heretics were to be tortured and killed. That became a dogma of Roman Catholicism.” As only one example, Pope Martin the V, commanded the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites, named after the martyred Jan Hus. The pope commanded, “…turn your forces against Bohemia, burn, massacre for nothing could be more agreeable to God than to exterminate the Hussites.” That’s not Christianity! The torture of millions in inquisitions and Rome’s merciless massacre of Christians for centuries cannot be equated with early Christianity. It was the pope who created the inquisitions, who decreed the torture and murder of all whom they termed heretics. De Rosa reminds us, “…Pope Innocent the III murdered far more Christians in one afternoon, 12,000, than any Roman emperor did in his entire reign.” Historian Will Durant writes, “Compared with the persecution of heresy n Europe by the popes, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries after Christ was mild and humane,” yet the catholic church while rightly honoring the martyrs under pagan emperors never admits that she herself has slaughtered far more and done it in the name of Christ. Again, we must say that’s not Christianity. The early church, like Christ Himself, never persecuted anyone but was itself cruelly persecuted. Torture and murder even of genuine heretics are an abomination to Christ, yet another catholic historian writes, “…of 80 popes in a line from the 13th century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine. Such practices have never been abrogated or confessed as wrong, much less denounced and renounced by the catholic church and how could they be with 80 allegedly infallible popes affirming them, which brings us to this second point: the despotic powers of the popes. The code of canon law, canon 333, paragraph three declares, “…there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of a Roman pontiff.” Vatican II says the same and demands absolute obedience. Such dictatorial control over the church is the antithesis of early Christianity. Neither, Peter, Paul nor any other apostle ever claimed or exercised such tyranny. Christ called mankind to come to Him willingly. Peter writes that Christ never coerced or threatened anyone nor did the apostles but the Roman catholic church did so for centuries and has never admitted it was wrong or apologized for it and still holds millions in fear that, without submission to her rules, they’re damned.
@@rickdavis2235 Christ be with you See that how I know you are not Catholic. You give fables not Truth (2 Tim 4:3-4) Here's the truth about the incision for you ruclips.net/video/qhlAqklH0do/видео.html Have a look God bless you
@@MrKev1664 The catholic version of Jesus isn't capable of saving anyone without the help of Mary, the pope, the priests, the church, the religion or the sacraments. The true Jesus of Scripture is completely sufficient for my salvation. The inspired word of God is completely sufficient for my salvation. Jesus plus anything else is a cult. Maybe you've never heard the actual gospel because catholics rarely read their bibles. They are just ornaments in their homes.
hELLO Jordan, Have you really read the papal Bull "Exsurge Domine" and if you did why you misquoted it. This proves that you are a liar--- you owe me an apology--its really a shame to know that you can steep down yourself so low ! Shame on you!..I thank to "how to be Christian" who exposed your lies...Plz repent!
@@nickdon I read Exsurge Domine. You're wrong. He quoted it right. It reads: "Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:" Basically, it is saying that the points that follow this statement are errors that they condemn. And an error that they condemn is: 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. What it says, is that saying "heretics being burned is against the Will of the Spirit" is an error. Meaning they support the burning of heretics. Another error they condemn is saying that: 37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon. So everything that is listed in Exsurge Domine, are teachings that the Pope opposed. You're the one who should apologize.
Nicely articulated. You put into words what I've been wrestling with. The magisterial authority argument has certainly become weaker during the Pope Francis era. He has helped me see the flaws in the argument with the help of his "declarations" and ambiguous statements. I always understood there were bad popes, changing of teachings, etc.., but when you experience it in your own time, magisterial authority is difficult to defend. I feel like it amounts to a new emperor changing laws and there is no arguing against it. In the end, it falls on the individual to decide what's authoritative to you. For me, I have decided to go back to scripture only, where I began my Christian walk. You and Reverend Wolfmueller do a great job. Maybe one day I'll wind up in The Lutheran Church, who knows.
The point on persistent and inescapable subjective interpretation is hard to overstate; as is the presence and implication of groups within Roman Catholicism demonstrating non-uniformity.
Yeah you have to ignore Catholic apologists, dude. You are right about the epistemology and kicking-the-can-down-the-road. But the truth of Catholic dogma (which is merely "not technically wrong"), doesn't in anyway depend on these fallacious arguments of pop apologists based on their own faulty epistemology.
Secondly, even if it were possible to solve the problem entirely, it doesn't follow that the RCC solves it...The Eastern orthodox claims to be the one true church also. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the chur church because it is the Body of Christ and not the RCC exclusive...this is obvious as it's fair to assume not all "Roman Catholic" are saved...just as not all Protestants saved...the ones saved are the believers in Christ
Adam, Actually ,the saved are those who do as Jesus teaches, to repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and perservere to the end. You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 nothing in my comment precluded that those in the church do indeed bear fruit...your trying to set up a false dichotomy...I simply was alluding to the fact that the church (those that are saved which is synonymous with his body) are not limited to the RCC exclusive...which is what Rome historically taught ("no salvation outside of the "church" of Rome, and it necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the roman pontiff"...I will pray for you!
@@adambalden1113 Again, not just belief in Christ saves, but obedience to Jesus saves! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 your trying to create a false dichotomy...nothing in my comments precluded bearing fruit or obedience...you seem to be a person that likes to argue for the sake of arguing...you will be in my prayers...I won't respond any further as any further dialogue will be fruitless endeavor.
@@adambalden1113 Not arguing at all, just refuting your comment, belief in Jesus alone saves! How can a Catholic Christian who believes in Jesus not he saved as your theory goes? All Roman Carholic Christians believe in Jesus? Yet, you say some most likely won't be saved! Ironic! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Fascinating presentation. I also enjoy Dr Cooper's series on the History of Western Thought. One point about John Hus - he attended the Council of Constance after receiving an assurance of safe conduct for the the Holy Roman emperor Sigismund. However, as soon as he arrived he was arrested, tried and condemned. Public outrage at his execution led to the Hussite Wars. In 1420 Pope Martin V proclaimed a crusade against the Hussites, and stated that all heretics should be killed. in 1901 Leo XIII in the preface to Volume 2 of the Book of Canon Law said: "The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its ends when rebels against it disturb the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics who cannot be restrained by any other penalty from continuing to disturb ecclesiastical order." However, it appears from the examples of Hus and Wycliffe, that execution is extremely ineffective in stopping the spread of heterodoxy.
Even after delving so deep into the Fathers, I have ever only ever felt compelled to either Eastern Orthodox, or Classical Protestantism (like conservative anglicanism or lutheranism). Why? From just a pastoral perspective, Rome has failed HORRIBLY. I have never met a properly catechised Roman Catholic. Priests baptizing the kids of parents who DO NOT even believe God exists sometimes. (I live in Puerto Rico). Mass african paganism mixed into christian religion with no backlash. Tons of communist/socialist priests. It really feels at this point that what is holding Roman Catholocism together is just the momentum of its history. The church is basically willing itself into perpetuity, no matter the cost. If Roman Catholic doctrine is the fullness of the faith, then why does virtually no roman catholic even know about it? They just hold to a nominal catholicism.
Hilaire Belloc said of the Catholic Church: “An institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight.” If the Catholic Church continues in spite of the very true criticisms you have presented here, why would it last 2000 years?
Dr. Cooper, what do you think about the thesis that penance decreases the intensity of purification? Of course there is the difficulty of coordinating penance in time and purification outside of time, but that is a general difficulty for many theological topics; for example the efficacy of prayers of petition in time and the immutability of divine providence. I appreciate your work, and I look forward to your response.
It still fundamentally supposes an infused, not imputed righteousness. We do not have to "make up" the difference between being terrible sinners in this life and spotless saints in the next because that is what Christ has done for us.
One must acquire the authentic phronema of the Church... this is true in Judaism and Catholicism. Pope Francis is a pastoral pope in that his focus has been on the subjective person. Pope Benedict is focus was on doctrine and the focus was not on the subjective person. The Catholic Church teaches doctrine officially but acts pastorally towards the person. The death penalty issue is problematic as Francis's opinion does not make dogma. This is why it has not changed anyone's mind.
I can't help but think that someone---or someone's church---is going to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, meaning: doctrines to be believed, in which case this human (church) authority is ultimately over Scripture, despite objections to the contrary.
A Magisterium, being made of men, is not free from error and internal passions and biases. What the Magisterium does have is a claim of required submission despite the capacity to err. In other words, they not only have the capacity to be wrong like anyone else, but they also claim to have a "you are with us or you are anathema" kind of authority attached to that capability of error. They can be wrong and then cite church doctrine of supremacy to coerce people in to following their error(s).
The scriptures, being written by men, is not free from error. Yet we both believe it is inspired by God, and that the authors have His authority and were protected from committing error. If we can believe this about the writers of the scriptures, why can we not believe that about any other group on men?
I guess I'm not sold on a faith and church that is fixed and doesn't wrestle with how to be a person of faith in the world is desirable. Part of what draws me to Rome is the fact of this struggle and the intellectual depth which comes out of those councils, encyclicals etc.
So you struggle with the fixed nature of faith and the church? Yet you are also drawn to the church with the most fixed theology, services and leadership structure? How does that make any sense?
Good treatment of the topic. You've called out the limits of your own critique (the diversity of views of what constitutes an infallible teaching). This is one area I chalk up to the fallen nature of this world. We have the same divisions in Lutheranism (e.g., ELCA vs. AALC/LCMS). I wish most of your arguments were just putting fire to straw men, but I've heard the weak arguments advanced too frequently in by people who ought to know better.
Dr. Cooper, surely you can differentiate between the nature of interpreting the Church’s magisterium and interpreting scripture itself. Interpretation is limited when it comes to the magisterium. But because the Bible is more complex and figurative, interpretation varies so much more. There is WAY more in common between the most liberal Jesuits and the most traditionalist Catholics than there is between unitarians and trinitarians, for example. Not to mention you have Jehova’s Witnesses, and other drastically different denominations.
7:40 romans argument about "understanding Scriptures on ones own interpretation". Now that a bad argument because we agree on a lot of things for eg- Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God & Christ & God, virgin birth, literal death and resurrection of Jesus, believing that Heaven and hell is real place, believing that Bible is the Word of God. Following Biblical mortality, knowing that Lord Jesus is sitting at the Right Hand of God, all authorities is being given to LORD Jesus, and that we are not under law but under Grace. We agree on these things because these are found in Bible. I mean a difficult doctrine of Trinity is agreed word to word. I think it's not about interpretating Scriptures rather unfollowing doctrines which are not found in Bible. "Why do we agree on these doctrines and and not on other doctrines of roman? Simply because these doctrines are found in Scriptures"- my rebuttal to romans argument
Part of the reason that the Roman Catholic church needs the magisterial authority is because they tend to use a non-literal hermeneutic and use allegorical interpretation far more frequently. This the leads to a broader range of possible interpretations of any given scripture passage. Of course there are some allegorical passages (e.g. God hiding us under His wings) but most who hold to sola scriptura prefer literal meaning as default unless context demands a non-literal interpretation. Taking literal as the default vastly narrows the range of possible meanings.
Hello, I am an ex Roman Catholic traditionalist and the Lutheran Church seems the best option for me, but I struggle finding a Lutheran Church that does not endorse sodomy... I live in Montreal, Canada, would you know if there is a good Church, with good theology in my area, which I could go to ? Thanks!
Please, dear brother Dr. Jordan Cooper, do us also a video about inconsistencies of Mariology and Intercession of saints. It would be very profitable for me and for my fellow brothers, especially now that my former pastor converted to catholicism. 😥 Unfortunately, this fad arrived to brazilian latitudes. 😭 Never expected it would happen here, Jesus Christ!
The main thing I remember about this present pope is watching him speak before the United Nations and talk a lot of useless crap. Right after watching Domald Trump speak before the U.N. and talk about God more than I think I have ever heard any pope do anywhere.
Re: Councils and the Crusades. Many Catholic scholars would argue not everything an ecumenical does is necessarily infallible, but only those sections of the Council that formally define matters of doctrine, declare anathemas, etc. So if you want to address Catholicism, you need to address that view.
It is an ever shifting target to find what teachings are and are not actually infallible. Already the idea that the pope is infallible when he isn't wrong (which is tautologically true, and I share in this infallibility as much as Francis) implies a complete collapse of Rome's hierarchy where the Pope is ostensibly the supreme head of the magisterium, and so the ultimate interpreter of Scripture and tradition.
@@jamesharrison6845 Vatican 1 is a whole of more than just "the Pope is infallible when not wrong"! In what way does Papal supremacy imply a complete collapse? Obviously, in Catholic ecclesiology, the Pope does have ultimate authority to interpret the deposit of faith, yes. But I don't see how that collapses anything.
@@taylorbarrett384 What I'm saying is that you reduce the papal authority to, "well, he's right when he isn't wrong, and when he says a magical formula and isn't wrong, then he's really not wrong", as many modern Romanists do, then the whole idea of the magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, is done away with. The Roman church really expected that unconditional obedience is owed to your superior in the hierarchy of clergy, and that appeals stop at the top, where the pope cannot be judged by anyone.
@@jamesharrison6845 I don't know why you are wording it that way. Romanists don't say the Pope isn't wrong when he isn't wrong. They say he isn't wrong when he speaks ex cathedra. The doctrine is in fact theoretically falsifiable. The way you phrase it, it isn't.
Re: death penalty. Neither Trent's catechism nor Francis' catechism are infallible. Nevertheless, Francis said the death penalty can be avoided now precisely because "the wicked can be removed from the land" by means of imprisonment rather than death (something prior cultures weren't so easily/securely able to do).
No reason to think (1) Moses commanded the death penalty in leiu of prisonment only based on preventative measures or (2) imprisonment was not possible back then. You would have to accept both points made by the Pope, both of which are completely irrational.
@@IAmisMaster I'd be willing to grant that we have no evidence Moses allowed the death penalty because imprisonment was impossible, and I'd be willing to grant that some sort of imprisonment was usually possible for much of history, but it's simply not the case that Francis' argument is "irrational" - that is a very imprecise and poor choice of wording. What you could say is that the material of his syllogistic reasoning is questionable. But questionable means it could or could not be true.
Dr. Cooper, maybe you can explain Psalm 106:30-31, Catholic apologists have used this to say the work was credited as righteousness. Doesn't this make Paul out to be selective? Some Catholics will simply say Paul was pointing out justification by faith but that works can also justify because the context is that the Jews thought that faith didn't justify. So Paul is just saying that faith does but not that works don't
I have heard this before, but it ignores the doctrine of union with Christ. Whether or not logizomai (reckon, credit, etc) means to account or to reckon according to what something already is is somewhat irrelevant, because the believer is undoubtedly united to Christ, in both a legal and mystical manner. Thus when we are united to Christ by faith, we are both credited as righteous and evaluated to be righteous by virtue of our union with Christ.
To me, it seems that the question of the clarity of Scripture, or rather, the clarity of language in general (both written and spoken) is at the root of the problem here, that is, when it comes to the question of authority and interpretation.
"In terms of confessional Protestantism, [...] we really don't have [such division] in the sense that Rome would often claim that we do." Do you have a source for "Rome" (as in, the Magisterial authority of the Catholic Church) claiming that the division is as extensive as 33,000 denominations? You can't simply reduce the Catholic Church to some Catholics who have argued with you online or even Catholic theologians. "We have this odd situation where we had Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, who was a much more conservative pope, and then we have Pope Francis." What is the substantive difference between the two? At best, they each have a slightly different way of presenting the same ideas and emphasize different things. If you compiled a list of every teaching that Catholics have to agree on, both would agree with every proposition. There's even room for different schools of theology in the Church, but surprisingly you picked two popes who are in exactly the same school, instead of contrasting Pope Francis to Pope Pius X or some earlier pope. In response to the general argument that the Magisterium just postpones the problem of interpretation, I have a few things I'd like to raise. Firstly, the teachings found in ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals are typically far clearer in meaning than Scripture, so while there may be some interpretation still to do, it certainly reduces the level of interpretation required. Secondly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office) exists to clarify the meaning of doctrinal declarations if any doubt remains. Your objection about the existence of both the SSPX and "liberal Jesuits" in the Church is not sound. The SSPX doesn't just have a different interpretation of Magisterial documents, it outright rejects some including the decrees of an ecumenical council. Because of this, SSPX as an organization is outside the Church, although in the cause of reconciliation the Church has made some gestures towards it. Liberal Jesuits (though not one group with defined positions, I'm generalizing here) also do not merely have a different interpretation, they reject the teachings of various popes and councils on homosexuality, the ordination of women, etc. The teaching on capital punishment has not really changed. It is expressed differently in response to different situations. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. In the past, the death penalty was permitted to protect the common good in certain circumstances, though mercy was preferred. Today, those circumstances do not exist, so the death penalty is not admissible. The same applies to the Catholic view of Protestants. At Trent, Protestants were former Catholics who had apostatized. That is a very different situation from today's Protestants who are not typically apostate Catholics, but raised Protestant and therefore not guilty of schism or formal heresy. It did take a while for this view to develop, but our view of Protestants is not an irreformable, divinely revealed doctrine- it is something that certainly can develop. Ad extirpanda is a legal document, not a doctrinal one. It doesn't teach that torture is moral (even if that is what the pope's opinion was), it legally permits torture in certain circumstances (which is the wrong legal ruling). But the Church doesn't teach that the pope is infallible when making canonical and legal rulings, it teaches that when he declares definitively on a subject of faith and morals he is protected from error. Exsurge Domine doesn't say that it is the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned, it condemned the proposal to the contrary as either "heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds". That is not at all the same as the conclusion you have drawn from it. "You can't have an ecumenical council when you only have half the Church there." And Constantinople I goes out the window. (No Western bishops present.) The rest of the first 7 had only scarce representation of the West, but I guess they would pass the test. What about later councils such as Lyon II and Florence? Both of those had Eastern bishops and those bishops (at least at the council) agreed to the decrees. This criteria alone fails to include the councils you accept, and fails to exclude the councils you reject. Corruption in the papacy doesn't prove anything about the truth of the claims you are trying to rebut- not sure why you brought it up. The papacy has a human character because the popes are human. The Council of Constance didn't condemn Jan Hus to the stake, it condemned him to be handed over to the civil authorities. Even if it had, that is again a canonical ruling and not a definitively declared teaching on faith and morals. The Council could certainly err here. I don't think you've done your research thoroughly enough.
@@IG88AAA almost all of it. I was trying to maintain the position of ecclesial infallibility but now I can see that it is indefensible. The bishops of the Catholic church really did teach certain things regarding the death penalty/torture/Protestantism etc- and these teachings really have changed. "Private" interpretation/judgement really is inescapable even with a living teaching authority. The typical Catholic way of reckoning the ecumenical councils is entirely ahistorical- and these councils are not infallible either.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 “I was trying to maintain the position of ecclesial infallibility.” I think this misses the mark. What is being defended is *ecclesial authority*. The listed examples are not examples of doctrinal change, but prudential judgments. The Church maintains its authority even in non infallible judgments. Private interpretation makes a mockery of ecclesial authority, and most importantly, is entirely subjective and relative. Is this the sort of position God would leave His people? Everyone is to use their subjective private judgment on the matters of doctrine? We are left with no certainty, but our personal opinions. On top of that we have endless schisms. No, we need an ecclesial authority, which indeed is infallible at times, to have certainty in doctrine. God has provided such an authority, and we can see it in the New Testament. A threefold authority: the scriptures, the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and an authoritative church. Would you agree we see this threefold authority recorded in the New Testament?
I dread to think of how the Romish Church's Magisterium will change for the worse when Pope Francis the Talking Mule dies and becomes a post-mortem contributor to Rome's "Magisterium".
In referring to that mule, I envisage of course, the one in those 1940s and 1950s films starring Donald O'Connor, the great Hollywood dancer and cheery actor, with a mule that talks, which is Francis, hence "Francis the Talking Mule". Some younger cinema fans may have forgotten O'Connor and his talkative, bossy mule.
Man this video was all over the place with misinformation. I dont even know where to begin. This is the result of protestantism and why it was an absolute disaster. It was a deformation not a reformation. Pax Tube just put out a good video on this topic i would go watch that.
What of the inconsistencies of Reformed theology? The various Reformers all anathematized not just Rome, but each other such that they each have to be the only true Faith, i.e. (for example) "Martin Luther is wrong and all his followers are wrong, and only I (Calvin) and my followers truly understand the Faith, and are as a result, the only ones going to Heaven." The Reformers all hated the Popes, and in their hostility to the Popes for inventing new theological concepts (supposedly) or new non-Biblical practices (supposedly) they effectively became their own Popes. How does this implement or enact Jesus' final prayer before His Ascension that "they would be united, just as You and I are united"? Ultimately, there are no final answers in Protestantism because there is no authority in Protestantism. There are only unceasing circular arguments until Jesus returns. The only essential thing Protestants (those Protestants that have some historic awareness, and many or maybe most don't) are able to agree on is that Rome is wrong.
@Steve Jail What of the instances in which there is a right answer and a wrong answer? For instance, Jesus teaches in John 6:53 that "Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves." The Church teaches this to mean that Jesus was commanding us to eat His flesh, the new manna, brought forth in the Mass. Protestants teach....Im not entirely sure what they teach....but I imagine the take it to mean that we should read the Bible. These interpretations are so distinct as to require a correct and incorrect understanding. Regarding your observation Steve, you're getting at the "we'll have to agree to disagree" idea. Although theologians in the early Church did disagree and even fight with one another over these things, the ones who are deemed Church Fathers were the ones who taught the Orthodox position, I.e. the Church didn't just say "well, it's NBD, tomato-tomahtoe, whatever." They deemed Athanasius (for instance) to be correct and noted it with his declaration of Sainthood, and Arius to be wrong and noted it with his opprobrium (his manner of death should have been enough to manifest that however). On issues of very hard doctrinal or dogmatic matters, there is a correct answer, and when it was ascertained: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est"; Rome has spoken, the case is closed. This is what Protestantism lacks: there is no authority, and there for no final answers, only unending disputes, argumentation, and disorder unworthy of the House of God. Peace of Christ to you Steve.
Thank you for your hard work in making videos that seek to bring people closer to God and save them from lies of the devil for truly of the Catholic Church is wrong it is the greatest evil. I encourage you to read the document again as it seems like in seeking to explain them you may have reworded them in a way that changed their meaning. I look forward to your take on the document itself.
Uly Cer the Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church in about 1000 AD. However we only differ on our recognition of the Pope. Catholics believe in the Popes supremacy but the Orthodox only recognize his primacy.
As for John the Baptist, remember that he was a Jew, Jesus taught a fundamentally higher moral standard, it was right for Jews to be soldiers, even serving an unbelieving state, but it was also right for them to observe the sacrificial law, to tithe, to keep Sabbath days and years and Jubilees, just as Christians do not need to observe Jewish sacrificial or dietary law, unlike John, so we do not have the dispensation to serve in a military. Note that neither Jesus nor any apostle took up arms to fight, even when they could have, and that Jesus ordered the apostles to bring swords to Gesthemene in order to then order them to not use them. "Return sword to its place, for he who takes up the sword will die by the sword." As for the Crusades, maybe some anti Muslim crusades meet the just war standards of Augustine, though they weren't followed when prosecuting the war, but the Jutland Crusade? The Ruthenian Crusades? The Albigesnian Crusade? No way, even Augustine would object to those.
The problem of the subjective interpreter is resolved by noting the operation of the Holy Spirit within the Church hierarchy instituted by Christ through the apostles, contrary to the non-authoritative truth claims of the spirit working in the life of Protestant believers. The subjective interpreter cannot be resolved within Protestantism which is always based upon the private interpretation of the text. The claim that the scriptures are perspicuous is a claim made from the false principle of the private interpretation of the text. One can also make a contrary claim that the scriptures are not perspicuous, or may or may not be perspicuous, based upon the same principle of the private interpretation of the text. To claim the divisions within Protestantism is about the same as that which occurred at the reformation only defers the claim of division to another a-historical reformation movement that began with division and remains divided to this day. The division is caused by the principle of the private interpretation of the text and cannot be resolved by that false principle. Nobody has to synthesis the decrees of councils and the text into a consistent system. One only need believe the creeds promoted by the Church to be a believer. Different interpretations within the Catholic Church may or may not be legitimate wherever the Church has or has not permitted such and has or has not exercised her authority. The various positions within the Catholic Church is not reducible to Jordan's simplistic reduction of subjective interpretation of Church teaching plus a text which replaces the Protestant subjective reading of a text. The Protestant system has o real authority within its system traceable back to Christ, whereas the Catholic Church's authority from Christ and the apostles has the final authority to judge all matters of faith and morals. The problem of subjective interpretation is resolved through legitimate authority outside a fixed text only found in the Catholic Church. There is also legitimate room for disagreement between Catholics because of the limitations o each believer and because the Church has not defined the meaning of every text.
yeah i cant understand how a person can have a right understanding of scripture without the magesterium, one scriptures can have dozens of interpretation and theres no authority, you just like mormons need to go by your instintcs to guess what is right.
Council of Florence: "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Council of Vatican II: "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." So, the Council of Florence promulgates: "that those not living within the Catholic Church [...] cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire" while the Council of Vatican II promulgates: "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do now know the Gospel of Christ or His Church". So, with the logic of this video and those of Sedevacantists, the Magisterium has seemingly contradicted itself with these two statements. But, with true wisdom and knowledge, one can easily see the harmony that exists between both infallible statements. If the Magisterium ever contradicted itself, it would have ceased to exist many centuries ago. The Magisterium has been attacked and protested since the Pharisees, and guess what, it is still here and will be until Christ returns.
What is the "true wisdom" that reconciles not only Florence's _nulla salus_ , but _Unam sanctum_ 's particular, explicit formulation that it is "altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff" to the idea that Pagans can be saved apart from Christ by being really good (a blatant denial of the Gospel), or that every other Christian who repudiates the pope's usurped authority, the erstwhile "schismatics and heretics", are "separated brethen" who are in fact halfway-Catholics and might be saved regardless, or even the Muslims, who we have on good authority from _Nostra aetate_ that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind"? The only thing your theologians can do is blindly grope for nuance and exceptions that were explicitly ruled out, as is plain to see to anyone whose faith is not predicated on the coherency of Rome's decrees. The magisterium does and has contradicted itself, and it hasn't ever existed, let alone for centuries. "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt 5:19).
@@jamesharrison6845 Personal culpability. To know with certainty that the Roman Pontiff has been delegated a singular and supreme authority on Earth, and then to freely and deliberately join an Eastern Orthodox Church or Protestant ecclesial communion, in contrast with a "Pagan" from a remote tribe in Africa who has never heard of the Catholic Church, let alone the Roman Pontiff, but cooperating with actual graces that flow from Christ's Church, thereby manifesting true fidelity to his/her God-given conscience and striving to obey the law that is written naturally on his/her heart; that "Pagan" may be saved only due to God's mercy and graces given. Also, saying "Pagans can be saved apart from Christ" are your own personal words and interpretation; no one can be saved without Christ. If a "Pagan" is saved, it is only because of the actual grace that came from Christ that he or she cooperated with and he/she had 100% non-culpable ignorance of the Truth. Trust me, there will be Pagans who will rise up on Judgement Day and condemn many Christians; the former being invincibly ignorant while the latter having no excuse with the knowledge and even sanctifying grace they once possessed. "The magisterium does and has contradicted itself, and it hasn't ever existed, let alone for centuries" The 'magisterium' contradicts itself, but "it hasn't ever existed"? With all due respect and charity, I do not expect you to realize the harmony of seemingly contradictory mysteries if you use that kind of 'logic'.
@@The_Catholic_Christian Which "actual graces flowing from Christ's Church" might a random Pagan African be "co-operating" with? He has never been preached the Word, never received any sacrament, never had any inkling of faith in Christ or His sacrifice, nor any such awareness of the necessity thereof, and prays instead to profane gods, and yet you're saying he's justified because, what, he's nice to his neighbors? Sorry, but that's a complete denial of the Gospel. *Nobody* is saved by the Law and their obedience to it. "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:19-20) As many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (Rom 2:12). "For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:22-26). Whatever is not from faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Christ is "the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18) Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11) I could go on, but if this doesn't make you reconsider so blasphemous a position, nothing will. I say the "magisterium" does not exist inasmuch as magisterial authority over Scripture does not exist. It is not particularly difficult to harmonize this with the other fact that Rome's magisterium is a complete farce.
@@jamesharrison6845 Why are you attempting to bind God to His Sacraments or spoken Word? Where do you get that from? Saint Dismas (Good thief) was given actual graces to prompt him to repent with true contrition, admonish the other thief, and to confess Christ's divinity without any Sacrament or having God's Word preached to him, at least supposedly. And, no, the Pagan would not be justified simply for being nice to his neighbor, as that would be trying to be justified by works of the law! If that were the case, we might as all well sin against the virtue of faith and try to merit our own justification based upon solely what we do. You must realize that there are individuals in this world who will not have the Gospel preached to them formally, or be baptized, etc. Through no fault of their own, they would be invincibly ignorant as opposed to having vincible/culpable ignorance. This is not a compromise to the fidelity of the fullness of the Gospel, but rather shows the Gospel's true effects even to those who are not to be held personally accountable for what they do not know by no fault of their own. You quote John 14:6; know that anyone who will be saved, it will be by the strict merits of Jesus Christ - if an invincibly ignorant Pagan cooperates with the actual graces that prompt him/her to obey the law written on his/her heart, that person may be saved, but only because of the actual graces that flow from the strict merits of Jesus Christ. With all due respect again, you quoting St. Paul from a Protestant view will not help your case. All Saint Paul is stating is that no one will be justified based on the law apart from the grace given by God like many first-century Jews were trying to do, hence "works of the law" in contrast with good works done in Jesus Christ based on faith. If you want to get circumcised, you will not be justified solely on that "work of the law". If an unbeliever wants to feed the hungry, considering that unbeliever is fully culpable of being an unbeliever, he/she will not be justified based on that "work of the law" apart from faith in Christ. Works performed apart from faith in Christ are "works of the law"; works performed in faith in Christ are NOT "works of the law" but rather good works done in Christ that increases our justification (cf. James 2; Romans 2). Martin Luther et. al. failed to distinguish between these different kinds of works and we all know the results that ensued. "I say the "magisterium" does not exist inasmuch as magisterial authority over Scripture does not exist" Good, because the Magisterium would agree with you: "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it." - Dei Verbum, 10 para 2.
@Eric McCabe "Why are you attempting to bind God to His Sacraments or spoken Word?" Uh, because they are the means by which God has promised to operate? What basis do we have for sacramentology other than how God promises to deliver the graces of salvation? But we would certainly agree that sacraments are downstream from faith, and Dismas' contrition, confession, and subsequent reception of divine absolution to eternal life is a great type of such (and a great foil to the error of assigning satisfaction to repentance). What any of this has to do with the hypothetical saved Pagan is not clear to me. In fact I can make neither heads not tails of what you're trying to say. The Pagan cannot be justified by being good to his neighbor because that would be being justified by the works of the Law, amen! All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), we are all are transgressors of the Law, and we will never be justified on its account. But then you then completely contradict yourself in supposing that he can be saved by cooperating with the common grace to do the Law written on his heart. On what account? What saving grace is there apart from faith in Jesus Christ? Scripture lays out very clearly that the Gentiles too must be justified by faith: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:8-11) As I quoted earlier, all that is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). Your misreading of Paul is a non sequitur. We are not discussing whether works need to enter faith, we are discussing whether faith needs to enter works! I might well add that the damning result of _your_ interpretation (incidentally the minority position of Jerome contra Augustine and many other Fathers, and clearly implausible read carefully) is that the divinely given Mosaic Law was overthrown only so that manmade laws can stand in its place, and the Gospel of grace is forgotten, and we can see the poisoned fruits today as in the medieval church. Nevertheless, as is abundantly clear even in your exposition, the Pagan cannot possibly be justified unless there is another Gospel (of which there is not, and anyone preaching one is accursed, Gal 1:6-9). It's good to hear that the magisterium of the Roman Church apparently subordinates itself to the written Word! Perhaps its stewards might look to their Master and blush at how shamefully unfaithful their doctrines are. Until such a time as every excrescence is purged, that paragraph alone renders the magisterium untenable.
So you're no longer a congregational pastor? That's quite disappointing if I'm being honest. There are so many flocks without shepherds, the church is in a lot of pain.
@@sandromnator they're huge contributors to the culture of anti intellectual, unthinking American Protestantism which tars Christendom and made it easy for the atheistic culture to sweep the west on the back of extremely poor arguments. and evangelicals, well, I don't know what to do with them. They just propogate themselves in churches making a theological mess everywhere because they take over the churches but don't have a clear, coherent theology so just change things into a mush
@@internetenjoyer1044 You frankly have your history all wrong. The atheistic culture, rooted in I would argue the cancer of religious indifference that grew out of sentiments from the Wars of Religion and the tolerance of sects, swept in through the most mainstream denominations throughout Europe. That the Baptists dominate the American Christian landscape owes precisely to the fideistic reaction that churches had in response to atheistic liberals killing Christianity with a thousand slices, and that they could be unified and effectively evangelize when e.g. the Episcopalians were coming apart at the seams. It's true that unfortunately these neo-evangelical denominations are trapped by a general culture of disdain for formal theology from coalescing on a coherent confession or effectively combating heresy, but these are symptoms of the abysmal state of Christendom rather than a cause of them.
Also, it is possible to distinguish the immorality from Popes that are sinners from the office itself. For you to attempt to condemn the office of the Papacy because of a few sinful Popes would be analogous to suggest that the office of the Apostles should be condemned because of Judas and his immorality. Did Judas' infidelity implicate the other eleven Apostles or the Apostolic office? Why should a few immoral Popes implicate the Pontifical office?
I am no theologian but I studied catholic theology for some years. Here's what I think the catholic answers to your objections would be: - Yes, subjectivity is never totally avoidable, as you say. However, there is a great advantage to having to interpret the Magisterium documents rather than the Bible directly. This advantage is that the Magisterium documents (particularly the council canons and dogmatic definitions) are often much more clear and concise than the Bible. To give an example: many people would probably not come to the conclusion that God is Trinity just by reading the Bible. Indeed, even though the Bible can be interpreted as teaching the doctrine of Trinity, it can also be interpreted as saying something else. This is why Arianism and other trinitarian heresies were so common in the time of the early Church . And it is in great part thanks to the Nicene Creed and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, much more clear and concise than what we find in the Bible, that the trinitarian faith managed to become more widespread than all those heresies. - Yes, there is a contradiction between what pope Francis says and what was said during centuries. However, here's the catch: there is no contradiction between two infallible statements. Indeed, the catechism is not and never was considered an infallible document. And pope Francis never made an infallible declaration about the death penalty. This alone suffices to defeat the objection, because, if there was past infallible statements approving of the death penalty, Catholic can just say that they believe in those past statements and not the new non-infallible statement. This would be in accordance with what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the possibility for Catholics to disagree with the pope on this question. Now, let's examine your other examples: The bull by Innocent IV is clearly not infallible. There is no formula typical or indicative of an infallible statement (like "We define" or other such things). It is only a pastoral and practical statement.The bull by Leo X seems indeed to be infallible. However, the thing is that there is a difference between: 1. condemning a proposition that heretics being burned is always against the will of the Holy Spirit, and 2. endorsing a proposition that heretics being burned is always or generally the will of the Holy Spirit. You can maintain, as today Catholics, that burning heretics is generally wrong, while maintaining that there is certainly at least one improbable possible situation where burning heretics could be justified. This would suffice to be in agreement with the condemnation of pope Leo. Notice also that the condemnation is about burning heretics. Nothing is said in the proposition about burning heretics _because_ they are heretics. So you may say that there is a possible situation where burning heretics may be justified, albeit not (or not only) because they are heretics. Finally, notice that the proposition says nothing about heretics being burned specifically by the state, or by humans in general. So perhaps (although I have my doubts on this one) Catholics may say that burning heretics is justifiable but only in Hell. Of course pope Leo X thought that burning heretics was justifiable (as general rule) for the state, but there is a difference between what a pope thinks and what the contradictory of the condemned proposition logically implies. As far as the council of Florence is concerned, it is of Catholic teaching that not all what a council says is infallible (I think Eastern Orthodoxy also agrees with that). A council is infallible only when it declares something to be believed for always, regarding faith or morals. Infallibility doesn't apply to particular decisions regarding specific actions at a specific time, like the burning of a particular heretic like Hus, or the calling of a particular crusade. - Generally, it is true that there is a contradiction between some things in Vatican II, and some things that were believed before Vatican II. But all those things boil down to one central issue: the relation between Church and State. But even though there is a contradiction there, when we look for infallible statements that would crystallize (so to speak) the contradiction, we don't find them. So there is a contradiction between what was generally believed before and after, but not to the point where we can find two contradictory infallible statements. It is, if we may say, a contradiction in spirit, but not in words. I can recommend you one particular document that presents this whole issue quite clearly, by the theologian Martin Rhonheimer:www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Benedict%20XVI%27s%20"Hermeneutic%20of%20Reform"%20and%20Religious%20Freedom%20(Rhonheimer).pdf
Excellent explanation of what is missing from the video and even from the otherwise compelling arguments of Ed Feser. Infallible teachings in the extraordinary magisterium or the ordinary magisterium (and secondary objects of infallibility) have to be determined by reference to specific language or phrasings - unfortunately those phrasings have not been consistent over the centuries. So it is more of an art than a science than one would wish (especially on teachings that intersect with "social matters" which encompass a number of moral concerns. There was a reason Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma was a seperate tome from Manuals of Moral Theology). Thus, it is not clear that capital punishment as a legitimate moral teaching was "infallibly taught" and therefore it is not clear that it was "irreformable". Of course, it seems fairly clear that the current teaching promulgated by Francis and the CDF is neither infallible nor irreformable. Thus, theoretically it could change again. It could be confirmed as infallible and irreformable or it could be corrected as a misunderstanding and the traditional understanding could be confirmed as infallible (and irreformable). This is all very messy but a certain amount of messiness can't be avoided and taking the long view (looking backwards and forwards) mitigates the concern (at least to me). In the meantime, one gives the lesser assent of religious submission of will and intellect (as opposed to theological faith or definitive assent). As for Vatican II, I would agree and heartily recommend the recent book by Aidan Nichols "Conciliar Octet". As for a general guide to these questions, Jimmy Akin's "Teaching with Authority" is a good layman's guide (it also is important to read the underlying documents several times and some articles by Cardinal Dulles and Prof Feser) - although it has some messiness and a couple minor boo-boos - but again some of the messiness is the Church's - i.e.the fact that some prudential matters require religious submission of will and intellect while others do not - without the Church giving any clear criteria for making that distinction.
Too many words. Please slow down. You have so much to say and so many various thoughts that it does sometimes get to be something of a jumble. Two parts perhaps???
@Empyreal I am aware that youtube has speed control, I am aware that one may replay the entire video. I meant exactly what I said. Dr. Cooper talks too fast and tries to cover too much ground in the time allowed. I have no difficulty following him or his explanations. I would prefer him to slow down. My opinion. Pax
Certainly, there is no necessity for a Magisterium. Catholic apologists who claim there is some epistemological necessity, are in error. But nowhere does Catholic dogma make the claim that there is some sort of epistemological necessity for the Magisterium. The only reason to believe the Magisterium has authority is because Jesus said whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in Heaven. And it's hard to square that with a Protestant ecclesiology.
@@cheeseymanish Sola Scriptura doesn't agree or disagree with anything. It is simply the idea that the Church isn't infallible, only Scripture is. While disagreements among those who do not subscribe to the infallibility of the Church over issues like the Eucharist could be seen as evidence Jesus wouldn't have left us without a infallible Church, I don't think that's a convincing argument on its own. First, all Protestants celebrate the Eucharist and most believe Christ is present there in at least some way. So the disagreements are overblown. Second, while Catholics may agree on terms like "transubstantiation", even Catholics still have certain disagreements about various things related to the Eucharist (like, can divorced and remarried people receive it? Etc). Third, we already have historical precedent to prove that God will, in at least some circumstances, leave His people with only His word and not an infallible interpreter of it (Cf, during the Old Testament when Israel did not have an infallibile Magisterium).
@@cheeseymanish Yes, I agree, we have more promises now. My argument was not that Christ didn't promise that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in Heaven. I do think *that* is a good argument for the authority of the Church. I was addressing the fallacious arguments against Sola Scriptura based on epistemology, division, etc. Not because I am defending Sola Scriptura per se (I am basically Catholic, myself), but because I don't like bad arguments no matter what they serve to bolster.
@Empyreal I'm not sure Zwingli would say that Christ does not work through the memorial, in His Spirit, in some way. Nevetheless, the vast majority of non-denominational, Baptist, and Bapticostals I know (and I've been one of them), do think the Eucharist is a means of blessing through which they grower closer to Christ (ie, Christ is present there in some way), and many of them, even many Baptists, are beginning to embrace a receptionist or consubstantial type of view, too.
Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
Read Romans 13:1-7 or 1 Peter 2:13-14. God has given authority to the state to bear the sword and to punish evil and praise good because the state is a deacon of God and ought to be in subjection to Him and His law.
You only have one problem, thats a fact we see a church is built in the Bible, which Jesus says his church will never fail, so by denying a 2000 yr old holy apostolic catholic church, ur calling Jesus a liar. So it becomes a huge problem.
The issue here is that Protestants do accept the papacy; each individual Protestant believes that he or she is the Pope and the Church and their own priest all rolled into one individual and they demand that everyone else conform to their understanding. The very first words out of this man's mouth are his own personal interpretation of the Bible followed by his demand that you conform to what he thinks. There's basically no reason to watch more than five minutes of this video because he already starts with a Protestant premise at the beginning, so obviously he will arrive at a Protestant conclusion because his conclusion is his premise. That's called circular reasoning. His thoughts have traveled no further than where they began. I have yet to see a single Protestant who will ever conform to what I teach them about the Bible even though they say that I am led by the Holy Spirit. Oops, wait, I made a mistake. They claim they are led by the Holy Spirit, but deny that same claim for everyone else. As long as you believe that you are led by the Holy Spirit, you can always deny what other people say and claim that you are a higher authority. Thus, you will always be right in your own mind. Protestants do not reject the authority of the Church. They have simply taken the authority established by Christ and replaced it with their own idols, which of course always just happens to be themselves.
The Bible is clear that the church should be unified and that division and heresy are bad. It seems rather logical that to achieve this goal you need a central authority figure with the power to discipline and teach the entire church. The Bible is clear that Peter is the successor of Jesus, Jesus is the successor of John the Baptist, and various OT prophets and kings succeed each other in obvious ways the Bible has a distinct pattern of successors and how successors are chosen. The Papacy is not perfect, never was, but you would need to argue that your version is superior, a version that lacks a central authority figure, apostolic succession of legitimacy, and the manner in which the pope is selected via the college of cardinals. And you would have to argue against the reality that Lutheranism does not change with the times. The Lutheran Church of today is unrecognizable to what Martin Luther taught and intended for it. It's not enough to be a critic, you have to prove a superior alternative is possible that is also compatible with scripture.
@@steveempire4625 I didn't come up with that line of reasoning. St. Cyprian is the first I'm aware of to mention it, but he doesn't treat it like an original idea.
St. Cyprian's opinion on the matter doesn't work today or in his day when there was chaos in the church with each bishop deciding his own way of doing things and heresy being rampant. It's simply an illogical position and a self-serving one as he did not want Rome telling him what to do with his own local church.
Well Saint @@steveempire4625, if you think you're more logical, workable, and less self-serving than Saint Cyprian, then pray for us miserable sinners, O thou Father of Fathers.
"Why Rome's Argument for Magisterial Authority Fails" from someone who doesn't understand the Magisterium and doesn't care enough to bother with research.
Catholics claim that they are united by magnesium authoriy.this is not true different pope's said different doctrines Catholics disagreeing on Facebook that's not a consistent authority Rome claims this magestirium authority these claims do not stand up to scrutiny
@@athonyhiggins3117 Catholics disagreeing on Facebook is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't doubt that he's done some research, the problem is that he has not done enough, he fails to distinguish between the different levels of magisterial authority--which is necessary if you're going to claim that the argument for magisterial authority fails.
This misrepresents Catholic views. There is no debate on when the Pope is infallible, Catholics never claim that Magisterial Authority eradicates the need for individual interpretation, and NOTHING Pope Francis has said is dogmatic. Dr. Cooper claims that Dogma has changed, and fails to provide evidence to back that up. A Papal Bull is not Dogmatic, the Catechism of Trent is not inherently Dogmatic, and Pope Francis saying something is NOT Dogmatic.
Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Plus, no Protestant Pastor actually practices Scripture ALONE, as Jesus Christ teaches, "this is My Body ", Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
No He built it on the confession of Peter. Just as Augustine says. BTW JAMES ruled on circumcision. Peter was "IN THE WRONG" as Paul says and stood up to him.
@hexahexametermeter no, as Ambrose teaches, "Peter that Great rock". As Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Abd again, it was Peter the rock and sole key, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions, which no longer apply! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@hexahexametermeter Peter was rebuked by Paul for not wanting to offend the circumcised! The same Paul who later had Timothy circumcised, as to not offend the circumcised party as well. Paul acted in a hypocritical manner as well unfortunately! Being rebuked doesn't invalidate authority though, as King David was rebuked as well but for his behavior, far worse than Peter who didn't want Jesus Christ to be murdered and who didn't want to offend the circumcised party! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@hexahexametermeter Excellent, such wonderful progress, that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches! Limited grasp? Nah,,as James White teaches that the Lord's Supper is only a symbol and is not his body. Mike Winger the same. Your ignorance of Protestant is quite evident sadly! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow am I glad I found your channel. This is just the kind of critical analysis of Romanism that I've been searching for. I felt like every other source I went to was heavily biased one way or the other and because of that, I couldn't come to an informed conclusion about the legitimacy of their claims. This knowledge is going to really help take the weight of utter uncertainty off my shoulders.
Couldn't agree more, may God bless you
Please debate Trent Horn. I would literally pay money to see you two talk about these things!
I think an Catholic Theologian who has has academic credentials like Dr. Cooper (while being orthodox) such as Father Thomas Joseph White (the great Thomistic theologian) would be even a better fit. But he doesn't like to do "debates" either - but to me all the more reason for a better fit.
Maybe a debate is not needed...
This video is "discussed" here :
ruclips.net/video/J5kjY9knDOc/видео.html
Peace
Yes!!! Or Tim Staples.
Todd Voss Or Michael Lofton, who has invited Dr Cooper onto his show. Apparently, Dr Cooper doesn’t want to.
Or Dr. Pitre?
Here's a quote from an earlier Council, regarding relations with those in schism from the Catholic Church:
"[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 - Feb. 4, 1442).
That seems very different from the Vatican II treatment of Separated Brethren! Development of doctrine, indeed.
There’s a difference between a person who is a schismatic or one who follows a schismatic v those born into schism hundreds of years later.
“Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
- St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D. (Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John)
@@RA4J I don't think that's his point. Clearly the first excerpt is teaching something separate from Vatican II.
@@wfbane Can you help me understand what part of Vatican II contradicts this quote?
@@RA4J > all that are outside the catholic church
seperated bretheren shouldnt be a thing then.
Thank you for this, I agree with the vast majority of our he Lutheran confessions, but I do dabble with the thought of Roman Catholicism from time to time, the papacy always stops be in my tracks. I think a large part of the appeal of becoming Roman Catholic is the romanticism of it, they have a certain appeal that a lot of Protestant denominations don’t have. I think part of it is a greater sense of community, when you join the Roman Catholic Church you know that you are part of something bigger then yourself which I think appeals to a lot of our younger people, people in my generation ( I’m 26) that don’t feel like they belong to much of anything and I think a lot of people are willing to look past theological problems with the RCC in order to just be part of that group.
Maybe romanticism is a part of it, I'm not sure the communal atmosphere is what is appealing, or at perhaps my experience has just been different to yours. I've listened to enough converts where the welcoming atmosphere was quite lacking but maybe it's just varied?
The unity I would say is what's really appealing, that and the greater consistency for absolute truth. One could totally romanticise truth and unity though.
AGenZ Conservative I almost want to call it a sort of nostalgia but that’s not the right word. People want to
Belong to something ancient, holy, and exotic. Roman Catholicism doesn’t stereotypically fit that bill bug it is that sort of thing, at least imo. The unity is a big part of it as well. And no the Roman Catholic Church is not the most welcoming group of people in my experience.
@@iancampbell1494 That makes a lot more sense, I would agree
There's a quest for certainty. Same impulse that drives King James Only advocates.
That feeling is the approval of the Emperor of Rome.
Capital punishment is also clearly advocated in Lateran IV: "With regard to the secular power, we affirm that it can exercise a judgment of blood without mortal sin provided that in carrying out the punishment it proceeds, not out of hatred, but judiciously, not in a precipitous manner, but with caution." (Denzinger43 sec. 795). This punishment was being advocated by the Council specifically with regard to the Waldensians.
Glad to be onboard as a supporter of Just and Sinner now and can't wait to see how your ministry develops! God bless. 🙌
Your videos have really sparked my interest and opened my eyes to Lutheranism. But living in Sweden I'm having difficulties coming to terms with the political and highly "progressive" direction of the Lutheran Church of Sweden which takes precedence over doctrine. The Church has basically become an organ of the political left, espousing everything "woke". The Church regularly takes political stances on the far left and lets the Church bells ring as a "warning" when there's a political event they disagree with. The church takes a clear activist stance for open borders and have never denounced persecutions of Christians in the Middle East, but it will invite imams to preach in their churches. The current archbishop's motto is "God is greater".
If you want to be a Lutheran in Sweden there's really no alternative to the Church of Sweden, so I am feeling a bit lost. Given these circumstances, I can really see the appeal of turning to Catholicism if you want a traditional church.
Try to find an orthodox/conservative Lutheran Church; or maybe some decent reformed church, at least
See if there are any Bible believing Christians and fellowship with them. Churches can be planted by starting out as small group Bible studies
Are any of these churches nearby?
ilc-online.org/members/europe/sweden/
Or maybe these?
www.bekannelse.se/
Hey any thoughts on Missionsprovinsen they are part of church of Sweden and hold orthodox position within church.
Hi! A bit late to the party, but I thought I might offer my advice as a Swedish conservative Lutheran. First off, get a feel for your local congregation of the Church of Sweden, teachings and practices can vary between different congregations and you might be lucky enough to live nearby to one of them. Secondly is to look up ELM (Evangelisk Luthersk Mission) and/or EFS (Evangeliska fosterlandsstiftelsen), which are two organizations that are sort of within the church of Sweden (it's complicated) but hold more conservative views. Thirdly there are independent churches and other denominations in Sweden that are Lutheran but hold more to the traditional views of the church than the mainline church of Sweden. (If you want to you could send me a message of where in Sweden you are and I could potentially recommend some local congregations).
Guds frid!
Convert to Roman Catholicism from Southern Baptist here -- after Mass last Sunday our carrillion played "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" and I was quite surprised.
Seems common! Heard a similar story from a baptist whose wife was Roman Catholic.
That's normal. Also Just as I am without one plea at communion since the 1970s.
@@richardsaintjohn8391 now that would be mixing liturgical traditions.
It fits, but I would be so weirded out if 'Just As I Am' was the communion antiphon one day.
A part 2 would be great Dr. Cooper, thank you so much for this!
A few years gone by I had a case of "Roman Fever". I attended a few services at a RC church. I got a few weeks into the class you need to complete in order to convert (the name escapes me at the moment). I was reading a lot of online RC apologists with Mark Shea being one of my favorites. Then one day I was reading this RC blog post about how not everything written/said by past popes was dogma. Then I asked the question, "How can I know which bulls/pronouncements/etc. are considered infallible and which are not?" Suddenly a flame war erupted between different groups of RC's in the comment section. This group had one set of criteria and that group had another.
Not long afterwards JP II died and along came Pope Benedict. My "fever" had come down but not gone away entirely so I kept following RC blogs. It was interesting how some RC's thought that he was just right, others thought that he wasn't conservative enough and that he was maintaining post-Vatican II 'softness', and then the liberal RC seemed to dislike him and his teaching so much that I couldn't understand what kept them in the RC church in the first place.
Whatever binds the RC church together it sure isn't agreement on doctrine.
Yeah as a former catholic who has done some early church father study, i can say its not as simple as Roman Catholics would have you to believe, especially when focusing on isolated quotes. But yeah they really know how to turn a person off with their in fighting about doctrines or over opposing popes. Quite ridiculous really, between liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, and sedevacantist that even fight among each their own respective groups.🙄
As the scripture says in Romans 2:24
"For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written." NKJV
Exactly. The magisterium does not unify when no one can agree on exactly what constitutes the official teaching of that magisterium.
@@DrJordanBCooper
"The magisterium does not unify "
Yeah, sorry that is false. Unity comes by believing Christ's church because you have faith in Christ. Jesus said His Church will bind and loose infallibly; He didn't go on to say everyone would therefore agree with His church but He said "He who hears you (Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth), Hears me". That presupposes some would not hear them and therefore not hear HIm. I can go case by case through thousands of years where there were disagreements and once the Pope affirmed a decision or made a decision the case was settled. Like Jerome....It could be argued he didn't hold to the deuterocanonical books; Yet, when The Pope affirmed those books as canon in Rome then guess what Jerome did? Yep, he fell in line.
Yes, there are various groups attached to the Church, that does not argue against the Church's infallible teachings. Jesus presupposed not everyone would listen. When they don't listen to "The Church" (singular), you cut them off. Regardless, Jesus left a head for the authorized teaching agent, which is the Church. For example:
The Eastern Bishops in Chalcedon declaring:
"Peter has spoken thus through Leo!" (Acts of Chalcedon, Session 2 [A.D. 451])
"You are set as the interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98)
"Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness." (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98)
@@tysonguess I think his point is the RC flip flops constantly on what it means to be unified in doctrine, which is specifically layer out well here.
@@leeenk6932 what tradition are you part of now?
Good video! A side note the book that has that 30,000 Protestant denominations also says there are over 200 Catholic denominations.
Blessings
One catholic (means universal) church (because one and only one faith) and some different branches that have different eucharistic prayers (coptic, byzantine, roman, etc)
Ehem! Rite not denomination, those Catholics who don't communion with the Pope is technically a form of Protestantism
You should do a debate with a Catholic apologist, either with someone from Catholic Answers or Reason and Theology. How to be Christian just made a video in response to this video, that may be worth a debate also.
I did some responses to How to be Christian, including 2 that How to be Christian did on Dr. Cooper. If you're interested.
There is no historic evedence that Peter was the first pope
This is were catholicism breaks down
Catholics live in la la land . Simply go to Catholic answers and there justification for beliefs fall apart
Great show Dr Cooper. I really appreciated this one.
Would you be able to do a related one on the inconsistencies of Eastern Orthodoxy? I'm thinking especially of how they don't allow for doctrinal development, yet they have a radically different view of images/icons than the early Church Fathers.
Good idea.
I love this idea too! And I'm also really excited for part II of the "Prayers to Saints" video that happened a few months ago. No rush though... there is so much stuff to cover and I really appreciate everything you put out! (EDIT: Just got to the end of the video and was happy to see this mentioned)
I particularly wish more apologists would address the inconsistencies when it comes to the errors it shares with Rome (purgatory, merits of and prayers to saints/relics/icons etc., masses for dead, transubstantiation, work-based salvation, nulla salus extra ecclesiam, forbidding the bible in the vernacular and its perspecuity, etc. etc.), and how those teachings were officially taught in the medieval and post-Reformation periods and how these have been downplayed and reinvented recently, particularly in view of converts.
@Emil Suric Read for a start the Confessions of Dositheus and of Mohila, drafted by synods particularly in response to Cyril Lucaris holding Reformed doctrines. All of those things I mentioned are easily seen in the Greek church, and to just address purgatory for example: it is true they insist to hold it differently from Rome, at Florence merely by rejecting the imagery of fire, but look at their practices (the panikhida/mnemonsyn mass, held especially for the rest of souls and often paid for by a stipend, otherwise praying for the dead, keeping All Souls' [or seven of them!], etc.) and doctrinal statements, and you'll find it's there as much as in the Roman church:
"And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance - by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction - of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not."
Confession of Dositheus
"In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful."
Seraphim Rose, one of the seminal figures in American Orthodoxy
"O Lord, may the intercession of the Church for these dead be a ladder to Heaven; O Lord, have mercy on them through the prayers of the Most Holy Mother of God and all the saints."
Akathist for the Repose of Dead
@Emil Suric It's *Могила* , and in Kiev, where he was bishop, that's read as *Mohila* (or Mohyla). Mogila is the Russian reading, which is not wrong, but no more correct.
To say that the faithful go to Hades and are released from their trials by prayers and works of the faithful on Earth *is* purgatory. This is the hair-splitting that muddies the waters and allows you to present your false church as being significantly more evangelical than it actually is.
To say that people go to Hades and need to be freed by prayers and masses is to say:
1) Our sins are not covered by faith, but by works, as
2) Christ did not actually propitiate all of our sins, so that we must
3) avail of our own merits and those of the saints through prayers, masses, alms, and other good works
4) and if our work be insufficient, we are not succored, but cast into Hades so
5) the faithful on Earth ought transfer their merits to us for our deliverance.
Do not be deceived. Most all of the horrors of Rome are found in full display in the "Orthodox" churches.
Congrats on 15k Doc Jordan!
This is exactly my issue with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They claim to be the same traditions and beliefs that existed in the Church fathers, but there is far too much change and alteration throughout the centuries. How can the Catholic magisterium alter its stance on protestant schismatics, or the death penalty? Even if the magisterium works in theory, it doesn't work in practice.
Thank you for this... I enjoy the RC and EO content... I am a baptised Lutheran that recently returned to Christianity as an adult and im constantly torn between Lutheranism, RC and EO... But less and less RC with passing time and all your content helps
Have you ever read Edward Danny's (Papalism) and Abbe Guettee (The Papacy) books? If not, I think you'll never consider Rome again after reading them.
@@magnus8704 ill put them on my list... Its sad... Cause i think catholic devotions (rosary, novens, stations of the cross etc) are very nice but not why someone should convert
Don’t be deceived. The Roman Catholic Church is the true church that can trace its origins to the early church fathers. The early church fathers were not Lutheran, they were Román Catholic.
@@benjamind547 Is there another book on the subject you recommend?
@@benjamind547 Thank you for the recommendations. May I ask you: in your opinion, is the papacy as is claimed by the roman catholics (its supremacy, univesal jurisdiction, infalibility etc) present in the early church? If it is not, do you think this mines the teachings of Rome and it being the "true church"?
I came to this same conclusion about subjectivity vs objectivity with the RCC years ago. It seems to be a psychological defense mechanism that Roman Catholics use because of insecurity about the inability to solve the problem of subjectivism.
Is this a subjective conclusion?
This is a large part of why I am an Anglican Catholic.
Great video, you explained why I could never be Roman Catholic in a respectful but honest way. I eventually became Orthodox, and am very happy with that decision, but if I ever were to become a Protestant again Lutheranism would be the only place I could go (seeing as Anglo-Catholicism is basically dead).
Give Reformed a shot.
Sando I was, I graduated from a Reformed Seminary. I gave the valedictorian address on the day I officially became a catechumen in the Orthodox Church, ironically enough. The best Christians I know are Calvinists, but once I came to fully understand the implications of Reformed theology I couldn’t continue to believe in it. That wasn’t the only thing, I really just came to despise the culture of evangelicalism more than anything, but Calvinism certainly didn’t help. I don’t think I’d ever go back to any form of Protestantism, unless maybe it was a deal breaker for some girl I fell in love with in the future.
@@Nnamwerd I strongly recommend that you find yourself an orthodox wife. You can fall in love with more than one person out there.
Who cares about trash
I could never be orthodox. They are divided and very confused right now.
Give it another 2000 years and we can revisit this video since the last 2 millennia still leaves some doubt.
Really appreciate you sir. I’m raised evangelical and catholic by marriage (well right before marriage because of marriage) and have really been searching for truth the last year or so.
Christ be with you
If you are searching for Truth Come to the Catholic Church.
It is Christ's Church the pillar and foundation of Truth.
God bless you
What is truth? This video is "discussed" here :
ruclips.net/video/J5kjY9knDOc/видео.html
Peace
@@MrKev1664
"If you are searching for Truth Come to the Catholic Church.
It is Christ's Church the pillar and foundation of Truth."
In his book, Vicars of Christ, Peter De Rosa, himself a Roman Catholic, points out that his church became, "...the most persecuting faith the world has ever seen, ordering in Christ's name, all those who disagreed with her dogmas to be tortured and burned, commanding the throne to impose catholicism on all its subjects under threat of torture and death. Pope Urban II, who commissioned the first crusade decreed that all heretics were to be tortured and killed. That became a dogma of Roman Catholicism.” As only one example, Pope Martin the V, commanded the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites, named after the martyred Jan Hus. The pope commanded, “…turn your forces against Bohemia, burn, massacre for nothing could be more agreeable to God than to exterminate the Hussites.”
That’s not Christianity! The torture of millions in inquisitions and Rome’s merciless massacre of Christians for centuries cannot be equated with early Christianity. It was the pope who created the inquisitions, who decreed the torture and murder of all whom they termed heretics. De Rosa reminds us, “…Pope Innocent the III murdered far more Christians in one afternoon, 12,000, than any Roman emperor did in his entire reign.” Historian Will Durant writes, “Compared with the persecution of heresy n Europe by the popes, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries after Christ was mild and humane,” yet the catholic church while rightly honoring the martyrs under pagan emperors never admits that she herself has slaughtered far more and done it in the name of Christ. Again, we must say that’s not Christianity. The early church, like Christ Himself, never persecuted anyone but was itself cruelly persecuted.
Torture and murder even of genuine heretics are an abomination to Christ, yet another catholic historian writes, “…of 80 popes in a line from the 13th century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine. Such practices have never been abrogated or confessed as wrong, much less denounced and renounced by the catholic church and how could they be with 80 allegedly infallible popes affirming them, which brings us to this second point: the despotic powers of the popes.
The code of canon law, canon 333, paragraph three declares, “…there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of a Roman pontiff.” Vatican II says the same and demands absolute obedience. Such dictatorial control over the church is the antithesis of early Christianity. Neither, Peter, Paul nor any other apostle ever claimed or exercised such tyranny. Christ called mankind to come to Him willingly. Peter writes that Christ never coerced or threatened anyone nor did the apostles but the Roman catholic church did so for centuries and has never admitted it was wrong or apologized for it and still holds millions in fear that, without submission to her rules, they’re damned.
@@rickdavis2235
Christ be with you
See that how I know you are not Catholic.
You give fables not Truth (2 Tim 4:3-4)
Here's the truth about the incision for you
ruclips.net/video/qhlAqklH0do/видео.html
Have a look
God bless you
@@MrKev1664
The catholic version of Jesus isn't capable of saving anyone without the help of Mary, the pope, the priests, the church, the religion or the sacraments.
The true Jesus of Scripture is completely sufficient for my salvation. The inspired word of God is completely sufficient for my salvation.
Jesus plus anything else is a cult. Maybe you've never heard the actual gospel because catholics rarely read their bibles. They are just ornaments in their homes.
What a valuable resource! Thank you very much.
This was worth the Pope Michael reference alone.
hELLO Jordan, Have you really read the papal Bull "Exsurge Domine" and if you did why you misquoted it. This proves that you are a liar--- you owe me an apology--its really a shame to know that you can steep down yourself so low ! Shame on you!..I thank to "how to be Christian" who exposed your lies...Plz repent!
@@nickdon I read Exsurge Domine.
You're wrong. He quoted it right.
It reads:
"Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:"
Basically, it is saying that the points that follow this statement are errors that they condemn.
And an error that they condemn is:
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
What it says, is that saying "heretics being burned is against the Will of the Spirit" is an error. Meaning they support the burning of heretics.
Another error they condemn is saying that:
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
So everything that is listed in Exsurge Domine, are teachings that the Pope opposed.
You're the one who should apologize.
All hail the Supreme Pontiff; His Holy Excellence Pope Michael I. Making Kansas proud.
‘The Yellow Cross’ is a good read about the Cathars. Thanks for this.
Nicely articulated. You put into words what I've been wrestling with. The magisterial authority argument has certainly become weaker during the Pope Francis era. He has helped me see the flaws in the argument with the help of his "declarations" and ambiguous statements. I always understood there were bad popes, changing of teachings, etc.., but when you experience it in your own time, magisterial authority is difficult to defend. I feel like it amounts to a new emperor changing laws and there is no arguing against it. In the end, it falls on the individual to decide what's authoritative to you. For me, I have decided to go back to scripture only, where I began my Christian walk. You and Reverend Wolfmueller do a great job. Maybe one day I'll wind up in The Lutheran Church, who knows.
exactly, it requires decades of revision after the fact to smooth it out
The point on persistent and inescapable subjective interpretation is hard to overstate; as is the presence and implication of groups within Roman Catholicism demonstrating non-uniformity.
Yeah you have to ignore Catholic apologists, dude. You are right about the epistemology and kicking-the-can-down-the-road. But the truth of Catholic dogma (which is merely "not technically wrong"), doesn't in anyway depend on these fallacious arguments of pop apologists based on their own faulty epistemology.
Secondly, even if it were possible to solve the problem entirely, it doesn't follow that the RCC solves it...The Eastern orthodox claims to be the one true church also. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the chur church because it is the Body of Christ and not the RCC exclusive...this is obvious as it's fair to assume not all "Roman Catholic" are saved...just as not all Protestants saved...the ones saved are the believers in Christ
Adam, Actually ,the saved are those who do as Jesus teaches, to repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and perservere to the end. You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 nothing in my comment precluded that those in the church do indeed bear fruit...your trying to set up a false dichotomy...I simply was alluding to the fact that the church (those that are saved which is synonymous with his body) are not limited to the RCC exclusive...which is what Rome historically taught ("no salvation outside of the "church" of Rome, and it necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the roman pontiff"...I will pray for you!
@@adambalden1113 Again, not just belief in Christ saves, but obedience to Jesus saves! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 your trying to create a false dichotomy...nothing in my comments precluded bearing fruit or obedience...you seem to be a person that likes to argue for the sake of arguing...you will be in my prayers...I won't respond any further as any further dialogue will be fruitless endeavor.
@@adambalden1113 Not arguing at all, just refuting your comment, belief in Jesus alone saves! How can a Catholic Christian who believes in Jesus not he saved as your theory goes? All Roman
Carholic Christians believe in Jesus? Yet, you say some most likely won't be saved! Ironic! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Fascinating presentation. I also enjoy Dr Cooper's series on the History of Western Thought. One point about John Hus - he attended the Council of Constance after receiving an assurance of safe conduct for the the Holy Roman emperor Sigismund. However, as soon as he arrived he was arrested, tried and condemned. Public outrage at his execution led to the Hussite Wars. In 1420 Pope Martin V proclaimed a crusade against the Hussites, and stated that all heretics should be killed. in 1901 Leo XIII in the preface to Volume 2 of the Book of Canon Law said: "The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its ends when rebels against it disturb the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics who cannot be restrained by any other penalty from continuing to disturb ecclesiastical order." However, it appears from the examples of Hus and Wycliffe, that execution is extremely ineffective in stopping the spread of heterodoxy.
Even after delving so deep into the Fathers, I have ever only ever felt compelled to either Eastern Orthodox, or Classical Protestantism (like conservative anglicanism or lutheranism).
Why?
From just a pastoral perspective, Rome has failed HORRIBLY. I have never met a properly catechised Roman Catholic. Priests baptizing the kids of parents who DO NOT even believe God exists sometimes. (I live in Puerto Rico). Mass african paganism mixed into christian religion with no backlash. Tons of communist/socialist priests. It really feels at this point that what is holding Roman Catholocism together is just the momentum of its history. The church is basically willing itself into perpetuity, no matter the cost.
If Roman Catholic doctrine is the fullness of the faith, then why does virtually no roman catholic even know about it? They just hold to a nominal catholicism.
maybe Puerto Rico sucks?
@@thelonelysponge5029 maybe the Pope is Antichrist?
Hilaire Belloc said of the Catholic Church: “An institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight.”
If the Catholic Church continues in spite of the very true criticisms you have presented here, why would it last 2000 years?
Dr. Cooper, what do you think about the thesis that penance decreases the intensity of purification? Of course there is the difficulty of coordinating penance in time and purification outside of time, but that is a general difficulty for many theological topics; for example the efficacy of prayers of petition in time and the immutability of divine providence. I appreciate your work, and I look forward to your response.
It still fundamentally supposes an infused, not imputed righteousness. We do not have to "make up" the difference between being terrible sinners in this life and spotless saints in the next because that is what Christ has done for us.
Are there any confessional Lutheran churches that you would recommend in the Buffalo New York area?
Rome has many conflicting factions as you noted -especially now.
One must acquire the authentic phronema of the Church... this is true in Judaism and Catholicism. Pope Francis is a pastoral pope in that his focus has been on the subjective person. Pope Benedict is focus was on doctrine and the focus was not on the subjective person. The Catholic Church teaches doctrine officially but acts pastorally towards the person. The death penalty issue is problematic as Francis's opinion does not make dogma. This is why it has not changed anyone's mind.
Hey Dr. Cooper, do you know the LDS church is advertising on your video channel?
Thank you for the lecture. Could you point out a good source on the history of the Papacy?
And then suddenly, "Fiducia Supplicans" happened.
A modern day Unam Sanctam (in reverse of course).
I can't help but think that someone---or someone's church---is going to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, meaning: doctrines to be believed, in which case this human (church) authority is ultimately over Scripture, despite objections to the contrary.
A Magisterium, being made of men, is not free from error and internal passions and biases. What the Magisterium does have is a claim of required submission despite the capacity to err. In other words, they not only have the capacity to be wrong like anyone else, but they also claim to have a "you are with us or you are anathema" kind of authority attached to that capability of error. They can be wrong and then cite church doctrine of supremacy to coerce people in to following their error(s).
The scriptures, being written by men, is not free from error. Yet we both believe it is inspired by God, and that the authors have His authority and were protected from committing error. If we can believe this about the writers of the scriptures, why can we not believe that about any other group on men?
This is so good
I guess I'm not sold on a faith and church that is fixed and doesn't wrestle with how to be a person of faith in the world is desirable. Part of what draws me to Rome is the fact of this struggle and the intellectual depth which comes out of those councils, encyclicals etc.
So you struggle with the fixed nature of faith and the church? Yet you are also drawn to the church with the most fixed theology, services and leadership structure?
How does that make any sense?
Brother.... we need to subtitle your videos in Portuguese!.. Great explanation, congrats
Jordan b Cooper has become the Lutheran that I enjoy listening to the most.
Inconsistent Infallible Magisterium
Christ be with you
No he is misquoting the document.
God bless you
Good treatment of the topic. You've called out the limits of your own critique (the diversity of views of what constitutes an infallible teaching). This is one area I chalk up to the fallen nature of this world. We have the same divisions in Lutheranism (e.g., ELCA vs. AALC/LCMS).
I wish most of your arguments were just putting fire to straw men, but I've heard the weak arguments advanced too frequently in by people who ought to know better.
Dr. Cooper, surely you can differentiate between the nature of interpreting the Church’s magisterium and interpreting scripture itself. Interpretation is limited when it comes to the magisterium. But because the Bible is more complex and figurative, interpretation varies so much more. There is WAY more in common between the most liberal Jesuits and the most traditionalist Catholics than there is between unitarians and trinitarians, for example. Not to mention you have Jehova’s Witnesses, and other drastically different denominations.
JW's are a cult, and aren't Christian by any definition.
7:40 romans argument about "understanding Scriptures on ones own interpretation". Now that a bad argument because we agree on a lot of things for eg- Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God & Christ & God, virgin birth, literal death and resurrection of Jesus, believing that Heaven and hell is real place, believing that Bible is the Word of God. Following Biblical mortality, knowing that Lord Jesus is sitting at the Right Hand of God, all authorities is being given to LORD Jesus, and that we are not under law but under Grace. We agree on these things because these are found in Bible. I mean a difficult doctrine of Trinity is agreed word to word. I think it's not about interpretating Scriptures rather unfollowing doctrines which are not found in Bible. "Why do we agree on these doctrines and and not on other doctrines of roman? Simply because these doctrines are found in Scriptures"- my rebuttal to romans argument
Part of the reason that the Roman Catholic church needs the magisterial authority is because they tend to use a non-literal hermeneutic and use allegorical interpretation far more frequently. This the leads to a broader range of possible interpretations of any given scripture passage. Of course there are some allegorical passages (e.g. God hiding us under His wings) but most who hold to sola scriptura prefer literal meaning as default unless context demands a non-literal interpretation. Taking literal as the default vastly narrows the range of possible meanings.
Hello, I am an ex Roman Catholic traditionalist and the Lutheran Church seems the best option for me, but I struggle finding a Lutheran Church that does not endorse sodomy... I live in Montreal, Canada, would you know if there is a good Church, with good theology in my area, which I could go to ? Thanks!
Find a congregation in the LCC. www.lutheranchurchcanada.ca/
Any congregation of the Lutheran Church-Canada.
Can infalibility of Magisterium lead to absolutism?
If apostolic succession is not found within RC, then where is it found?
Please, dear brother Dr. Jordan Cooper, do us also a video about inconsistencies of Mariology and Intercession of saints. It would be very profitable for me and for my fellow brothers, especially now that my former pastor converted to catholicism. 😥
Unfortunately, this fad arrived to brazilian latitudes. 😭 Never expected it would happen here, Jesus Christ!
Working on one on the intercession of the saints.
🙏
@@DrJordanBCooper i hope its not full of false information like what you did on this video.
@@josueinhan8436 you might wanna listen to true catholic channels and find out for yourself why your pastor became catholic.
@@terns21 saying it's false doesn't make it so
I’m excited for someone to see what Christianity looks like in 2000 years from now
The main thing I remember about this present pope is watching him speak before the United Nations and talk a lot of useless crap.
Right after watching Domald Trump speak before the U.N. and talk about God more than I think I have ever heard any pope do anywhere.
What's odd about David Barton?
Re: Councils and the Crusades. Many Catholic scholars would argue not everything an ecumenical does is necessarily infallible, but only those sections of the Council that formally define matters of doctrine, declare anathemas, etc. So if you want to address Catholicism, you need to address that view.
It is an ever shifting target to find what teachings are and are not actually infallible. Already the idea that the pope is infallible when he isn't wrong (which is tautologically true, and I share in this infallibility as much as Francis) implies a complete collapse of Rome's hierarchy where the Pope is ostensibly the supreme head of the magisterium, and so the ultimate interpreter of Scripture and tradition.
@@jamesharrison6845 Vatican 1 is a whole of more than just "the Pope is infallible when not wrong"!
In what way does Papal supremacy imply a complete collapse? Obviously, in Catholic ecclesiology, the Pope does have ultimate authority to interpret the deposit of faith, yes. But I don't see how that collapses anything.
@@taylorbarrett384 What I'm saying is that you reduce the papal authority to, "well, he's right when he isn't wrong, and when he says a magical formula and isn't wrong, then he's really not wrong", as many modern Romanists do, then the whole idea of the magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, is done away with. The Roman church really expected that unconditional obedience is owed to your superior in the hierarchy of clergy, and that appeals stop at the top, where the pope cannot be judged by anyone.
@@jamesharrison6845 I don't know why you are wording it that way. Romanists don't say the Pope isn't wrong when he isn't wrong. They say he isn't wrong when he speaks ex cathedra. The doctrine is in fact theoretically falsifiable. The way you phrase it, it isn't.
Re: death penalty. Neither Trent's catechism nor Francis' catechism are infallible. Nevertheless, Francis said the death penalty can be avoided now precisely because "the wicked can be removed from the land" by means of imprisonment rather than death (something prior cultures weren't so easily/securely able to do).
No reason to think (1) Moses commanded the death penalty in leiu of prisonment only based on preventative measures or (2) imprisonment was not possible back then. You would have to accept both points made by the Pope, both of which are completely irrational.
@@IAmisMaster I'd be willing to grant that we have no evidence Moses allowed the death penalty because imprisonment was impossible, and I'd be willing to grant that some sort of imprisonment was usually possible for much of history, but it's simply not the case that Francis' argument is "irrational" - that is a very imprecise and poor choice of wording. What you could say is that the material of his syllogistic reasoning is questionable. But questionable means it could or could not be true.
Don't forget the Malus Malificarum (sp). 😏
Dr. Cooper, maybe you can explain Psalm 106:30-31, Catholic apologists have used this to say the work was credited as righteousness. Doesn't this make Paul out to be selective? Some Catholics will simply say Paul was pointing out justification by faith but that works can also justify because the context is that the Jews thought that faith didn't justify. So Paul is just saying that faith does but not that works don't
Except that Paul repeatedly says in so many words that works don't/
I have heard this before, but it ignores the doctrine of union with Christ. Whether or not logizomai (reckon, credit, etc) means to account or to reckon according to what something already is is somewhat irrelevant, because the believer is undoubtedly united to Christ, in both a legal and mystical manner. Thus when we are united to Christ by faith, we are both credited as righteous and evaluated to be righteous by virtue of our union with Christ.
Go debate the guys from Reason and Theology. Stop ducking them.
To me, it seems that the question of the clarity of Scripture, or rather, the clarity of language in general (both written and spoken) is at the root of the problem here, that is, when it comes to the question of authority and interpretation.
"In terms of confessional Protestantism, [...] we really don't have [such division] in the sense that Rome would often claim that we do."
Do you have a source for "Rome" (as in, the Magisterial authority of the Catholic Church) claiming that the division is as extensive as 33,000 denominations? You can't simply reduce the Catholic Church to some Catholics who have argued with you online or even Catholic theologians.
"We have this odd situation where we had Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, who was a much more conservative pope, and then we have Pope Francis."
What is the substantive difference between the two? At best, they each have a slightly different way of presenting the same ideas and emphasize different things. If you compiled a list of every teaching that Catholics have to agree on, both would agree with every proposition. There's even room for different schools of theology in the Church, but surprisingly you picked two popes who are in exactly the same school, instead of contrasting Pope Francis to Pope Pius X or some earlier pope.
In response to the general argument that the Magisterium just postpones the problem of interpretation, I have a few things I'd like to raise. Firstly, the teachings found in ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals are typically far clearer in meaning than Scripture, so while there may be some interpretation still to do, it certainly reduces the level of interpretation required. Secondly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office) exists to clarify the meaning of doctrinal declarations if any doubt remains.
Your objection about the existence of both the SSPX and "liberal Jesuits" in the Church is not sound. The SSPX doesn't just have a different interpretation of Magisterial documents, it outright rejects some including the decrees of an ecumenical council. Because of this, SSPX as an organization is outside the Church, although in the cause of reconciliation the Church has made some gestures towards it. Liberal Jesuits (though not one group with defined positions, I'm generalizing here) also do not merely have a different interpretation, they reject the teachings of various popes and councils on homosexuality, the ordination of women, etc.
The teaching on capital punishment has not really changed. It is expressed differently in response to different situations. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. In the past, the death penalty was permitted to protect the common good in certain circumstances, though mercy was preferred. Today, those circumstances do not exist, so the death penalty is not admissible.
The same applies to the Catholic view of Protestants. At Trent, Protestants were former Catholics who had apostatized. That is a very different situation from today's Protestants who are not typically apostate Catholics, but raised Protestant and therefore not guilty of schism or formal heresy. It did take a while for this view to develop, but our view of Protestants is not an irreformable, divinely revealed doctrine- it is something that certainly can develop.
Ad extirpanda is a legal document, not a doctrinal one. It doesn't teach that torture is moral (even if that is what the pope's opinion was), it legally permits torture in certain circumstances (which is the wrong legal ruling). But the Church doesn't teach that the pope is infallible when making canonical and legal rulings, it teaches that when he declares definitively on a subject of faith and morals he is protected from error.
Exsurge Domine doesn't say that it is the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned, it condemned the proposal to the contrary as either "heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds". That is not at all the same as the conclusion you have drawn from it.
"You can't have an ecumenical council when you only have half the Church there."
And Constantinople I goes out the window. (No Western bishops present.) The rest of the first 7 had only scarce representation of the West, but I guess they would pass the test. What about later councils such as Lyon II and Florence? Both of those had Eastern bishops and those bishops (at least at the council) agreed to the decrees. This criteria alone fails to include the councils you accept, and fails to exclude the councils you reject.
Corruption in the papacy doesn't prove anything about the truth of the claims you are trying to rebut- not sure why you brought it up. The papacy has a human character because the popes are human.
The Council of Constance didn't condemn Jan Hus to the stake, it condemned him to be handed over to the civil authorities. Even if it had, that is again a canonical ruling and not a definitively declared teaching on faith and morals. The Council could certainly err here.
I don't think you've done your research thoroughly enough.
This was a great response.
@@IG88AAA 3 years later I thoroughly disagree with my earlier self.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 On all points or any in particular?
@@IG88AAA almost all of it. I was trying to maintain the position of ecclesial infallibility but now I can see that it is indefensible. The bishops of the Catholic church really did teach certain things regarding the death penalty/torture/Protestantism etc- and these teachings really have changed. "Private" interpretation/judgement really is inescapable even with a living teaching authority. The typical Catholic way of reckoning the ecumenical councils is entirely ahistorical- and these councils are not infallible either.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 “I was trying to maintain the position of ecclesial infallibility.” I think this misses the mark. What is being defended is *ecclesial authority*. The listed examples are not examples of doctrinal change, but prudential judgments. The Church maintains its authority even in non infallible judgments.
Private interpretation makes a mockery of ecclesial authority, and most importantly, is entirely subjective and relative. Is this the sort of position God would leave His people? Everyone is to use their subjective private judgment on the matters of doctrine? We are left with no certainty, but our personal opinions. On top of that we have endless schisms.
No, we need an ecclesial authority, which indeed is infallible at times, to have certainty in doctrine. God has provided such an authority, and we can see it in the New Testament. A threefold authority: the scriptures, the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and an authoritative church. Would you agree we see this threefold authority recorded in the New Testament?
I really struggle with accepting the death penalty.
Oh my gosh I’ve heard about Pope Michael on a Wendigoon video!
A.
Would pay money for you to debate Steve Ray. I'd pay $100 for a one hour debate.
I dread to think of how the Romish Church's Magisterium will change for the worse when Pope Francis the Talking Mule dies and becomes a post-mortem contributor to Rome's "Magisterium".
In referring to that mule, I envisage of course, the one in those 1940s and 1950s films starring Donald O'Connor, the great Hollywood dancer and cheery actor, with a mule that talks, which is Francis, hence "Francis the Talking Mule". Some younger cinema fans may have forgotten O'Connor and his talkative, bossy mule.
i'm friends with pope michael on FB!
Man this video was all over the place with misinformation. I dont even know where to begin. This is the result of protestantism and why it was an absolute disaster. It was a deformation not a reformation. Pax Tube just put out a good video on this topic i would go watch that.
You are so wrong it's not even funny lol
Thanks!
It doesn’t matter unless he speaks ex cathedra
3:45 you kidding right. No informed theology? I hope so
He is right (as a Baptist). We do need more liturgy, more responsible music, and spiritual presence again.
What of the inconsistencies of Reformed theology? The various Reformers all anathematized not just Rome, but each other such that they each have to be the only true Faith, i.e. (for example) "Martin Luther is wrong and all his followers are wrong, and only I (Calvin) and my followers truly understand the Faith, and are as a result, the only ones going to Heaven."
The Reformers all hated the Popes, and in their hostility to the Popes for inventing new theological concepts (supposedly) or new non-Biblical practices (supposedly) they effectively became their own Popes. How does this implement or enact Jesus' final prayer before His Ascension that "they would be united, just as You and I are united"?
Ultimately, there are no final answers in Protestantism because there is no authority in Protestantism. There are only unceasing circular arguments until Jesus returns. The only essential thing Protestants (those Protestants that have some historic awareness, and many or maybe most don't) are able to agree on is that Rome is wrong.
@Steve Jail What of the instances in which there is a right answer and a wrong answer? For instance, Jesus teaches in John 6:53 that "Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves."
The Church teaches this to mean that Jesus was commanding us to eat His flesh, the new manna, brought forth in the Mass. Protestants teach....Im not entirely sure what they teach....but I imagine the take it to mean that we should read the Bible.
These interpretations are so distinct as to require a correct and incorrect understanding.
Regarding your observation Steve, you're getting at the "we'll have to agree to disagree" idea. Although theologians in the early Church did disagree and even fight with one another over these things, the ones who are deemed Church Fathers were the ones who taught the Orthodox position, I.e. the Church didn't just say "well, it's NBD, tomato-tomahtoe, whatever." They deemed Athanasius (for instance) to be correct and noted it with his declaration of Sainthood, and Arius to be wrong and noted it with his opprobrium (his manner of death should have been enough to manifest that however).
On issues of very hard doctrinal or dogmatic matters, there is a correct answer, and when it was ascertained: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est"; Rome has spoken, the case is closed. This is what Protestantism lacks: there is no authority, and there for no final answers, only unending disputes, argumentation, and disorder unworthy of the House of God.
Peace of Christ to you Steve.
Thank you for your hard work in making videos that seek to bring people closer to God and save them from lies of the devil for truly of the Catholic Church is wrong it is the greatest evil. I encourage you to read the document again as it seems like in seeking to explain them you may have reworded them in a way that changed their meaning. I look forward to your take on the document itself.
How to be Christian just totally debunked this RUclipsr's claims.
You beat me to it!!
Imagine thinking a dorky catholic idolator debunking a Christian? Ahaha
Sando well he did, and to be clear he debunked a Protestant not a Christian for everyone knows Catholics are the original Christians.
I thought Eastern Orthodox were the original Christians?
Uly Cer the Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church in about 1000 AD. However we only differ on our recognition of the Pope. Catholics believe in the Popes supremacy but the Orthodox only recognize his primacy.
How to be Christian debunked the Catholic papal bull argument. What else is debunkable with a simple reading?
As for John the Baptist, remember that he was a Jew, Jesus taught a fundamentally higher moral standard, it was right for Jews to be soldiers, even serving an unbelieving state, but it was also right for them to observe the sacrificial law, to tithe, to keep Sabbath days and years and Jubilees, just as Christians do not need to observe Jewish sacrificial or dietary law, unlike John, so we do not have the dispensation to serve in a military. Note that neither Jesus nor any apostle took up arms to fight, even when they could have, and that Jesus ordered the apostles to bring swords to Gesthemene in order to then order them to not use them. "Return sword to its place, for he who takes up the sword will die by the sword."
As for the Crusades, maybe some anti Muslim crusades meet the just war standards of Augustine, though they weren't followed when prosecuting the war, but the Jutland Crusade? The Ruthenian Crusades? The Albigesnian Crusade? No way, even Augustine would object to those.
Are papal bulls officially infallible?
No
Keys were given to Peter.
Pope has the keys.
The problem of the subjective interpreter is resolved by noting the operation of the Holy Spirit within the Church hierarchy instituted by Christ through the apostles, contrary to the non-authoritative truth claims of the spirit working in the life of Protestant believers. The subjective interpreter cannot be resolved within Protestantism which is always based upon the private interpretation of the text.
The claim that the scriptures are perspicuous is a claim made from the false principle of the private interpretation of the text. One can also make a contrary claim that the scriptures are not perspicuous, or may or may not be perspicuous, based upon the same principle of the private interpretation of the text.
To claim the divisions within Protestantism is about the same as that which occurred at the reformation only defers the claim of division to another a-historical reformation movement that began with division and remains divided to this day. The division is caused by the principle of the private interpretation of the text and cannot be resolved by that false principle.
Nobody has to synthesis the decrees of councils and the text into a consistent system. One only need believe the creeds promoted by the Church to be a believer.
Different interpretations within the Catholic Church may or may not be legitimate wherever the Church has or has not permitted such and has or has not exercised her authority. The various positions within the Catholic Church is not reducible to Jordan's simplistic reduction of subjective interpretation of Church teaching plus a text which replaces the Protestant subjective reading of a text. The Protestant system has o real authority within its system traceable back to Christ, whereas the Catholic Church's authority from Christ and the apostles has the final authority to judge all matters of faith and morals.
The problem of subjective interpretation is resolved through legitimate authority outside a fixed text only found in the Catholic Church. There is also legitimate room for disagreement between Catholics because of the limitations o each believer and because the Church has not defined the meaning of every text.
yeah i cant understand how a person can have a right understanding of scripture without the magesterium, one scriptures can have dozens of interpretation and theres no authority, you just like mormons need to go by your instintcs to guess what is right.
Council of Florence:
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Council of Vatican II:
"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."
So, the Council of Florence promulgates: "that those not living within the Catholic Church [...] cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire" while the Council of Vatican II promulgates: "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do now know the Gospel of Christ or His Church".
So, with the logic of this video and those of Sedevacantists, the Magisterium has seemingly contradicted itself with these two statements. But, with true wisdom and knowledge, one can easily see the harmony that exists between both infallible statements.
If the Magisterium ever contradicted itself, it would have ceased to exist many centuries ago. The Magisterium has been attacked and protested since the Pharisees, and guess what, it is still here and will be until Christ returns.
What is the "true wisdom" that reconciles not only Florence's _nulla salus_ , but _Unam sanctum_ 's particular, explicit formulation that it is "altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff" to the idea that Pagans can be saved apart from Christ by being really good (a blatant denial of the Gospel), or that every other Christian who repudiates the pope's usurped authority, the erstwhile "schismatics and heretics", are "separated brethen" who are in fact halfway-Catholics and might be saved regardless, or even the Muslims, who we have on good authority from _Nostra aetate_ that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind"? The only thing your theologians can do is blindly grope for nuance and exceptions that were explicitly ruled out, as is plain to see to anyone whose faith is not predicated on the coherency of Rome's decrees. The magisterium does and has contradicted itself, and it hasn't ever existed, let alone for centuries. "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt 5:19).
@@jamesharrison6845
Personal culpability. To know with certainty that the Roman Pontiff has been delegated a singular and supreme authority on Earth, and then to freely and deliberately join an Eastern Orthodox Church or Protestant ecclesial communion, in contrast with a "Pagan" from a remote tribe in Africa who has never heard of the Catholic Church, let alone the Roman Pontiff, but cooperating with actual graces that flow from Christ's Church, thereby manifesting true fidelity to his/her God-given conscience and striving to obey the law that is written naturally on his/her heart; that "Pagan" may be saved only due to God's mercy and graces given. Also, saying "Pagans can be saved apart from Christ" are your own personal words and interpretation; no one can be saved without Christ. If a "Pagan" is saved, it is only because of the actual grace that came from Christ that he or she cooperated with and he/she had 100% non-culpable ignorance of the Truth. Trust me, there will be Pagans who will rise up on Judgement Day and condemn many Christians; the former being invincibly ignorant while the latter having no excuse with the knowledge and even sanctifying grace they once possessed.
"The magisterium does and has contradicted itself, and it hasn't ever existed, let alone for centuries"
The 'magisterium' contradicts itself, but "it hasn't ever existed"? With all due respect and charity, I do not expect you to realize the harmony of seemingly contradictory mysteries if you use that kind of 'logic'.
@@The_Catholic_Christian Which "actual graces flowing from Christ's Church" might a random Pagan African be "co-operating" with? He has never been preached the Word, never received any sacrament, never had any inkling of faith in Christ or His sacrifice, nor any such awareness of the necessity thereof, and prays instead to profane gods, and yet you're saying he's justified because, what, he's nice to his neighbors? Sorry, but that's a complete denial of the Gospel. *Nobody* is saved by the Law and their obedience to it.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:19-20) As many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (Rom 2:12). "For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:22-26). Whatever is not from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).
Christ is "the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18) Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11)
I could go on, but if this doesn't make you reconsider so blasphemous a position, nothing will.
I say the "magisterium" does not exist inasmuch as magisterial authority over Scripture does not exist. It is not particularly difficult to harmonize this with the other fact that Rome's magisterium is a complete farce.
@@jamesharrison6845 Why are you attempting to bind God to His Sacraments or spoken Word? Where do you get that from? Saint Dismas (Good thief) was given actual graces to prompt him to repent with true contrition, admonish the other thief, and to confess Christ's divinity without any Sacrament or having God's Word preached to him, at least supposedly.
And, no, the Pagan would not be justified simply for being nice to his neighbor, as that would be trying to be justified by works of the law! If that were the case, we might as all well sin against the virtue of faith and try to merit our own justification based upon solely what we do. You must realize that there are individuals in this world who will not have the Gospel preached to them formally, or be baptized, etc. Through no fault of their own, they would be invincibly ignorant as opposed to having vincible/culpable ignorance. This is not a compromise to the fidelity of the fullness of the Gospel, but rather shows the Gospel's true effects even to those who are not to be held personally accountable for what they do not know by no fault of their own. You quote John 14:6; know that anyone who will be saved, it will be by the strict merits of Jesus Christ - if an invincibly ignorant Pagan cooperates with the actual graces that prompt him/her to obey the law written on his/her heart, that person may be saved, but only because of the actual graces that flow from the strict merits of Jesus Christ.
With all due respect again, you quoting St. Paul from a Protestant view will not help your case. All Saint Paul is stating is that no one will be justified based on the law apart from the grace given by God like many first-century Jews were trying to do, hence "works of the law" in contrast with good works done in Jesus Christ based on faith. If you want to get circumcised, you will not be justified solely on that "work of the law". If an unbeliever wants to feed the hungry, considering that unbeliever is fully culpable of being an unbeliever, he/she will not be justified based on that "work of the law" apart from faith in Christ. Works performed apart from faith in Christ are "works of the law"; works performed in faith in Christ are NOT "works of the law" but rather good works done in Christ that increases our justification (cf. James 2; Romans 2). Martin Luther et. al. failed to distinguish between these different kinds of works and we all know the results that ensued.
"I say the "magisterium" does not exist inasmuch as magisterial authority over Scripture does not exist"
Good, because the Magisterium would agree with you:
"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it." - Dei Verbum, 10 para 2.
@Eric McCabe "Why are you attempting to bind God to His Sacraments or spoken Word?"
Uh, because they are the means by which God has promised to operate? What basis do we have for sacramentology other than how God promises to deliver the graces of salvation? But we would certainly agree that sacraments are downstream from faith, and Dismas' contrition, confession, and subsequent reception of divine absolution to eternal life is a great type of such (and a great foil to the error of assigning satisfaction to repentance).
What any of this has to do with the hypothetical saved Pagan is not clear to me. In fact I can make neither heads not tails of what you're trying to say. The Pagan cannot be justified by being good to his neighbor because that would be being justified by the works of the Law, amen! All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), we are all are transgressors of the Law, and we will never be justified on its account.
But then you then completely contradict yourself in supposing that he can be saved by cooperating with the common grace to do the Law written on his heart. On what account? What saving grace is there apart from faith in Jesus Christ? Scripture lays out very clearly that the Gentiles too must be justified by faith: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:8-11) As I quoted earlier, all that is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23).
Your misreading of Paul is a non sequitur. We are not discussing whether works need to enter faith, we are discussing whether faith needs to enter works! I might well add that the damning result of _your_ interpretation (incidentally the minority position of Jerome contra Augustine and many other Fathers, and clearly implausible read carefully) is that the divinely given Mosaic Law was overthrown only so that manmade laws can stand in its place, and the Gospel of grace is forgotten, and we can see the poisoned fruits today as in the medieval church. Nevertheless, as is abundantly clear even in your exposition, the Pagan cannot possibly be justified unless there is another Gospel (of which there is not, and anyone preaching one is accursed, Gal 1:6-9).
It's good to hear that the magisterium of the Roman Church apparently subordinates itself to the written Word! Perhaps its stewards might look to their Master and blush at how shamefully unfaithful their doctrines are. Until such a time as every excrescence is purged, that paragraph alone renders the magisterium untenable.
Sir, you are mistaken re who convenes councils - the emperor does.
Which emperor?
Emperor John XXIII, for example??
What emperor convened the FIRST council in ACTS?
So you're no longer a congregational pastor? That's quite disappointing if I'm being honest. There are so many flocks without shepherds, the church is in a lot of pain.
It’s kind of lame that Jordan frames all Baptist’s as unserious, unthinking evangelicals.
Sorry.
@@DrJordanBCooper It is lame. Baptists are some of the most devoted Christians out there.
@@DrJordanBCooper I enjoy when you pick on presbyterianism though, it keeps me on my toes.
@@sandromnator they're huge contributors to the culture of anti intellectual, unthinking American Protestantism which tars Christendom and made it easy for the atheistic culture to sweep the west on the back of extremely poor arguments. and evangelicals, well, I don't know what to do with them. They just propogate themselves in churches making a theological mess everywhere because they take over the churches but don't have a clear, coherent theology so just change things into a mush
@@internetenjoyer1044 You frankly have your history all wrong. The atheistic culture, rooted in I would argue the cancer of religious indifference that grew out of sentiments from the Wars of Religion and the tolerance of sects, swept in through the most mainstream denominations throughout Europe. That the Baptists dominate the American Christian landscape owes precisely to the fideistic reaction that churches had in response to atheistic liberals killing Christianity with a thousand slices, and that they could be unified and effectively evangelize when e.g. the Episcopalians were coming apart at the seams. It's true that unfortunately these neo-evangelical denominations are trapped by a general culture of disdain for formal theology from coalescing on a coherent confession or effectively combating heresy, but these are symptoms of the abysmal state of Christendom rather than a cause of them.
This could not be truer with the recent news of Pope Francis' support of same-sex civil unions and the RCC's views on homosexuality.
Also, it is possible to distinguish the immorality from Popes that are sinners from the office itself. For you to attempt to condemn the office of the Papacy because of a few sinful Popes would be analogous to suggest that the office of the Apostles should be condemned because of Judas and his immorality. Did Judas' infidelity implicate the other eleven Apostles or the Apostolic office? Why should a few immoral Popes implicate the Pontifical office?
I am no theologian but I studied catholic theology for some years. Here's what I think the catholic answers to your objections would be:
- Yes, subjectivity is never totally avoidable, as you say. However, there is a great advantage to having to interpret the Magisterium documents rather than the Bible directly. This advantage is that the Magisterium documents (particularly the council canons and dogmatic definitions) are often much more clear and concise than the Bible. To give an example: many people would probably not come to the conclusion that God is Trinity just by reading the Bible. Indeed, even though the Bible can be interpreted as teaching the doctrine of Trinity, it can also be interpreted as saying something else. This is why Arianism and other trinitarian heresies were so common in the time of the early Church . And it is in great part thanks to the Nicene Creed and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, much more clear and concise than what we find in the Bible, that the trinitarian faith managed to become more widespread than all those heresies.
- Yes, there is a contradiction between what pope Francis says and what was said during centuries. However, here's the catch: there is no contradiction between two infallible statements. Indeed, the catechism is not and never was considered an infallible document. And pope Francis never made an infallible declaration about the death penalty. This alone suffices to defeat the objection, because, if there was past infallible statements approving of the death penalty, Catholic can just say that they believe in those past statements and not the new non-infallible statement. This would be in accordance with what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the possibility for Catholics to disagree with the pope on this question. Now, let's examine your other examples: The bull by Innocent IV is clearly not infallible. There is no formula typical or indicative of an infallible statement (like "We define" or other such things). It is only a pastoral and practical statement.The bull by Leo X seems indeed to be infallible. However, the thing is that there is a difference between: 1. condemning a proposition that heretics being burned is always against the will of the Holy Spirit, and 2. endorsing a proposition that heretics being burned is always or generally the will of the Holy Spirit. You can maintain, as today Catholics, that burning heretics is generally wrong, while maintaining that there is certainly at least one improbable possible situation where burning heretics could be justified. This would suffice to be in agreement with the condemnation of pope Leo. Notice also that the condemnation is about burning heretics. Nothing is said in the proposition about burning heretics _because_ they are heretics. So you may say that there is a possible situation where burning heretics may be justified, albeit not (or not only) because they are heretics. Finally, notice that the proposition says nothing about heretics being burned specifically by the state, or by humans in general. So perhaps (although I have my doubts on this one) Catholics may say that burning heretics is justifiable but only in Hell. Of course pope Leo X thought that burning heretics was justifiable (as general rule) for the state, but there is a difference between what a pope thinks and what the contradictory of the condemned proposition logically implies.
As far as the council of Florence is concerned, it is of Catholic teaching that not all what a council says is infallible (I think Eastern Orthodoxy also agrees with that). A council is infallible only when it declares something to be believed for always, regarding faith or morals. Infallibility doesn't apply to particular decisions regarding specific actions at a specific time, like the burning of a particular heretic like Hus, or the calling of a particular crusade.
- Generally, it is true that there is a contradiction between some things in Vatican II, and some things that were believed before Vatican II. But all those things boil down to one central issue: the relation between Church and State. But even though there is a contradiction there, when we look for infallible statements that would crystallize (so to speak) the contradiction, we don't find them. So there is a contradiction between what was generally believed before and after, but not to the point where we can find two contradictory infallible statements. It is, if we may say, a contradiction in spirit, but not in words. I can recommend you one particular document that presents this whole issue quite clearly, by the theologian Martin Rhonheimer:www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Benedict%20XVI%27s%20"Hermeneutic%20of%20Reform"%20and%20Religious%20Freedom%20(Rhonheimer).pdf
Excellent explanation of what is missing from the video and even from the otherwise compelling arguments of Ed Feser. Infallible teachings in the extraordinary magisterium or the ordinary magisterium (and secondary objects of infallibility) have to be determined by reference to specific language or phrasings - unfortunately those phrasings have not been consistent over the centuries. So it is more of an art than a science than one would wish (especially on teachings that intersect with "social matters" which encompass a number of moral concerns. There was a reason Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma was a seperate tome from Manuals of Moral Theology). Thus, it is not clear that capital punishment as a legitimate moral teaching was "infallibly taught" and therefore it is not clear that it was "irreformable". Of course, it seems fairly clear that the current teaching promulgated by Francis and the CDF is neither infallible nor irreformable. Thus, theoretically it could change again. It could be confirmed as infallible and irreformable or it could be corrected as a misunderstanding and the traditional understanding could be confirmed as infallible (and irreformable). This is all very messy but a certain amount of messiness can't be avoided and taking the long view (looking backwards and forwards) mitigates the concern (at least to me). In the meantime, one gives the lesser assent of religious submission of will and intellect (as opposed to theological faith or definitive assent). As for Vatican II, I would agree and heartily recommend the recent book by Aidan Nichols "Conciliar Octet". As for a general guide to these questions, Jimmy Akin's "Teaching with Authority" is a good layman's guide (it also is important to read the underlying documents several times and some articles by Cardinal Dulles and Prof Feser) - although it has some messiness and a couple minor boo-boos - but again some of the messiness is the Church's - i.e.the fact that some prudential matters require religious submission of will and intellect while others do not - without the Church giving any clear criteria for making that distinction.
This video really annoyed me because everything Dr Cooper pointed to as evidence that dogma has changed was not in fact dogma.
Too many words. Please slow down. You have so much to say and so many various thoughts that it does sometimes get to be something of a jumble. Two parts perhaps???
Just rewatch!
@Empyreal That was not my point.
@@WilliamFAlmeida That was not my point.
@Empyreal I am aware that youtube has speed control, I am aware that one may replay the entire video. I meant exactly what I said. Dr. Cooper talks too fast and tries to cover too much ground in the time allowed. I have no difficulty following him or his explanations. I would prefer him to slow down. My opinion. Pax
It is also my opinion that the majority of people do not process information at a rapid rate.
Certainly, there is no necessity for a Magisterium. Catholic apologists who claim there is some epistemological necessity, are in error. But nowhere does Catholic dogma make the claim that there is some sort of epistemological necessity for the Magisterium. The only reason to believe the Magisterium has authority is because Jesus said whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in Heaven. And it's hard to square that with a Protestant ecclesiology.
@@cheeseymanish Sola Scriptura doesn't agree or disagree with anything. It is simply the idea that the Church isn't infallible, only Scripture is. While disagreements among those who do not subscribe to the infallibility of the Church over issues like the Eucharist could be seen as evidence Jesus wouldn't have left us without a infallible Church, I don't think that's a convincing argument on its own. First, all Protestants celebrate the Eucharist and most believe Christ is present there in at least some way. So the disagreements are overblown. Second, while Catholics may agree on terms like "transubstantiation", even Catholics still have certain disagreements about various things related to the Eucharist (like, can divorced and remarried people receive it? Etc). Third, we already have historical precedent to prove that God will, in at least some circumstances, leave His people with only His word and not an infallible interpreter of it (Cf, during the Old Testament when Israel did not have an infallibile Magisterium).
@@cheeseymanish Yes, I agree, we have more promises now. My argument was not that Christ didn't promise that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in Heaven. I do think *that* is a good argument for the authority of the Church. I was addressing the fallacious arguments against Sola Scriptura based on epistemology, division, etc. Not because I am defending Sola Scriptura per se (I am basically Catholic, myself), but because I don't like bad arguments no matter what they serve to bolster.
@Empyreal I'm not sure Zwingli would say that Christ does not work through the memorial, in His Spirit, in some way. Nevetheless, the vast majority of non-denominational, Baptist, and Bapticostals I know (and I've been one of them), do think the Eucharist is a means of blessing through which they grower closer to Christ (ie, Christ is present there in some way), and many of them, even many Baptists, are beginning to embrace a receptionist or consubstantial type of view, too.
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
A hot mess indeed!
30:25 what?!?! That is an insane idea 😂
Read Romans 13:1-7 or 1 Peter 2:13-14. God has given authority to the state to bear the sword and to punish evil and praise good because the state is a deacon of God and ought to be in subjection to Him and His law.
Martin Luther wasn't wrong when he wrote "On the Jews and their Lies".
Agreed If they had power and numbers to kill follower of Jesus of Nazareth they would have already done.
@@abhinavalpheus3924 Correct, not sure why modern day Lutherans are so against what Luther states. They do not deserve to be named after him.
glad to see someone else notices these "coincidences"
You only have one problem, thats a fact we see a church is built in the Bible, which Jesus says his church will never fail, so by denying a 2000 yr old holy apostolic catholic church, ur calling Jesus a liar. So it becomes a huge problem.
The issue here is that Protestants do accept the papacy; each individual Protestant believes that he or she is the Pope and the Church and their own priest all rolled into one individual and they demand that everyone else conform to their understanding. The very first words out of this man's mouth are his own personal interpretation of the Bible followed by his demand that you conform to what he thinks. There's basically no reason to watch more than five minutes of this video because he already starts with a Protestant premise at the beginning, so obviously he will arrive at a Protestant conclusion because his conclusion is his premise. That's called circular reasoning. His thoughts have traveled no further than where they began.
I have yet to see a single Protestant who will ever conform to what I teach them about the Bible even though they say that I am led by the Holy Spirit. Oops, wait, I made a mistake. They claim they are led by the Holy Spirit, but deny that same claim for everyone else. As long as you believe that you are led by the Holy Spirit, you can always deny what other people say and claim that you are a higher authority. Thus, you will always be right in your own mind.
Protestants do not reject the authority of the Church. They have simply taken the authority established by Christ and replaced it with their own idols, which of course always just happens to be themselves.
Amen to that!
The Bible is clear that the church should be unified and that division and heresy are bad. It seems rather logical that to achieve this goal you need a central authority figure with the power to discipline and teach the entire church. The Bible is clear that Peter is the successor of Jesus, Jesus is the successor of John the Baptist, and various OT prophets and kings succeed each other in obvious ways the Bible has a distinct pattern of successors and how successors are chosen. The Papacy is not perfect, never was, but you would need to argue that your version is superior, a version that lacks a central authority figure, apostolic succession of legitimacy, and the manner in which the pope is selected via the college of cardinals. And you would have to argue against the reality that Lutheranism does not change with the times. The Lutheran Church of today is unrecognizable to what Martin Luther taught and intended for it. It's not enough to be a critic, you have to prove a superior alternative is possible that is also compatible with scripture.
All Bishops are Peter.
@@Mygoalwogel By what line of reasoning do you come up with that? Bishops with apostolic succession? Anyone who calls himself a bishop?
@@steveempire4625 I didn't come up with that line of reasoning. St. Cyprian is the first I'm aware of to mention it, but he doesn't treat it like an original idea.
St. Cyprian's opinion on the matter doesn't work today or in his day when there was chaos in the church with each bishop deciding his own way of doing things and heresy being rampant. It's simply an illogical position and a self-serving one as he did not want Rome telling him what to do with his own local church.
Well Saint @@steveempire4625, if you think you're more logical, workable, and less self-serving than Saint Cyprian, then pray for us miserable sinners, O thou Father of Fathers.
"Why Rome's Argument for Magisterial Authority Fails" from someone who doesn't understand the Magisterium and doesn't care enough to bother with research.
@YellowBlackbird12 How?
Catholics claim that they are united by magnesium authoriy.this is not true different pope's said different doctrines Catholics disagreeing on Facebook that's not a consistent authority Rome claims this magestirium authority these claims do not stand up to scrutiny
He exposes the error of catholicism
He has done his research.and understands the magnesium the claims just don't add up
@@athonyhiggins3117 Catholics disagreeing on Facebook is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't doubt that he's done some research, the problem is that he has not done enough, he fails to distinguish between the different levels of magisterial authority--which is necessary if you're going to claim that the argument for magisterial authority fails.
This misrepresents Catholic views. There is no debate on when the Pope is infallible, Catholics never claim that Magisterial Authority eradicates the need for individual interpretation, and NOTHING Pope Francis has said is dogmatic. Dr. Cooper claims that Dogma has changed, and fails to provide evidence to back that up. A Papal Bull is not Dogmatic, the Catechism of Trent is not inherently Dogmatic, and Pope Francis saying something is NOT Dogmatic.
What about his denial of Hell?
@@amo6396he never denied the existence of hell
Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was!
Plus, no Protestant Pastor actually practices Scripture ALONE, as Jesus Christ teaches, "this is My Body ", Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
No He built it on the confession of Peter. Just as Augustine says. BTW JAMES ruled on circumcision. Peter was "IN THE WRONG" as Paul says and stood up to him.
You must have a limited grasp on protestantism. Every protestant pastor I have heard for the past 10 years has taught "this is my body".
@hexahexametermeter no, as Ambrose teaches, "Peter that Great rock". As Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Abd again, it was Peter the rock and sole key, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions, which no longer apply! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@hexahexametermeter Peter was rebuked by Paul for not wanting to offend the circumcised! The same Paul who later had Timothy circumcised, as to not offend the circumcised party as well. Paul acted in a hypocritical manner as well unfortunately! Being rebuked doesn't invalidate authority though, as King David was rebuked as well but for his behavior, far worse than Peter who didn't want Jesus Christ to be murdered and who didn't want to offend the circumcised party! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@hexahexametermeter Excellent, such wonderful progress, that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches! Limited grasp? Nah,,as James White teaches that the Lord's Supper is only a symbol and is not his body. Mike Winger the same. Your ignorance of Protestant is quite evident sadly! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
And this guy called himself a doctor? How to be Christian just totally debunked this RUclipsr's claims.