I don't really understand how his framing of messengers delivering a message from the King differs from the Catholic conception of tradition/teaching authority/infallibility. Catholics don't think the Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, as such, anymore than the King's messenger is infallible, as such. They're all infallible precisely and only when they're delivering the King's message. The difference, really, is that the Catholic thinks there are objective ways to determine whether the message is from the King beyond investigating the contents of the message. The messenger might deliver many things that aren't the King's message- might scribble madcap soup recipes after a bender or musings on a duck's bill during a stroll beneath the moonlight- but when the message has the King's seal, and the messenger is decked out just so, it's the King's message and you can trust it. The Protestant sees the message and asks, "is this the sort of thing I think the King would say?" Or, perhaps, more robustly, "is this message consonant with previous things the King has said?" But if the judgment of the latter ultimately and finally depends on you, you're stuck with the former. And it must ultimately and finally depend on you. There's no way around it. If you defer to anything other than the locutions of your own intellect, to determine whether a particular doctrine or dogma is consonant with the Bible, then you're giving that thing, in that instance, the same exact status Catholics give the Magisterium or the Pope, when they're teaching authoritatively. Except it's a revolving authority. Here, C.S. Lewis; there, John Calvin. As strikes your fancy. As satisfies your intellect. It's, of course, true, as Gavin Ortlund and others have pointed out, that everyone must do this. Catholics don't decide that the Catholic Church has authority from a free-floating neutrality, divorced from their own will and intellect. But the Catholic, ideally, does it once. He says, "here are the King's messengers, here's how you can recognize them, and here's what the King's seal looks like. I didn't hire the messengers or create the seal, and if these messengers deliver a message with this seal, I must submit, regardless of my own predilections".
You make a good point. Something else that sticks out to me is that the Church is precisely the messenger that God has sent to be a perpetual witness to the truth. As such, we do not identify the “true messenger” by how much we agree with the message. Instead, we identify the true message by figuring out which messenger is sent by the King. Great points!
@@thecatechumen i've asked many times if you consider anything comparable to God's Word. nothing. why do you hate Scripture so much?? - like Satan, Scripture exposes his 'church' now as well - perhaps this is why.
Dude, I absolutely cringed when he argued that protestant art is better than Catholic art. Just... how ignorant can you be? Edit: How can he honestly say that it is a "new trend" for protestant churches to have bad aesthetics when the vast majority of Western Iconoclasts were protestants? I literally visited the ruins of a Scottish Cathedral that would have rivaled Notre Dame had it not been destroyed by Protestants.
@@halleylujah247 Hi Halley! Listen to the section on Ecumenical Councils (about minute 36.55). He (the Protestant) basically agrees with the councils when they agree with him.
As a Catholic millennial who has been playing Minecraft since 2011 I loved this video! Am at the point in my life where I don't play often, usually I join my kids worlds to help them. This is the type of Minecraft videos I would want my sons to watch when they are a little bit older.
That’s awesome!! I’m glad you enjoyed it. I was wondering if there would be anyone who cared for the gameplay in the background 😂 Apparently, it’s a real niche that needs to be filled considering the amount of views RZ’s content gets. Maybe I’ll do more of these (cautiously… I don’t want to rip off RZ’s video style 😂). Maybe one day, I’ll play with my son. God bless!
@@thecatechumenMy fourteen year old daughter enjoys watching Minecraft gameplay and I find that a lot of those channels are kind of a waste of time. I'd love to see you do occasional Minecraft videos while discussing theology.
Still tearing through this masterpiece, and I have to LOL at his claim that we take sin less seriously. Brayden, you and I talked about how the OPPOSITE is true on the livestream we did together lol. Total Depravity in the Calvinist framework =/= taking sin more seriously than everyone else.
Yes, also, this Bible passage single handedly refutes Protestantism. Protestantism does not adhere to the truth that Christ established a single visible institution which remains so to this day. They believe that the Church is something along the lines of the invisible body of believers in Christ, regardless of their denomination (some exclude Catholics). However, this makes no sense whatsoever, because the entire body of believers in Christ is made up of thousands of groups and denominations with opposing beliefs. How can the church, as in the invisible body of believers in Christ, be the pillar and foundation of truth? It must be that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth because it is a visible, single institution with an established set of teachings binding on all believers.
@@_ready__The Bible teaches that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I assume that you believe that the Church is an invisible body of believers. Please tell me how you interpret 1 Timothy 3:15 in your view of what the Church is.
This was super good. You're apologetic skills are pretty impressive for how new you are to the faith. Also... you should debate zoomer WHILE BOTH also playing Minecraft.
As a convert, I'm just so impressed with your ability to convey and understand Catholic Theology despite the short time you have been learning this stuff! Keep up the good work.
Redeemed Zoomer is one of the best Catholic Evangelists out there. He seems like a nice enough person but I'm not sure apoligetics are his thing. His infallibility argument has a huge flaw. Every Prot im aware of is all about Sola Scriptura. Which they argue is guided by the Holy Spirit and protected by the perspicuity of the Scripture. The issue is: 1. Wouldn't the Pope also be guided by the Holy Spirit and open to the perspecuity of Scripture? 2. The presence of tens of thousands of Prot denominations which differ largely on Scriptural interpretation grounds instantly falsifies the notion that it is perspicuitous. And it's weird that he and other Prots don't get that Catholics view Scripture as the highest earthly authority, and if the Pope said "the 10 commandments are no more" we have every right/duty to say "uh no" and continue following the Bible.
Is he actuality playing while recording? I thought he recorded frst then put vocal over the video. If he really doing both at the same time, it is really great work !
@@thecatechumenI finished the video, 9/10: not enough Minecraft. But in all seriousness, I would love to see a continuation of redeemed zoomer, because when he was talking about his 3rd point, I kind of gave a bit of doubt because of how his argument felt more like a non sequitor.
The fact that the canon of the Bible stopped after the death of the disciples and it's a closed matter today is also something that the "fallible" Church declared and some protestants uphold, even though they haven't thought it through... God can absolutely reveal books of the Bible after every eyewitness of Jesus died, and there's no actual need for the Bible to be closed to new books, such as the book of mormon or the Qur'an. These books could be revelations of God if protestants didn't agree with the Church in that subject... Unless protestants thought that God didn't have the capacity to keep revealing books of the Bible until this day
No way! I love that you did this, haha, totally caught me off guard. I found you from your “The Worst Part of Protestantism” video. You seem like a really cool dude. Even though I’m converting to Orthodoxy myself, I GUESS I’ll have to drop you a sub anyways 😜 Congrats on the growth btw!
I remember he made an argument against Purgatory, that went like: Jesus comes in the blink of an eye, what happens for Purgatory then? Well, some Church Fathers apparently said that the antichrist’s persecution would be so terrible; that those Saints left would not need Purgation after death; due to the brutality.
26 minutes in. I wonder if RZ ever talks about how there are instances people spoke/wrote infallibly despite being sinners. Scripture being the most obvious, but most notably on the Church’s declaration on circumcision and the law of Moses in Acts 15. Was it infallible?
Had to pause the video to get this out...at about 20:00ish regarding infallibility, he's conflating impeccability with infallibility. This is one of their (probably on purpose?) lacking-in-understandings of Catholic doctrine, always meet this non sequitur head on and don't play their word game. Anyway good video so far, back to it... spez: ah there it is at 23:57. Just put the hammer down on this subject right away in the future, took a while to make the distinction.
As an example of Old Testament infallibility, in one gospel St. John says the person who was the high priest that year prophesied saying “It is better for one man to die, than the whole nation to perish”
Again, we keep granting protestants that the bible is "infallible", but this doesn't make any sense. A static set of writings can't be infallible because it doesn't actively teach anything. They either have to claim that they themselves or someone else are infallible interpreters, or that the holy spirit is infallibly guiding some people to truth through the bible - but neither of these options will work for obvious reasons. But I don't think we can grant them this "scripture is infallible" line, because it implies more impact and legitimacy than their argument actually has. The modern form of SS is, taken literally, incoherent. We would need to steelman their argument by assuming by "infallible" they mean "inerrant". But then I don't see anything compelling about the argument, it will just lead to endless cycles of arguments over what is errant and what isn't with no way to objectively discern one way or another.
I just tweeted something like this recently, lol. If we, for the sake of argument, don't concede that Scripture is *an* infallible (inerrant) rule, then we force them to epistemically ground that proposition. The reasoning for affirming the inspiration/infallibility of Scripture can usually be applied to Sacred Tradition.
His first comment is already debunked because of the very nature of denominations. Someone disagrees on what the word of God means, they split, they disagree, they split etc Our Lord says, “take it to the church”. Which church? The Anglicans? The Methodists? The Presbyterians? The non denominational? Maybe we should ask the Unitarians about the nature of the Trinity. It’s either God isn’t very good at communicating or you need an infallible interpreter. You need HIS church. Not the church of yourself with the pope you’ve appointed I.e your pastor or oftentimes, yourself.
It's great to see young guys like you defend our Catholic faith. I was still questioning the existence of God at your age. Keep up the good work (in all things you do.)
At around thr 27 minute mark, when you brought up an example of a Protestant pastor speaking of himself as "anointed" it got me thinking of something again. Does anyone know whether it's actually never been God's positive will for anyone to ever be the leader of a Protestant church? Or is it possible that God, in light of the situation we're in, sometimes does positively will that what someone do for their vocation is be a Protestant pastor? It's pretty sobering if it's the former.
"God can deliver an infallible message through a fallible source." Doesn't this dismiss his argument against the Papacy, Magisterium, and Councils outright. Under his definition of fallible, these sinful men can deliver an infallible message from God. We agree, thus we submit to the Pope, Magisterium, and Councils.
@@razoredge6130if I have a right understanding of Catholicism on this, the argument isn’t that Pope Francis, himself, is infallible. The argument is that when he is acting within the authority of his office that he is infallible. Not everything that comes out of the Vatican carries that level of authority. In other words, the trust isn’t that the people are infallible - the trust is that God provides infallibility when speaking within the authority he has given. This is how Moses, a murderer, can speak infallibly… or Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc…
I gotta I do enjoy this type of stream. Never played that game, but is it posible that you two work on the same server/place and engage in conversation while playing together?
I just want you to know - my kids watch Hermitcraft after school everyday and today, we watched this all together. They loved it, I loved it. My oldest is 15 and he told me “mom, give it a like!”
@Redeemed Zoomer claimed that he does believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. However, he does not adhere to the truth that the Church is a single, visible institution. How can he reconcile the truth that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth to his belief of what the Church is, namely, the invisible body of believes in Christ?
Hi Brayden! I don’t know if you ever respond to articles and such but there is a former-Catholic named Timothy Kauffman who writes very detailed explanations about the Church Fathers and how they don’t actually teach Catholic doctrine. They are persuasive but not necessarily convincing. I have yet to see an in-depth response to any of his points (he’s also very active on X, or Twitter whatever people call it now). His blog is called Whitehorse. I would post a link but RUclips doesn’t allow that anymore. Pretty sure he’s PCA now. God Bless
Even if he’s not Catholic.. is it a good idea to send my Minecraft loving son to his channel to inspire him to believe in God? Or even better: will catechism Minecraft be a regular thing? 😅😇
His real world analogy of king’s messengers being fallible messengers of infallible content is actually kind of an good indication of how the Catholic understanding of authority maps on better to the real world. No one would ever believe a random messenger who spoke on behalf of the king, because then any amount of liars could simply invoke the king and say anything they want with authority. In the real life example, they would need some sort of seal or stamp of authority to indicate that they’re speaking on behalf of the authority and not on their own authority. In other words, the true authority was transferred to the messenger to deliver the infallible message, but in a limited sense in the passing along of revealed information. The messenger isn’t authorized to infallibly create their own information, and everything he says isn’t therefore authoritative, but when he speaks the king’s words with the king’s stamp of approval, he is speaking with the king’s authority
15:10 Laughed out loud. I used to be Lutheran. That church embrace sin. Doesn’t matter what you do. Since all you need is to believe, your sin has no weight. That has led the church to flag lgbt++ flags during service. Nooo! 🫣 Not the chicken! It’s Friday!
13:16 "Ave Maria" is not a Catholic composition. IMO protestants (Bach, G.F. Handel) make a great argument for protestants having the best music. But we've got O. Lassus, Palestrina, Vivaldi, Carlo Gesualdo, Josquin des Prez, William Byrd, T.L. de Victoria, etc. So we have our own arguments. But certainly not on architecture. Redeemed Zoomer is trippin
To Zoomer's very first point: the claim of the Church isn't, I believe, that the Bible can't be understood without the Magisterium. To actually make that claim would be to say that the words of the Bible can never mean what they say and must, in all cases, have a meaning that is hidden to the reader, but the Magisterium has access to the hidden knowledge required to understand anything at all found in Scripture, which is obviously ludicrous.
9 месяцев назад+3
Lol, if he was saying that, he would be accusing Catholics of gnosticism
@ I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he actually meant to say we believe the Magisterium is necessary to ensure proper understanding and interpretation, which is not the same as saying it cannot be understood without the Magisterium.
Jusy a friendly reminder that even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that there is a workable model of Sola Scriptura, you would still have to show that it was willed by God insread of other authority models.
You missed a big point right off the bat. He’s not using the true definition of sola scriptura. It means Bible alone not Bible first. It’s not a mystery why the printing press and the protestant schism are so close together. The idea of sola scriptura in its original form took for granted how easily men would come to the same conclusion when they read the Bible. Luther, like most protestants since thought they alone understood the Bible and took for granted that everyone else would see things from their perspective. It reaches beyond the Catholic teachings that some men are infallible in certain circumstances and says instead all men are infallible so long as they can back up what they say in arguments from the Bible. That’s the reason there’s a new church every time someone sneezes the wrong way even without a central authority. If the Bible was so obvious that without teaching or training from the church fathers and the tradition, there would just be one Protestant faith that ebbed and flowed around it. But there isn’t. Because when there is no central interpreter, everyone is an interpreter. And when everyone is an interpreter, the loudest voices (ie the ones that most closely resemble the world and allow for men to more fully indulge in their sin while still getting their reward in the end) are the ones who prevail. And the quiet voices become break-off groups that either come back to the church or become crazy sex cults.
@@tony1685 his word is Jesus. not the bible. the bible itself tells you not to trust in the bible alone. you sir are completely wrong. Jesus is the word of God. not the bible
@@aubliz1292 _'his word is Jesus. not the bible.'_ - *False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy* - His Word would never contradict Him nor His will. _'the bible itself tells you not to trust in the bible alone.'_ - where is Scripture for this, Sir?
@@FosterDuncan1 What is the circularity? Jesus gives authority to the Church, the Church has authority to determine apostolic traditions. That is not circular. Sola Scriptura is circular because you are trying to prove the bible from the bible.
@@Coteincdr papacy determines canon and which traditions are valid. Papacy is valid because Mattew 16 the keys are solely given to Peter and he is given infallibility. I believe the apostolic deposit and scripture is the writings or apostles and companions. So obviously you would compare to see whether other traditions are in line. So I will believe any tradition as long as you can prove that’s it’s from the apostles.
You have it somewhat incorrect. We have historical documents, the gospels and also the writings of clement, ignatious, irineaus, etc. Those documents show that Jesus rose from the dead, and established a Church with Peter as leader and with apostolic succession. And that institution was given by Jesus the power to bind and loose. And because of that hostorical fact we can trust the leader of that same institution. And that would no be circular.
Jesus never said to trust only the Scriptures but to listen to Him and do what He asks! Yes, Jesus is WORD and Heis not SCRIPTURES!! Jesus is the WORD MADE FLESH and it is a MISTAKE for a CHRISTIAN to think “this is written/this is not written”.
@@brittoncain5090who was Jesus’ earthly ministry to? After answering that and studying God’s word I hope more folks learn how to understand what church is referenced in the gospels. No where outside of Paul’s epistles can we find the one true church referenced …. That is the church the body of Christ. May God bless all
I don't really understand how his framing of messengers delivering a message from the King differs from the Catholic conception of tradition/teaching authority/infallibility. Catholics don't think the Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, as such, anymore than the King's messenger is infallible, as such. They're all infallible precisely and only when they're delivering the King's message. The difference, really, is that the Catholic thinks there are objective ways to determine whether the message is from the King beyond investigating the contents of the message. The messenger might deliver many things that aren't the King's message- might scribble madcap soup recipes after a bender or musings on a duck's bill during a stroll beneath the moonlight- but when the message has the King's seal, and the messenger is decked out just so, it's the King's message and you can trust it.
The Protestant sees the message and asks, "is this the sort of thing I think the King would say?" Or, perhaps, more robustly, "is this message consonant with previous things the King has said?" But if the judgment of the latter ultimately and finally depends on you, you're stuck with the former. And it must ultimately and finally depend on you. There's no way around it. If you defer to anything other than the locutions of your own intellect, to determine whether a particular doctrine or dogma is consonant with the Bible, then you're giving that thing, in that instance, the same exact status Catholics give the Magisterium or the Pope, when they're teaching authoritatively. Except it's a revolving authority. Here, C.S. Lewis; there, John Calvin. As strikes your fancy. As satisfies your intellect.
It's, of course, true, as Gavin Ortlund and others have pointed out, that everyone must do this. Catholics don't decide that the Catholic Church has authority from a free-floating neutrality, divorced from their own will and intellect. But the Catholic, ideally, does it once. He says, "here are the King's messengers, here's how you can recognize them, and here's what the King's seal looks like. I didn't hire the messengers or create the seal, and if these messengers deliver a message with this seal, I must submit, regardless of my own predilections".
You make a good point. Something else that sticks out to me is that the Church is precisely the messenger that God has sent to be a perpetual witness to the truth. As such, we do not identify the “true messenger” by how much we agree with the message. Instead, we identify the true message by figuring out which messenger is sent by the King. Great points!
Exactly! Sounds like he's trying to have it both ways.
@@thecatechumen i've asked many times if you consider anything comparable to God's Word. nothing.
why do you hate Scripture so much?? - like Satan, Scripture exposes his 'church' now as well - perhaps this is why.
@@tony1685in this video he literally said that the scripture is the highest authority and is ontologically unique in its mode of infallibility
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 then the clear and undeniable question is - why doesn't he follow It ??
Dude, I absolutely cringed when he argued that protestant art is better than Catholic art. Just... how ignorant can you be?
Edit: How can he honestly say that it is a "new trend" for protestant churches to have bad aesthetics when the vast majority of Western Iconoclasts were protestants? I literally visited the ruins of a Scottish Cathedral that would have rivaled Notre Dame had it not been destroyed by Protestants.
He is not Ignorant he is dishonest like the majority of Protestant
It must be nice to be able to pick and choose which councils one agrees with.
I don't know what this means?
@@halleylujah247 Hi Halley! Listen to the section on Ecumenical Councils (about minute 36.55). He (the Protestant) basically agrees with the councils when they agree with him.
Isn’t that what Protestants do all the time? Pick and chooses what they agree with and what they don’t want to agree with.
@@ModernLady I think that's his point
@@ModernLadyyeah, literally the greek word for heresy means to pick and choose.
Do I feel a Catholic Creators minecraft server coming to fruition?
👀👀👀
Hopefully I would build a 1 to 1 scale Haiga Sophia
There is the AFcraft server.
@@nyxhighlander9894Deus Vult. God Wills it.
That already exists
As a Catholic millennial who has been playing Minecraft since 2011 I loved this video! Am at the point in my life where I don't play often, usually I join my kids worlds to help them. This is the type of Minecraft videos I would want my sons to watch when they are a little bit older.
That’s awesome!! I’m glad you enjoyed it. I was wondering if there would be anyone who cared for the gameplay in the background 😂 Apparently, it’s a real niche that needs to be filled considering the amount of views RZ’s content gets. Maybe I’ll do more of these (cautiously… I don’t want to rip off RZ’s video style 😂). Maybe one day, I’ll play with my son. God bless!
@@thecatechumenMy fourteen year old daughter enjoys watching Minecraft gameplay and I find that a lot of those channels are kind of a waste of time. I'd love to see you do occasional Minecraft videos while discussing theology.
Still tearing through this masterpiece, and I have to LOL at his claim that we take sin less seriously. Brayden, you and I talked about how the OPPOSITE is true on the livestream we did together lol.
Total Depravity in the Calvinist framework =/= taking sin more seriously than everyone else.
i'm still marveling at how much you cathoilcs ignore the fact that your 'church' mandates sin.
Is Sin the issue
I do watch RZ videos and The Catechumen, and i know i will LOVE that video. (i'm a Brazilian Roman Catholic)
If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, then the Church must be infallible.
Sorry. It’s not
Yes, also, this Bible passage single handedly refutes Protestantism. Protestantism does not adhere to the truth that Christ established a single visible institution which remains so to this day. They believe that the Church is something along the lines of the invisible body of believers in Christ, regardless of their denomination (some exclude Catholics). However, this makes no sense whatsoever, because the entire body of believers in Christ is made up of thousands of groups and denominations with opposing beliefs. How can the church, as in the invisible body of believers in Christ, be the pillar and foundation of truth? It must be that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth because it is a visible, single institution with an established set of teachings binding on all believers.
@@_ready__The Bible teaches that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I assume that you believe that the Church is an invisible body of believers. Please tell me how you interpret 1 Timothy 3:15 in your view of what the Church is.
@@jonathanrivero3424 where do you get your interpretations from?
@@_ready__your interpretation is also not infalliable
I am scared... he's mining copper.
This was super good. You're apologetic skills are pretty impressive for how new you are to the faith. Also... you should debate zoomer WHILE BOTH also playing Minecraft.
As a convert, I'm just so impressed with your ability to convey and understand Catholic Theology despite the short time you have been learning this stuff!
Keep up the good work.
Welcome to The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!!! The One True Church with the Fullness of the Faith!!!✝️❤️☦️🇻🇦
@@luisrios3446 don’t hate me, but I think I worded this incorrectly 😓
I was saying that he is a convert, and he had really impressed me .
@@Jerome616 😅well you are still welcome to come!
@@luisrios3446 I already am 👍🏻😁
@@Jerome616 🤩✝️❤️☦️🇻🇦
It was really fun listening to this in the background. Serious talking about Church authority, intermingled with 'why can these zombies hit me?!'
😂 thanks
Redeemed Zoomer is one of the best Catholic Evangelists out there. He seems like a nice enough person but I'm not sure apoligetics are his thing.
His infallibility argument has a huge flaw. Every Prot im aware of is all about Sola Scriptura. Which they argue is guided by the Holy Spirit and protected by the perspicuity of the Scripture.
The issue is:
1. Wouldn't the Pope also be guided by the Holy Spirit and open to the perspecuity of Scripture?
2. The presence of tens of thousands of Prot denominations which differ largely on Scriptural interpretation grounds instantly falsifies the notion that it is perspicuitous.
And it's weird that he and other Prots don't get that Catholics view Scripture as the highest earthly authority, and if the Pope said "the 10 commandments are no more" we have every right/duty to say "uh no" and continue following the Bible.
Is he actuality playing while recording?
I thought he recorded frst then put vocal over the video.
If he really doing both at the same time, it is really great work !
I thought RZ did while recording, but I'm not sure lol
I loved the style, you should do more of this.
Will do!
Great video bruv.
We need MORE!
👏👏
2nd! also, thank you for dropping the video so quickly!
No problem!
@@thecatechumenI finished the video, 9/10: not enough Minecraft.
But in all seriousness, I would love to see a continuation of redeemed zoomer, because when he was talking about his 3rd point, I kind of gave a bit of doubt because of how his argument felt more like a non sequitor.
@@noahgaming8833🙏🙏
The fact that the canon of the Bible stopped after the death of the disciples and it's a closed matter today is also something that the "fallible" Church declared and some protestants uphold, even though they haven't thought it through...
God can absolutely reveal books of the Bible after every eyewitness of Jesus died, and there's no actual need for the Bible to be closed to new books, such as the book of mormon or the Qur'an. These books could be revelations of God if protestants didn't agree with the Church in that subject...
Unless protestants thought that God didn't have the capacity to keep revealing books of the Bible until this day
No way! I love that you did this, haha, totally caught me off guard. I found you from your “The Worst Part of Protestantism” video. You seem like a really cool dude. Even though I’m converting to Orthodoxy myself, I GUESS I’ll have to drop you a sub anyways 😜 Congrats on the growth btw!
I appreciate the sub and thank you!
Please make this a series. I love it!
Will do!
Been waiting for someone to rebut this video :)
I'm glad I could help!
Catholic Zoomer > Protestant Zoomer.
I remember he made an argument against Purgatory, that went like: Jesus comes in the blink of an eye, what happens for Purgatory then?
Well, some Church Fathers apparently said that the antichrist’s persecution would be so terrible; that those Saints left would not need Purgation after death; due to the brutality.
@@kyrptonite1825 Brutal
been waiting for this 😊
🙏🙏
26 minutes in. I wonder if RZ ever talks about how there are instances people spoke/wrote infallibly despite being sinners. Scripture being the most obvious, but most notably on the Church’s declaration on circumcision and the law of Moses in Acts 15. Was it infallible?
Facts. The “people are sinful” argument against infallibility falls apart when you consider scriptural inspiration.
Great work!
This was helpful. Thanks
I'm glad it helped out!
Had to pause the video to get this out...at about 20:00ish regarding infallibility, he's conflating impeccability with infallibility. This is one of their (probably on purpose?) lacking-in-understandings of Catholic doctrine, always meet this non sequitur head on and don't play their word game. Anyway good video so far, back to it...
spez: ah there it is at 23:57. Just put the hammer down on this subject right away in the future, took a while to make the distinction.
True! Thanks for the comment!
As an example of Old Testament infallibility, in one gospel St. John says the person who was the high priest that year prophesied saying “It is better for one man to die, than the whole nation to perish”
Prophets were definitely infallible when they prophecied
Great Video my kind Gent. God bless. 😇🫡🫶🏻🍞🍷🔥✝️📝⛪️🕊
God bless you and your family 🙏
God bless you and your family aswell ,have a Nice day!
Again, we keep granting protestants that the bible is "infallible", but this doesn't make any sense. A static set of writings can't be infallible because it doesn't actively teach anything. They either have to claim that they themselves or someone else are infallible interpreters, or that the holy spirit is infallibly guiding some people to truth through the bible - but neither of these options will work for obvious reasons. But I don't think we can grant them this "scripture is infallible" line, because it implies more impact and legitimacy than their argument actually has. The modern form of SS is, taken literally, incoherent. We would need to steelman their argument by assuming by "infallible" they mean "inerrant". But then I don't see anything compelling about the argument, it will just lead to endless cycles of arguments over what is errant and what isn't with no way to objectively discern one way or another.
I just tweeted something like this recently, lol. If we, for the sake of argument, don't concede that Scripture is *an* infallible (inerrant) rule, then we force them to epistemically ground that proposition. The reasoning for affirming the inspiration/infallibility of Scripture can usually be applied to Sacred Tradition.
RZ is a Calvinist. His theology makes no sense. The theology of the Catholic Church makes sense and it drives him insane.
His first comment is already debunked because of the very nature of denominations. Someone disagrees on what the word of God means, they split, they disagree, they split etc
Our Lord says, “take it to the church”. Which church? The Anglicans? The Methodists? The Presbyterians? The non denominational? Maybe we should ask the Unitarians about the nature of the Trinity.
It’s either God isn’t very good at communicating or you need an infallible interpreter. You need HIS church. Not the church of yourself with the pope you’ve appointed I.e your pastor or oftentimes, yourself.
Might as well ask the mormons at this point 🤣
Resurrexit sicut dixit, alleluia!
It's great to see young guys like you defend our Catholic faith. I was still questioning the existence of God at your age. Keep up the good work (in all things you do.)
At around thr 27 minute mark, when you brought up an example of a Protestant pastor speaking of himself as "anointed" it got me thinking of something again. Does anyone know whether it's actually never been God's positive will for anyone to ever be the leader of a Protestant church? Or is it possible that God, in light of the situation we're in, sometimes does positively will that what someone do for their vocation is be a Protestant pastor? It's pretty sobering if it's the former.
"God can deliver an infallible message through a fallible source."
Doesn't this dismiss his argument against the Papacy, Magisterium, and Councils outright. Under his definition of fallible, these sinful men can deliver an infallible message from God. We agree, thus we submit to the Pope, Magisterium, and Councils.
It at least supports the notion of Sacred Tradition - that's for sure
He said this in context of people pointing to the church delivering bible as an example of infallibility.
@@razoredge6130if I have a right understanding of Catholicism on this, the argument isn’t that Pope Francis, himself, is infallible. The argument is that when he is acting within the authority of his office that he is infallible. Not everything that comes out of the Vatican carries that level of authority.
In other words, the trust isn’t that the people are infallible - the trust is that God provides infallibility when speaking within the authority he has given.
This is how Moses, a murderer, can speak infallibly… or Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc…
I'm planning on doing a response video to this. Will try to keep it concise and I probably wont be playing any video games lol.
Sounds good man! I’ll be sure to watch it. I appreciate your thoughts.
I gotta I do enjoy this type of stream. Never played that game, but is it posible that you two work on the same server/place and engage in conversation while playing together?
Please make this a series
I'm surprised so many people want this to be a series! I had a lot of fun doing it so I do not mind at all, lol. Thanks!
Should there be a Catholic Minecraft server?
Some in the comments are saying there is 🤔🤔 I didn't know before starting my hardcore world though, lol
❤️ I have heard of Minecraft from my grandnephews, but I’ve never seen anyone play it. 😂
Well, now you know! 🤣
Thank you
Viva Cristo rey
Thomistic_Zoomer channel rebrand, when? 😂😂
Facts 🤣🤣🤣
I just want you to know - my kids watch Hermitcraft after school everyday and today, we watched this all together. They loved it, I loved it. My oldest is 15 and he told me “mom, give it a like!”
HOLY Kingdom Craft 🎉
@Redeemed Zoomer claimed that he does believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. However, he does not adhere to the truth that the Church is a single, visible institution. How can he reconcile the truth that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth to his belief of what the Church is, namely, the invisible body of believes in Christ?
Hi Brayden! I don’t know if you ever respond to articles and such but there is a former-Catholic named Timothy Kauffman who writes very detailed explanations about the Church Fathers and how they don’t actually teach Catholic doctrine. They are persuasive but not necessarily convincing. I have yet to see an in-depth response to any of his points (he’s also very active on X, or Twitter whatever people call it now).
His blog is called Whitehorse. I would post a link but RUclips doesn’t allow that anymore.
Pretty sure he’s PCA now.
God Bless
Even if he’s not Catholic.. is it a good idea to send my Minecraft loving son to his channel to inspire him to believe in God?
Or even better: will catechism Minecraft be a regular thing? 😅😇
I’m thinking more and more from all these positive reactions that I might just HAVE to make it a regular thing 😂
His real world analogy of king’s messengers being fallible messengers of infallible content is actually kind of an good indication of how the Catholic understanding of authority maps on better to the real world. No one would ever believe a random messenger who spoke on behalf of the king, because then any amount of liars could simply invoke the king and say anything they want with authority. In the real life example, they would need some sort of seal or stamp of authority to indicate that they’re speaking on behalf of the authority and not on their own authority. In other words, the true authority was transferred to the messenger to deliver the infallible message, but in a limited sense in the passing along of revealed information. The messenger isn’t authorized to infallibly create their own information, and everything he says isn’t therefore authoritative, but when he speaks the king’s words with the king’s stamp of approval, he is speaking with the king’s authority
15:10 Laughed out loud. I used to be Lutheran. That church embrace sin. Doesn’t matter what you do. Since all you need is to believe, your sin has no weight. That has led the church to flag lgbt++ flags during service.
Nooo! 🫣 Not the chicken! It’s Friday!
catholicism mandates sin. does this matter to you?
Name the sin. And prove it is a sin using scripture or a council.
You were not a Lutheran. You may have attended a Lutheran church, but you were not taught Lutheranism.
I think he was talking about the Lutheran church not the Catholic church bro@@canibezeroun1988
@@tony1685i think he was talking about the Lutheran church not the Catholic church bro
13:16 "Ave Maria" is not a Catholic composition. IMO protestants (Bach, G.F. Handel) make a great argument for protestants having the best music. But we've got O. Lassus, Palestrina, Vivaldi, Carlo Gesualdo, Josquin des Prez, William Byrd, T.L. de Victoria, etc. So we have our own arguments. But certainly not on architecture. Redeemed Zoomer is trippin
God’s image and likeness cannot be totally deprived, creation is good, and it is very good. Love your content, God bless!
God’s image?
@@EPH113 Us
To Zoomer's very first point: the claim of the Church isn't, I believe, that the Bible can't be understood without the Magisterium. To actually make that claim would be to say that the words of the Bible can never mean what they say and must, in all cases, have a meaning that is hidden to the reader, but the Magisterium has access to the hidden knowledge required to understand anything at all found in Scripture, which is obviously ludicrous.
Lol, if he was saying that, he would be accusing Catholics of gnosticism
@ I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he actually meant to say we believe the Magisterium is necessary to ensure proper understanding and interpretation, which is not the same as saying it cannot be understood without the Magisterium.
👏👏👏👏
If your defense of Sola Scripture is weak, overwhelm the Catholics with 100 plus excuses.
You play like you have a 1000+ hr hardcore world
What can I say... I've had a little bit of experience playing in my earlier years before starting this chanel 😉
Jusy a friendly reminder that even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that there is a workable model of Sola Scriptura, you would still have to show that it was willed by God insread of other authority models.
Haha “our leaders are heretics most of the time” “facts” 😂 this is the young apologists humor that we need
😂
Based
Please make a minecraft server
It’ll be for Catholics only 😉
@@thecatechumen cringe
How is that if sola scripture is true Protestantism is true by default and we all should be Protestants?
lol. Not on my Christian Minecraft server.
You missed a big point right off the bat. He’s not using the true definition of sola scriptura. It means Bible alone not Bible first. It’s not a mystery why the printing press and the protestant schism are so close together. The idea of sola scriptura in its original form took for granted how easily men would come to the same conclusion when they read the Bible. Luther, like most protestants since thought they alone understood the Bible and took for granted that everyone else would see things from their perspective. It reaches beyond the Catholic teachings that some men are infallible in certain circumstances and says instead all men are infallible so long as they can back up what they say in arguments from the Bible. That’s the reason there’s a new church every time someone sneezes the wrong way even without a central authority. If the Bible was so obvious that without teaching or training from the church fathers and the tradition, there would just be one Protestant faith that ebbed and flowed around it. But there isn’t. Because when there is no central interpreter, everyone is an interpreter. And when everyone is an interpreter, the loudest voices (ie the ones that most closely resemble the world and allow for men to more fully indulge in their sin while still getting their reward in the end) are the ones who prevail. And the quiet voices become break-off groups that either come back to the church or become crazy sex cults.
How could one determine which tradition is god breathed
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦. solo scripture isn’t biblical
sure it is. nothing is more accurate than His Word and nothing in Christianity can contradict it.
What
@@tony1685 his word is Jesus. not the bible. the bible itself tells you not to trust in the bible alone. you sir are completely wrong. Jesus is the word of God. not the bible
@@aubliz1292 _'his word is Jesus. not the bible.'_ - *False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy* - His Word would never contradict Him nor His will.
_'the bible itself tells you not to trust in the bible alone.'_ - where is Scripture for this, Sir?
1st to comment. 🙂🙂
lol 🙏🙌🕊💡
RZ theology isn’t theology.
What is he wrong about?
How could one determine which tradition is god breath.
The church/magisterium
@@noahgaming8833 do you not see the circularity
@@FosterDuncan1 What is the circularity? Jesus gives authority to the Church, the Church has authority to determine apostolic traditions. That is not circular. Sola Scriptura is circular because you are trying to prove the bible from the bible.
@@Coteincdr papacy determines canon and which traditions are valid. Papacy is valid because Mattew 16 the keys are solely given to Peter and he is given infallibility.
I believe the apostolic deposit and scripture is the writings or apostles and companions. So obviously you would compare to see whether other traditions are in line. So I will believe any tradition as long as you can prove that’s it’s from the apostles.
You have it somewhat incorrect. We have historical documents, the gospels and also the writings of clement, ignatious, irineaus, etc. Those documents show that Jesus rose from the dead, and established a Church with Peter as leader and with apostolic succession. And that institution was given by Jesus the power to bind and loose. And because of that hostorical fact we can trust the leader of that same institution. And that would no be circular.
Jesus never said to trust only the Scriptures but to listen to Him and do what He asks! Yes, Jesus is WORD and Heis not SCRIPTURES!! Jesus is the WORD MADE FLESH and it is a MISTAKE for a CHRISTIAN to think “this is written/this is not written”.
Yeah. Lord we recommended that the Bible alone is not good enough. Really?
Yes, because anyone can fall into heresy
If it was, why good Jesus focus so heavily on creating a Church?
@@brittoncain5090who was Jesus’ earthly ministry to? After answering that and studying God’s word I hope more folks learn how to understand what church is referenced in the gospels. No where outside of Paul’s epistles can we find the one true church referenced …. That is the church the body of Christ. May God bless all
@@EPH113 You could also just explain your beliefs.
@@brittoncain5090 read above and answer the first question using Jesus’ own words and we can begin there. May God bless you all
It’s very unfortunate that you’re evidently not playing in concurrence with your talking. You don’t have to lie!
1v1 me bro 😎
@@thecatechumen TIME AND PLACE
I like the water cubes 🧊🧊