Somehow, after reading his name probably hundreds of times in preparation for this series, I managed to spell Pius IX's name wrong in this presentation. The name is spelled "Pius" rather than "Pious."
Most of which will be the standard question-begging, equivocations, circular logic, novel/idiosyncratically “Catholic” redefinitions of commonly understood terminology … and bold claims of unsubstantiated authority … not to mention complete whole-cloth fabrications.
@@ZTAudio the problem of continuous redefinition may be inherent in language, though. It seems implausible that words could have the same meanings across different times with different philosophies, science, politics, etc
The objectivity of this presentation was so good that I didn't realize he wasn't a Catholic until 58 minutes into the video. Then again, I was doing something while listening. So maybe I wasn't catching the hints 😂
Had I lived in the Middle ages I would have been burned at the stake by either Martin Luther or the Pope since I hold only to the Nicene Creed and not to Manichaean Determinism.
90% of Catholic RUclips is attacking Sola Scriptura and Papal universal jurisdiction etc. I enjoy watching the other 10% as they offer some very helpful learning opportunities.
When I was studying the history of church, I’ve always felt that the council of Constance, and the latter backtracking that the church did at Lateran V and Vatican I is so much bigger of a point that people don’t talk about enough.
The papacy is a clear violation of the cannons of the seven ecumenical councils. One of my heroes in the faith, Yaroslav Pelikan , whom you may be familiar with as a Lutheran made this evident in his Church history series. As a matter of fact, it disturbed Pope John Paul so much that he had a conversation Jaroslav about it. Then Mr. Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy.
@@regostMMA catholic response would likely be “Jesus is the work of our salvation, and Mary being Jesus’ mother, has Jesus (the work of our salvation) in our care.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 as a figure of faith, the Virgin symbolizes Motherhood of the Church and generally "saying yes to God" (which can be a frightening task, so it seems reasonable to cling to a spiritual mother)
Great work as usual Dr. Cooper! I'd like to thank you for all your videos and resources. They helped me discover Lutheranism, and last week I was finally baptized in an lcms church. Once again, thank you for all your work and God bless!
This was really interesting! I never actually considered how the political situation leading up to Vatican I would actually affect the decisions made during the council, so I really appreciate you jumping into the historical context before diving deeper!
Matt 16:18 has to prove the following 3 components in order to support papal claims: 1. The rock is clearly in reference to Saint Peter 2. That St. Peter is the chief apostle given a special and unique infallible authority that the other apostles do not have. 3. That this special unique authority is passed on the Peter’s successor found in the bishop of Rome. #1 is not clear. Some fathers believed it was Peter ,others Christ, still others Peter’s confession of Christ. #2 That has to be eisegeted into the text. It simply isn’t there. Peter being the representative of the 12 apostles (1st amongst equals) who are the foundation of the church is an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of scripture. (Eph 3). #3 Nothing in Matt 16:18 even infers succession to Peter. Nothing in the text even addresses a successor much less whether the successor is a sole bishop. Tertullian believed there were no successors to Peter. Origen believed every Christian is a successor to St. Peter. St cyprian believed all bishops are successors to st .peter. Conclusion: 0f the3 components, the 1st maybe, #2 and#3 are not found in matt 16:18. Thus the primary verse used by Rome fails to prove the Roman claims.
1. Peter is literally means rock, that doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t the rock the church is built on. 2. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom, which mirrors an Old Testament passage which talks about Elikiam having the power to bind and loose, and him being the prime minister of Israel. This makes Peter like the new prime minister of the new Israel, with the power of binding and loosing, this doesn’t explicitly talk about papal infallibility, but it shows the binding authority. I think it would take multiple scriptural passages and church history to show papal infallibility. 3. I don’t know why you’re inferring that into the text? Strange how you infer it into the text but then disagree with yourself?
You are cooking so hard with this one. I really hope you continue to make videos on Papal Infallibility. Javier Perdermo just premiered a stream that had a Reformed Christian essentially giving analysis and making an attempt at the debunking of Real Presence, specifically the Communication of Attributes, and I found some of the objections to be reasonable and unheard of. I'm curious if you ever plan on continuing down that rabbit hole of Reformed vs Lutheran perspectives on the Eucharist, as those are some of my favorite videos of yours. Thanks so much for your incredible work!
His Real True Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 is confirmed by 1 Cor 10 13-17 If you don’t believe in the literal meaning of the Eucharist investigate Eucharistic miracles, signs from God that science can’t explain with the same AB blood type & living heart tissue. Visit Carlos Scutis website of Eucharistic miracles, well documented. The oldest site is In Lanciano Italy dating back to the 800’s.
A Pope could, in theory, declare ex cathedra something that is blatantly contradictory to scripture. The definition of ex cathedra is rather vague, potentially intentionally so, but the most common definition is when the Pope speaks from his position of authority with the full weight of his office, usually on a particular doctrine, but not limited to it. That's a *very* wide net. Pope Stephen VI was acting with the full weight of his office when he ran the Cadaver Synod, called so because he had a preceding Pope's corpse dug up and put on a mock trial. Popes have done some wild stuff with the full weight and authority of their office in the past. The capacity of the Pope to contradict scripture as written by the Apostles themselves using an ex cathedra statement undermines the idea of Papal infalliblity. To be infallible means that those in opposition are wrong. Between the Pope and what the Apostles themselves say, I'm sticking with the Apostles.
@@carlose4314 I fail to see how. They are still living. They may not have either a desire, nor an intent to do so, but they do have the capacity to do so. Think of it like the written law that supposedly binds a government's power. That written law only holds as much power as those whom it binds lend it. Likewise, the modern leaders of the clergy could, in their ignorance or hubris, go against the scriptures
@@caderiddle5996Mt 16 18-19, Peter was obviously the first Pope which secular proves by confirmation! Paul, on occasion, disagreed with Peter & confronted when necessary.
Dr. Cooper stated at 32:18, regarding the declaration of Mary's Immaculate Conception in 1854: "he is exercising this pointed authority that moves beyond the way that popes have spoken in the past . . . he says 'we declare, pronounce, and define'; this is unique; you don't see this kind of language elsewhere." No? I would remind Dr. Cooper of Unam Sanctam, where Pope Boniface VIII wrote in 1302 (that's 552 years earlier, by my math): "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This isn't even as strong as what the Jerusalem Council, led by Pope Peter, declared: "it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church . . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit . . ." (Acts 15:22, 25, 28). No less than St. Paul, with Timothy, then went all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and "delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). That's binding Church authority, led by a pope, in consultation with both bishops and priests (or pastors, if one prefers: "elder" or presbuteros in Greek), right in the Bible.
I disagree with James white on many things, but I think he was exactly correct when he called papal infallibility "the most meaningless dogma ever defined by Rome."
James White has no credibility, what do you expect! Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.” The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility that has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 (“Feed my sheep . . . ”), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . ”)
@@geoffjsThis is ad hominem argument which holds no water. James white argument is correct on The papacy because even with its vat I definition it becomes a moving target. Where the infallible list of extra cathedral statements? Some say there are only 2, others 7, and others many more. Also. If the pope has the charism then It should have and could have used to actually solve all disputes. It cancels out even the need of excumenical councils. Thus papal infallibility is either useless or ecumenical councils are.
@@geoffjs nice historical revisionism and biblical eisegesis. None of those passages have anything to do with an alleged papal office let alone an imagined papal infallibility. The office of the papacy is an aberrant historical development not a legitimate aspect of the apostolic deposit. Any objective book on the papacy that honestly deals with the primary sources will demonstrate this to be the case.
@@doubtingthomas9117 Secular history confirms that Peter was the first pope appointed by Jesus when He established His One True Church giving him authority Isa 22:22
Great historical treatment. I'm excited about this series and would definitely be interested in something similar for the Marian dogmas. (also for the completion of the prayers to the saints series)
~2000 years of debates and dialogue is not what I would call “never question its teachings”. Maininting open dialogues while keeping the church together on the other hand is nothing short of a miracle. Meanwhile constantly fracture outside of the church
@@tookie36: you’re assuming apostolic succession and that the RCC is the one true church. At the time of the early church in the first century there was no Roman Catholic Church! There were Christian churches all over mainly the Middle East each one having their own bishop’s: Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome etc. It was only after the Roman church became predominant by 538 ad that the RCC came into being. This was when Justinian gave all power of secular Rome to the church. As the RCC dominated the ecclesiastical scene it also controlled the narrative of Christianity for almost one thousand years until the Protestant reformation challenged it. The reformation was a response mostly because of the churches corruption and it’s non biblical teachings! I highly suggest you read the Bible and you see that there’s a big difference between the churches teachings and the word of God!
@@kensmith8152 regardless. After the Protestant reformation we see continuous fracture. That should be a major red flag as to “what went wrong”. I don’t see how it doesn’t stem from the false doctrine of sola scriptura. “Something” happened… then suddenly there is division, confusion, and vitriol
@@tookie36: Paul warned in the book of Acts 20:29 For I’m sure of this, that after my parting, grievous wolves will enter in among you, who will not spare the flock. This was his prophecy about the church
I have made a lengthy reply: "Papal Infallibility: Reply To Lutheran Jordan Cooper (Including Documentation of Popes’ Massive Consultation with Bishops and Others Before Declaring Dogmas, and Particulars of the Voting at Vatican I)" I can't add the link, but anyone can find this with a word search.
Hey Dr. Cooper. I appreciate your thought out response in charity. History and Councils are so dense, it’s difficult to keep track of even a fraction of them. Have you considered having a discussion with a knowledgeable Catholic on the Councils and whatnot, like with Erick Ybarra, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn or Joe Heschmeyer?
The Roman Church will continue to grow in the West, not because its doctrines are true, but because as democracy continues to fail, people are searching for hierarchical authority which Rome claims to hold at scale.
I think they are searching more for integrity, rather than an infallible pope, we all can see how mainline Protestantism, or at least the stereotype of it, has become more reality than fiction. Compromising of values, liberal interpretation of The Word, LGBTQ flags on polls, “Jesus is a hippie”, etc. it isn’t the failure of democracy but a research for it’s foundational positioning in our values, a search for strength
In Matt 16:18 Simon Bar Jonah is called the "Rock" and in Matt 16:23 Peter is called "Satan", now he can't be both, but if Jesus is referring to the different confessions as many Fathers and Protestants believe, no problem. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
That argument sounds like it implies Peter is Satan in essence when I think most people, even Romanists, recognize that Jesus is just rebuking Peter as sinful which doesn’t have much to do with his infallibility or whether he has infallible successors.
I've held a slightly different view. Belief in Christ as God is fundamental to Christ building his church. Only the Holy Spirit inspires faith in us. Therefore, Jesus is the rock of his own church, the true corner stone.
@victuss1413 what do you mean by 100% in the will of God? I would say Peter and the other Apostles are infallible insofar as they are teaching doctrines & morals but that doesn’t mean their grocery lists are infallible for example.
@@kolab5620 Isaiah 55:11 “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
The other comment strangely disappeared - usual RUclips comment problem . Was just saying that the primary source of Bishop Gasser’s Relatio to the Council Fathers didn’t seem to be on your research list. You really should read it before the next video. In another comment I give its title as published by the Ignatius press.
first critiquing the Reformed, and now Rome, I'm loving this anti-ecumenist streak.😅 Seriously though, thank you for providing the historical context to most of these issues and debates. Always good to remember that such doctrines and dogmas don't just arise out of a vacuum, but are historically rooted.
I am Catholic and I recognize that papal infallibility is erroneous. I just haven't found a Christian body without erroneous beliefs, even as central tenets. Should I leave Christianity or make do?
An honest question: Why would you remain in a church that offers you no absolute assurance that you are a child of God who will go to heaven when you die? I'm thinking of 1 John 5 verse 13 - for instance "...that you may know..."
Why would you leave Christ? He is true. To expect perfection from the church, an institution run by flawed men, is ludicrous. Obviously I’d recommend Lutheranism. To abandon Christ because of His flawed servants doesn’t make sense.
It sounds like you’d be more comfortable in a church without a strong set of required doctrines, like the contemporary form of anglicism maybe? Pretty sure they basically set no requirements
The quote "I am the Church" was not from the debates. According to John O'Malley's history of the Council, it was a statement made in private when the Pope was scolding a Bishop for having argued for a rather moderate position to the Council. The Pope felt betrayed because he played a large role in giving said Bishop a career.
Well, I don’t accept Papal Infallibility per se (for similar reasons you present in this channel, preferring conciliarism instead), but do absolutely appreciate that the Pope and the Roman Church, from the French Revolution to the Vatican II, valiantly resisted the rise of liberal, democratic, secular, and revolutionary forces in the West, and in this process saved numerous souls and produced many honorable witnesses of genuine Christian faith. For me, this outweighs the flaw of Papal absolutism, being the reason for all Christians to honor the Roman Catholic tradition while not necessarily following it. Amen!
how fitting. the beginning of the pope conversation starts with ''can i have some money, donations are tax deductable.'' does it shave a few years off of purgatory as well? am i allowed to read the bible to see if any of this checks out or are they gonna call me a heretic and send papal fire to punish me for looking to the bible instead of them for salvation and truth
@@Zona-w9i For clarity, the Catholic Church has never taught paying the Catholic Church "shaves years" off purgatory. There is a great deal of confusion on this subject among Protestants due to hundreds of years of intentional misrepresenting of Catholic belief so that you remain a protestant. We live in an era of the internet , so these disparaging ideas can now be refuted with a simple Google search on what Catholicism teaches. It's as stupid as saying Muslims all believe they get 72 virgins when they die and say that's what they think.
my brother in Christ, that's not what Purgatory or Indulgences are. I think most Protestants must believe in some form of Purgatory, lest they believe you keep your sinful desires in Heaven and suffer them to be unquenched for all eternity, or that God purifies us of our sinful inclinations sometime before Heaven, for no sin can enter Heaven. Revelations 21:27, Matthew 7:21, or 1 Corinthians 6
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 are you making the claim that you cannot use to as an indulgence? or that indulges wont affect your time in purgatory? i believe that all humans are sinners and unworthy of heaven and only through the sacrifice Jesus made are any of us able to go to heaven. Christ is king and he has no successor.
Thank you for an informative video, with a good historical background presented fairly. It might be added that in both France and Germany, there was also great hostility to the RC church, strong anti-clericalism in France and later under Bismarck the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf. Interesting too, that freedom of religion in those days meant freedom to live and worship otherwise than in the RC faith, and today that it often means freedom for one to practise any Christian faith at all.
Well Matthew 16 should be enough then. Can you find a church father as early as Irenaeus that holds to sola scriptura? I find very interesting the dismissal of a Church father when it's not convenient. BTW there are many church fathers that uphold that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, Jerome for example.
@@Coteincdr Even if he said that, Irenaeus had no idea what the RC Church was going to become, and certainly not how loopy it has become today. Also there really wasn't an RC church back then. That schism didn't happen until 1054.
As to the political situation in 1870 - all those working towards the unification of Italy were atheists, hostile to the Church. King Victor Emanuel II, Count Cavour and Garibaldi. There were determined not only to annex the remaining territorial possessions of the States of the Church (Rome and Lazio) but to limit the power of the Papacy in the new Kingdom of Italy. The King proposed to Pope Pius IX that, if he would voluntarily relinquish his territorial claims, he would receive, in return, sovereignty in respect of the “Leonine City” (and area much larger than the present Vatican City State) and a huge financial indemnity, a larger sum, in fact, than the sum which was, eventually, paid in 1929 under the Lateran Treaty. The King promised that he would introduce legislation to declare the Pope Primate of All Italy and that he would have sole teaching authority in the Church in the new Kingdom of Italy. However, the Pope was incensed at this suggestion. He refused to negotiate at all and was determined to define his own teaching authority - in the end, he went further than just to define it within what remained of his territorial possessions - he defined his teaching authority as being paramount in the entire Catholic Church throughout the whole world. He only just managed to get the definition approved and confirmed by the Council - the bombardment of the City Walls had already begun and the Cardinals had to flee for their lives. So, it was a definition produced in a hurry, in a crisis and one which has never, in fact, ever actually been invoked and it almost certainly never will be. It is surprising that it remains such a central point of controversy. Most Catholics do not know that it has never been invoked and never will be invoked and most Protestants think that the Pope spends all of his time overruling the Bishops and defining dogmas with which they do not agree! Quite simply, “Papal Infallibility” has always been a “dead letter” a “non issue” and it really achieves nothing to argue about it, from one point of view or the other.
I just had a (former I guess?) Catholic seminary student tell me a couple weeks ago that "the Pope isn't infallible, he just holds the final say on issues of doctrine." Seems kind of infallible to me! 😂 I have a Bible group with a bunch of Catholic guys so I have to poke the bear and they poke back. I respect the heck out of all of them.
@@jessemeier3447 The dogmatic definition of 1870 does not actually use the word “infallible”. The Latin word used is usually translated “irreformable”. What that means is that there is no higher human authority placed above the Pope which has the authority to correct him. So, what the dogma really means is that what the Pope teaches cannot be contradicted. Of course, in the history of the Church, the highest teaching authority has always been considered to be that of the Bishops meeting formally in an Ecumenical Council, once confirmed formally by the Bishop of Rome. So, in the Tradition of the Church, the Bishops cannot act without the Pope and the Pope cannot act without the Bishops. There must be unanimity. That is why, since 1870, the dogma has never been invoked, never could be invoked and never will be invoked. Following his election in 1958, Pope John XXIII stated specifically that he would never invoke the dogma. It is a “dead letter” - it has been discretely consigned to the dustbin of history.
@@Mark3ABE I guess I would like some clarification on the Papacy then: is the Papacy capable of error, or is it without error? I would hope it is without error (which is, by definition, infallible) since there is no human authority that can contradict it.
@@jessemeier3447 It is a bit more complicated than that. The Pope will normally act in full union with the Bishops, whether gathered together in a full Ecumenical Council, or in a less formal way, in a Synod. Since all dogmatic definitions up to now, in the history of the Church, have only ever been made by a Pope acting in union with the Bishops, it has never been necessary to consider whether the Pope could act contrary to the wishes of the Bishops. It is inconsistent with the nature of the Church, founded and built on love and brotherly union, to contemplate that a Pope would ever act as an autocrat, forcing a dogmatic definition on the Bishops against their wishes. It is also worth pointing out that, after the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, during the period before the Great Schism in 1054, almost all essential matters of dogma were finally defined. There is really nothing left to define. There are matters of Church discipline of course, which are an entirely separate matter. Whether the secular Clergy should be permitted to marry, or not, is a matter of Church discipline, not of dogma. Clearly this is the case, since there are now several hundred married Priests in the Catholic Church, who have come in, generally thought the Ordinariate, from the Anglican Churches.
@@Mark3ABEThe reason it is deemed irreformable is because it is indeed considered infallible. If something is considered infallible then it can’t be changed. For it can not be in error. I am also confused on your assertion that this ex cathedra authority of the pope was not utilized after 1870. What about the dogma of mary assumption into heaven in 1954?
On the immaculate conception of Mary, the argument for it doesn't make sense. If Mary being the vessel to carry God had to be specially cleansed from sin, then how does God then dwell in the sinful world if the place he dwells has to be perfect. Jesus also bore all our sin. So Mary doesn't have to be perfect. He even bore the sin of Mary
It also raises the question of why Mary's mother, Anne wasn't also immaculately conceived, so as to not stain Mary. To support your other point, Catholic apologists say it is "fitting" that the bearer of Jesus be made sinless but fail to say why it wasn't fitting that Jesus be born in a palace as opposed to a manger in a stable.
Dr. Cooper doesn't summarize that correctly, and the papal document doesn't mention why the Immaculate Conception happened. Some Catholics have described it that way, but in professional circles, what is typically said is not that Jesus inherently had to have a mother free from Original Sin, but that it was more fitting, and so that was what God arranged. Also, Mary calls God her "savior" in Luke 1:47. This isn't enough to prove the Immaculate Conception (the Catholic Church also has Tradition), but it is consistent with it.
The Immaculate Conception makes complete sense! Eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception: 1. Mary is revealed to be “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. 2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic “Daughter of Zion” of Isaiah 12:1-6; Zephaniah 3:14-16; Zechariah 2:10; etc. 3. Mary is revealed to be “the beginning of the new creation” in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:22. 4. Mary is revealed to possess a “blessed state” parallel with Christ’s in Luke 1:42. 5. Mary is called not just “blessed” among women, but “more blessed than all women” (including Eve) in Luke 1:42. 6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless “Ark of the Covenant” in Luke 1. 7. Mary is revealed to be the “New Eve” in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4, 19:26-27; Revelation 12; and elsewhere. 8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfilment of Isaiah 66:7-8.
Thanks for the replies and insight! Right for the point that scripture doesn't prove the immaculate conception. It just brings up more questions. I'd probably have to do a lot reading to comprehend what is going on there. Jesus bore the sin of the whole world so it still doesn't make sense that Mary was preferred to be sinless. And it means that sinless Mary was contained in a sinful being. So why wasn't Mary's mother then cleansed and on and on. Mary was in a sense cleansed through her faith as a forgiven sinner makes sense to me. 1: we are all full of grace if baptized, trusting in what Jesus has done for us, and forgiven. 2: the context seems to be indicating that the daughter of Zion is Christ's Church. 3: here the context seems to be saying the same thing as 2. And also to repent. And that Jesus raised from the dead is the new creation. We will be like him. I agree that Mary is blessed. But that doesn't mean she is without sin. Just blessed to be the mother of God. I don't see 6 and 7 seems to be a stretch. I stopped looking after John 2:4 and John 19. Because Jesus calls his mother "woman"? Isaiah 66 is about how awesome heaven will be. I mean I disagree with all that but it's fine because you can be Christian and believe either way. I appreciate the responses
@@NicolasGoerz We have a simple but powerful faith. I accept & believe all doctrines taught by Holy Mother Church because she has the authority from Christ to do & has never erred over 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of her divine origin! With time, belief leads to understanding so I sympathise with those who seek understanding first, belief rarely follows. The word Woman appears in Gen 3:15, Lk 2 1-12, Jn 19: 25-27 & Rev 12, notice a pattern & the important role of Mary that Protestantism doesn’t understand!
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and decided to pick this video out at random. Do you have a recommendation of a series on Catholic apologetics? I haven't been able to speak with Robert Boylan yet.
I'd love to see mormon apologetics explain the many contradictions in the book of mormon vs the Bible, for example how it teaches both books are true when they contradict one another i.e the book of mormon says Jesus was born in Jerusalem vs the bible which says he was born in Bethleham.
@@dman7668 thanks for the softball. > "The Tell El Anarma Tablets say the “land of Jerusalem” was an area larger than the city itself. The phrase “land of Jerusalem” is not in the Bible and was not current in Joseph Smith’s day. It is, however, an accurate description for Jerusalem and the surrounding cities and is precisely the language that would have been used by an ancient Israelite in 600 BC. - Michael R. Ash - Faith and Reason 42: Land of Jerusalem Why do the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents also use this unbiblical phrase? Where would Joseph Smith have learned this?" ( the real question is will RUclips Let Me paste the answer without getting angry?)
I find Lord Acton’s quote more interesting in light of his attendance of Vatican 1 “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” “Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
@@SilvXl this is what I got from chat GPT on this ### Chicago Style (Notes and Bibliography): Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg. *Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone and to Mandell Creighton*. Edited by Herbert Paul. London: Macmillan, 1904, p. 372.
Papal infallibility was initially considered a heresy by some church fathers. It went from an idea to a heresy to a dogma. The papal infallibility was declared by none other than another pope. Basically saying that he makes the rules and he made it binding on catholic followers. "I'm infallible, believe it else." Or else I'll damn you to hell.
@@RenegadeCatholic I can tell by your response that all church history and that some quotes from you church fathers are kept from you by your apologists. Why would they tell you. Why destroy the Marian narrative or any other lies? They would rather have you believe that the church fathers have believed and taught everything that supports the narrative. Kinda like democrats do. I believe it was several people, including some popes that widely rejected papal infallibility. I believe it was pope Gregory III. I'm not positive but I can get back to you to confirm. But Aquinas was one who rejected the immaculate conception. "the it would be necessary to honor her grandparents and her great grandparents and there would be no end at all." His point was that it was not a one time deal from God. That in order to be immaculately conceived, her parents etc, there would be no end . Clement: "The word, Jesus Christ, ALONE was born without sin." You get it, alone? Augustine: "He, Christ, alone being made man, but remaining God, never had any sin, nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took on flesh of sin OF HIS MOTHER." These are just a couple of the hidden gems that are purposely and you can surely see why. The more important point is that catholicism was built on the lie of being the one true church and peter being the rock. So the church has to continue with that lir foundation.
@@jfkmuldermedia I don't need. You refuse to accept the truth of the others. But that's typical catholic. That's why it's easy for your church to turn the truth of God into a lit. The truth matters not. Your church's narrative and agenda is more important. It keeps you in bondage by the church's secret weapon, ANATHEMAS. The Lord didn't use anathemas, peter and Paul didn't. But your church attaches anathemas to everything. Gees, I wonder why?
@@rbnmnt3341You’re wrong! The CC is His One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church Mt 16 18-19, get used to it! It has existed for 2000 yrs, the longest of any organisation, in spite of sinful men & never officially taught error, proof of her divine origin!
The uneasy relationship between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church arises from the fact that the Protestant Church arose in the Western Church, subject to Papal authority. It something similar had arisen in the Eastern Church, then those Eastern Protestants would have had no interest at all in the Papacy, just as the Eastern Orthodox Churches have very little interest in the Papacy. They do not feel the need to constantly attack it, or defend themselves against it. For Protestants, the Papacy represents a threat, because the Church in Western Europe was subject to Papal authority for fifteen hundred years and their own Churches have only existed, in a state of rebellion against that authority, for five hundred years. Possibly, in another thousand years, when Protestantism has been going for as long after the Reformation as its predecessor Church existed before it, there will be less of a need to attack the Catholic Church and the Papacy. I find it much easier to be a Catholic, since my Church teaches me that Protestants, in the main, relying upon their own Faith, will be as likely to go to Heaven as Catholics. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” - that is to say, it takes the view that Protestants are only in a state of rebellion against the Catholic Church because they were brought up that way, in ignorance of what the Catholic Church is and what it teaches. In a kindly way, this doctrine asserts that, if Protestant Christians had been fortunate enough to have been born and brought up as Catholics, that is what they would be, so that it is not particularly fair to blame them for the particular accident of birth which resulted in their hostility to the Church and the Papacy.
And for those of us who have examined the Catholic faith and consciously reject it for something Protestant, what does the Catholic say about my salvation today? I find Catholics take every imaginable contradictory view possible on that question.
@@DPK5201 Well, if you have, as you say, examined the Catholic Faith consciously, you will know that it teaches that “all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God” and that we are saved from the eternal punishment due for sin by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Son of God, as the one perfect sacrifice for sin. If, having heard this (the “Gospel” - the good news of salvation thought Jesus Christ) you have accepted it and been duly baptised, according to the Trinitarian formula, then you have found salvation. So, your destination is Heaven - however, you can make your journey there easier with the grace offered by Holy Mother Church.
@@Mark3ABE thanks for the sincere reply. I would say Protestants would arrive at the same conclusion having examined historical Orthodox Protestantism. Except for your last sentence. But you already knew that.
@@Mark3ABE I am also compelled to say that is not the view of the Council of Trent as understood by those at the Council and for centuries thereafter. Or sedavacantists and trads today.
I have asked two Catholic bloggers whether Feducia Supplicans is considered infallible, and I got no response. Can anyone tell me whether or not it is iinfallible? Also, I had a discussion online with a Roman Catholic who said that the first two ecumenical councils were heretical because they omitted the filioque from the creed. Is this a legitimate RC position?
Fiducia suplican is a document in which the Pope emphasizes that The Lord consider the Sinner and reject the Sin. Same sex couple can't be blessed as a couple but as an single individual who seek discernement and grace, one can receive the blessing.
Since the dogmatic definition of “Papal Infallibility” in 1870, it has never actually been invoked. This has been a deliberate policy. It was by no means a unanimous decision. Not all Bishops entitled to attend and vote at the First Vatican Council actually attended, because of the military situation at the time. Many who did attend left early, before the vote. The Archbishop of Paris spoke out strongly against the proposed definition and the American Bishops said that they considered the proposal blasphemous. Therefore, since the dogma did not have the universal approval of the Bishops, it was decided to discretely sideline it. For example, following his election in 1958, Pope John XXIII stated, specifically, that he would never invoke the dogma. Some do try to argue that the dogmatic definition of the dogma of the Assumption involved invoking the dogma. However, this is not the case, for two reasons. In 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote to all of the Bishops seeking their consent to defining the dogma. They all agreed. So, it was a Synodal decision, not a decision taken by the Pope alone. In addition, the dogma was not in any way novel - an early Council of the Church had taught that it was a “probable” dogma, one in which the Faithful were free to believe, if they wished. Similarly, there are examples in the Old Testament of people being assumed body and soul into Heaven - Elijah and Enoch, for example. So, it can be safely said that the dogma of “Papal Infallibility” is a “dead letter”. It would be too embarrassing to admit that it should never have been defined - as a compromise, the Church has decided, discretely, that it may remain, but that it will never actually be used.
The Relatio of Gasser was published as “The Gift of infallibility “ by Ignatius Press. It also has a commentary as well as an early draft of Chapter 4 of the Dogmatic Constitution and the final version of Chapter 4 .
The apostolic tradition, magisterium, and Roman syncretism all combined over the past one and a half millennia a theological situation whereby like most cult’s they made things up as they went along! This continued and the church got far from the biblical teachings, and had adopted pagan practices. Because of the church’s domination of the narrative, people accept the lies that the traditions represent the truth of Christianity. Like Islam, the church has even given itself the ability to abrogate whatever it sees fit (such as eliminating limbo and the second commandment) It also plays the shell game of admitting publicly that something is wrong but continues to do it in practice! (Ie selling indulgences and the inquisition) The reformation tried to address these issues, but unfortunately didn’t go far enough, particularly regarding the sabbath issue, and wound up being drawn back into the influence of Rome. To the point of having certain Roman holy days such as Ash Wednesday and lent being celebrated. The Lutheran and Anglican Church made peace with Rome and many Protestant churches united with Rome through the abortion and Charismatic Movement. And the RCC even had the audacity to say that the god of Islam is the same as the God of the Bible at the second Vatican council!!!! The RCC is only Christian in name and is pretender in reality.
"papal infallibility (spiritually)". peter tried to have Christ not go to jerusalem (in the same chapter where Christ called him part of the bedrock of the church) to fulfill His mission on the cross. murder, indulgences, doctrines and dogmas not supported by scripture, trying to walk the tightrope of using the bible (many times twisting and distorting, or outright lying), while denying sola scripture, the real worship and idolatry of mary, and many other issues can be laid at the feet of the roman catholic pontiff. this not only shows the popes are/were not infallible, but were never the head of the Christian church. Jesus is the head of the church. by the way this guy is heavily using roman catholic councils like trent, and many more modern councils, as references, and not much scripture.
It might be that the answer can be found on page 25 of Gerhard's Theological Commonplaces On Creation and Predestination "To those who read his works-namely, De natura daemonum and De Genesi ad literam-it is quite certain that Augustine felt that angels and demons were endowed with bodies," Let that sink in, it sure would explain a whole bunch of supernatural occurrences in my life! How about this 2Cor11:13-15 KJV 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, TRANSFORMING themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be TRANSFORMED as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Variations of the word transform in capital letters to make my point.
Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller made the point that Rome really only has two sacraments: Baptism and the papacy. Other than Baptism, at root everything else in the Roman Catholic communion relies entirely upon the power and authority of the papacy.
@@geoffjs Other than Baptism, name a single sacrament of the Roman church that does not depend upon the papacy. The Eucharist? It's not God's work, it is the priests. And he must be properly ordained via the Holy Orders which are established - not by Christ - but by the validity of the papacy. Absolution? Holy unction? Validity of papal authority must be conferred on the priests. Marriage isn't valid unless performed by a papally sanctioned priest. Every sacrament of Rome depends ultimately not on God, but on the man-made institution of the papacy. And, as you note, Jesus Christ did not create the papacy, nor do we have any record of St. Peter conferring his status as "the Rock" to any supposed successors and not exclusively to the bishop of Rome. Thus, Rome's sacraments are derivative not of Christ or His commands, but of the papacy. Moreover, how do you define sacrament? What makes something a sacrament and why are there not more than 7?
@@pete3397 Another example of Protestant disingenuousness. I denied that the papacy is a sacrament which you then ignore! Seven, the biblical sign of perfection, sacraments were instituted by Jesus in the Bible. The fact that all 7 require a priest is a function of Jesus’ decision to give authority to Peter & the first bishops. Sacraments provide us with His grace so it natural that they be administered by one of His consecrated priests. In an emergency Baptism can be administered by anyone!
For anyone who doesn’t think Marianism is in the Bible. Luke 11:27-28 “As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
@@DPK5201 ok, for those who don’t think Murder is in the Bible: Deuteronomy 5:17 “You shall not murder” Marianism and murder are both in the Bible and neither one is portrayed as good. God through Moses said not to murder, Jesus spoke against Marianism by correcting a woman who tried putting the attention on Mary. Roman Catholics seem to not read their Bibles and have justification for worshiping Mary from their clergy and don’t realize that the first Roman Catholic was clearly told by Jesus to stop focusing on his mother.
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.” The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility that has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 (“Feed my sheep . . . ”), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . ”)
The Catholic Church teaches Jesus is the head of the Church. However, just like a pastor is the head of his Church organization the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church in an administrative position. He is the chief Bishop. I don't see why this somehow would take away from Christ being the head of the Church.
@@geoffjs How do you reconcile that interpretation with Revelation 3:7, where it is written of Jesus: "...These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
This is a groundless trifle. A standard dictionary definition of “vicar” is “one serving as a substitute or agent.” Is this a terrible, blasphemous way of speaking about disciples of Jesus? Absolutely not - for it is the sort of language (substitutes, agents, ambassadors, etc.) that Jesus Himself used, in referring to His disciples (the word “disciple” itself is not far in meaning from “vicar”): Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me. Jesus even goes further than that, extending this representation of Himself to children and virtually any human being: Matthew 18:5 Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me. Matthew 25:40 Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. (cf. 25:45) We also see instances of radical identification with Jesus, such as the term “Body of Christ” for the Church, or St. Paul partaking in Christ’s afflictions (Col 2:8; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 4:10, 11:23-30; Gal 6:17), or our “suffering with Christ” (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1, 13). Where’s the beef, then? Jesus routinely refers to something highly akin to “vicar” in these statements (and the Apostle Paul picks up on the motif in a big way). So the pope represents Christ to the world, in a particularly visible, compelling fashion. This is not outrageous blasphemy; it is straightforward biblical usage. Who is being more “biblical”?
@@DaveArmstrong1958 By your logic you are as much the Vicar of Christ as the Pope, so he should hold no special authority over you for both of you are equally under Christ. But whom did Christ send down to us to be with us in His stead, to teach us, to guide us, to sanctify us? Was it not the Holy Spirit?
@@santtuhyytiainen That's not my reasoning, of course, which is that if all disciples represent Christ, then it's not unthinkable for a pope to represent him in a *preeminent* way. It's both/and Hebraic/biblical thinking, but that is largely foreign to Protestants, who think in either/or terms and create false and unbiblical dichotomies all the time. That's what you're doing in this instance. It's "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit." As for the Holy Spirit, it's another both/and scenario. He is our Comforter and Guide and God. But God also wanted human shepherds to guide us. That's why He told Peter to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep" and "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17). That's classic Hebraic guidance: the analogy of the shepherd and the sheep. Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd." And indeed He is. But there are human shepherds as well. And so Paul said, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God" (Acts 20:28). And Peter said (reflecting what Jesus told him): "Tend the flock of God that is your charge" (1 Pet 5:2). Those were pastors and bishops. The pope is the bishop of bishops, just as Peter was the disciple of disciples.
I understand your need to attack the Papacy, because if it is true, then you are committing a serious sin not adherring to the authority of the Catholic Church. In order to legitamize your own Churches existence it must attack the true church first.
Where was the attack in this video which covers historical background? This was barely an introduction of the topic and placing future videos in historical context. Was there anything in this history that you disagree with. ?
@@DPK5201 Yes, the point of this video is to place a foundation with which to attack the Catholic Church and do a bait and switch magic trick to show protestantism is the answer (which we both can agree it is not since it's a mess of a movement).
@@dman7668 Again, what historical facts and accounts were wrong? You did not address my question. You are addressing instead what his motives are. As a historian, I must deal with facts of history. From your response I can only conclude Dr. Cooper has provided a historically accurate account of 19th century Italy.
@@DPK5201 As a historian if you want to deal with the "facts" of history you can learn about the early Church, they did not hold protestant views, do not hold to sola scriptura and did not outright reject the Papacy. As a historian you are not dealing with the facts of history, because the facts of history show the early Church was the Catholic Church. Not the protestant Church you currently attend.
@@dman7668 please don't change the subject. Comments should be about this video posted, not other points you want to make. You can make them on a video which discusses whatever you want to say. BUT This video was about 19th century Italy. Did he say anything untrue? Hearing no objections, I'm going to believe this was an excellent and accurate background video for forthcoming discussion.
LOL And what is more, very nearly correct - even from the Catholic perspective (aka old-time orthodox Tradition-minded ones not only the hippy progressives). 'Mystici Corporis' (Ven Pius XII, AD 1943) was - and officially still is - the embodiment of a standard understanding of The Church aka the mystical body of Jesus Christ at One with His Bride, no Other; addressed by the way to a world in the grip of a global conflict over individualistic, nationalist, ideological, statism and its power .. whether of capitalism's exploitation or communism's repressiveness; a reality already unfolding - with increasing rapidity - politically, socially, and personally in the reign of Bl Pius IX .. The old tagline .. 'Tu es Petrus' (Matt 16 : 18-19) .. is key to getting a handle on the discussions, debates, and decisions offered to the First Vatican Council, finally registered in 'Pastor Aeternus' (after a good deal of conferring and consternation). And, contrary to popular opinion, and, believe it or not, quite a deal of scholarly gibberation .. the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ set out the very narrowly defined limits to the doctrine that Christ's promise to the apostles, universally, and Simon called Peter in particular - 'cannot fail of its effect'. It is this idea .. that the teaching authority of Christ, with us to the end times, at work still among the successors to the apostles - cannot fail of its effect - was actually also real, true and substantial = at work in the life of the Church, even now, that galvanised opposition to the teaching, and its oddly burdensome limitations set upon the bishops and the popes; it required faith, it demanded commitment, it commanded obedience aka almost everything that the 19th-century mindset most vigorously repudiated - Catholicism*. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) * The Second Vatican Council far from rejecting this binding doctrine sought to present it in a pastorally engaging manner - supposedly more fitting to the then 'modern times' (a long-long-ago mid-20th-century). However, this well-intended effort failed, and disastrously so, and its baleful effects are still being battled over by Progressive Catholics (e.g. Pope Francis, not least) and Traditionalists (i.e. a bunch of nobodies, like me), and that speaks in volumes for the Catholic Church's experience of .. time (and times). It also underscores what the actual definitions of Pastor Aeternus set out .. Peter is indeed the Church's foundation, as a rock specifically chosen by the Rock, yet it is the Rock's Church and Peter is His authorised Minister .. regardless of however many rocks may be given that onerous task; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (a bit of a fearful idea for any passing politician or ideologue to confront as a lived reality).
An early deviation from the biblical teaching being adopted into Christianity was Neoplatonism (immortal soul). The Bible teaches that man is mortal and that only God alone is immortal. That when a man dies he sleeps until the resurrection (1Thessalonians 4:13 et al.) However, as Greek philosophy crept into the church with the influx of gentiles, the biblical view was overwritten with such things as people going to hell/heaven without out judgment, praying to saints, Mary and statues, purgatory and limbo. The RCC had become a religion of death worship and necromancy.
“The pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ,On the contrary,he is Jesus Christ Himself,under the veil of the flesh”-Pope Pius X “You know that I am the Holy father,the representative of God on earth,the vicar of Christ,which means I am God on the earth”-Pope Pius XI
I don't see the big deal here, seeing that Jesus said of ALL of His disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, . . ." (Lk 10:16, RSV). In many descriptions of the Angel of the Lord, he is both distinguished from God and spoken of almost as if he is God. This is in the burning bush passage and also regarding the judgment and destruction of Sodom. And this is because he represents God, and in the Hebrew mind he could thus be spoken of at times as if he were God. So this is completely biblical. The pope is God's representative on earth, as the leader of His Church. If folks "hear" Jesus in every disciple of His, they can certainly hear Jesus in the pope.
Have you a source for the quote? I could find this in doubt of its veracity: catholicpoint.blogspot.com/2012/10/pope-claiming-as-god.html?m=1 but there's nothing authoritative. Seem like an old wives tale to me.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 there’s a difference between a head of a council of apostolic successors and a dictator. That’s why the orthodox excommunicated him.
I know for a fact that the first quote is false. I can only imagine the second one is as well. If you want to attack Roman Catholicism, make sure you’re using correct sources and not falsehoods.
Why is it not rational for Protestants to accept difficult biblical texts that they do not agree with? Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19, created a hierarchy & appointed an earthly representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 delegating to him the keys of authority. The twelve apostles were the first bishops who went on to ordain priests & successors which is in plain sight in the bible. So we have a Church that He created, giving it hierarchy & authority without which, no entity from family to corporates & govt can be sustained. Protestantism, without hierarchy & no central unifying interpretative authority is lucky to have survived so long as it is not sustainable given the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, caused by personal interpretation which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
Joel Biermann,good man..pot Luc 3 times a week..confess & Repent be free ,to do it again,,forev er r.... Looking at some church's they could care less and most do..ageing is tuff to see..
@@DPK5201 He did not lie to you that it is current position of hierarchy. However, we don't believe that whatever is said to be bind, but whatever is actually bind is bind (as you will see in Vatican I, that is actually dogmatic council). Same can be said for multitude of modern questions where hierarchy talks much in hope that in can override what is actually bind. But, for our question, Jesus left the keys that binds to True Church and True Church can't deny it. Groups that don't even claim that Power are, most certainly, not that True Church. For, in order to be True Church, it is necessary for it itself to clam that power, although that claim is not sufficient. Catholic Church is the True Church, not because it claims power that Jesus left to it, but because it can also prove it. Non of you protestants can't even claim Power that Jesus left, let alone that you would be able to prove it.
@@DPK5201 eh, sorta. The problem with some Dogmas among your average Catholic is how they are expressed can be both subtle or bitter. What the Church truly, certainly, and authoritatively binds is 100% to be assented to or your make the sin of disobedience with your own pride. However, the communication of what specifically is bound or not is commonly misunderstood by your average layman. As like with the President of the U.S., modern media has made many confusing spins and impressons on every little thing the Pope and Councils say.
Why attack the papacy?. The Catholic church does not in anyway affect your "church". We should be united against a common enemy, those that wants to destroy Christianity.
He has to attack it. Otherwise if he cannot come up with some legit reason why he can ignore the authority of the Catholic Church he will be a heretic.
Sola Scriptura = My interpretation is authoritative, but yours is not. Sola Fida = My faith is authentic, but yours is not. Protestantism = I am led by the Holy Spirit, but you are not. Scripture interprets itself = I am the ultimate authority on Scripture and anyone who disagrees with me is not led by the Holy Spirit. Protestantism is irrational and incoherent which contradicts the nature of God. This is why we know it cannot be from God. You can either believe in the authority Christ established or you can believe each individual Protestant claiming to be that authority. Yet what explanation can each individual Protestant provide that he or she is the highest authority above all other Protestants? Each Protestant claims to be higher than the next, so which one should we follow? Dr. Cooper believes that he is more authoritative than you. The next Protestant in the comments believes that he is more authoritative than the Protestant before him. And each Protestant believes he is more authoritative than the next Protestant. So as someone who takes faith and logic seriously, my only question is which Protestant am I supposed to follow in order to be saved? Do I follow the teachings of Dr. Cooper? Do I follow the teachings of the next Protestant in the comments section? Or do I follow the teachings of the Protestant just after him? The Protestant position is entirely incoherent and anyone with even half of a brain can recognize that. They do not share any single belief system except one. The only thing that unites all of them is the spirit of revolution against that authority which Christ has established. 😢
This is coming from the papal paradigm of one man must be right above all other men. You're already starting from a flawed paradigm. Your entire write up is assertions without a single rebuttal. How about you actually deconstruct Dr. Coopers view, I think we'd all be happy to entertain. Critique Coopers Lutheran view, of course as shown above you default to building up a strawman of this idea of Protestantism as one cohesive and definite institution. So again, deconstruct his Lutheran view or don't waste your time making assertions based on a paradigm that is not universal. P.S. this is coming from a Catholic who's being blatantly honest that your argument is bad.
A couple misunderstandings here. It's quite obvious that you, and other papists like you, never engage protestant arguments in good faith. 1. Let's address your comment about "Sola Scriptura" and the alleged corollary that said doctrine means "my interpretation authoritative, but yours is not". This is a gross misinterpretation of the doctrine. The doctrine simply means that the Bible is the final and highest authority to which the church Catholic appeals (NOT the **only** authority**). . It's interesting that in reading the Fathers, they don't appeal to an infallible magisterium to settle disputes but they appeal to scripture, and tradtion, with the latter essentially reflecting the same content as the former. This belief is reflected in Fathers such as Iranaous, Ignatious, and Athenasius and many more... 2. Sola Fide does not mean "my faith is authentic and yours is not" It refers to the fact that faith is the sole instrument through which the elect lay hold of Christs imputed righteousness. If you read Calvin and Luther, they affirmed that although they considered the papal church to be in serious error, there were nevertheless genuine Christians who remained in the Roman Churches. 3-- Your comment about Protestantism is almost so unserious I do not know where to start. We Protestants assert that all genuine Christians, regardless of denomination, are led by the Holy Spirit (the doctrine of the invisible church known only to God) . But, with respect to denominations, some are more pure, others less pure. A good example of this can be seen in the book of Revelation where Jesus says positive thinngs about some churches, yet chastises those same churches for specific shortcomings ..How pure a visible church is can be determined, we argue, by how closely any given visible institution maintains fidelity to the holy scriptures. You say Protestantism is irrational and incoherent but those are not arguments, those are unsubstantiated assertions. More could be said about your first 3 points but RUclips isn't the place for long dissertations. I will sum up and respond to the rest of your comment because you just repeat yourself using different terminology. Your comment about "how do I know which protestant to trust" and "how do I know which Protestant denomination to be in to be saved" betrays your utter and abject ignorance about the historic Protestant understanding of ecclesiology and the RC understanding of ecclesiology. It never occurs to people like you that subjectivism with respect to believing "who is right" is not something the papists gets to escape. When someone converts to Roman Catholicism, the question could be asked, "Why Roman Catholicism? Why not Eastern Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy, or the Assyrian church of the East"? How do you know you belong to the right tradition? Don't you have to use your oh-so-scary private judgement to determine which ancient church is correct, and which others are false? All of the ancient visible branches of Christianity claim to be the one true church outside of which there is **no possibility of salvation** (Well, Rome hilariously contradicted themsevles with Vatican 2 essentially reversing course on Vatican 1 which affirmed the Tridentine proclamation that there is no salvation outside of the RC church but I digress..) . They all claim many of the same early church fathers as their own, yet they all come to mutually exclusive positions regarding their status as the one true church who faithfully reflects the understanding of the Fathers (the alleged consensus patrum) ..How do you -- using your fallible judgement -- determine which tradition has the right interpretation of scripture, tradtion and the Fathers ? You see the problem you think is inherent to Protestantism is an even bigger problem for you. This is because Protestantism-Qua - Protestantism does not hold that salvation depends on which Protestant sect you belong to whereas for the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox , the inverse is the case. Lutherans consider Presbyterians and Baptists to be in error on important doctrines, yet they consider them to be true and genuine Christians because they agree on the fundamentals of the faith. According to the pronouncements of allegedly infallible councils in the RC, EO, OO, and AE churches, salvation is to be found SOLEY within the confines of their administrative jurisdictions, which means that for someone like you, who belongs to a visible institution with such a self-conception -- which church to join or listen to is of the utmost importance since your salvation literally depends on it. Contrast that with Protestants, who proclaim that a person is saved simply by faith in Christ alone **REGARDLESS** of denominational affiliation (whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) though we of course do recognize that it is important to belong to a faithful denomination. You do not know what you are talking about my friend, and you sound like you are only able to regurgitate Papist surface level arguments. You should slow down and actually engage with Jordan -- and I say this as a reformed Christian, who disagrees with Jordans Lutheranism, yet still is greatly benefited by his lectures...
Protestantism is completely irrational as it is based on portions of the truth, not the full Truth. Try as you might, no Protestant has ever explained to me why if the HS is guiding their personal interpretation that there are 000’s of sects when, by their logic, there should only be one Protestant Church ie Lutheran. Lack of hierarchy & authority brings this mess about as without those attributes, no entity from family to corporates & govt is sustainable. In the internet age, people have access to more information & specifically the Truth, which is steadily eroding Protestantism as it is based on many heresies
I think Papal Infallibility must be taken with a grain of salt. The Pope infallibly does what he infallibly does, and that's decide and define matters of faith and morals in such a way as to organize the church for some time. Possibly years, possibly decades, possibly centuries. The church, in turn, infallibly does what it infallibly does, and that involves setting the organization framework over typically longer periods. Possibly centuries, possibly millennia. On up the ladder we get to God, who possibly provides an "Absolute", but from our perspective, that's really something of a theoretical concept. We are temporal creatures, and as such, we open ourselves to delusion if we insist on too much permanence
About that Marian prayer. I think the idea is Communion with the Divinely Simple via mediation through (identification with) "Parts". Since Parts are contrary to Simplicity, it must be understood that these "Parts" are merely constructs of our imagination to make some measure of sense of the Incomprehensible Simplicity of God. IOW, we don't take these prayers in the absolutely literal way Protestants suggest we do, and the flowery language should be understood more as poetry (eg, as opposed to literally attributing Divinity to Mary)
Matt 16:18 has to prove the following 3 components in order to support papal claims: 1. The rock is clearly in reference to Saint Peter 2. That St. Peter is the chief apostle given a special and unique infallible authority that the other apostles do not have. 3. That this special unique authority is passed on the Peter’s successor found in the bishop of Rome. #1 is not clear. Some fathers believed it was Peter ,others Christ, still others Peter’s confession of Christ. #2 That has to be eisegeted into the text. It simply isn’t there. Peter being the representative of the 12 apostles (1st amongst equals) who are the foundation of the church is an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of scripture. (Eph 3). #3 Nothing in Matt 16:18 even infers succession to Peter. Nothing in the text even addresses a successor much less whether the successor is a sole bishop. Tertullian believed there were no successors to Peter. Origen believed every Christian is a successor to St. Peter. St cyprian believed all bishops are successors to st .peter. Conclusion: 0f the3 components, the 1st maybe, #2 and#3 are not found in matt 16:18. Thus the primary verse used by Rome fails to prove the Roman claims.
not in Matthew 16:18, but if you travel your eyes a lot further (hard, I know) to Matthew 16:19, he uniquely is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 But that doesn't say anything about the Roman Catholic. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven means the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth giving to his disciples, in this case Peter, to give this Keys to others so they can reach Heaven. If it wasn't for the apostolic works of all apostles, the salvation that comes from the Gospel couldn't be spreaded, so, no one could ever had the Keys to enter Heaven, only the Apostles would had it. Also, if you go more a bit further, in Matthew 18:18, Christ say to his disciples that all of them had those Keys, even Paul when he became an Apostle recived this Keys. (Obvliously there's no verse in the Bible that Paul had recived this Keys, but, his apostolic work showed this in all his epistoles and writings, he taught us how to go to heaven and how God made righteous the man, not by his works, but for his faith, as is giving the salvation as a gift.) Also, if you read the book of Acts, you'll know that thanks to the Sermon of Peter in Pentecost, all believers in that precise day, recived the Holy Spirit, the promise that Jesus told to his disciples when He resurrect. And Peter make clear that from now on, everyone that has been baptized in the name of the Fater, Son and Holy Spirit shall have the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:14-40). So, in that case, Peter "unlocked" with the Keys that Christ has giving to him in the past, so everyone can enjoy and be part of that promise that has been unlocked.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039And if you read the second half of verse 19, hard I know, one finds Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ tells us what the keys to the kingdom of heaven is. That is, he bind or loose a person’s sins. He says, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Nothing about the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” infers a monarchal papistry, a perpetual office, infallibility, or any of the other Roman claims. And while one can rightfully point that St. Peter was first given this power, we find Christ gave the same power to all the apostles. (Matt. 18:18 and John 20:23)
Also, there's no evidence that the Papacy is descended from Peter. Even if it were for a while, the line of succession is broken as soon as you get someone who goes against anything the Bible says, and encourages others to do so.
Caesar needs to bend the knee to Christ the King, also, I’m pretty sure you’re misinterpreting that verse. I think Jesus is getting at the point that you can’t serve two masters, but you can either serve Caesar, or serve God, not both.
Somehow, after reading his name probably hundreds of times in preparation for this series, I managed to spell Pius IX's name wrong in this presentation. The name is spelled "Pius" rather than "Pious."
Known to most people at the time simply as “Pio Nono”.
Thanks for the correction. It's also spelled wrong in the description, FYI.
It's the thought that counts. :-)
That's perfectly okay. I still mistake Martin Luther for that other villain Lex Luther.
That's okay, i misspelled my own name one time.
“The ecumenical council will never accept this!”
“I am the council.”
So good 😂
So true!! Pop apologetics can’t admit this though.
Reminds me of Darth Vader 😂
Prepare for about 100 response videos from Catholic RUclips.
Definitely…as well as the reflexive responses in the comment section from the ubiquitous troll 😉
Most of which will be the standard question-begging, equivocations, circular logic, novel/idiosyncratically “Catholic” redefinitions of commonly understood terminology … and bold claims of unsubstantiated authority … not to mention complete whole-cloth fabrications.
I'll get more of that when I start digging into the actual argument, I think.
@@ZTAudio the problem of continuous redefinition may be inherent in language, though. It seems implausible that words could have the same meanings across different times with different philosophies, science, politics, etc
@@WayneDrake-uk1ggI wouldn't be so quick to say that, in regards to how the Word of God transmits
A series on the Marian Dogmas would be very helpful!
The objectivity of this presentation was so good that I didn't realize he wasn't a Catholic until 58 minutes into the video.
Then again, I was doing something while listening. So maybe I wasn't catching the hints 😂
He is a Catholic. Just not a Papist.
Had I lived in the Middle ages I would have been burned at the stake by either Martin Luther or the Pope since I hold only to the Nicene Creed and not to Manichaean Determinism.
90% of Catholic RUclips is attacking Sola Scriptura and Papal universal jurisdiction etc. I enjoy watching the other 10% as they offer some very helpful learning opportunities.
Great work, Dr. Cooper! Thank you for making this important video.
This was great, love the historical background before you get into the arguments
When I was studying the history of church, I’ve always felt that the council of Constance, and the latter backtracking that the church did at Lateran V and Vatican I is so much bigger of a point that people don’t talk about enough.
The papacy is a clear violation of the cannons of the seven ecumenical councils. One of my heroes in the faith, Yaroslav Pelikan , whom you may be familiar with as a Lutheran made this evident in his Church history series. As a matter of fact, it disturbed Pope John Paul so much that he had a conversation Jaroslav about it. Then Mr. Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy.
visiting Catholic here. Thank you Dr. Cooper for your charitable presentation and clarity on the issue!
That Marian passage from Pious IX was insane
Agreed, especially the part "and having in her care the work of our salvation".
@@regostMMA catholic response would likely be “Jesus is the work of our salvation, and Mary being Jesus’ mother, has Jesus (the work of our salvation) in our care.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 as a figure of faith, the Virgin symbolizes Motherhood of the Church and generally "saying yes to God" (which can be a frightening task, so it seems reasonable to cling to a spiritual mother)
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg still gay
@@gumbyshrimp2606 yes, but understandably so. Martyrdom be skurry
Great work as usual Dr. Cooper! I'd like to thank you for all your videos and resources. They helped me discover Lutheranism, and last week I was finally baptized in an lcms church. Once again, thank you for all your work and God bless!
Wonderful to hear brother/sister!
This was really interesting! I never actually considered how the political situation leading up to Vatican I would actually affect the decisions made during the council, so I really appreciate you jumping into the historical context before diving deeper!
Matt 16:18 has to prove the following 3 components in order to support papal claims:
1. The rock is clearly in reference to Saint Peter
2. That St. Peter is the chief apostle given a special and unique infallible authority that the other apostles do not have.
3. That this special unique authority is passed on the Peter’s successor found in the bishop of Rome.
#1 is not clear. Some fathers believed it was Peter ,others Christ, still others Peter’s confession of Christ.
#2 That has to be eisegeted into the text. It simply isn’t there. Peter being the representative of the 12 apostles (1st amongst equals) who are the foundation of the church is an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of scripture. (Eph 3).
#3 Nothing in Matt 16:18 even infers succession to Peter. Nothing in the text even addresses a successor much less whether the successor is a sole bishop.
Tertullian believed there were no successors to Peter. Origen believed every Christian is a successor to St. Peter. St cyprian believed all bishops are successors to st .peter.
Conclusion: 0f the3 components, the 1st maybe, #2 and#3 are not found in matt 16:18. Thus the primary verse used by Rome fails to prove the Roman claims.
1. Peter is literally means rock, that doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t the rock the church is built on.
2. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom, which mirrors an Old Testament passage which talks about Elikiam having the power to bind and loose, and him being the prime minister of Israel. This makes Peter like the new prime minister of the new Israel, with the power of binding and loosing, this doesn’t explicitly talk about papal infallibility, but it shows the binding authority. I think it would take multiple scriptural passages and church history to show papal infallibility.
3. I don’t know why you’re inferring that into the text? Strange how you infer it into the text but then disagree with yourself?
You are cooking so hard with this one. I really hope you continue to make videos on Papal Infallibility.
Javier Perdermo just premiered a stream that had a Reformed Christian essentially giving analysis and making an attempt at the debunking of Real Presence, specifically the Communication of Attributes, and I found some of the objections to be reasonable and unheard of. I'm curious if you ever plan on continuing down that rabbit hole of Reformed vs Lutheran perspectives on the Eucharist, as those are some of my favorite videos of yours.
Thanks so much for your incredible work!
His Real True Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 is confirmed by 1 Cor 10 13-17
If you don’t believe in the literal meaning of the Eucharist investigate Eucharistic miracles, signs from God that science can’t explain with the same AB blood type & living heart tissue. Visit Carlos Scutis website of Eucharistic miracles, well documented. The oldest site is In Lanciano Italy dating back to the 800’s.
A Pope could, in theory, declare ex cathedra something that is blatantly contradictory to scripture. The definition of ex cathedra is rather vague, potentially intentionally so, but the most common definition is when the Pope speaks from his position of authority with the full weight of his office, usually on a particular doctrine, but not limited to it. That's a *very* wide net. Pope Stephen VI was acting with the full weight of his office when he ran the Cadaver Synod, called so because he had a preceding Pope's corpse dug up and put on a mock trial. Popes have done some wild stuff with the full weight and authority of their office in the past. The capacity of the Pope to contradict scripture as written by the Apostles themselves using an ex cathedra statement undermines the idea of Papal infalliblity. To be infallible means that those in opposition are wrong. Between the Pope and what the Apostles themselves say, I'm sticking with the Apostles.
No, it is literally an impossible scenario.
@@carlose4314 I fail to see how. They are still living. They may not have either a desire, nor an intent to do so, but they do have the capacity to do so. Think of it like the written law that supposedly binds a government's power. That written law only holds as much power as those whom it binds lend it. Likewise, the modern leaders of the clergy could, in their ignorance or hubris, go against the scriptures
@@claytoniusdoesthings9598 The Holy Spirit protects the pope from all error.
Proof? You claim Peter to be the first pope yet Paul called him out on siding with the judaizers.
@@caderiddle5996Mt 16 18-19, Peter was obviously the first Pope which secular proves by confirmation! Paul, on occasion, disagreed with Peter & confronted when necessary.
Dr. Cooper stated at 32:18, regarding the declaration of Mary's Immaculate Conception in 1854: "he is exercising this pointed authority that moves beyond the way that popes have spoken in the past . . . he says 'we declare, pronounce, and define'; this is unique; you don't see this kind of language elsewhere."
No? I would remind Dr. Cooper of Unam Sanctam, where Pope Boniface VIII wrote in 1302 (that's 552 years earlier, by my math): "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This isn't even as strong as what the Jerusalem Council, led by Pope Peter, declared: "it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church . . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit . . ." (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).
No less than St. Paul, with Timothy, then went all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and "delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). That's binding Church authority, led by a pope, in consultation with both bishops and priests (or pastors, if one prefers: "elder" or presbuteros in Greek), right in the Bible.
I disagree with James white on many things, but I think he was exactly correct when he called papal infallibility "the most meaningless dogma ever defined by Rome."
True 👍🏻
James White has no credibility, what do you expect!
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility that has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 (“Feed my sheep . . . ”), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . ”)
@@geoffjsThis is ad hominem argument which holds no water. James white argument is correct on The papacy because even with its vat I definition it becomes a moving target. Where the infallible list of extra cathedral statements? Some say there are only 2, others 7, and others many more. Also. If the pope has the charism then It should have and could have used to actually solve all disputes. It cancels out even the need of excumenical councils. Thus papal infallibility is either useless or ecumenical councils are.
@@geoffjs nice historical revisionism and biblical eisegesis. None of those passages have anything to do with an alleged papal office let alone an imagined papal infallibility. The office of the papacy is an aberrant historical development not a legitimate aspect of the apostolic deposit. Any objective book on the papacy that honestly deals with the primary sources will demonstrate this to be the case.
@@doubtingthomas9117 Secular history confirms that Peter was the first pope appointed by Jesus when He established His One True Church giving him authority Isa 22:22
Great historical treatment. I'm excited about this series and would definitely be interested in something similar for the Marian dogmas. (also for the completion of the prayers to the saints series)
What an amazing presentation!
Great study.
Thank you Dr. Cooper.
It amazes me how so many people in the RCC never question it’s teachings!
~2000 years of debates and dialogue is not what I would call “never question its teachings”. Maininting open dialogues while keeping the church together on the other hand is nothing short of a miracle.
Meanwhile constantly fracture outside of the church
@@tookie36: you’re assuming apostolic succession and that the RCC is the one true church.
At the time of the early church in the first century there was no Roman Catholic Church! There were Christian churches all over mainly the Middle East each one having their own bishop’s: Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome etc. It was only after the Roman church became predominant by 538 ad that the RCC came into being. This was when Justinian gave all power of secular Rome to the church. As the RCC dominated the ecclesiastical scene it also controlled the narrative of Christianity for almost one thousand years until the Protestant reformation challenged it. The reformation was a response mostly because of the churches corruption and it’s non biblical teachings! I highly suggest you read the Bible and you see that there’s a big difference between the churches teachings and the word of God!
@@kensmith8152 regardless. After the Protestant reformation we see continuous fracture. That should be a major red flag as to “what went wrong”. I don’t see how it doesn’t stem from the false doctrine of sola scriptura.
“Something” happened… then suddenly there is division, confusion, and vitriol
@@tookie36: Paul warned in the book of Acts 20:29 For I’m sure of this, that after my parting, grievous wolves will enter in among you, who will not spare the flock. This was his prophecy about the church
I have made a lengthy reply:
"Papal Infallibility: Reply To Lutheran Jordan Cooper (Including Documentation of Popes’ Massive Consultation with Bishops and Others Before Declaring Dogmas, and Particulars of the Voting at Vatican I)"
I can't add the link, but anyone can find this with a word search.
I don't think he said there was no or little consultation. Just that he stacked the deck with those who agreed with him.
@@DPK5201 In my article today I replied that even if that were true, the vote was so lopsided that it would have been irrelevant as to outcome.
"I am the Science!" - Fauci
"I am the Church!" - Pope
Hey Dr. Cooper. I appreciate your thought out response in charity.
History and Councils are so dense, it’s difficult to keep track of even a fraction of them.
Have you considered having a discussion with a knowledgeable Catholic on the Councils and whatnot, like with Erick Ybarra, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn or Joe Heschmeyer?
If you’re interested, he had a conversation on justification with Jimmy Akin on Matt Fradd’s podcast (Pints with Aquinas) enjoy !
The Roman Church will continue to grow in the West, not because its doctrines are true, but because as democracy continues to fail, people are searching for hierarchical authority which Rome claims to hold at scale.
Interesante These wie kommen sie zu dieser annahmen?
@@andreashoepfner9465It's pretty easy to observe in young men, especially in America.
I think they are searching more for integrity, rather than an infallible pope, we all can see how mainline Protestantism, or at least the stereotype of it, has become more reality than fiction. Compromising of values, liberal interpretation of The Word, LGBTQ flags on polls, “Jesus is a hippie”, etc. it isn’t the failure of democracy but a research for it’s foundational positioning in our values, a search for strength
In Matt 16:18 Simon Bar Jonah is called the "Rock" and in Matt 16:23 Peter is called "Satan", now he can't be both, but if Jesus is referring to the different confessions as many Fathers and Protestants believe, no problem. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
That argument sounds like it implies Peter is Satan in essence when I think most people, even Romanists, recognize that Jesus is just rebuking Peter as sinful which doesn’t have much to do with his infallibility or whether he has infallible successors.
@@kolab5620 how could he be infallible if he isn't 100% in accordance with the will of God?
I've held a slightly different view. Belief in Christ as God is fundamental to Christ building his church. Only the Holy Spirit inspires faith in us. Therefore, Jesus is the rock of his own church, the true corner stone.
@victuss1413 what do you mean by 100% in the will of God? I would say Peter and the other Apostles are infallible insofar as they are teaching doctrines & morals but that doesn’t mean their grocery lists are infallible for example.
@@kolab5620 Isaiah 55:11
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
An excellent historical introduction to the topic.
Great work on this issue
Thank you, I appreciated your video! I hope you can discuss the role of Old Catholics as a result of Vatican I a bit more.
The other comment strangely disappeared - usual RUclips comment problem . Was just saying that the primary source of Bishop Gasser’s Relatio to the Council Fathers didn’t seem to be on your research list. You really should read it before the next video. In another comment I give its title as published by the Ignatius press.
Great work as always!
first critiquing the Reformed, and now Rome, I'm loving this anti-ecumenist streak.😅 Seriously though, thank you for providing the historical context to most of these issues and debates. Always good to remember that such doctrines and dogmas don't just arise out of a vacuum, but are historically rooted.
Anti ecumenism is why Lutherans have survived as the true church
Just out of pure curiosity. What to you makes the reformed tradition ecumenist?
I am Catholic and I recognize that papal infallibility is erroneous. I just haven't found a Christian body without erroneous beliefs, even as central tenets. Should I leave Christianity or make do?
An honest question:
Why would you remain in a church that offers you no absolute assurance that you are a child of God who will go to heaven when you die?
I'm thinking of 1 John 5 verse 13 - for instance "...that you may know..."
Why would you leave Christ? He is true. To expect perfection from the church, an institution run by flawed men, is ludicrous. Obviously I’d recommend Lutheranism. To abandon Christ because of His flawed servants doesn’t make sense.
How can infallibility be erroneous if Jesus gave that attribute to Peter Mt 16 19 to bind & loose!
It sounds like you’d be more comfortable in a church without a strong set of required doctrines, like the contemporary form of anglicism maybe? Pretty sure they basically set no requirements
I appreciate this comment.
The quote "I am the Church" was not from the debates. According to John O'Malley's history of the Council, it was a statement made in private when the Pope was scolding a Bishop for having argued for a rather moderate position to the Council. The Pope felt betrayed because he played a large role in giving said Bishop a career.
Seems like it is still sound like a "yikes" moment even with the context.
@@SilvXl indeed
Well, I don’t accept Papal Infallibility per se (for similar reasons you present in this channel, preferring conciliarism instead), but do absolutely appreciate that the Pope and the Roman Church, from the French Revolution to the Vatican II, valiantly resisted the rise of liberal, democratic, secular, and revolutionary forces in the West, and in this process saved numerous souls and produced many honorable witnesses of genuine Christian faith. For me, this outweighs the flaw of Papal absolutism, being the reason for all Christians to honor the Roman Catholic tradition while not necessarily following it. Amen!
how fitting. the beginning of the pope conversation starts with ''can i have some money, donations are tax deductable.'' does it shave a few years off of purgatory as well? am i allowed to read the bible to see if any of this checks out or are they gonna call me a heretic and send papal fire to punish me for looking to the bible instead of them for salvation and truth
You do know Dr. Cooper is not Roman Catholic and is a Lutheran, right?
@@Jeremy.Mathetes ill admit i thought he was a catholic because of his starting argument and i rage posted. i stand by the first sentence though.
@@Zona-w9i For clarity, the Catholic Church has never taught paying the Catholic Church "shaves years" off purgatory. There is a great deal of confusion on this subject among Protestants due to hundreds of years of intentional misrepresenting of Catholic belief so that you remain a protestant. We live in an era of the internet , so these disparaging ideas can now be refuted with a simple Google search on what Catholicism teaches. It's as stupid as saying Muslims all believe they get 72 virgins when they die and say that's what they think.
my brother in Christ, that's not what Purgatory or Indulgences are.
I think most Protestants must believe in some form of Purgatory, lest they believe you keep your sinful desires in Heaven and suffer them to be unquenched for all eternity, or that God purifies us of our sinful inclinations sometime before Heaven, for no sin can enter Heaven. Revelations 21:27, Matthew 7:21, or 1 Corinthians 6
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 are you making the claim that you cannot use to as an indulgence? or that indulges wont affect your time in purgatory? i believe that all humans are sinners and unworthy of heaven and only through the sacrifice Jesus made are any of us able to go to heaven. Christ is king and he has no successor.
Thank you for an informative video, with a good historical background presented fairly. It might be added that in both France and Germany, there was also great hostility to the RC church, strong anti-clericalism in France and later under Bismarck the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf. Interesting too, that freedom of religion in those days meant freedom to live and worship otherwise than in the RC faith, and today that it often means freedom for one to practise any Christian faith at all.
"All churches must agree with this Church (Rome) on account of its preeminent authority"- St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chap 3 Par. 2
The church fathers are all over the place on many matters. Not an apostle.
Well Matthew 16 should be enough then. Can you find a church father as early as Irenaeus that holds to sola scriptura? I find very interesting the dismissal of a Church father when it's not convenient. BTW there are many church fathers that uphold that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, Jerome for example.
@@Coteincdr Even if he said that, Irenaeus had no idea what the RC Church was going to become, and certainly not how loopy it has become today. Also there really wasn't an RC church back then. That schism didn't happen until 1054.
@@Procopius464 Irrelevant, what matters it what he said of the Bishop of Rome.
@@Coteincdr That guy is dead now.
As to the political situation in 1870 - all those working towards the unification of Italy were atheists, hostile to the Church. King Victor Emanuel II, Count Cavour and Garibaldi. There were determined not only to annex the remaining territorial possessions of the States of the Church (Rome and Lazio) but to limit the power of the Papacy in the new Kingdom of Italy. The King proposed to Pope Pius IX that, if he would voluntarily relinquish his territorial claims, he would receive, in return, sovereignty in respect of the “Leonine City” (and area much larger than the present Vatican City State) and a huge financial indemnity, a larger sum, in fact, than the sum which was, eventually, paid in 1929 under the Lateran Treaty. The King promised that he would introduce legislation to declare the Pope Primate of All Italy and that he would have sole teaching authority in the Church in the new Kingdom of Italy. However, the Pope was incensed at this suggestion. He refused to negotiate at all and was determined to define his own teaching authority - in the end, he went further than just to define it within what remained of his territorial possessions - he defined his teaching authority as being paramount in the entire Catholic Church throughout the whole world. He only just managed to get the definition approved and confirmed by the Council - the bombardment of the City Walls had already begun and the Cardinals had to flee for their lives. So, it was a definition produced in a hurry, in a crisis and one which has never, in fact, ever actually been invoked and it almost certainly never will be. It is surprising that it remains such a central point of controversy. Most Catholics do not know that it has never been invoked and never will be invoked and most Protestants think that the Pope spends all of his time overruling the Bishops and defining dogmas with which they do not agree! Quite simply, “Papal Infallibility” has always been a “dead letter” a “non issue” and it really achieves nothing to argue about it, from one point of view or the other.
I just had a (former I guess?) Catholic seminary student tell me a couple weeks ago that "the Pope isn't infallible, he just holds the final say on issues of doctrine." Seems kind of infallible to me! 😂 I have a Bible group with a bunch of Catholic guys so I have to poke the bear and they poke back. I respect the heck out of all of them.
@@jessemeier3447 The dogmatic definition of 1870 does not actually use the word “infallible”. The Latin word used is usually translated “irreformable”. What that means is that there is no higher human authority placed above the Pope which has the authority to correct him. So, what the dogma really means is that what the Pope teaches cannot be contradicted. Of course, in the history of the Church, the highest teaching authority has always been considered to be that of the Bishops meeting formally in an Ecumenical Council, once confirmed formally by the Bishop of Rome. So, in the Tradition of the Church, the Bishops cannot act without the Pope and the Pope cannot act without the Bishops. There must be unanimity. That is why, since 1870, the dogma has never been invoked, never could be invoked and never will be invoked. Following his election in 1958, Pope John XXIII stated specifically that he would never invoke the dogma. It is a “dead letter” - it has been discretely consigned to the dustbin of history.
@@Mark3ABE I guess I would like some clarification on the Papacy then: is the Papacy capable of error, or is it without error? I would hope it is without error (which is, by definition, infallible) since there is no human authority that can contradict it.
@@jessemeier3447 It is a bit more complicated than that. The Pope will normally act in full union with the Bishops, whether gathered together in a full Ecumenical Council, or in a less formal way, in a Synod. Since all dogmatic definitions up to now, in the history of the Church, have only ever been made by a Pope acting in union with the Bishops, it has never been necessary to consider whether the Pope could act contrary to the wishes of the Bishops. It is inconsistent with the nature of the Church, founded and built on love and brotherly union, to contemplate that a Pope would ever act as an autocrat, forcing a dogmatic definition on the Bishops against their wishes. It is also worth pointing out that, after the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, during the period before the Great Schism in 1054, almost all essential matters of dogma were finally defined. There is really nothing left to define. There are matters of Church discipline of course, which are an entirely separate matter. Whether the secular Clergy should be permitted to marry, or not, is a matter of Church discipline, not of dogma. Clearly this is the case, since there are now several hundred married Priests in the Catholic Church, who have come in, generally thought the Ordinariate, from the Anglican Churches.
@@Mark3ABEThe reason it is deemed irreformable is because it is indeed considered infallible. If something is considered infallible then it can’t be changed. For it can not be in error.
I am also confused on your assertion that this ex cathedra authority of the pope was not utilized after 1870. What about the dogma of mary assumption into heaven in 1954?
On the immaculate conception of Mary, the argument for it doesn't make sense. If Mary being the vessel to carry God had to be specially cleansed from sin, then how does God then dwell in the sinful world if the place he dwells has to be perfect. Jesus also bore all our sin. So Mary doesn't have to be perfect. He even bore the sin of Mary
It also raises the question of why Mary's mother, Anne wasn't also immaculately conceived, so as to not stain Mary.
To support your other point, Catholic apologists say it is "fitting" that the bearer of Jesus be made sinless but fail to say why it wasn't fitting that Jesus be born in a palace as opposed to a manger in a stable.
Dr. Cooper doesn't summarize that correctly, and the papal document doesn't mention why the Immaculate Conception happened. Some Catholics have described it that way, but in professional circles, what is typically said is not that Jesus inherently had to have a mother free from Original Sin, but that it was more fitting, and so that was what God arranged. Also, Mary calls God her "savior" in Luke 1:47. This isn't enough to prove the Immaculate Conception (the Catholic Church also has Tradition), but it is consistent with it.
The Immaculate Conception makes complete sense!
Eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception:
1. Mary is revealed to be “full of grace” in Luke 1:28.
2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic “Daughter of Zion” of Isaiah 12:1-6; Zephaniah 3:14-16; Zechariah 2:10; etc.
3. Mary is revealed to be “the beginning of the new creation” in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:22.
4. Mary is revealed to possess a “blessed state” parallel with Christ’s in Luke 1:42.
5. Mary is called not just “blessed” among women, but “more blessed than all women” (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.
6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless “Ark of the Covenant” in Luke 1.
7. Mary is revealed to be the “New Eve” in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4, 19:26-27; Revelation 12; and elsewhere.
8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfilment of Isaiah 66:7-8.
Thanks for the replies and insight! Right for the point that scripture doesn't prove the immaculate conception. It just brings up more questions. I'd probably have to do a lot reading to comprehend what is going on there. Jesus bore the sin of the whole world so it still doesn't make sense that Mary was preferred to be sinless. And it means that sinless Mary was contained in a sinful being. So why wasn't Mary's mother then cleansed and on and on. Mary was in a sense cleansed through her faith as a forgiven sinner makes sense to me.
1: we are all full of grace if baptized, trusting in what Jesus has done for us, and forgiven.
2: the context seems to be indicating that the daughter of Zion is Christ's Church.
3: here the context seems to be saying the same thing as 2. And also to repent. And that Jesus raised from the dead is the new creation. We will be like him.
I agree that Mary is blessed. But that doesn't mean she is without sin. Just blessed to be the mother of God.
I don't see 6 and 7 seems to be a stretch. I stopped looking after John 2:4 and John 19. Because Jesus calls his mother "woman"?
Isaiah 66 is about how awesome heaven will be.
I mean I disagree with all that but it's fine because you can be Christian and believe either way. I appreciate the responses
@@NicolasGoerz We have a simple but powerful faith. I accept & believe all doctrines taught by Holy Mother Church because she has the authority from Christ to do & has never erred over 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of her divine origin!
With time, belief leads to understanding so I sympathise with those who seek understanding first, belief rarely follows.
The word Woman appears in Gen 3:15, Lk 2 1-12, Jn 19: 25-27 & Rev 12, notice a pattern & the important role of Mary that Protestantism doesn’t understand!
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and decided to pick this video out at random. Do you have a recommendation of a series on Catholic apologetics? I haven't been able to speak with Robert Boylan yet.
I'd love to see mormon apologetics explain the many contradictions in the book of mormon vs the Bible, for example how it teaches both books are true when they contradict one another i.e the book of mormon says Jesus was born in Jerusalem vs the bible which says he was born in Bethleham.
@@dman7668 thanks for the softball.
> "The Tell El Anarma Tablets say the “land of Jerusalem” was an area larger than the city itself. The phrase “land of Jerusalem” is not in the Bible and was not current in Joseph Smith’s day. It is, however, an accurate description for Jerusalem and the surrounding cities and is precisely the language that would have been used by an ancient Israelite in 600 BC.
- Michael R. Ash - Faith and Reason 42: Land of Jerusalem
Why do the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents also use this unbiblical phrase? Where would Joseph Smith have learned this?"
( the real question is will RUclips Let Me paste the answer without getting angry?)
I find Lord Acton’s quote more interesting in light of his attendance of Vatican 1 “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” “Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
Can I request a reference to that quote, please? Almost sound too juicy to be true from our real history.
@@SilvXl this is what I got from chat GPT on this ### Chicago Style (Notes and Bibliography):
Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg. *Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone and to Mandell Creighton*. Edited by Herbert Paul. London: Macmillan, 1904, p. 372.
Have you ever made a video about your thoughts on The Chosen? I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
Good work
Papal infallibility was initially considered a heresy by some church fathers. It went from an idea to a heresy to a dogma. The papal infallibility was declared by none other than another pope. Basically saying that he makes the rules and he made it binding on catholic followers. "I'm infallible, believe it else." Or else I'll damn you to hell.
Which church fathers considered papal infallibility a heresy? I would love to read up on that.
@@RenegadeCatholic I can tell by your response that all church history and that some quotes from you church fathers are kept from you by your apologists. Why would they tell you. Why destroy the Marian narrative or any other lies? They would rather have you believe that the church fathers have believed and taught everything that supports the narrative. Kinda like democrats do.
I believe it was several people, including some popes that widely rejected papal infallibility. I believe it was pope Gregory III. I'm not positive but I can get back to you to confirm. But Aquinas was one who rejected the immaculate conception. "the it would be necessary to honor her grandparents and her great grandparents and there would be no end at all." His point was that it was not a one time deal from God. That in order to be immaculately conceived, her parents etc, there would be no end .
Clement: "The word, Jesus Christ, ALONE was born without sin." You get it, alone?
Augustine: "He, Christ, alone being made man, but remaining God, never had any sin, nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took on flesh of sin OF HIS MOTHER."
These are just a couple of the hidden gems that are purposely and you can surely see why.
The more important point is that catholicism was built on the lie of being the one true church and peter being the rock. So the church has to continue with that lir foundation.
There is the famous quote by pope Gregory.
@@jfkmuldermedia I don't need. You refuse to accept the truth of the others. But that's typical catholic. That's why it's easy for your church to turn the truth of God into a lit. The truth matters not. Your church's narrative and agenda is more important. It keeps you in bondage by the church's secret weapon, ANATHEMAS. The Lord didn't use anathemas, peter and Paul didn't. But your church attaches anathemas to everything. Gees, I wonder why?
@@rbnmnt3341You’re wrong! The CC is His One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church Mt 16 18-19, get used to it! It has existed for 2000 yrs, the longest of any organisation, in spite of sinful men & never officially taught error, proof of her divine origin!
Outstanding video. Thank you Dr. Cooper.
The uneasy relationship between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church arises from the fact that the Protestant Church arose in the Western Church, subject to Papal authority. It something similar had arisen in the Eastern Church, then those Eastern Protestants would have had no interest at all in the Papacy, just as the Eastern Orthodox Churches have very little interest in the Papacy. They do not feel the need to constantly attack it, or defend themselves against it. For Protestants, the Papacy represents a threat, because the Church in Western Europe was subject to Papal authority for fifteen hundred years and their own Churches have only existed, in a state of rebellion against that authority, for five hundred years. Possibly, in another thousand years, when Protestantism has been going for as long after the Reformation as its predecessor Church existed before it, there will be less of a need to attack the Catholic Church and the Papacy. I find it much easier to be a Catholic, since my Church teaches me that Protestants, in the main, relying upon their own Faith, will be as likely to go to Heaven as Catholics. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” - that is to say, it takes the view that Protestants are only in a state of rebellion against the Catholic Church because they were brought up that way, in ignorance of what the Catholic Church is and what it teaches. In a kindly way, this doctrine asserts that, if Protestant Christians had been fortunate enough to have been born and brought up as Catholics, that is what they would be, so that it is not particularly fair to blame them for the particular accident of birth which resulted in their hostility to the Church and the Papacy.
And for those of us who have examined the Catholic faith and consciously reject it for something Protestant, what does the Catholic say about my salvation today? I find Catholics take every imaginable contradictory view possible on that question.
@@DPK5201 Well, if you have, as you say, examined the Catholic Faith consciously, you will know that it teaches that “all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God” and that we are saved from the eternal punishment due for sin by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Son of God, as the one perfect sacrifice for sin. If, having heard this (the “Gospel” - the good news of salvation thought Jesus Christ) you have accepted it and been duly baptised, according to the Trinitarian formula, then you have found salvation. So, your destination is Heaven - however, you can make your journey there easier with the grace offered by Holy Mother Church.
@@Mark3ABE thanks for the sincere reply. I would say Protestants would arrive at the same conclusion having examined historical Orthodox Protestantism. Except for your last sentence. But you already knew that.
@@Mark3ABE I am also compelled to say that is not the view of the Council of Trent as understood by those at the Council and for centuries thereafter. Or sedavacantists and trads today.
@@DPK5201 It is, however, the current teaching of the Church, as set out in Lumen Gentium. As Pope John XXIII said “the walls don’t reach to Heaven”.
Good video, thank you
I have asked two Catholic bloggers whether Feducia Supplicans is considered infallible, and I got no response. Can anyone tell me whether or not it is iinfallible? Also, I had a discussion online with a Roman Catholic who said that the first two ecumenical councils were heretical because they omitted the filioque from the creed. Is this a legitimate RC position?
Fiducia suplican is a document in which the Pope emphasizes that The Lord consider the Sinner and reject the Sin. Same sex couple can't be blessed as a couple but as an single individual who seek discernement and grace, one can receive the blessing.
Since the dogmatic definition of “Papal Infallibility” in 1870, it has never actually been invoked. This has been a deliberate policy. It was by no means a unanimous decision. Not all Bishops entitled to attend and vote at the First Vatican Council actually attended, because of the military situation at the time. Many who did attend left early, before the vote. The Archbishop of Paris spoke out strongly against the proposed definition and the American Bishops said that they considered the proposal blasphemous. Therefore, since the dogma did not have the universal approval of the Bishops, it was decided to discretely sideline it. For example, following his election in 1958, Pope John XXIII stated, specifically, that he would never invoke the dogma. Some do try to argue that the dogmatic definition of the dogma of the Assumption involved invoking the dogma. However, this is not the case, for two reasons. In 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote to all of the Bishops seeking their consent to defining the dogma. They all agreed. So, it was a Synodal decision, not a decision taken by the Pope alone. In addition, the dogma was not in any way novel - an early Council of the Church had taught that it was a “probable” dogma, one in which the Faithful were free to believe, if they wished. Similarly, there are examples in the Old Testament of people being assumed body and soul into Heaven - Elijah and Enoch, for example. So, it can be safely said that the dogma of “Papal Infallibility” is a “dead letter”. It would be too embarrassing to admit that it should never have been defined - as a compromise, the Church has decided, discretely, that it may remain, but that it will never actually be used.
It's true that it wasn't unanimous. It was passed by 75% in the initial vote and by 99.63% in the final vote (533 to 2).
Love this thanks for the historical context and theology
The Relatio of Gasser was published as “The Gift of infallibility “ by Ignatius Press. It also has a commentary as well as an early draft of Chapter 4 of the Dogmatic Constitution and the final version of Chapter 4 .
I think this presentation by Dr. Cooper is only the first of a couple to follow on this subject.
@@jfkmuldermediayes I know. Thanks and see my other comments.
The apostolic tradition, magisterium, and Roman syncretism all combined over the past one and a half millennia a theological situation whereby like most cult’s they made things up as they went along!
This continued and the church got far from the biblical teachings, and had adopted pagan practices. Because of the church’s domination of the narrative, people accept the lies that the traditions represent the truth of Christianity.
Like Islam, the church has even given itself the ability to abrogate whatever it sees fit (such as eliminating limbo and the second commandment)
It also plays the shell game of admitting publicly that something is wrong but continues to do it in practice! (Ie selling indulgences and the inquisition)
The reformation tried to address these issues, but unfortunately didn’t go far enough, particularly regarding the sabbath issue, and wound up being drawn back into the influence of Rome. To the point of having certain Roman holy days such as Ash Wednesday and lent being celebrated. The Lutheran and Anglican Church made peace with Rome and many Protestant churches united with Rome through the abortion and Charismatic Movement.
And the RCC even had the audacity to say that the god of Islam is the same as the God of the Bible at the second Vatican council!!!!
The RCC is only Christian in name and is pretender in reality.
Rome, show us the full list of infallible statements. Thanks.
The Pope has only personally issued two infallible pronouncements.
The immaculate conception and the assumption.
Just subscribed... appreciate your scholarship and balanced presentation.
Since posting my comment above I discovered you are a fellow Geneva grad!
"papal infallibility (spiritually)". peter tried to have Christ not go to jerusalem (in the same chapter where Christ called him part of the bedrock of the church) to fulfill His mission on the cross. murder, indulgences, doctrines and dogmas not supported by scripture, trying to walk the tightrope of using the bible (many times twisting and distorting, or outright lying), while denying sola scripture, the real worship and idolatry of mary, and many other issues can be laid at the feet of the roman catholic pontiff. this not only shows the popes are/were not infallible, but were never the head of the Christian church. Jesus is the head of the church. by the way this guy is heavily using roman catholic councils like trent, and many more modern councils, as references, and not much scripture.
It might be that the answer can be found on page 25 of Gerhard's Theological Commonplaces On Creation and Predestination "To those who read his works-namely, De natura daemonum and De Genesi ad literam-it is quite certain that Augustine felt that angels and demons were endowed with bodies,"
Let that sink in, it sure would explain a whole bunch of supernatural occurrences in my life!
How about this 2Cor11:13-15 KJV
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, TRANSFORMING themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be TRANSFORMED as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Variations of the word transform in capital letters to make my point.
I never realized until that thimbnail, the pope is literally Palpatine.
Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller made the point that Rome really only has two sacraments: Baptism and the papacy. Other than Baptism, at root everything else in the Roman Catholic communion relies entirely upon the power and authority of the papacy.
Even if that was true it wouldnt be an argument
@@Wilkins325 No, it's not an argument, it's an observation that has a lot of truth to it.
The CC has 7 sacraments instituted by Him, the Papacy definitely not one of them!
@@geoffjs Other than Baptism, name a single sacrament of the Roman church that does not depend upon the papacy. The Eucharist? It's not God's work, it is the priests. And he must be properly ordained via the Holy Orders which are established - not by Christ - but by the validity of the papacy. Absolution? Holy unction? Validity of papal authority must be conferred on the priests. Marriage isn't valid unless performed by a papally sanctioned priest. Every sacrament of Rome depends ultimately not on God, but on the man-made institution of the papacy. And, as you note, Jesus Christ did not create the papacy, nor do we have any record of St. Peter conferring his status as "the Rock" to any supposed successors and not exclusively to the bishop of Rome. Thus, Rome's sacraments are derivative not of Christ or His commands, but of the papacy. Moreover, how do you define sacrament? What makes something a sacrament and why are there not more than 7?
@@pete3397 Another example of Protestant disingenuousness. I denied that the papacy is a sacrament which you then ignore!
Seven, the biblical sign of perfection, sacraments were instituted by Jesus in the Bible. The fact that all 7 require a priest is a function of Jesus’ decision to give authority to Peter & the first bishops. Sacraments provide us with His grace so it natural that they be administered by one of His consecrated priests.
In an emergency Baptism can be administered by anyone!
For anyone who doesn’t think Marianism is in the Bible.
Luke 11:27-28 “As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
You meant "who thinks...'. From my reading of the passage.
@@DPK5201 I would argue that the woman saying this to Jesus is the first Marianist.
So Marianism is in the Bible, it’s just that Jesus wasn’t “pro”.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 not following your drift..
@@DPK5201 ok, for those who don’t think Murder is in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 5:17 “You shall not murder”
Marianism and murder are both in the Bible and neither one is portrayed as good. God through Moses said not to murder, Jesus spoke against Marianism by correcting a woman who tried putting the attention on Mary.
Roman Catholics seem to not read their Bibles and have justification for worshiping Mary from their clergy and don’t realize that the first Roman Catholic was clearly told by Jesus to stop focusing on his mother.
Who does the Pope think he is - Martin Luther?
*gasp!* THE AUDACITY
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility that has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 (“Feed my sheep . . . ”), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . ”)
Third and final comment. Another source to read prior to next video would be Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk
Same as chair of Moses in pharisees age
Jesus is the head of the church, NOT the roman catholic creation "pope".
The Catholic Church teaches Jesus is the head of the Church. However, just like a pastor is the head of his Church organization the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church in an administrative position. He is the chief Bishop. I don't see why this somehow would take away from Christ being the head of the Church.
For Pope to claim to be the Vicar of Christ is a slight towards the real Vicar, the Holy Spirit.
The pope has always been Jesus’ vicar on earth or Prime Minister Isa 23:22
@@geoffjs How do you reconcile that interpretation with Revelation 3:7, where it is written of Jesus: "...These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
This is a groundless trifle. A standard dictionary definition of “vicar” is “one serving as a substitute or agent.” Is this a terrible, blasphemous way of speaking about disciples of Jesus? Absolutely not - for it is the sort of language (substitutes, agents, ambassadors, etc.) that Jesus Himself used, in referring to His disciples (the word “disciple” itself is not far in meaning from “vicar”):
Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
Jesus even goes further than that, extending this representation of Himself to children and virtually any human being:
Matthew 18:5 Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.
Matthew 25:40 Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. (cf. 25:45)
We also see instances of radical identification with Jesus, such as the term “Body of Christ” for the Church, or St. Paul partaking in Christ’s afflictions (Col 2:8; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 4:10, 11:23-30; Gal 6:17), or our “suffering with Christ” (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1, 13).
Where’s the beef, then? Jesus routinely refers to something highly akin to “vicar” in these statements (and the Apostle Paul picks up on the motif in a big way). So the pope represents Christ to the world, in a particularly visible, compelling fashion. This is not outrageous blasphemy; it is straightforward biblical usage. Who is being more “biblical”?
@@DaveArmstrong1958 By your logic you are as much the Vicar of Christ as the Pope, so he should hold no special authority over you for both of you are equally under Christ. But whom did Christ send down to us to be with us in His stead, to teach us, to guide us, to sanctify us? Was it not the Holy Spirit?
@@santtuhyytiainen That's not my reasoning, of course, which is that if all disciples represent Christ, then it's not unthinkable for a pope to represent him in a *preeminent* way. It's both/and Hebraic/biblical thinking, but that is largely foreign to Protestants, who think in either/or terms and create false and unbiblical dichotomies all the time. That's what you're doing in this instance. It's "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit."
As for the Holy Spirit, it's another both/and scenario. He is our Comforter and Guide and God. But God also wanted human shepherds to guide us. That's why He told Peter to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep" and "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17). That's classic Hebraic guidance: the analogy of the shepherd and the sheep. Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd." And indeed He is. But there are human shepherds as well. And so Paul said, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God" (Acts 20:28). And Peter said (reflecting what Jesus told him): "Tend the flock of God that is your charge" (1 Pet 5:2). Those were pastors and bishops. The pope is the bishop of bishops, just as Peter was the disciple of disciples.
It's pope Pius IX, not Pious.
Prepare yourself as you expect RUclips papist apologist with 3 hour responses 😂
No link to _Pastor Aeternus_ so people can read it for themselves. Pope Pious IX? Really?
I understand your need to attack the Papacy, because if it is true, then you are committing a serious sin not adherring to the authority of the Catholic Church. In order to legitamize your own Churches existence it must attack the true church first.
Where was the attack in this video which covers historical background? This was barely an introduction of the topic and placing future videos in historical context. Was there anything in this history that you disagree with.
?
@@DPK5201
Yes, the point of this video is to place a foundation with which to attack the Catholic Church and do a bait and switch magic trick to show protestantism is the answer (which we both can agree it is not since it's a mess of a movement).
@@dman7668 Again, what historical facts and accounts were wrong? You did not address my question. You are addressing instead what his motives are. As a historian, I must deal with facts of history. From your response I can only conclude Dr. Cooper has provided a historically accurate account of 19th century Italy.
@@DPK5201 As a historian if you want to deal with the "facts" of history you can learn about the early Church, they did not hold protestant views, do not hold to sola scriptura and did not outright reject the Papacy.
As a historian you are not dealing with the facts of history, because the facts of history show the early Church was the Catholic Church. Not the protestant Church you currently attend.
@@dman7668 please don't change the subject. Comments should be about this video posted, not other points you want to make. You can make them on a video which discusses whatever you want to say. BUT This video was about 19th century Italy. Did he say anything untrue? Hearing no objections, I'm going to believe this was an excellent and accurate background video for forthcoming discussion.
LOL And what is more, very nearly correct - even from the Catholic perspective (aka old-time orthodox Tradition-minded ones not only the hippy progressives). 'Mystici Corporis' (Ven Pius XII, AD 1943) was - and officially still is - the embodiment of a standard understanding of The Church aka the mystical body of Jesus Christ at One with His Bride, no Other; addressed by the way to a world in the grip of a global conflict over individualistic, nationalist, ideological, statism and its power .. whether of capitalism's exploitation or communism's repressiveness; a reality already unfolding - with increasing rapidity - politically, socially, and personally in the reign of Bl Pius IX ..
The old tagline .. 'Tu es Petrus' (Matt 16 : 18-19) .. is key to getting a handle on the discussions, debates, and decisions offered to the First Vatican Council, finally registered in 'Pastor Aeternus' (after a good deal of conferring and consternation). And, contrary to popular opinion, and, believe it or not, quite a deal of scholarly gibberation .. the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ set out the very narrowly defined limits to the doctrine that Christ's promise to the apostles, universally, and Simon called Peter in particular - 'cannot fail of its effect'.
It is this idea .. that the teaching authority of Christ, with us to the end times, at work still among the successors to the apostles - cannot fail of its effect - was actually also real, true and substantial = at work in the life of the Church, even now, that galvanised opposition to the teaching, and its oddly burdensome limitations set upon the bishops and the popes; it required faith, it demanded commitment, it commanded obedience aka almost everything that the 19th-century mindset most vigorously repudiated - Catholicism*.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
* The Second Vatican Council far from rejecting this binding doctrine sought to present it in a pastorally engaging manner - supposedly more fitting to the then 'modern times' (a long-long-ago mid-20th-century). However, this well-intended effort failed, and disastrously so, and its baleful effects are still being battled over by Progressive Catholics (e.g. Pope Francis, not least) and Traditionalists (i.e. a bunch of nobodies, like me), and that speaks in volumes for the Catholic Church's experience of .. time (and times). It also underscores what the actual definitions of Pastor Aeternus set out .. Peter is indeed the Church's foundation, as a rock specifically chosen by the Rock, yet it is the Rock's Church and Peter is His authorised Minister .. regardless of however many rocks may be given that onerous task; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (a bit of a fearful idea for any passing politician or ideologue to confront as a lived reality).
An early deviation from the biblical teaching being adopted into Christianity was Neoplatonism (immortal soul).
The Bible teaches that man is mortal and that only God alone is immortal. That when a man dies he sleeps until the resurrection (1Thessalonians 4:13 et al.)
However, as Greek philosophy crept into the church with the influx of gentiles, the biblical view was overwritten with such things as people going to hell/heaven without out judgment, praying to saints, Mary and statues, purgatory and limbo.
The RCC had become a religion of death worship and necromancy.
Pope Pius the Ninth: Obey me or else
34:15 Frightening.
Absolutely beautiful and wonderful. We can't love Mary more than Jesus did.
Most blessed mother Mary, pray for us to your Son Jesus x
@@t.d6379 have you read the text ?
@@t.d6379”beautiful and wonderful” Im so sorry you had to say that.
@regost5634 I'm so sorry you've got low IQ anti-nicean anti-apolstolic Christianlite faith. Wrong biblical cannon too. Ouch.
This is just the Filioque incident with extra steps… and murder.
“The pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ,On the contrary,he is Jesus Christ Himself,under the veil of the flesh”-Pope Pius X
“You know that I am the Holy father,the representative of God on earth,the vicar of Christ,which means I am God on the earth”-Pope Pius XI
I don't see the big deal here, seeing that Jesus said of ALL of His disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, . . ." (Lk 10:16, RSV). In many descriptions of the Angel of the Lord, he is both distinguished from God and spoken of almost as if he is God. This is in the burning bush passage and also regarding the judgment and destruction of Sodom. And this is because he represents God, and in the Hebrew mind he could thus be spoken of at times as if he were God.
So this is completely biblical. The pope is God's representative on earth, as the leader of His Church. If folks "hear" Jesus in every disciple of His, they can certainly hear Jesus in the pope.
Have you a source for the quote? I could find this in doubt of its veracity: catholicpoint.blogspot.com/2012/10/pope-claiming-as-god.html?m=1 but there's nothing authoritative. Seem like an old wives tale to me.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 there’s a difference between a head of a council of apostolic successors and a dictator. That’s why the orthodox excommunicated him.
I know for a fact that the first quote is false. I can only imagine the second one is as well. If you want to attack Roman Catholicism, make sure you’re using correct sources and not falsehoods.
Jesus said give unto Caesar which is Caesar’s and give unto God which is God’s.
Separation of church and state
l'église, c'est moi!
Why is it not rational for Protestants to accept difficult biblical texts that they do not agree with?
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19, created a hierarchy & appointed an earthly representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 delegating to him the keys of authority. The twelve apostles were the first bishops who went on to ordain priests & successors which is in plain sight in the bible.
So we have a Church that He created, giving it hierarchy & authority without which, no entity from family to corporates & govt can be sustained. Protestantism, without hierarchy & no central unifying interpretative authority is lucky to have survived so long as it is not sustainable given the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, caused by personal interpretation which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
“Lying to heretics is cool” - Dr Jordan B Cooper
I am the church? No, this is exactly what the dogma NOT says.
Joel Biermann,good man..pot Luc 3 times a week..confess & Repent be free ,to do it again,,forev er r.... Looking at some church's they could care less and most do..ageing is tuff to see..
Hehe, Pope is not a Church, but he is holder of keys, and non will be saved who denies what he binds.
A devout Catholic told me today that is not the current teaching of the Church. Catholics speak out of both sides of their mouth
@@DPK5201
He did not lie to you that it is current position of hierarchy. However, we don't believe that whatever is said to be bind, but whatever is actually bind is bind (as you will see in Vatican I, that is actually dogmatic council). Same can be said for multitude of modern questions where hierarchy talks much in hope that in can override what is actually bind.
But, for our question, Jesus left the keys that binds to True Church and True Church can't deny it. Groups that don't even claim that Power are, most certainly, not that True Church. For, in order to be True Church, it is necessary for it itself to clam that power, although that claim is not sufficient.
Catholic Church is the True Church, not because it claims power that Jesus left to it, but because it can also prove it.
Non of you protestants can't even claim Power that Jesus left, let alone that you would be able to prove it.
@@DPK5201 eh, sorta. The problem with some Dogmas among your average Catholic is how they are expressed can be both subtle or bitter. What the Church truly, certainly, and authoritatively binds is 100% to be assented to or your make the sin of disobedience with your own pride.
However, the communication of what specifically is bound or not is commonly misunderstood by your average layman. As like with the President of the U.S., modern media has made many confusing spins and impressons on every little thing the Pope and Councils say.
Why attack the papacy?. The Catholic church does not in anyway affect your "church".
We should be united against a common enemy, those that wants to destroy Christianity.
He has to attack it. Otherwise if he cannot come up with some legit reason why he can ignore the authority of the Catholic Church he will be a heretic.
because Protestantism is defined by what it is protesting, until the Catholic church conforms to their beliefs.
Sola Scriptura = My interpretation is authoritative, but yours is not.
Sola Fida = My faith is authentic, but yours is not.
Protestantism = I am led by the Holy Spirit, but you are not.
Scripture interprets itself = I am the ultimate authority on Scripture and anyone who disagrees with me is not led by the Holy Spirit.
Protestantism is irrational and incoherent which contradicts the nature of God. This is why we know it cannot be from God.
You can either believe in the authority Christ established or you can believe each individual Protestant claiming to be that authority. Yet what explanation can each individual Protestant provide that he or she is the highest authority above all other Protestants? Each Protestant claims to be higher than the next, so which one should we follow?
Dr. Cooper believes that he is more authoritative than you.
The next Protestant in the comments believes that he is more authoritative than the Protestant before him.
And each Protestant believes he is more authoritative than the next Protestant.
So as someone who takes faith and logic seriously, my only question is which Protestant am I supposed to follow in order to be saved? Do I follow the teachings of Dr. Cooper? Do I follow the teachings of the next Protestant in the comments section? Or do I follow the teachings of the Protestant just after him?
The Protestant position is entirely incoherent and anyone with even half of a brain can recognize that. They do not share any single belief system except one. The only thing that unites all of them is the spirit of revolution against that authority which Christ has established. 😢
This is coming from the papal paradigm of one man must be right above all other men.
You're already starting from a flawed paradigm.
Your entire write up is assertions without a single rebuttal. How about you actually deconstruct Dr. Coopers view, I think we'd all be happy to entertain.
Critique Coopers Lutheran view, of course as shown above you default to building up a strawman of this idea of Protestantism as one cohesive and definite institution. So again, deconstruct his Lutheran view or don't waste your time making assertions based on a paradigm that is not universal.
P.S. this is coming from a Catholic who's being blatantly honest that your argument is bad.
Based
Bingo
A couple misunderstandings here. It's quite obvious that you, and other papists like you, never engage protestant arguments in good faith.
1. Let's address your comment about "Sola Scriptura" and the alleged corollary that said doctrine means "my interpretation authoritative, but yours is not". This is a gross misinterpretation of the doctrine. The doctrine simply means that the Bible is the final and highest authority to which the church Catholic appeals (NOT the **only** authority**). . It's interesting that in reading the Fathers, they don't appeal to an infallible magisterium to settle disputes but they appeal to scripture, and tradtion, with the latter essentially reflecting the same content as the former. This belief is reflected in Fathers such as Iranaous, Ignatious, and Athenasius and many more...
2. Sola Fide does not mean "my faith is authentic and yours is not" It refers to the fact that faith is the sole instrument through which the elect lay hold of Christs imputed righteousness. If you read Calvin and Luther, they affirmed that although they considered the papal church to be in serious error, there were nevertheless genuine Christians who remained in the Roman Churches.
3-- Your comment about Protestantism is almost so unserious I do not know where to start. We Protestants assert that all genuine Christians, regardless of denomination, are led by the Holy Spirit (the doctrine of the invisible church known only to God) . But, with respect to denominations, some are more pure, others less pure. A good example of this can be seen in the book of Revelation where Jesus says positive thinngs about some churches, yet chastises those same churches for specific shortcomings ..How pure a visible church is can be determined, we argue, by how closely any given visible institution maintains fidelity to the holy scriptures.
You say Protestantism is irrational and incoherent but those are not arguments, those are unsubstantiated assertions. More could be said about your first 3 points but RUclips isn't the place for long dissertations.
I will sum up and respond to the rest of your comment because you just repeat yourself using different terminology. Your comment about "how do I know which protestant to trust" and "how do I know which Protestant denomination to be in to be saved" betrays your utter and abject ignorance about the historic Protestant understanding of ecclesiology and the RC understanding of ecclesiology. It never occurs to people like you that subjectivism with respect to believing "who is right" is not something the papists gets to escape.
When someone converts to Roman Catholicism, the question could be asked, "Why Roman Catholicism? Why not Eastern Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy, or the Assyrian church of the East"? How do you know you belong to the right tradition? Don't you have to use your oh-so-scary private judgement to determine which ancient church is correct, and which others are false? All of the ancient visible branches of Christianity claim to be the one true church outside of which there is **no possibility of salvation** (Well, Rome hilariously contradicted themsevles with Vatican 2 essentially reversing course on Vatican 1 which affirmed the Tridentine proclamation that there is no salvation outside of the RC church but I digress..) . They all claim many of the same early church fathers as their own, yet they all come to mutually exclusive positions regarding their status as the one true church who faithfully reflects the understanding of the Fathers (the alleged consensus patrum) ..How do you -- using your fallible judgement -- determine which tradition has the right interpretation of scripture, tradtion and the Fathers ? You see the problem you think is inherent to Protestantism is an even bigger problem for you. This is because Protestantism-Qua - Protestantism does not hold that salvation depends on which Protestant sect you belong to whereas for the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox , the inverse is the case.
Lutherans consider Presbyterians and Baptists to be in error on important doctrines, yet they consider them to be true and genuine Christians because they agree on the fundamentals of the faith. According to the pronouncements of allegedly infallible councils in the RC, EO, OO, and AE churches, salvation is to be found SOLEY within the confines of their administrative jurisdictions, which means that for someone like you, who belongs to a visible institution with such a self-conception -- which church to join or listen to is of the utmost importance since your salvation literally depends on it. Contrast that with Protestants, who proclaim that a person is saved simply by faith in Christ alone **REGARDLESS** of denominational affiliation (whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) though we of course do recognize that it is important to belong to a faithful denomination.
You do not know what you are talking about my friend, and you sound like you are only able to regurgitate Papist surface level arguments. You should slow down and actually engage with Jordan -- and I say this as a reformed Christian, who disagrees with Jordans Lutheranism, yet still is greatly benefited by his lectures...
Protestantism is completely irrational as it is based on portions of the truth, not the full Truth.
Try as you might, no Protestant has ever explained to me why if the HS is guiding their personal interpretation that there are 000’s of sects when, by their logic, there should only be one Protestant Church ie Lutheran.
Lack of hierarchy & authority brings this mess about as without those attributes, no entity from family to corporates & govt is sustainable. In the internet age, people have access to more information & specifically the Truth, which is steadily eroding Protestantism as it is based on many heresies
I really wish Jordan Cooper could just talk and not ramble on before his point
Agreed
After all, Roman Catholicism is Rome!
I think Papal Infallibility must be taken with a grain of salt. The Pope infallibly does what he infallibly does, and that's decide and define matters of faith and morals in such a way as to organize the church for some time. Possibly years, possibly decades, possibly centuries. The church, in turn, infallibly does what it infallibly does, and that involves setting the organization framework over typically longer periods. Possibly centuries, possibly millennia. On up the ladder we get to God, who possibly provides an "Absolute", but from our perspective, that's really something of a theoretical concept. We are temporal creatures, and as such, we open ourselves to delusion if we insist on too much permanence
Jesuits
God bless you Jordan.
I personnaly believe that mr Trump and mr Musk are the 2 Beasts of the Revelation chapter 13.
Trump definitely is not worse than fake Catholics Biden and Pelosi. Ridiculous
Off topic. Please delete
@@ludvigdeck5012 misinformation
9 11 was an inside job.
ACtually not. Pretty relevent I tend to believe.
About that Marian prayer. I think the idea is Communion with the Divinely Simple via mediation through (identification with) "Parts". Since Parts are contrary to Simplicity, it must be understood that these "Parts" are merely constructs of our imagination to make some measure of sense of the Incomprehensible Simplicity of God. IOW, we don't take these prayers in the absolutely literal way Protestants suggest we do, and the flowery language should be understood more as poetry (eg, as opposed to literally attributing Divinity to Mary)
Matt 16:18 has to prove the following 3 components in order to support papal claims:
1. The rock is clearly in reference to Saint Peter
2. That St. Peter is the chief apostle given a special and unique infallible authority that the other apostles do not have.
3. That this special unique authority is passed on the Peter’s successor found in the bishop of Rome.
#1 is not clear. Some fathers believed it was Peter ,others Christ, still others Peter’s confession of Christ.
#2 That has to be eisegeted into the text. It simply isn’t there. Peter being the representative of the 12 apostles (1st amongst equals) who are the foundation of the church is an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of scripture. (Eph 3).
#3 Nothing in Matt 16:18 even infers succession to Peter. Nothing in the text even addresses a successor much less whether the successor is a sole bishop.
Tertullian believed there were no successors to Peter. Origen believed every Christian is a successor to St. Peter. St cyprian believed all bishops are successors to st .peter.
Conclusion: 0f the3 components, the 1st maybe, #2 and#3 are not found in matt 16:18. Thus the primary verse used by Rome fails to prove the Roman claims.
not in Matthew 16:18, but if you travel your eyes a lot further (hard, I know) to Matthew 16:19, he uniquely is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039
But that doesn't say anything about the Roman Catholic. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven means the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth giving to his disciples, in this case Peter, to give this Keys to others so they can reach Heaven. If it wasn't for the apostolic works of all apostles, the salvation that comes from the Gospel couldn't be spreaded, so, no one could ever had the Keys to enter Heaven, only the Apostles would had it. Also, if you go more a bit further, in Matthew 18:18, Christ say to his disciples that all of them had those Keys, even Paul when he became an Apostle recived this Keys. (Obvliously there's no verse in the Bible that Paul had recived this Keys, but, his apostolic work showed this in all his epistoles and writings, he taught us how to go to heaven and how God made righteous the man, not by his works, but for his faith, as is giving the salvation as a gift.)
Also, if you read the book of Acts, you'll know that thanks to the Sermon of Peter in Pentecost, all believers in that precise day, recived the Holy Spirit, the promise that Jesus told to his disciples when He resurrect. And Peter make clear that from now on, everyone that has been baptized in the name of the Fater, Son and Holy Spirit shall have the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:14-40). So, in that case, Peter "unlocked" with the Keys that Christ has giving to him in the past, so everyone can enjoy and be part of that promise that has been unlocked.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039And if you read the second half of verse 19, hard I know, one finds Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ tells us what the keys to the kingdom of heaven is. That is, he bind or loose a person’s sins. He says, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Nothing about the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” infers a monarchal papistry, a perpetual office, infallibility, or any of the other Roman claims. And while one can rightfully point that St. Peter was first given this power, we find Christ gave the same power to all the apostles. (Matt. 18:18 and John 20:23)
Also, there's no evidence that the Papacy is descended from Peter. Even if it were for a while, the line of succession is broken as soon as you get someone who goes against anything the Bible says, and encourages others to do so.
@@juan_xd42
Keys are an allusion to Is 22.
Jesus was making Peter the Royal Steward of the new restored davidic kingdom.
Jesus said give unto Caesar which is Caesar’s and give unto God which is God’s.
Separation of church and state
Caesar needs to bend the knee to Christ the King, also, I’m pretty sure you’re misinterpreting that verse. I think Jesus is getting at the point that you can’t serve two masters, but you can either serve Caesar, or serve God, not both.
@@thelonelysponge5029: it’s a both and statement, not an either or statement!