Pope Vigilius: A Challenge to Vatican 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- In this video I discuss how the conflict between Pope Vigilius and Constantinople II in 553 A.D. represents a challenge to papal supremacy as taught at Vatican 1.
ESV Church History Study Bible: www.amazon.com/ESV-Church-His...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 Introduction
02:41 ESV Church History Study Bible
04:07 1. Clarifying the Concern
06:08 What are Accretions?
07:53 Can the Papacy Develop?
10:17 Protestants + Other Traditions
12:04 Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger
16:48 Supremacy vs. Primacy
21:03 Papal Infallibility
22:23 Papal Supremacy
25:07 2. The Story of Pope Vigilius
36:11 3. Why This is a Problem
48:16 Wrapping Up
I'm a simple man. I see a Gavin Ortlund video, I block out an appropriate amount of time to watch and thoughtfully consider his points.
I'm similar, but instead of blocking out time to watch it once and understand it, I block out the whole work day to listen to it on repeat until I finally get it haha
@@TheRoark Right there with ya buddy 😂. Currently "working" right now!
When I listen to his videos while exercising, I feel like I'm doubly productive 😄
@@marianhreads ;)
And is anyone going to try to rebut this? I haven’t seen the typical reaction “refuting…” videos in response!
You are a bridge between laymen and the scholarship, I’m grateful
I grew up traditional Catholic later became agnostic but after researching historical evidence for the resurrection i became Christian but had problems with church(because i was looking at it through Catholicism)
But after watching your material protestantism did filled those gaps for me
Thanks Dr Ortlund.
What a lovely commendation for this channel. This is (partly) why I am pleased to be a Patreon
What kind of traditional catholic were you?
so glad my videos have been useful to you! May the Lord bless you and guide you.
I had a sorta similar story. Grew up conservative Roman Catholic, with some Catholic Worker (left wing) Roman influenced. Studying the historical method helped me see evidence for Christianity but destroyed my belief in the papacy. Spent next 20 years learning more.
@@rightly-ordered Don't let Gavin Ortlund see all this historical evidence FOR the Papacy!😂😂 Keep up the GOD work! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
Dr Ortlund and Erik Ybarra discussion(not debate) on the papacy would be so amazing since both are pretty respectful and charitable 👍. Make it happen 🙏
Eric Ybarra gave an exhaustive and charitable response to this video - definitely worth the listen to hear a response from an expert on papal history / theology
Every time one of you videos comes out I feel like a kid with a new toy. Thanks for your work
Thanks again Dr. Ortlund. Can't wait to see all the rebuts. I honestly believe that the strength of any argument is almost always directly proportional to the volume of its rebuttals. And up to now, on RUclips, you are the undisputed champion.
😃
THIS! 😁
They haven’t refute this, they know Dr Ortlund Dunk on them
@@internautaoriginal9951 watch Erick Ybarra on the channel Intellectual Catholicism
At the Council of Chalcedon (near Constantinople) in AD 451, when a letter from the Pope was read aloud, hundreds of bishops roared with approval and chanted "Peter has spoken!"
In summary, papal supremacy is neither Biblical nor a historical reality in the early centuries. Hence Vatican 1 needs to be thoroughly reviewed if unity is to be sought with Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East.
At the Council of Chalcedon (near Constantinople) in AD 451, when a letter from the Pope was read aloud, hundreds of bishops roared with approval and chanted "Peter has spoken!"
@@fantasia55 Can you provide source for this? I am trying to verify it.
@DsBoyan "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo."
@goldenspoon87 Even though Gavin says the papacy did not exist until the sixth century, note that the Councils of Nicea in AD 325 and Chaldedon in AD 451 were chaired by the papal legates:
"It was the emperor Marcian who, after the "robber" council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate. Moreover, the provinces of the West were being laid waste by Attila's invasions. But before the pope's view became known, the emperor Marcian had, by an edict of 17 May 451, convoked the council for 1 September 451. Although the pope was displeased, he sent legates: Paschasinus bishop of Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian of Cos."
"The legates Paschasinus, Bishop Lucentius and the priest Boniface presided."
Love your lectures, across academic disciplines as well. So honest and well formulated. Thanks for sticking your neck out on the internet to produce these
12:37 one other fact about Johann Joseph, he was not only a life long Catholic theologian and historian, he was also a life long Catholic priest who was alongside many who rejected papal infallibility.
Having recently been studying this era of church history and Christology, I just want to say that you do a great job of balancing the big picture with the nuance. The sympathy towards the humanity of these individuals is much needed in an age of rancor and distrust. It just shows how important it is to both affirm a normal teaching authority in the church but not it’s irreformability.
It reminds me of that insightful observation by Kierkegaard, that there is an infinite difference between a genius (or apostolic successor) and an Apostle. As Protestants we affirm Apostolic tradition above all, but according to the best and most certain witness of the church, and the nature of human knowing, this is found in scripture and no other place. That is what makes it the rock of the church’s unity. We abandon it at our pearl-it is at once the church’s certainty and point of its greatest humility.
Amen
Thank you, Gavin.
Can't you have him on your channel? Would be amazing.
The thing about history is when you investigate and find evidence it's simply speaks for itself.
I hear Trent Horn's "protestants argue like atheists" claim being dealt with.
Thank you for another fantastic church history video Dr. Ortlund.
New Ortlund video = good day
Thank you for the detailed history!
I encourage anyone who derived any value to send at least a $1.99 super thanks button
Thanks for that!
Loving this. Thank you dr. Ortlund! I wish there were more well read and irenic YT protestant apologists like you.
Excellent presentation! Thank you for all the work that went into making this presentation. It was very helpful.
Thanks for the great video!
You do it very charitable and truthful!
Another excellent and helpful video, thank you!
A difficulty in the papacy for me is the great schism. I'm am not sure what qualities as far as discernment Roman Catholics would believe apostolic succession give the church. seeing that the Eastern Orthodox once being unified with Rome and also claiming apostolic succession reject the papacy there seems to be a discrepancy.
Wow! Awesome video!! 💪💪
Great video.
Great points! It's true I have heard from Catholic apologists as an explanation that they don't define things until a need arises...yet the papacy has been hotly contested for a very long time before 1870 Vatican 1.
The Church can be, and often is, scandalously silent. The infallibility of the Church is a negative charism; it protects from error, but it does not tell the Church what to say and when. This is why things often get defined during controversies: the Church won’t make a declaration unless it knows there’s dispute over a point. But the Church can still be imprudently slow, or decide making a declaration would do more harm than good.
Also multiple ecumenical councils (Ephesus, Chalcedon, Cple 3, Nicea II, Lyons II, Florence) touched on papal claims. Vatican I was a reply to a major issue: Gallicanism. It did imo get defined clearly when it needed to be during a controversy, and obviously the ideas in Vatican I exited prior.
@Jeb! Bush I hope you can understand how that sounds like a kind of special pleading. Also, Catholicism claims to have this ability to infallibly interpret Scripture yet by self admission they have only produced literally 0 to 7 total individual infallible interpreted verses in all of Scripture.
@Jeb! Bush It undermines the believability of the claims and also weakens the argument Catholics routinely use against Protestants (namely that they have private interpretation etc. yet Catholicism has only produced up to 7 verses).
@Jeb! Bush so basically "the church" is claiming to have this special charism gift of infallibility from the "pope" or in concert with the "magisterium" yet it produces nearly zilch.
The claims end up seeming like more of a bludgeoning tool or Trump card Catholics use against Non Catholic Christians than something actually legitimate.
Thank you for the church history resources
Simply splendid work. Will you be doing a case study on infallibility and Honorius I?
I really enjoyed this video. I don’t know much about this historical time period so it’s very interesting to hear about it. I do have a small suggestion. I would find it easier to follow if you were to change the structure of videos like this so the two main sections are largely reversed. As someone who doesn’t know the history, I’d like to hear those details first and then the explanation of how they tie into your arguments. Maybe you can give a quick summary of your argument first, but I get kind of lost in the details of the argument when I’m still waiting for the historical data. Thanks for considering this, and thanks again for all the time, effort and research you put into these videos!
Story time with Uncle Gavin.
gather round, kids!
Excellent work!. How many of the Roman Catholic tradition know this?.
Council of Nicea was chaired by the papal legate, who began proceedings by reading a letter from the Pope.
Very very practically informative. I love the two ways you have to demonstrate the view of the church as not understanding the pope being granted infallibility. Your points were very charitable and very clearly stated
Ty
Great vid. Thanks for your work, Gavin! Have you read Gregg Allison’s more recent book on Roman Catholic Theology and Practice?
This is a fantastic presentation, Dr. Gavin. I'm deeply appreciative not only of your content, but of your great humility and irenicism. May God continue to bless you.
If I'm honest, I wish I would have delved more deeply into the Catholic claims about the papacy as I was researching both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. If only you had presented this material back in 2014! Since there's so much data to sift through, so many different nuanced arguments for and against different aspects of the Catholic claim, it all becomes overwhelming. One must ultimately make a choice. And as you pointed out in this video, it's not as though the Roman Church wasn't pre-eminent or prestigious in the early years of the Church. The Eastern Church acknowledges this point, as Dr. Edward Siecienksi points out in his book on the papacy. Rome was seen by many Church Fathers to hold the Truth Faith untainted and in tact, and was often looked at as a bastion of Orthodoxy, even as many of the heresies originated in the East.
That being said, in light of recent developments in Catholicism (Francis and all of his scandals; the pachamama idolatry; Amoris Laetitia; Fiducia Supplicans, among many others), I am seriously re-evaluating the Church. I am an unsettled Catholic, at this point. I'm actually reading Brian Tierney's book about Papal Infallibility, which has been eye-opening.
May God continue to bless and protect you, brother Gavin!
thanks for the kind comments and may the Lord bless you and direct you!
Great work as always Dr. Ortlund.
I do think this is a very big issue for supremacy, and I'm not sure asserting doctrinal development as the answer works for various reasons. Love it.
Another good video, Dr. Ortlund. Your facial expression for the video is rather animated.
13:07 Remember that the Catholic view is that the Pope has infallibility and also the bishops in communion with him in an ecumenical council, so the Catholic view isn’t just that the pope is infallible.
Dear Pastor Gavin,
thank you for this great video!
Could you please do a video on the seven ecumenical councils from a Protestant view?☺️
Thank you Dr. Ortlund for your concise and informative yet also greatly palatable videos! I'm greatly blessed by your work.
I struggle with the Idea of harmonizing the Christianity confessed in the council of Trent with Pauls writings even on the most shallow level.
Especially Session 6 Cannon XXXII seems to me to directly contradict Galatians 5,4 where Paul says that anyone who thinks he can add to his being saved by his own works has lost grace and is now required to keep the whole law.
I know that you have said several times that you think the Catholic case is different from the Judaisers' but i struggle to see how.
Btw I do think that most Catholics either by ignorance or conscious choice don't hold to that Cannon of Trent and therefore are in any case real brothers and sisters in Christ.
Thanks for clarifying
Hi Gavin! Please do more book recommendation
will do! glad they are helpful.
Hi Gavin, I just picked up your book as a 17 year old atheist, “Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t”, and it has absolutely captivated me in a way no other book has, I can’t put it down and it has really got me interested in the subject!
I had a short question regarding the first chapter, however: contingent things are things that could have been another way, for example I could have been 5’10 instead of 6’1, however my entire life I have subscribed to a deterministic philosophy and I feel like it runs very contrary to this idea! I can’t wrap my head around there being other possibilities, in my view everything that happens is just a consequence of a totally natural physical reaction, no randomness or free will. I hope it follows that I find it difficult to understand the argument and I hope you could add a little more clarity for me, the other type of argument you expressed regarding the causation chain definitely got me thinking but you seemed to view it as considerably weaker and I want to make sure I have gotten everything straight.
Thank you so much Gavin, God bless.
so wonderful to hear this! Thanks! Yes, I think the general idea is simply that contingent things are those that are (theoretically) could not exist at all. So even in a determinist philosophy, you could say that you even if your height couldn't have been different, you are still a contingent thing as such (unless, I suppose, you view the entire physical universe as non-contingent). Does that help at all?
@@TruthUnites That definitely clarifies it for me, thank you so much for taking the time to respond! Your work is very admirable and it means a lot to me and I’m sure many other people here
@@radawrr so glad to hear that, may God bless you!
Left the Reformed Baptist movement after 20+ years and almost became Catholic, now I'm Lutheran. Thanks Gavin.
Getting spicy on this fine Monday
Gavin this is *excellent*. Seriously so good. You make such an important point, and I almost can't overstate this and just want to highlight it: *papal primacy is not papal supremacy*. It's so interesting that even Melancthon in signing the Augsburg confession said that he'd be willing to submit to the Pope as a kind of archbishop of the whole church if it was conceded that the pope was so by the consent of the faithful. So all the appeals to the fathers on the pre eminence of the Roman bishop don't show what Romr claims
Anglican, "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church " ( John Chrysostom). The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Matthew Broderick and St. Chrysostom also said that Christ built His Church on Peter's confession of Jesus.
''What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.'' (Homily 54, Gospel of Matthew). Thus, at best he believed that Peter was Shepherd of the Universal Church as among the Apostles, not as the rock of the Church visible. This fits much better with the quote you provided, of which I ask for citation.
@fireEagle John Chrysostom also teaches the bread and wine become the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ and that Peter was given jurisdiction over all the Church! So, again, can anyone know with infallible certitude who the rock is in Matthew 16? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Matthew Broderick I asked for citation of your quote
@Matthew Broderick besides, I already answered on your own comment on this same video. Answer there.
I followed along with the transcript and there were some amazingly wrong words or attempts at words. But my favorite was Paypal infallibility. Although it has always been true money talks really loudly.
I read and studied Vatican I. Finally a Gavin video I can respond to. No other Catholics respond to this - Trent. Trent! Trent, put down the camera. Trent, no. . . . - His response is already up ain’t it? 😢
Waiting for Trent Horn’s response
On a side note, it's a little questionable to me when someone has a response for *everything.* It's rare that someone is an expert on all matters, even all matters within their field of training.
Will you post your response here after you’ve made it?? I’d give it a listen
@@jambangoni If Gavin or his mod allows it. You can always click my icon, no pun intended. I do a vid a week, mostly Philosophical deconstructions on ancient text & classic Philosophical works. Currently working my way through the council of Trent, my most popular series was just me reading and giving my opinion on the Quran (that was like 5 years ago, my channel had been slowly dying since then).
This will definitely trigger Trent 😂
Great video on this! I would love you to make a video on what you mentioned around 27:00 with Jesus' body. I recently got some food caught in my throat and had to go to the ER (luckily I vomited it out before anything drastic happened), and I remember being comforted by the idea that Jesus had human frailties and potentially vomited just as I was doing. I would love to hear your take on whether that is biblical or not!
The thing is when you hear someone make a huge claim and then say "This is how it has always been" and everyone looks around and goes "what!!!!". That's what Rome does.
Do you affirm the Trinity? Meaning God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
If you refuse to affirm God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, how can you claim to be Christian? Behold the fruits of Sola Scriptura. This is why Protestantism is a dumpster fire.
I think you know there are so many FALSE accretions.
You put it well!!!! Rome has added SO MUCH to THE BIBLE. They are add and add false, mandatory doctrine that takes away from JESUS & GOD'S WORD. 🔩🙏 They basically have ANOTHER BIBLE-- canon law & catechism teaching. Like Jesus is not enough. JESUS IS the AUTHOR & FINISHER OF FAITH!
@@enshala6401 I affirm all that the scriptures teach to be true.
I also love the scriptural image of marriage being like that of Christ and the Church. If true, what does that say about who we submit to as members of the church body?
Ayy, my highschool history teacher assigned founding brothers as summer reading. From what I remeber it was a good read.
Excellent. Thank you for your work , Dr. Ortlund.
Wonder how long it will be before we see 100 Catholic RUclips responses?
Just listening! Is there also a connection between this subject and ultramontanism/gallicanism?
After the great schism, was the eastern or the Western church(es) more populous? Having trouble finding data so I really appreciate any help.
Mark of Ephesus after Florence claimed the Latin ‘race’ was larger, and this would’ve been before Catholics converted the world. So I think the western church was probably more populous.
Time-stamps
43:00 , 44:20 - This is the key - how they used Ecclesiastes 4:9 and Matthew 18:20.
Dr. Ortlund, I’d love to see you have Dr. Price come on your show to discuss this matter. I’d be interested how he would defend the controversies involving Pope Vigilius while remaining a Catholic. The quotes you cited seemed to take a very negative view. I know Dr. Price will come on podcasts, I recall seeing him on Reason and Theology. He would have to have good “steel-man” reasons on this matter since he is so steeped in the history but has remained Catholic nonetheless.
On the question raised at 15:17, I think that the political timing of Vatican I is not to be ignored. 1870 was the year of the capture of Rome: on the 20th of Sept, Italian troops invaded the city and put an end to the Papal State, officially joining Rome to the Kingdom of Italy. For a long time, Roman Catholic Italians were (at least technically) forbidden to partake in the politics of the Kingdom.
Do political tensions wholly explain Vatican I? Probably not. But I think we cannot overlook the import of making the pope infallible right before the fall of his temporal power.
It didn’t work out in 1848, but in 1870 Italy unified; thus ending Papal Temporal Power
Dr. Ortlund, can you please create a video on Sola Fide? I am coming to the conclusion that is disgaree with this idea but I feel maybe I am not understanding it right in historical context.
I have a video on justification, let me know if you can’t find it!
As a catholic theologian from Poland who due to the patristic research become convinced of the papacy (being sceptic and even rejecting the historicity of the papal claims) I do not want to respond in the comment due to limited space but I am sending the link to the debate between me and the eastern orthodox scholar, Father Patrick Ramsey on the topic: "Did the Eastern Church believe in papal supremacy before Photian affair?". God bless you and enjoy in the watching the debate, there I gave some reasons to historicity of the papal supremacy in the first millenium - ruclips.net/video/CabsjuULGxQ/видео.html
thx for sharing, hope I can find some time to watch this! God bless.
Loved this debate thanks for commenting
@@jebbush2527 Thanks, good to hear it.
Hoping to see a video about the history of Mary and saint veneration as I said before. Gonna watch this one. Cheers
I would suggest this book. Luigi Gambero
Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought
Although he is a Roman Catholic scholar he also can only use the sources from the church fathers and apocryphal texts. You can clearly trace the development of Mariology in the universal church.
@@erichhershey2308 Apochryphal texts are useless.
@@internautaoriginal9951apocryphal and psuedopigraphal texts like the 2nd century Protoevangelium of James have become a foundational texts that have formed many of the early church's traditions and doctrines about Mary. I would personally consider them unorthodox, fanciful and gnostic, but it is good for Protestants to learn about these things when engaging with Roman Catholics or Orthodox.
@@erichhershey2308 Useless theologically, but useful to understand where Catholics got ideas to fabricate their dogmas.
@@erichhershey2308 It doesn’t matter they are not official, y’all follow this because of Origen who became a heretic
No human being can be infallible, and power leads to corruption and evil. Every true believer receives the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who leads into understanding scripture. Scholars, pastors can be of immense help, but are not always right either. In the end, each individual person is responsible. Saying you followed the pope/a church will not excuse your own accountability. They may have greater accountability, but that will not excuse your own personal accountability.
So... you have more wisdom, knowledge, understanding, fortitude, temperance, piety, and fear of the Lord than the Pope?
Let me ask - if you could snap your fingers and make the Catholic Church disappear tomorrow, would you do so? Do you want it to go away?
@@enshala6401 Most anyone has more of those qualities than the pope. He is among the most evil of people.
The religion of Catholicism will go away in due time. It has a role to play with the Anti-Christ and Tribulation prophecies. In the meantime, we must witness to all those deceived and enslaved in that false system.
The Pope is not "Infallible" in the sense you're harping on about you numpty 😂😂
It's a whole bunch of virtue signalling nonsense you've typed.
@@bobaphat3676 Who are you addressing? Your comment makes zero sense with anything I wrote.
Must be more of your hate-filled, truth-denying nonsense. Now with name-calling too. You sure are a great witness to Catholicism and proving not being true Christian.
@@enshala6401 Joyce never said she had “more” stop strawmanning her.
Joyce simply said that the pope just like anyone else can be wrong when speaking on matters of faith and doctrine
Dr. Ortlund can a Protestant (as myself) accept the acts of the first 4 ecumenical councils as binding and valid, but not their canons?
My reason is, that I don't see the offices of Bishop and Metropolitan following from scripture. However, it is of great help when distinguishing between a Mormon and a Christian being able to point to the Chalcedonian definition.
Well, I would think the canons would be part of the acts?
But nothing stopping you from saying "I believe in all the doctrine (as opposed to governmental things) taught in the first 4 ecumenical councils"
@@user-dc7im7cy4v The distinction was looking a bit arbitrary for me, but I think it would be acceptable to say that the doctrine follows from scripture, but the canons deal with things scripture is silent on?
With "silent" I mean, that there is only a requirement for bishops and deacons, but Paul doesn't prohibit the establishment of other offices. Would that make a good argument?
For what it's worth, a few years ago, I felt like the RCs might be right, so I read a bunch of popular apologetic books by them and got the argument, but then I read Klaus Schatz's book on the papacy. He was a Roman Catholic historian, and that book completely dispelled any thought of papal infallibility and supremacy in my mind as anything other than a late development that was, in many ways, an accident of history due to waning papal temporal authority.
Would you be interested in doing a debate on the papacy with Erick Ybarra?
As someone discerning between EO and RC, this has definitely been the hardest for the RCs to overcome. Seems nearly insurmountable tbh.
What’s up Ben - agreed this does seem like an insurmountable argument for the Roman Catholic position.
@@SirThighmaster haha what’s up man. Your username kills me
Thanks for this video. I think it’s going to stir up a lot of additional commentary and videos. I see a lot of good points you made.
One thing that comes to my mind is:
When thinking through these issues I try to imagine that I’ve never heard of Christianity and do my best to play a mental game observing the argument from the outside as a nonbeliever as best I can with the very simple starting point of the claim that it is a religion instituted by a perfect, all knowing God who became man. From there I try to draw a line from that point until now through history. When doing that, I still think that “preeminence, primacy, privilege, significance etc” are at least a piece of evidence as to which direction things were to develop. I still see the development over time from preeminence/primacy etc to supremacy as a more logical straight forward development than from preeminence/primacy to Protestantism and denial of all the other “p” words.
I grant all the messiness of it and challenges that come in through history etc and am still working through this/am no expert. Am also not catholic at this point.
Would love to read anyone’s differing thoughts on that below if you wish.. thank you
Perhaps it would help to know that Protestants do still hold to "the p words" you mentioned - they just locate them at a different point than the Magisterium and Papacy. Protestants hold to the scriptures as infallible and rely on the collective wisdom of history, councils, and any other worthy source, to interpret them, but by not holding any one interpreter up as infallible we avoid entrenching error as irreformable doctrine and thus are free to continuously examine both ourselves and our beliefs to resist the additions that men are constantly trying to add (such as legalism, extra-Biblical requirements, etc.), and bring back the parts of the faith which we also are inclined to drop or deemphasize (like the doctrines of sin and hell, and a Biblical understanding of right and wrong). Of course there are many Protestants who are very shallow in their faith and understanding of their own denominational beliefs/history, but those like Gavin who think deeply about these things can, I think, articulate a very nuanced and historically/theologically grounded framework for why they believe what they do, and why we believe Protestantism is the best way we can serve and understand God.
I hope that helps! May God bless you as you search for him.
@@tategarrett3042 thanks for the response. I understand that some Protestants have deep knowledge and examination of councils but then judge councils on their own interpretation of scripture.. what I’m saying is, the early church and the Bible place a special emphasis on Peter and/or the Petrine chair of Rome which we have termed preeminence/privilege/significance etc. in this discussion. that idea of preeminence has developed into supremacy in the Roman church which is fair to criticize. But that idea of preeminence has become obsolete in Protestantism as it has developed over the past 500 years. You can find echos of it in the early reformers such as Luther calling the Roman church the most blessed but I have never met a Protestant who holds to any sort of primacy/preeminence/significance of the Roman church/pontif or even much respect for it at all in many cases. So the development from preeminence to supremacy is more logical to me than preeminence to obsolete.
I may not be communicating clear enough and can potentially work on that when not typing on my phone later
@@jambangoni I think I see what you are saying here. I absolutely understand your perspective - I think the key difference in this (between Protestants and Catholics) is that Protestants don't see Peter as ever having been given that Preeminence in the way that Rome does. I think Gavin has done a video on this but if not I know there are others, and many books, that lay it out very carefully and considerately, but the basic idea is that Jesus restores Peter and proclaims his confession of faith as the Rock on which the Church is built, and that the historical record of the early church, and even of the church into the medieval era, supports this. So thus the Protestant view isn't one of Peter progressing from Primacy to obsolescence but one in which he is one of Christ's own Apostles - instrumental in founding and guiding the church, heroic in his martyrdom, and singular in his role. That is simply to say that his role was not hereditary or endowed with the powers and authority we see in the papacy today.
@@tategarrett3042 I am personally 50/50 on whether or not He was claiming Peter or Peter’s faith (or both) as the Rock, so I am with you there. But I disagree that the evidence from the early Church makes it clear that it was only his profession of faith… there are numerous examples of what important figures in the early church thought regarding this. Many pronounced that this was one mechanism the Lord placed in order to retain unity. Here is only one example of many from Cyprus of Carthage.. ~250 AD
The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
This to me is much more consistent with Rome’s idea today than Protestantism and is not the earliest quote of its type, just one of the more encompassing for a short discussion here. Regardless, it is well before the medieval era. I Appreciate the discussion..
@@jambangoni I appreciate this discussion too! And I thank you for this quote. I am not certain if this is the same as the one I am thinking of but I do remember (I'm pretty sure it was Gavin) talking about the need to contextualize the quotes that are often brought up in relation to these issues. It is possible I am thinking of a different one, but he did explain in depth how the second and third centuries were very hard times for the church with both persecution and heresy threatening it all around, and thus the writers and church fathers of this time are far more hard-line in their proclamations of who is and is not a Christian because they needed such leadership and clarity at the time even if some of the things they said weren't necessarily the view that the church before, or after them, had settled on. This is not to say that the chair of Peter originated in this time or that all of these things were fabricated in response to the times but simply that they developed out of necessity in part due to the extreme circumstances of the era. I don't mean to dismiss what you said with this either but simply to say that even if this was the prevailing view at the time and not simply that of one person in particular, there is good reason to examine the views of the time, and of the centuries before and after with a view of the context and circumstances in which they were articulated. I'll see if I can find the video he mentioned it in to help clarify it better than I am.
Stop arguing like an Athesit Dr. Ortlund 😅 j/k. Excellent video and I love your honesty and willingness to share it without any spin!
What would the Bishops of Vatican 1 expect other Bishops to do when a Pope taught falsely? Did the Bishops of Vatican 1 think this had never happened? Did they gloss over the details of what happened with Vigilus? Or was their tale about Church history constructed in such a way to allow for events like that to occur from time to time? I just read the text of Vatican 1 now, and it's not a huge stretch for me to think the Bishops there didn't intend to rule out things like what you've described here with Vigilus, and my limited knowledge of the deliberations at the Council indicates that they probably had discussions about Vigilus and other Popes and events like that, and ultimately crafted what they crafted without thinking they were contradicting such things?
Yes the Vatican1 fathers were quite aware of Vigilus, Honorius, Liberius which had been brought up beforehand for centuries by conciliarists and non-RC polemicists (and continue to). The Vat1 decree was crafted and qualified taking these cases into account. One can read Bishop Gasser's Relatio on infalliibility from the council, or the classic historical defenses of the papacy by Bellarmine or the former Anglicans John Chapman and Luke Rivington.
I would really enjoy a Christology lesson, I know a lot of the early heresies were over Christology and even what a few were about but not to the extent I should as a lover of the gospel and history.
Let's live like Jesus Christ. I want to be like Christ of mind and Christ... Let's live in HOLLINES. Without HOLLINES YOU can't see GOD JESUS CHRIST. LET'S WORK OUR OWN SALVATION
Mr. Ortlund, would you mind making a video on Adrian Fortescue’s “The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451?” I think that many of the claims made within that text will be brought up throughout this dialogue between Catholics and Protestants regarding Papal Supremacy and should be useful fuel for further discussion.
I was wondering if Gavin or any of his viewers could share their thoughts on Eusebius and his view of apostolic succession in Rome. He describes the episcopacy as being held by one person at a time, beginning with Peter, but sometimes he mentions Paul too. I'll put some quotes below.
III.2.1 After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.
III.21.2 He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus, who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter.
III.4.9 As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.
IV.4.1-2 About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria died, and Primus, the fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.
At that time also Alexander, the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years.
Also, it's not "after Easter." It's still Eastertide! So, Happy Easter!
Whatever happened to yuan yajun? You still around brother? Hope you are doing well!
I wondered about that one just yesterday. Likewise, hoping good things for Yajun.
Regarding primacy vs supremacy section, where you describe it as a “stretch”, I think of as more of microscopic view. It’s a close up of the detail of the role, but then on zooming back out you see it in relation to the episcopate and get a more holistic picture of what the papacy actually is. Infallibility and supremacy are clearly things that can only be fully understood within the context of the whole episcopate and not things that stand on their own.
Plus IX himself signed his name post V1 to a document clarifying the following:
1. The pope cannot arrogate to himself the episcopal rights, nor substitute his power for that of the bishops;
2. the episcopal jurisdiction has not been absorbed in the papal jurisdiction;
3. the pope was not given the entire fulness of the bishops’ powers by the decrees of the Vatican Council;
4. he has not virtually taken the place of each individual bishop;
5. he cannot put himself in the place of a bishop in each single instance, vis-à-vis governments;
6. the bishops have not become instruments of the pope;
7
they are not officials of a foreign sovereign in their relations with their own governments.
Una Sancta 12 (1957), p 227
Also, primacy of honor is based on the geographical principle of New Rome but the primacy of the pope as understood by the Catholic Church is on the theological principle of Old Rome
I also think it’s worth noting that Ratzinger in Principles of Catholic Theology said that for purposes of ending the schism, it’s only reasonable for Catholics to ask Orthodox to simply accept the primacy as it was for the first millennium and not necessarily according to the V1 formulation. In my head, it’s kind of like the primacy as understood for those years is analogous to “Newtonian” physics, accurate on a practical level. The V1 formulation is more quantum, and if that’s not accepted or understood, the “Newtonian” definition still works on a practical level as well as for purposes of unity.
@@asgrey22 sounds like a lot of theologically “hoops” to jump through to make papal supremacy and/or infallibility historical or biblical. It’s troubling considering how cursed I am according to Trent. If a certain doctrine is essential to salvation it should be clear, historically rooted and very very biblically rooted; I just wish the RCC would take that viewpoint
@@CCiPencil Primacy of Peter/Rome is relatively easy to establish biblically and historically. Supremacy/infallibility become more obvious implications once you flesh it out (“zoom” in). Vatican I itself rejected papalism and says the college of bishops is divinely instituted. Rejection of the primacy and episcopate entirely is much more difficult to reconcile with the sources, in my opinion.
@@asgrey22 primacy of Peter and Rome isn’t the issue. It’s the demand that other Christian’s adopt dogmas and doctrines that aren’t found in scripture or early history and if we don’t then we are to be damned and cut off from the Church. To be honest, it just doesn’t sound like a gracious, loving, and Christian approach to Church power and authority. The RCC basically says Go To Hell if you disagree. I’m honestly not even sure if the RCC sees me as a Christian brother or if my local church is an actual church whose head is Christ in the eyes of Rome. These are increasingly important matters, for a long long time it was an eternal salvation issue. Maybe we should be a little more gracious and little more loving and a little more patient to one another before people start cursing each other to Hell.
Can the RCC ever walk back of it’s many anathemas and still maintain its theology or would it completely distort the foundation of Rome? I reject the Pope, reject Marian Dogmas, etc. does that mean I am going to Hell even though I trust and follow Jesus Christ and even though family members (Christian’s and non) see a significant change in my words, behavior, outlook, my whole being, etc.
Thank You for your response, just so you know even though I reject many of RCC dogmas and doctrine, I don’t reject it as a Church nor do I reject individual catholics who profess faith in Jesus Christ and bear His fruit. Can the RCC do the same (theologically)?
@@CCiPencil Anathemas don’t apply to Protestants. They were a disciplinary measure directed toward baptized members of the Catholic Church and aren’t even in use today according to canon law. Vatican 2 explicitly says Protestants truly seeking truth today cannot be held accountable for being born outside the church. Officially, you are separated brethren! Because the Church is Eucharistic and flows from Eucharist, the body of Christ, it wouldn’t consider congregations without valid sacraments to be the church, at least in the proper sense. The idea is that unity leads to diversity but is also prior to it, rather than believing unity is made out of separated parts/denominations by finding the lowest common denominator. But it also does not deny your Christian baptism! Anyone who has been baptized is a Christian in the eyes of the RCC, hence the separated brethren. The church has never believed it had the authority to condemn souls, only that it can warn those who are venturing outside the tradition.
I no longer can watch without seeing this important factor:
Every argument hinges upon an equivocation of "Church". We just don't mean the same things when we use the word. That's just all there is to it.
Let me illustrate:
A Catholic when they state, "Church history," exclusively and definitively means, "the history of those subordinated to the Roman Pontiff." That's just all there is to it. To state something like, "This has always been the custom of the Roman Catholic Church," is basically a truism because of the fluidity of the organization. They claim the teachings of the fathers when convenient and don't when it's not, and they redefine their history as they see fit because there is no mechanism by which to stop such things.
When a Protestant says, "Church history," they mean, "the history of those who profess belief in Christ as their Lord and Savior," and generally also, "who also profess His Deity and participation in the Trinity." If we don't speak while holding those kinds of distinctions in mind, we will always miss the mark.
Thanks for you clear and concise teaching. It basically boils down to one bishop in Rome exalting himself above all the others. I love my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, but the claims of the Roman church are just not accurate historically or plausible. We see this with other dogmas as well.
Gavin, in view of Jesus commanding servant leadership as in Mark 10:40. Why is this ultimate power claim by popes and is this what the Lord called the doctrine of the Nicolaitans?
There's a good book, is also easy to read, the author is Hans Küng, the name of the book: infalible? An inquiry.
But wouldn’t the Lord’s statement that Hell would never prevail against the Church connect to Christ giving Peter the Keys? I mean, Hell not prevailing could also be understood as being a pre-V1 instance of papal infallibility eventually developing into the V1 proclamation?
I would liken this to debates about American culture and patriotism, you’ll hear this from politicians and public policy types a lot but they’ll advocate for their own position and say that the founding fathers agree with them, or that the founding fathers would roll in their graves if they saw what their opponents were advocating for, when in reality the founding fathers had massive, even violent, disagreements about all kinds of fundamental issues.
To be deep in history is to seize to be Protestant…
Sure 🙄
🔥 🔥 🔥
Thanks Gavin, RC here. I love your work. Keep it up!
What is also interesting in the Tierney book is that he points out the early medieval canonists didn't think about Tradition as being a separate source of Revelation. Tradition was a kind of contemplation upon Scripture. Even the Popes had that outlook, and as you point out, rejected PI, at first. The concept of Tradition as a new font of revelation ("Living Tradition") seems to have prevailed, eventually, after 1300.
Anyway, the point is that a stringent follower of modern RCism is forced to adopt Sola Magisterium ("Living Tradition") as a consequence of the later, papal claims. A believer in Sola Scriptura - whatever one may think about the details of that doctrine - is actually closer to the belief of the ancient Church by starting with Scripture, instead of Magisterium.
Not finished yet, but if, and that's a big if to me, this proves Catholicism wrong, who does it prove right? Is there an ecclesiology that is consistent, or relatively consistent, since the apostles?
You would simply have to change the foundation of your faith. It would no longer be an institution, but it would ultimately have to be God, and His word. This is where your trust would have to be placed. Now this doesnt mean you throw everything out for the same reason you dont throw out every other human institution, even though sometimes they can get things wrong.
In my opinion the Anglican church is the closest that you're going to get to the early church.
No question, Jesus left behind 12 men not a book. Those men were the church the Bible speaks of one church. One faith.
Early Christianity is exclusively catholic
Look at the history of EVERY church. They all split from another. All except the catholic and apostolic church
@@DUZCO10 hmm. So no credit to the Orthodox?
Well it would certainly give credence to the Orthodox claims
16 minutes in, I disagree with Gavin slightly on what the sources claim. Based on my reading of Henry R Percival’s “The Seven Ecumenical Councils Of The Undivided Church: Their Canons And Dogmatic Decrees Together With The Canons Of All The Local synods,” I can see kernels of Papal Primacy & authority in early councils and in how some small synods reacted to those claims.
Good video, you did acknowledge Chalcedon. Which I appreciate. I still see clear development within the bounds of reason from early Primacy of Honor (first among equals) to Universal Pontiff claims, especially considering the social-geo-political historical context of those developments. But a fair challenge, one I think Joe Heschmeyer, or Reason & Theology are more than capable of meeting as they engage with Orthodoxy objections to Papal Supremacy all the time. Though I made the joke earlier, I do hope to hear other voices than Horn’s, respond to you on this matter, I respect him profoundly but he is just one voice of many.
Hi Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for your very informative and thought-provoking video. Re papal supremacy, what do you make of the following excerpt from the letter sent by the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo the Great in 451 A.D. (a full century before the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 553 A.D.), asking him to confirm the Council's decrees? Here's the passage: "For if where two or three are gathered together in His name, He has said that there He is in the midst of them , must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem." Later, the Council Fathers humbly ask the Pope to ratify their decrees: "Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting." (Source: www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm)
Notice that Pope Leo is referred to as "chief," and his relationship to the Council is that of "the head to the members." The bishops even describe themselves as "children." That sure sounds like a doctrine of papal supremacy to me.
You can find a Catholic take on the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople here: catholicismcoffee.org/papal-supremacy-the-fifth-ecumenical-council-553-752aa486fa07 . The writer (Isidore Joshua Foakes) argues that it was Vigilius who called on the Emperor to convene an ecumenical council.
As for papal infallibility, I agree with those Catholic scholars whom you cited, who claim that it was not taught until the 13th century at the earliest. It is certainly not an apostolic doctrine. Cheers.
Vincent Torley
You said it, is not an apostolic doctrine and you denied vatican 1, there’s nothing to talk about.
Not only are you not alone in being sceptical about this, the French Catholics I interact with online and in person will usually say that Pastor Aeternus is wrong in all its historical claims but it doesn't matter because only the parts defining the role of the Pope are infallible, the historical stuff is just incorrect, infallibility is only in matters of faith and morals. You would think that the early church always having taught something is a matter of faith...
You guys should really just read the sources of V1.
Which guys?
@@HearGodsWord anyone that hasn't read them
@Gabe that's who "you guys" are?
Watch therefore, I beg you, Pope, watch, and again I say, watch; since perhaps Vigilius was not very vigilant, whom our friends, who lay blame on you, describe as the main stumbling-block. Watch first for the Faith, then for bidding works of faith and for spurning vices, since your watchfulness will be the salvation of many, just as on the other side your carelessness will be the destruction of many. May Isaiah send you to the mountain, who publish good tidings to Zion’’ Letters of Columbanus
If not on anything else, but on the topics of Papal claims, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants would probably agree. That neither makes Eastern Orthodox - Protestants, nor Protestants - Eastern Orthodox. Papal claims are simply an area where we can find a common grounds although we would probably differ in the details.
If anyone wants to see why the claim of universal jurisdiction of the pope was made dogma, one should read Bellarmine's book on the topic. This work influenced the formation of not only this dogma, but of papal infallibilty
Please make a video of all USA Bishops at Vatican ONE
Australian author Peter Price of Monash University has written book r fairly ecently on 10 Australians at Vatican One
who were surprisingly conservative like The Late Cardinal Pell
Unlike North Americans who were almost /apart from perhaps one/ Liberals/
Unsure about South Americans at Vatican One
Next year 2025 is anniversary NICAEA 325 AD
A researcher/lady in South Carolina is currently researching all 500 Periti at Vatican Two 1963/1965
Wish someone would list all 318 Bishops at Nicaea since such a List still exists and/with their current successors today
Such a video would be wonderful Tribute to 318 Warriors who like Abraham Army in Genesis were Glorious Victors
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
One thing I know for sure is that if Peter were to come back to earth and look at the People who were his supposed successors, he would be appalled and disgusted. People who go to war and murder their rivals are supposed to be successors of Peter? How does any Catholic even defend this? Catholics often say, well they were human and flawed. Even Pater and Paul were human and flawed but murdering people is something they would never have even come close to doing. Anyone who murders people in the name of Christ is not even close to being a Christian. Gods standards for being a leader of his people are just too high.
1. The First Vatican Council was cut short in its discussion of the nature of the church during the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. When Emperor Napoleon III was captured by German forces, the French troops protecting the Vatican withdrew. Subsequently, the newly formed Kingdom of Italy occupied Rome, in effect making Pope Pius IX a prisoner of the Vatican. The pope adjourned the First Vatican Council on October 28, 1870 and it was never reconvened. Pope John XXIII formally closed the First Vatican Council in 1960 before the formation of the Second Vatican Council that convened from 1962-65.
2. Finally able to take up where the First Vatican Council had left off, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, was able to complete the teaching on Christ's gift of infallibility to the church in its No. 25:
A. "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(Cf. 1 Pt. 2:5) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(Cf. Rev. 21:16)"
B. "And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(Cf. Lk. 22:32) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(Cf. Gal. 4:26; cf. Rev. 12:17.) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(Cf. Rev. 19:7; 21:2 and 9; 22:17) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(Cf. Eph. 5:26.)"
3. For emphasis, I repeat the following from Lumen Gentium's No. 25: "THE INFALLIBILITY PROMISED TO THE CHURCH RESIDES ALSO IN THE BODY OF BISHOPS, WHEN THAT BODY EXERCISES THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER. TO THESE DEFINITIONS THE ASSENT OF THE CHURCH CAN NEVER BE WANTING, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ACTIVITY OF THAT SAME HOLY SPIRIT, BY WHICH THE WHOLE FLOCK OF CHRIST IS PRESERVED AND PROGRESSES IN UNITY OF FAITH."
4. Deducing from the above, infallibility can be seen as residing in the entire church and modeled on the interior relations of the Holy Trinity:
A. As The Father is without origin and the source of all divinity in the Godhead, so the Pope as successor to St. Peter is the supreme authority of the church on earth as appointed by Christ (Christ gave Simon the name Cephus in John 1:42, a transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic word kephas which means 'rock').
B. As The Son is the image and likeness of The Father upon Whom He is entirely dependent, so do the Bishops, as successors to the Apostles, in union with the Pope actively participate in the latter's infallibility, particularly when they are gathered in council and define dogmatic teachings.
C. As The Holy Spirit is the communion, originating in The Father, of life and love between The Father and The Son, so do the entire faithful passively participate in the church's infallibility when they assent to (1) the teachings of the Pope and (2) the teachings of the Bishops in union with the Pope.
5. Recall that supreme ecclesial governance by the British monarch was an original determinant feature of the The Protestant Church of England in virtue of Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer's preface to his 39 Articles of Religion and specifically in Article 37: "The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction." To this day, the British monarch still retains the title of The Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (19*)"
[Excerpt: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, LUMEN GENTIUM, Chapter 2, Section 16.]
- Islam teaches that the Quran is from "Allah", who they say is God (Surah 2:2, Surah 6:19).
- How can one claiming to be a follower of Christ say of them that they: "along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind"? If one believes that the Scriptures of the New Testament (and the Old Testament) is inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can that be?
John 5:22-23
For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Surah 112:1-4
1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.”
1 John 5:1
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
Surah 4:171
O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth.1 The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him.2 So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!-for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs.
- Surah 4:171 & 112:1-4 are explicit denials of the Son, therefore a rejection of ths Son of God, which in turn is a rejection of the Father who sent Him.
Surah 4:157-158
“That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah’ - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not - Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise,”
Romans 4:23-25
23Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
[Cf. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and for that matter the central teaching of and on Christ Jesus in the New Testament].
- Surah 4:157-158 is an explicit denial of the gospel. It removes atonement and justification before God, which in turn removes recociliation and peace with God. One who believes is left under the wrath of God, unless they repent and believe the gospel. To say that they "adore the one and merciful God" while their Quran (which they consider to be the word of God) states that, is a lie. If it is a dogmatic teaching, how could that not be an "infallible" proof of false teaching?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 1. Allah is the Arabic name for God that pre-dates Islam. Besides Muslims, the Arabic speaking Jews, Christians and other religious groups like the Bahaias use Allah as their name for God.
2. Perhaps an analogy with Allah, the Arabic name for God, might be made to English speakers from ages past who used the term Jehovah as the proper name for God. The (A) Authorized King James Bible of 1611 and (B) the 1560 Geneva Bible uses the term Jehovah as the name for God in several places. The American Standard Version of 1901 renders the Tetragrammaton as Je-ho’vah in 6,823 places in the Old Testament. Since the advent of the Watchtower Society at the end of the 19th century and their eventual blanketing of the world in print and door-to-door evangelizing, most people associate the term Jehovah with Jehovah's Witnesses who deny both (A) the Holy Trinity and (C) the divinity of Jesus Christ.
3. The Catholic Church makes a distinction between (A) those who are aware of their need to join Christ and His Church but do not do so, a condition referred to as vincible ignorance and (B) those who are not aware through no fault of their own of their need to join Christ and His Church, a condition referred to as invincible ignorance.
@@annakimborahpa [You:] "Besides Muslims..."
- The excerpt from Lumen Gentium Chapter 2 Section 16 cited above specifically mentions Muslims. This is not referring to Arabic speaking Jews or Christians, please don't try to confuse the issue.
- The verses cited above showing from Scripture the difference between the true God, who sent His only begotten Son into the world to die for our sins and redeem a people to God all to the Glory of God, and the "god" of Islam, which is not God.
- Of the Muslims, Lumen Gentium (therefore the Magisterium) says that they "adore the one merciful God along with us" (speaking of Roman Catholics). It then goes on to present a false gospel, wherein one is saved ENTIRELY without faith in Christ Jesus.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
- Lumen Gentium Chapter 2 Section 16 is in contradiction to Scripture (obviously), but interestingly enough the previous Vatican council is also contradicted in this (although it should be enough that it contradicts Scripture).
[Excerpt: Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Council Fathers - 1868 A.D. , Chapter 3 On faith]
8. Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
whether by her solemn judgment
or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
9. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God [21] and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that
no one can ever achieve justification without it,
neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.
10. So that we could fulfil our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son,
founded the church,
and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.
• 21 Heb 11, 6.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
- Where in Scripture is even the hint of the idea of "vincible" or "invincible" ignorance? Romans 1-3 states otherwise.
Is this channel turning into a non-Catholic channel i.e. only explaining why this or that catholic claim is false ? There's gotta be more to explore about Christian theology or scripture.
He's allowed to focus on the topics he wants to. If you want to explore other topics, there are other channels out there for you.
Tangential objection, but I think the unremittingly negative portrayal here of Justinian's theological activities is unjustified. The idea that political leaders should never take the lead in theological matters may or may not be right, but it's a view that no one took at the time. Churchmen would oppose emperors when they thought the emperor was wrong, but those same churchmen would support other imperial interventions in theology when they thought they were right. Justinian was attempting to reconcile the monophysites, but he didn't do it in an unprincipled way (as the repeated use if the descriptor "political" would imply). The 3 Chapters weren't chosen randomly, and their condemnation follows necessarily from the Council of Ephesus' recognition of Cyril of Alexandria's Christology as the litmus test of orthodoxy. Constantinople II refuted the claim that Chalcedon had contradicted Ephesus, by affirming that the post-Chalcedon church still had no room for individuals or writings that attacked what had been decided at Ephesus. Nor were the condemnations careless. It was clarified that although the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia applied to his person, that of Theodoret of Cyr and Ibas only applied to certain objectionable writings (Theodoret is recognized as an Orthodox saint). Justinian is "guilty" of, if anything, pushing through an entirely correct theological position by use of means that, whatever one thinks of them, no one found unusual in his time.
I also find it odd to suggest that Justinian's activities made it harder to avoid the division of the church. All of Justinian's activities were aimed at reconciling the monophysites (and had reasonable success in doing so, winning back quite a few moderate monophysites). Given that the Western schism was eventually healed, and it was a portion of the monophysites who remained irreconcilable, it seems odd to accuse Justinian, who did far more to reconcile them than pretty much anyone else would have done, of contributing to the division.
are people really so naive to believe that evil cannot reside in even the true church? case in point, Judas. the lord kept him as an apostle and he did not discredit the other apostles. the letters in the 7th ecumentical council (Nicea2) which took place in 787 AD clearly affirms and teaches the Papacy and the Catholic view of the Filioque. the council was asked directly to which they replied they accept the letters and what they say.
Agree with your conclusions about papal infallibility and supremacy, Gavin, but again, I think you're, perhaps, equivocating. You say "we Protestants are on good grounds..." because you agree with Orthodox, for instance, that there is no papal infallibility or supremacy. But you disagree with the entire church historically in the infallibility of councils, for instance, so you're on different grounds. Your argument is really "no man or group of men is infallible" whereas the Orthodox argument (and some Anglicans, like me) would be that councils can be infallible. Two totally different arguments, so to rely on the Orthodox argument to support yours doesn't really do much for you.
Hi Tim! It's not the case that I "disagree with the entire church historically in the infallibility of councils." The idea of infallible councils is not a universal historical view. Very far from it. See my video on Augustine and sola Scriptura. He emphatically stated that even the highest councils can err.
@@TruthUnites Thanks! I'm not sure how any of those quotes undermine the infallibility of Councils. Augustine says, hypothetically, in a plenary council (whatever that means) something might have been hidden that is later revealed, but whatever that means, it sounds more like a later-revealed fact than a different interpretation of Scripture or the like. As for Chrystostom, fully agree with him. But when he talks about believing Scripture, what he obviously means and what Augustine obviously means is believing the correct interpretation of Scripture. It's not an abstract command to just follow whatever one thinks Scripture means. So for both of these guys, they could easily say to you "Gavin, you're wrong on baptism because Scripture teaches infant baptism and baptismal regeneration." They would say that's clearly Scriptural. But yet it's the Church that has interpreted the Scripture through the ages to arrive at these conclusions. They aren't opening it up to a free-for-all where anything goes as long as you can justify it from Scripture. I know you don't want that either, but I don't see how you don't get to that point with your view.
@@Mitenilk08 I have dealt with those replies about Augustine in my response videos on Augustine and sola Scriptura. He calls them "plenary councils formed for the whole Christian world" and elsewhere gives Nicaea I as an example. Even the Catholic scholars admit he is talking about what would be inclusive of ecumenical councils. And he says that they can clearly err and be corrected (Latin word emendo, always mean correct an error in the context). This is why, for him, Scripture is confined in its own limits. It alone is infallible. I develop all this more fully in the response videos. God bless.
@@TruthUnites Thanks! I'm not sure those quotes carry the water you want them to. Unless you can point out something from an ecumenical council that Augustine says was wrong, then at best it's dicta or just a hypothetical statement. But if it's never happened, then the quotes aren't much help. His basic point is the Scriptures and Church trump the writings of a bishop, which is right (and also true of Augustine's writings). In any event, the biggest problem I see with your position is that you often say Scripture is the highest authority without acknowledging that it's only the right interpretation of Scripture that is the highest authority. So how do you know which interpretation is right? I can say this--if there's a position that virtually no one held for 1500 years (like your view of credobaptism), then for you to be right and virtually the entire church to be wrong creates epistemelogical questions that make Christianity untenable. If the whole church can be wrong for 1500 years and some group can come along 1500 years later and say they are right, then we can't have confidence in any truth. Who's to say that in the year 3000, another group won't come along and completely upset the apple cart? There must be an authority. Call it infallible; call it authoritative; call it whatever. Without it, we have chaos.
@@Mitenilk08 You caricature of protestantism gets tiring, he already explained your points.
Gavin you should debate someone like James white on whether Catholic and Easter Orthodox should be considered true Christians from a Protestant perspective
Gavin: Hey lets pick a spot and dive in, say 500AD?
duh, why 500 years after, surely there could be earlier accounts! no?
I addressed this at 46:34
@@TruthUnites where is the answer to my post? your response was still related to the year 500 AD.
Also, your video is a good case TO BE AN ORTHODOX INSTEAD OF BECOMING A PROTESTANT.
@@Ternz_TV modern orthodoxy is basically Catholic lite. It has all the same doctrinal development issues. It's main theological difference is the essence energy distinction which is a post first millennium theological development. The ecclesial structure of the Orthodox Church is essentially the same as the protestant church's. Except some of the sects of Orthodoxy aren't in communion and some of the denominations aren't as well. Your question also kind of points out that you don't understand church history.
@@ttff-bd2yf please educate me, what makes protestantism more correct and more appealing than orthodoxy? give me the specifics or better yet give me an example.
@@Ternz_TV Well as a couple brief pointers, Protestantism has recognized from its inception that there are other true and valid churches, including Roman Catholicism and the various branches of Orthodoxy, despite it taking until fairly recently for both of them to acknowledge the same, and Protestantism also has not pronounced anathemas against those who do not prescribe to exactingly specific practices and extra-biblical doctrines, like the veneration of Icons and Mariology.
A lot of this history doesn't even sound like it's actual believers in Christ. Like what is loving about exciling your opponent's? A lot of these so-called popes don't exactly seem to be following in Christs example of loving your enemies at all.
Sadly, much of Christian history has been filled with pettiness and vengeance. This shouldn't be a mystery, as we see Christ declare that wide is the way to destruction, but it still is shameful.
@jasonpoole2093 well. It's almost like Jesus said you would know a Christian by there love