Convincing Protestants that Catholic Doctrine is True w/ Suan Sonna
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- This clip was taken from a recent livestream with Suan Sonna. Watch the full interview here: • From Baptist Leftist t...
In this clip, Suan lays out a parallel about the papacy that is just about impossible to accept-even for PROTESTANTS!!
===
📚 My new book: www.amazon.com...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Ethos Logos Investments: www.elinvestme...
Exodus90: exodus90.com/matt
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
I unsubscribed from Capturing Christianity due to Cameron's interviews with Suan and his overall intellectual inconsistencies. I feel so fortunate to be Catholic and have apologists that defend the faith like Suan, Matt Frad, Trent horn etc
Dont forget Jim Akin, and the Dimond brothers.
What happened in Cameron interviews.
I did the same thing for the exact reason.
If your going to share the same platform with Suan it’s because You have solid logical objections. I realized how humble and charitable Suan is. 🕯👍🏼🕯
Same, same
@@tiffmakk07 I read on FB, a marraige is breaking up because of the partner is converting. The hate against catholicsim is very true. But it's hard to answer in their hate are they actually hating 'truth' and logos.
the temple was destroyed by the babylonians and the romans on the same day!? *MIND BLOWN*
it was probably a few days apart, but they treat it as the same day. At least as far as I'm aware.
🤔wow i did not kno this
How does that make sense? So if you're American & the government does something bad & you live in America, shame on you? I don't think that's how it works. Yes, the Roman empire was pagan & Catholics affirm that. However by saying Catholics are pagan just because you don't understand Jewish worship that's raising a false claim against your brethren. The first disciples including Christ was Jewish so the question everyone should raise Is how do you go from a Jewish worship to what we should still have today? When Jewish people celebrated the Passover they truthfully & spiritually went back to the moment where the Israelites were delivered from Egypt. Though they did not cross the Red Sea during worship, their remembrance was being delivered in the present moment every time they celebrated it. That's how Catholics view worship. It's not a resacrifise. If it was then Catholics would truthfully would be idolaters. Idolaters are those who put other things before God including us Catholics when we sometimes get carried with things in life that shouldn't matter. However, God is so merciful & He knows our hearts that we despise sin since it does not please Him. Protestants also talk about this & I admire them but what they get wrong is accusing Catholics of false worship. The Lord always forgives if you repent with a contrite heart though 😊❤ May the Lord help all His people. We make distinctions between Catholic & Protestant for God we are all His people.
No, they were on fire the same day, but not destroyed the same day.
I’m really beginning to like Suan.
Better late then never. J.k.
@@arkofthecovenant6235 My first encounter with Suan about a year ago I thought he was a little rough, and overselling some of his arguments. I think even here he’s still displaying a bit of that tendency, but he’s settled down some.
I was 13 years of age in 1985, I and many souls witnessed the apparitions of Jesus Christ in the grotto of Mount Mellary, let me warn those who have not seen as this vile and lowly being has seen, fear Jesus, no man nor beast nor devil can stand before him without being imortally afraid of the Holy lamb of God, I cannot express the impression left upon me that day, at the age of 13 I felt the weight and blemish of sin beneath His Holy Gaze, as I watched him above the people my mind tested my eyes, I thought to call his name in my mind, before my words began His name His head slowly turned to where I was brought by concerned adults because I was shaking and tears flowed unceasing from my eyes, not because I was weaping, I wasn't, my eyes just kept tearing, when he looked directly at me I was frozen in that moment andd have remained suspended in time in a way, I have struggled all my life with trying to understand and articulate into words what it was I felt, exsposed, and shame but mostly fear, there was anger in him, also felt by others present, at my young age I was a guilty sinner and when the Lord looked at me he saw me and all the vile and evil things I would come to do, I felt heavy and burdened by the weight of His look I could not stare anymore my head dropped, I looked once more and Jesus was still looking at me, I looked as much I I could but my sin was unable to any longer, sin is so serious and possessing thing that even after this mercy from God I would become the most lowly beast I know, unworthy of His attention but so great is his love that He disires no soul to perish, Fear Him people and please pray for me a filty sinner
For anyone interested in this RUclips has videos of the apparitions at Mount Mellary in 1985
@Roger Mills What do you mean?
@Roger Mills I wasn´t actually refering to this specific case. Your response seemed rather dismissive. You are an atheist?
@Roger Mills Why do you consider EVERY believer a liar?
@Roger Mills You did not answer my question.
@Roger Mills I strongly believe Christianity to be true based on my own experience and numerous other pieces of evidence. Yes, I do consider Islam and Hinduism to be false. Now it is my turn. Why do you consider Christianity to be false?
Dialogue shouldn't be taken as "convincing " somebody .... is about sharing why we believe what we believe and vice versa .
RIP Sips with Aquinas
Lol I forgot that existed
@@takmaps Good to see you here my old friend.
@@computationaltheist7267 😁 always a pleasure to see you too friend.
Whatever happened to Sips With Aquinas?
The same thing that happened to the Matt Fradd Show.
Real men gulp?
It was killed by the algorithm
This guy is amazing. Wow!
I think suan would be a terrific priest
WOW
Thank You Suan
Isn't Revelation 3 a better parallel with Isaiah 22 than Matthew 16?
I explore the connection between Isaiah 22 and Christ right here. Its much more powerful and they are totally leaving this out of the equation.
ruclips.net/video/2Zs0_cPmmxs/видео.html
Whew good stuff
All this proves is that Peter was primus inter pares among the apostles, which we (the Reformed) grant. It does not prove, however, that the bishop of Rome is his successor.
hey guys,
just learned the True meaning of the Rainbow Coalition in our Catholic faith. what an enlightenment. I stumbled upon it during my spiritual readings.
God Bless
'Suan song', and yet this guys just beginning!
Suan misrepresents Isa 22 saying this passage as well as Matt 16 refer to 'keys' plural, they don't. There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Matt 16, nothing.
Isa 22:22
22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. NASB
Matt 16:19
19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NASB
Okay, now that we see both passages wheres the parallel?
A. One has key, singular the other has keys, plural. Hows that a parallel?
B. One says he opens no one will shut, he shuts no one will open. The other says, whatever you bind shall be bound, whatever you loose shall be loosed...
I'm at a loss to see where the parallel is?
So where is the parallel?
Rev 3:7
7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: NASB
A. Isa 22 says key of David. Rev 3 says key of David.
B. Isa 22 says opens and no one will shut. Rev 3 says opens and no one will shut.
C. Isa 22 says he shuts no one will open. Rev 3 says who shuts and no one opens.
So youre premise that Peter is some prime minister has zero foundation. What the kingdom of David had doesn't not mean the kingdom of God has the same thing. And it doesn't.
Eph 2 talks about the foundation of the church;
Eph 2:20
20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, NASB ...
foundation of the apostles (plural). Peter is not singled out here but one of many with Jesus being the cornerstone.
And the key thing here is that Eph 2 is talking about the building of the church. The catholic claim is that Peter alone was given this. Yet here he is grouped with all apostles, not singled out.
Secondly, mary has no typology for the ark of the covenant. Its not even hinted at. Jesus is the ark. He is our propitiation; Rom 3:25. The greek word hilistarion means mercy seat which is the lid of the ark, kept in the holy of holies where the high priest went in once a year to sprinkle blood on it for the sins of Israel on the day of atonement. This is Jesus not mary.
typologies dont necessarily represent one parallel at a time. The ark can be both mary and jesus.
ruclips.net/video/3p2UfjbTJzs/видео.html
Also I dont think youre quite understanding what typology and or parallel means. What you're wanting is the two passages to be identical. But if you look at the definitions of typology and parallel you'll see that both say they are comparing similar items. And the definition of similar is resembling without being identical. So to that effect yes these passages definitely are parallel to each other and a good typology.
@@kadeshswanson3991 Wait, so they're not parallels? But without these examples being a direct parallel, the arguments seem to lose their solidity.
Lowers them to something that _might_ support the Catholic claim instead of being something that definitively does, which is how they've presented it, both in the title of the video and the confidence in which he spoke.
@@zachnytrom6070 they are. I'm just pointing out definitions to the gentleman I was responding to. He was looking for identical which is not what parallel or typology means.
Wait how old is this guy?
21 !
Was Peter the first Pope with a record of consecutive Pope's till this day..
Of course Pope's are only human and so are sinners..
Saint Peter founded other churches besides in Rome. Only thing in the early Church was that because of Saints Peter an Paul, and because at that time the were Orthodox and against heresy of Arius... There was once long ago a great respect for old Rome.
@Dillon Leaf Hi, Dillon.
If by linear descent you mean bloodline, then yes. If by office and charism you mean spiritual heritage, then yes. If on the other hand by office and charism you mean something indefinite and intangible, then no; while Peter ruled other Churches for a time, the charism of the papacy did not remain with the episcopal offices of those Churches, whereas the charism of the papacy does continue in the episcopal office of the Church of his martyrdom.
Peter did not found Roman church as there were already Christians there before Paul set foot there...as for Peter its taken on tradition that he died in Rome but no real evidence for that and he certainly was not acting as a bishop in Rome over the Roman Christians.
Eamon Duffy "All the essential claims of the modern mpapacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus’ account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not one, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year ad 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the ‘trophies’ of the Apostles, their tombs or cenotaphs, Peter’s on the Vatical Hill, and Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome - his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecutionin Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision by Christ (the ‘Quo Vadis’ legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus at the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church - Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve". (Saints and Sinners, pg 2.)
@@Adam-ue2ig we have a tomb under St Peter's Basilica with the seal of St Peter.
Major problems with that. Jesus is the one identified throughout Isaiah including this particular parallel. He states that in Revelation 3:7. HE is the only one who can open and shut. Likewise, Jesus is the Rock on which He builds His Church (not a physical church). Jesus is also the only purity, and the only one who can defeat the powers of darkness. Jesus taught from the Hebrew scriptures, like Isaiah, and stated that it was about Him.
There is no office of Peter. Authority Jesus gives to Peter is given to all the apostles, and all those who are in Christ have the keys of heaven. It is the confession of Christ that is the keys. Peter was just the first to know and acknowledge. Binding and loosing is only declaring what is in heaven, not man's decision.
I don't think using Pharisees is a good example, remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees. As far as being excommunicated, a person can't very well be excommunicated as a Jew/Hebrew. You can't excommunicate someone from who they are. Also, they didn't do communion, so excommunicate?
Other verses you used were about individual disputes of members of a church, if not resolved to take it to the church leadership. It is exercising authority and discipline within a church body.
All ark typography is Jesus, not Mary. That is what is obvious throughout the NT, very little about Mary. The closest would be to say that her womb was a temporary ark while bearing the true Ark, and even that was only as a representative of Israel.
True Gospel is Jesus; not Mary and Peter, that would be gospel of man.
Catholic doctrine is true for them if they ignore scripture. I just love how Catholics can make parallels with anything. It's hilarious.
here in the UK we are celebrating Guy Fawkes' Day, bonfire night, when we let off fireworks around a bonfire to remember that the gunpowder plot of the Catholics led by Catesby and Fawkes failed to blow up the Houses of Parliament with many barrels of gunpowder in the basement. So all your intellectual pretensions add up to nothing to me. And let us not forget Giordano Bruno, or bishops Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer who were also burnt alive at the stake for being Anglican.
Cameron Bertuzzi has been posting very offensive memes about the Eucharist. I don’t think Catholics should support him in any way, shape or form. He owes us an apology.
If the parallel between Peter and Eliakim is present in the text, why doesn't Matthew himself make the connection? Throughout the gospel account, Matthew makes plenty of explicit connections of Jesus to Old Testament passages. However, in chapter 16 he makes no connection that this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 22. If the role of the papacy is so important to the church, why doesn't Matthew connect the dots?
Fr suan sonna
Romans 📙 14 vs 1....🧐🙄🤔🤨
Second person plural is used;
“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 18:18-19 NASB2020
Basic rules of grammar suggests this applied to the disciples, who were later referred to as apostles.
“At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?””
Matthew 18:1 NASB2020
Suan is not paying attention to the basic rules of grammar here.
Also, the temple was not destroyed the exact same day, they were on fire the same day.
Response below, since my comment keeps getting deleted.
Peter was not the only who was able to confess Jesus is the Christ, it is anyone who is born of God (1 John 5:1). 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. See the word "Whosoever", so it is not just Peter. The reason Jesus was talking to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19, is because Peter spoke for the disciples in Matthew 16:16. It was a more intimate moment when Peter answered for the Disciples. Also, Jesus already knew beforehand Judas was not going to be a part of this. Jesus also told the Disciples in Matthew 16:20, not to tell anyone He was the Christ, so it was not limited to just Peter. Matthew 16:19 connects to Matthew 18:18, which has to do with the binding and loosing. The keys of the kingdom, binding and loosing, again wasn't limited to just Peter. The rest of the apostles also had the same authority as they were also binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18. The phrase “binding and loosing” only applied to the house of Israel. They were to go through all the cities of Israel before Christs coming in judgment, Matthew 10:23. His coming in judgment was from AD66 to AD73. Peter preached the gospel one time to the Gentiles, then withdrew (Galatians 2:7-12, Acts 11:1-2). He was never an apostle to the Gentiles. Acts 10 was simply the transition of the gospel going from Jews to Gentiles. Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, never used that phrase "binding and loosing", but used the phrase "grafted in". You can't bind and loosen what is not already there. The binding and loosing, and going through the cities of Israel, did not allow any of the apostles to have the time to be overseers/bishops. This was fabricated of Peter, including the idea of him being in Rome. Peter was not even a Roman citizen, and did not speak their languages. Paul, was a Roman citizen and spoke their languages (Greek and Latin).
Your point overlooks Matthew 16:19, which specifically addresses Peter's unique authority: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." While Matthew 18:18-19 does refer to the collective authority of the disciples, Matthew 16:19 is explicitly directed at Peter alone. Therefore, the grammar in Matthew 18 does not negate Peter's distinct role given in Matthew 16.
The Other Paul and I cover a bunch of Suan's arguments in this area in a relatively recent video about Suan's typology doesn't work. We don't go over the prime minister stuff, but we definitely cover Suan's use of typology and comments about binding & loosing. If anyone is interested.
You guys are all for making typological stretches, but refuse to give any credence to legitimate ones you disagree with. Away you vipers, seeking to snatch souls away from Truth!
It’s actually quite sad to see that you are incapable of creating content yourself that you have to rely so heavily on Catholic content creators to prop you up!
Wow really you went all the way there to Vipers right away?...try a little charity. Would you grant that there could be a chance however so slight that your wrong? If one wanted polemics they could retort back to you I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, Matt 12:36
@@Adam-ue2ig The uncharitable ask for charity! There is no charity that I will give you but the truth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I was Protestant, I know all the exegesis and philosophy (from Lutheran to Southern Baptist). I also know that feelings matter little in comparison to historical fact. The theology you peddle is modernist and worldly. It is not what Christians believed for the first two-hundred years after Christ’s resurrection.
@@juice2307 as for your claim that the uncharitable ask for charity. I suspect at some time in most persons life they have been uncharitable at some time to varying degrees or another and yet ay some time or another they have expected some kind of decency or charity from others. In any case, I am sure there are many that don't make a practice of being uncharitable and do in fact ask for charity.
So I'm a Protestant and I have no problem with this. Clearly Peter was given authority when he was told he could bind and loose. How does show that apostolic succession was part of this authority and that there has been an unbroken chain of it down to Francis?
As a protestant when you ask "how does this show" I assume you'd want more from the biblical tradition.
Well we can infer (from when after Judas died and the apostles instituted Matthias in his place by casting lots in Acts 1) that the same thing would have happened when any of the apostles died. This succession is best explained by Peter himself in Acts 1.
This type of apostolic succession would have been much more emphasised when the authoritative Peter would have passed.
If we establish that apostolic succession is biblical we look to history.
The second pope St Linus took over from about 67-76AD followed by St Cletus 76-88AD ... this history we know from apostolic tradition.
We know from historical documents like Liberian Catalogue, which is then incorporated into things like Liber Pontificalis which lists bishops of Rome up to the life of Stephen V late 9th century.
This is on top of several letters from the Bishops of Rome going back to even St Clement's Epistle to Corinth. He was pope late first century.
Many letters when you read them you see the authoritative position held by the Roman Bishop/pope
@@takmaps I'm looking for both a historical and a spiritual argument:
Historical argument - A solid historical argument to PROVE that Peter passed this authority to the next who passed it to the next etc all the way to Francis.
Spiritual argument - Even if in theory a group of people connected to Peter laid hands on each other all the way down to Francis, where is the spiritual evidence that this is the 'true church' and that the Holy Spirit was involved in this process? What about all the other groups of Christians in other parts of the world who never recognized this authority and had their own authority structures and different doctrines? For me the fact that this group that claims to be ordained by Christ also claims that you are anathema if you don't believe that Mary is an eternal virgin (something the apostles clearly didn't believe based on the new testament writings) actually disgusts me. It's a false claim to authority and that can be shown in some of the doctrines.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Catholics are all unsaved or anything like that, but they are misguided in that they are putting their trust in a sect of the church rather than in Christ himself.
@@cmartin999 Historically you can't deny Papal authority being passed down from Peter unless you want to reject actual history all you need do is research the topic yourself. All Apostolic churches including the Orthodox agree there was apostolic succession. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox even agree that the Bishop of Rome had primacy over other bishops. Its only the Protestants who pretend like this history did not exist.
Spiritual argument:
We know for a fact Catholicism has to be the true Church by virtue of the New Testament bible being canonized by Catholic Bishops. This is something protestantism can not escape. For 1500 years of Christian history the protestant Church did not exist. Unless Jesus was taking a break how could he let the so called misguided church canonise the bible and fall into error (like Protestants believe)?
Regarding Mary, I will correct you a little its called Perpetual virginity as opposed to eternal virginity it means throughout her life she was a virgin even after the miraculous virgin birth.
I'm curious it disgusts you that the Mother of Jesus (Our God) did not have s3x? Anyway you cannot prove from the bible that she did sleep with anyone but because of sadly a false protestant tradition that started 500 years ago youd have to assume wrongly that she wasn't a Perpetual virgin.
The Perpetual virginity of Mary is recorded in sacred tradition and history as proven by being believed by all Apostolic churches for over a millennium until the protestant reformation. Just one of the sources is St Jerome vs the heretic Helvidius dated 382 AD
@@takmaps
Point 1 - if it's so undeniable then prove the succession with historical quotes. Show me where the early church fathers (second, third century, not 8th century or whatever) believed in a single governing authority in Rome who had EXCLUSIVE and UNQUESTIONABLE power over the whole church.
Point 2 - The historical church is not the modern Roman Catholic Church. It is laughable to claim that our brothers in Christ who sorted out together what books were inspired by the Holy Spirit were Roman Catholics. If you told them about the emaculate conception of Mary they would have no clue what you were talking about. If you were to tell them that there is an individual in Rome who has authority over all of the church they would be confused. Claiming that the church before the reformation was Roman Catholic is an extremely inaccurate way to view history.
Mary - It disgusts me that people claim you are anathema if you don't believe she was a perpetual virgin. If the doctrine had a biblical basis I would believe it. The doctrine is not disgusting but people saying it is required to believe to be saved is disgusting.
Jesus had brothers - Matt 12:46
Jesus had brothers and sisters - Matt 13:55
John 2:12 - Jesus travels with mother and brothers
John 7:3 - Jesus' brothers tell him to go see his disciples
Acts 1:14 - Mary and Jesus' brothers are praying together
1 Cor 9:5 - apostles have the right to have wives just like the brothers of the Lord do
Gal 1:19 - James is called Jesus' brother
and finally, in Luke 3:23 Jesus is said to be the son of Joseph 'so it was thought'. Clearly Luke makes a distinction here since Jesus is not the physical son of Joseph. In Luke 8:19 when his mother and brothers come to see him, Luke adds no 'so it was thought'. If Luke believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, why wouldn't he make it clear that these aren't his actual brothers like he did when addressing Joseph as his father? No one, without the preconceived notion that Mary never had sex in her life, would read the new testament and come up with a doctrine like that. It is a doctrine born from the pagan idea that sex is a corrupting act and that having other children would corrupt Mary. On the contrary, having sex as a normal part of being married to Joseph fullfills the old testament mandate to be fruitful and multiply as well as the new testament concept of not denying your spouse, except for a season.
@Sage you are a joke and I am not in conversation with you. Go find another person to argue with
Where do we see Peter interpreting Scripture? Do the other apostles interpret Scripture?
Well yeah, when they would quote the Old Testament. But for the most part they didn’t quite scripture because they were too busy writing it.
@Dillon Leaf isn’t the pope the only only one who can speak infallibly in your church?
@@Justas399 yes and I think the last one to do it was Pope St John Paul II in 1994
@justas399 Acts 8:27-31. A deacon appointed by the twelve apostles interprets scripture for the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip is not some stranger off the street that opens the book and tries to interpret it for himself.
@@Justas399 Hi, Justas.
Nice to encounter you again. As with so many things, distinctions are meaningful here. As Jonny and Christian have indicated, depending on what you mean, the answer to your question of whether the Pope is the only one who can speak infallibly in the Church could be either yes or no. Anyone can speak infallibly if what he is doing is communicating to his audience what has already been identified as part of Sacred Tradition. Those who have been commissioned in the Church to this task bring that added level of authority to such representation. Ecumenical Councils which are duly convoked, deliberated and confirmed are infallible in those matters, even if not previously expressed, which are identified as elements of the revelation once delivered to the saints. Finally, uniquely the Pope is similarly infallible if in his role of universal pastor, acting to confirm his brethren in the faith, he identifies matters as elements of the revelation once delivered to the saints matters, even if not previously expressed.
To recap. Any and all of the foregoing can express themselves on any matter whatever, and their contribution has as much merit, good, bad, or indifferent, as is demonstrable from its content, and may be treated accordingly. Infallibility relates to the faith once delivered to the saints, may be represented by any and all simply in virtue of its being such a faithful representation, or may be expressed as an exercise of the charism inhering in the Church as a whole, whether as represented by Her bishops defining some element of such revelation, or as represented by Her [Vicar | Chief Steward | Prime Minister] similarly defining some element of such revelation.
COWBOY LOGIC 101:
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matthew 16:15-18
Hate to state the obvious guys, but the "this rock" upon which Christ would build his Church was Peter's confession of faith.
"Flesh and blood did not reveal 'this' to you, but my Father who is in heaven." The "this" and the "this rock" are one and the same thing - Peter's statement of faith. Jesus is not complicated nor is his Word.
Jesus makes a BIG deal out of Peter's confession of faith. Of course! The church is EXACTLY that. Persons who would thereafter make that exact same statement in their hearts.
This has been dealt with ad nauseam by Catholic Answers
@@hurley566 yup. Obviously I am not a member of the Roman Church.
Whatever authority "The Church" has..does not give it the right to wily nily impose a meaning on any text. Are you saying The Church has the right to use free association as a means of interacting with Scripture?
Dunno - are you saying only _sola scriptura_ Christians have that right? 🤭
@@TheThreatenedSwan
If you listen to the gentleman he says Mat. 16 gives authority to Church hierarchy to interpret scripture. That is what I'm responding to..not some supposed Apostolic tradition.
So, what does it mean for the church to authoritatively interpret Scripture?
Can they tell us a passage means such n such wily nily, or are they bound to render the meaning which the author intended?
If its the latter..well..we can read a text for ourselves unlike most of the ancient world which was largely illiterate
@G m You say "impose" a meaning. So does that mean the church is NOT imposing a meaning? But more importantly..The church does not have the authority to read passages of Scripture in any other way than that which the author intended.
It seems to me that while this authority to close any doors on possible alternative readings makes for unity..we cannot allow anyone to tell us something we know to be false..that is..an incorrect reading of Scripture.
If we allow the church to tell us that Scripture means only that which she says it means.. we've surrendered all critical thinking entirely
@G m Can we both agree that Scripture means... something..?
Now, how do we get that something?
By reading it of course. Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses don't let their members read religious material outside of what The Watchtower gives them?
Why? Because they say everything else is of the devil..only the Watchtower can you trust.
Ever since I encountered those good people who came to my door it made me mindful and wary of the control organizations can have on people.
I don't want Prots to tell me what Scripture says, nor Caths, nor Orthodox...or anybody else for that matter. I want to know their REASONS for saying this text means such n such and see with my own eyes whether it makes sense.
There is no other way understanding is advanced than taking the Personal Responsibility for what occupies our minds as Truth. We've got to know For Ourselves whether things be so..
@@TheThreatenedSwan yes..Christ founded One Church. But we're talking about interpreting Scripture.
The idea that the Church alone can interpret Scripture is just patently silly.
It's A Book!!! It's in a language we all can read. If The Church has a interpretation that contradicts my own I want to know WHY it is better!!!
This implicit trust in what "the Church" says is dangerous. You must never sacrifice your own intellectual integrity to another..ever! For someone, or some organisation to say "We alone are the arbiters of truth" is the very definition of totalitarianism.
If the Caths, or Prots, or backslidden..or anyone else wants to say Scripture says thus and so it must make sense TO MYSELF.
We have to see it with our own eyes..or else we can't really say we know a dang thing
Apostolic succession proves nothing...plenty of bishops throughout history were heretical, as is the current bishop of Rome....and it doesn't give you the right to make up new doctrine whenever you feel like it...the Apostle were to pass on the faith, teach it, make more Christians, not innovate...
"Apostolic succession proves nothing" Well, I guess that means Protestantism means nothing then, considering they got false doctrine by the time their religion started, some 5 or so centuries ago
"the Apostle were to pass on the faith, teach it, make more Christians, not innovate..." Well, you're 100% free to prove such "inovation" took place - c'mon, we're listening; would such be like the introduction of the word 'Trinity', for example? Doesn't seem to be anywhere on Scripture - y'know, the supreme and only authority of the Faith...
@@thstroyur Pachamama pope says it all....obey the UN.... Jesus said millstones should be hung around those who lead others astray and be tossed into the sea, but your indifferent pope has overruled Jesus Christ...made the death penalty "inadmissible".... not to mention protecting and promoting the p erverts.. and given comfort to abortionists , and sold out chinese Catholics so that now the murdering atheist communists have more a say in picking bishops than do faithful catholics... what a joke...
Here's another innovation - but it goes back further so you probably missed it - the "gates of hell shall not prevail" has nothing to do with the indefectibility of the church...It was a promise of the Resurrection and that is all..but you have been getting that one wrong since Origen...
Here's another innovation "every man is your neighbor" another mistake that goes back to Augustine... except Jesus said specifically that the man who acts like a neighbor is the neighbor....
Here's another mistake that goes way back...the "least of my brethren" refers to all the poor on earth" - except Jesus meant it to mean His disciples and followers only, which he would seek vengeance on those who mistreated his own at the judgement....
But go ahead and keep blowing your little catholic dog whistles.....
Hi, Mike.
You have an interesting way of expressing your thought, which leaves room for further clarification.
So in the first place, there is a certain sense in which you are perfectly correct: Apostolic succession proves nothing. What is to be demonstrated is what it is that inheres in Apostolic succession, and again whether a given man is possessed of such succession. Once these things are established, then it is thereby established that this man is possessed of those powers which inhere in Apostolic succession.
Certainly there were several bishops who were condemned for heresy. Beyond that there were several bishops who, having failed to distinguish themselves for their heroic orthodoxy, displayed problematic tendencies in their discussions of faith and morals. Here we get into the weeds of formal technicality, and enjoy the benefit of lacking competence to pronounce on the question of whether particular bishops were heretics. No man, save a subsequent Pope, is competent to pronounce on the question of whether a particular Pope is a heretic.
Concerning doctrine, it seems you may not appreciate Catholic doctrine. In its essence, Catholic doctrine was complete at the time of the death of the last Apostle, and since then we look for no new public revelation. What can and does happen is that elements of revelation, present from the beginning, find occasion to grow and develop, bringing to light what had previously been insufficiently appreciated. Accordingly, you are correct, novelty is a very watchword of error in the Church.
How about when there was 3 popes at one time and they held a council and got rid of all of them and set up a new pope. How on earth do you trace apostolic succession through them?
@@gregorybarrett4998 You are so enamored of catholic philosophy and legalism that you forget the very words of Jesus Christ ...you will know a false shepherd by their rotten fruit...