Did God intend that and provide the means by which the whole Church would be unified? If yes, then He also provided a visible principle of unity in every age.
Very well reasoned Doc, thank you. I must read more of your work. For me it’s simple. In scripture, was Jesus building a Bible, or a Church? Was that Church promised to be protected from being overcome and led into serious error? Yes Matt 16:18 and other verses. Then trust the Church established by Jesus Christ. No one else can do it better. You either trust in Christ and the Church He built or call him a liar. Your choice.
Irenaeus A.D. 189 “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 )
@@MegaTechno2000 lol! Bible isn't from catholicism, friend! i too was told that lie when i was catholic, but just a simple read shows they dont even follow It! Bible actually exposes catholicism for the fraud it really is.
notice: not one in Scripture pretend the Lord's day is the 1st day, all kept the 7th day Sabbath, which is the only One which qualifies. nobody in the Bible prayed to other humans, dead ('Hail Mary') or alive -- we pray to God alone. none in the NT pretended another sinner can forgive our 3rd party sins -- God Alone does that. there's much, much, much more -- but these are just a few facts, showing how apostate catholicism really is. please don't fall for the lies. i wasted 35 yrs in that system of deception. GBY on your journey!
@@tony1685 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20
@@nikitaafanas I have met a few EO converts. Everyone of them are contrarian weirdos. They just joined the EO church because it fits their personality which is probably the case for you. Sorry, I don't want to join an outpost for the Russian federation.
@George-sv6vc generalizatjon based on biased self-assessment and extrapolation of those individual cases is always embarrassing bro ngl. Also the EO is not owned by Russia or just russian or slavic or whatever, ignorance is also embarrassing.
Shockingly good? Hardly. Incredibly weak I’d say. He has to assume revelation is unclear, which is disputed, and his whole argument about why we would expect an authority and that it would would be infallible runs completely against his reasoning for why it would be monarchical. In short, the argument is inconsistent and based on ineffective premises.
@@joshuascott5814 I am assuming you're protestant. If you remove all your prior assumptions and just look at it through a natural reason (philosophical) lens you will come away with this perspective. I have heard this from many agnostic/atheist's that did not have all the protestant antithesis to Catholicism. I just makes sense.
Considering epistemic authority, we do have the assurance of the relationship and interdependence of Faith and Reason, illustrated, I think, by Jesus when He said to His disciples, " Can Satan cast out Satan?", as well as the reasoning present in His parables. He did demand faith, but He wanted to give understanding also.
I think that clarity is more a reward for faith than its precursor. Jesus many times skirted around clarity in order to test faith. I don't think it was happenstance that Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to the rest of the Apostles. When Thomas' doubt was confronted, Jesus told him that he believed because he saw but blessed are those who believe but do not see. Abraham had faith though things were not clear, Jonah did not though God made things very clear.
I think his answer on falsifiability really rubbed me the wrong way. His argument is unfalsifiable, and that's expected? Unfalsifiable arguments are certainly not preferable.
@GospelSimplicity I wanted to ask as well, because this was one part you didn't push back on - I actually want to question his a priori premises. It doesn't seem obvious to me that a single authoritative head is expected by a perfectly good God, given the nature of the beings that this authority would be given to - humans. Humans are fallible and power-hungry. We have lots of tyrannical examples in history for what happens when a single person gets too much power. So, given the fallible/evil nature of humans, it actually can arguably be better for God to NOT create something like the Papacy. That actually seems way more like the kind of thing a human would invent rather than God. We see in the Western world the amazing benefits of representative democracy, for example. Why wouldn't a system like this be much more expected a priori given God's existence? I wonder what you think of that?
A little push back - How is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura not unfalsifiable? Any appeal to divine authority is unfalsifiable. It's just a discernment as to which one is most likely and consistent.
@josephgoemans6948 If Tradition or the Magisterium could be demonstrated to be infallible either from Scripture or otherwise, Sola Scriptura would be falsified. Or if someone went the atheist route and tried to show Scripture is not infallible.
@@theepitomeministry Many would argue they can. In fact Scripture identifies the apostles as having some infallible charism (and the church by extension), as well as Christ himself, and then obviously scripture itself. The Protestant objection is as to whether or not that authority continued beyond the Apostolic age - which is a historical contention not a scriptural one.
I think it is important to consider that the value of authority could be in its function as an anchor or foundation for the faithful, and rather than authority alone being the source of Christian perfection, it brings about, through guidance, obedience and love, the perfection that satisfies the demands of law , the strength of the law, and can make us free indeed. Faith, Hope and Love. With faith in the Holy Spirit's guarantee there is no need for fear, which is a breeding ground for confusion. (e.g. "The strength of the Law is sin". "You will have no need that any man teach you". ??)
The argument for a single authority vs partner or group authority seems to contradict everything that came before it. On the one hand, the argument is that we should expect an authority that can clarify revelation, because God wants us to understand that revelation. Implicitly this means He can make sure whatever that authority is actually not going to err, since otherwise we can’t even get to the idea of authority at all-there’s no point. But then when we get there, suddenly God can’t make sure there’s no stalemate or badly formed consensus? How then can he protect a singular authority from error? Surely if He can protect one kind, He can protect any, right?
Philosophy? Yes! Sure, why not? There are many kinds of philosophy, there will be one to prove it. But I have a question: - As Christians, should we even care about what philosophy says about any ecclesiastical issue?
I'll agree philosophy is a useful tool. I also agree that logically and philosophically there is no good reason to believe that a loving God would allow any of his creation to suffer without end in hell. Thankfully there is much more biblical support for annihilationism and universalism, which are both more philosophically tenable positions. If only the Catholic church itself could follow the line of reasoning here!
@@ben1344 Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” So clearly hell is eternal fire & clearly some creatures go there. Matthew 13:41-42 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom* all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” So clearly some people go to hell. Jesus also says in the Last Judgement He will separate the sheep from the goats and some will go to heaven and others he’ll.
Philosophy, like any human invention, has its limits. It can contain some truth, but when we put our faith in philosophy instead of Christ, we are led astray. The modern predicament we find ourselves in is the result of putting our faith in the works of men rather than in the omnipotence of God.
Philosophy is not a human invention, but rather the exploration of wisdom. The Bible is full of wisdom literature and so the Bible itself is a philosophical book. One great way man can know God is through philosophy, and through philosophy we come to understand the infallible arguments for the existence of God. It just also so happens that philosophy leads us to know that the Pope is necessary for the sake of the unity of the Church
@@lifematterspodcast I would argue that philosophy, at least in the modern sense, isn't of God. Many people now approach the writings of figurs like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates as if it they were on the same level as Holy Scripture. Many Christians today are more familiar with the writings of modern philosophers than they are with the writings of the Saints - I am guilty of this. This is not how it should be. Many modern philosophies are opposed to God. Also, I would caution against using the term "infallible" when describing arguments for God. God is beyond human comprehension. If we seek to know God through reason alone, we will fail. That's not to say that arguments cannot be made for the existence of God, but at some point, you either believe or you do not. Our intellect can only take us so far.
@@guntotinpatriot8873 okay, just because there’s false philosophies, that doesn’t mean that Christian philosophies are bad. Also, the Bible is infallible and literally contains philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Romans 1 is an example
The modern predicament we find ourselves can be traced directly back to the philosophy of the Reformation: individualism, subjectivity, liberalism, determinism, cessationism, etc.
This is a fallacy of authority... That is, it doesn't matter who talks about the papacy, what matters are their arguments. That said, the Papacy is a theological issue, NOT a philosophical one... Perhaps even history can come into it. But not necessarily philosophy. I believe that the only thing that philosophy can contribute to this discussion is about "papal infallibility", if it can be logically possible... The rest, I believe, does not require much Philosophy. Of course, a philosopher can give an opinion, debate, etc... But he will not necessarily talk about philosophy.
@@geoffrobinson if you read the Early Church Fathers it’s a pretty good case for “yes”. St Cyprian of Carthage “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.”
@@lifematterspodcast Cyprian thought every bishop sat on the seat of Peter, so your problem seems to be anachronistically reading old texts assuming the papacy exists.
@@geoffrobinson He is right, each Bishop derives authority from the Petrine office and the role of Bishop is distinctly Petrine. But to claim that Cyprian here is stating that ALL bishops sit in the ONE Chair of Peter is silly. The quote is clear. There is One Chair of Peter that unites the Church. Each Bishop then derives his authority from the Petrine office
Austin, I very much enjoy so many of your interviews, but this was literally painful to listen to. Absurd is an understatement to describe the arguments and logic used here.
The things that were the "kill shots" to the Roman Catholic argument for me when I was determining whether the East or West was right in the Great Schism: 1. Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Even though Rome at first rejected it because it changed the ancient order of the Churches, Rome eventually adopted the ordering in the 4th Lateran Council which has Ecumenical authority in RCcism. However, the real point of why canon 28 is significant is the fact that the eastern Churches believed that the Roman Church had been "granted privileges from the fathers", and that the Roman Church had preeminece among the Churches because it was situated in the capital. The eastern bishops did not believe the bishop of Rome had a special divine charism above other bishops. While RCs reject this reasoning the fact remains the eastern Churches believed this and thus didn't have a Papal mindset that RCcism eventually came to have of the Church of Rome. 2. Pope Vigilius was suspended and Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic. The eastern Churches understood that their authority, when gathered in Ecumenical Council, was above the Pope to the point that they could suspend him and/or excommunicate him for heresy. This is in contradiction to Vatican I which claims the Pope's authority is above an Ecumenical Council, and canon 1404 of Roman Catholic canon law that states, "The First See is judged by no one." Again, this shows that the Churches of the East didn't have a Papal mindset. 3. Constantinople I was convened without the participation of Rome and seen as dogmatically authoritative in the Christian East long before Rome signed off on it. Furthermore, the Council was presided over by Meletios who was not in communion with Rome at the time, and even died out of communion with Rome, and yet is considered a Saint in the Church. This demostrates that for the eastern Sees Rome's approval of an Ecumenical Council, while certainly sought for due to Christian unity, ultimately was not a deciding factor as to whether a Council was authoritative for the Church in the East. 4. The Lateran Council of 649, was at the time an attempt for the Pope to convoke an ecumenical council at the time. It condemned monothelitism by the Pope, and despite it all, it received no recognition as ecumenical and the emperor convoked an ecumenical council 30 years later These, as well as other things such as Rome accusing the East of changing the Creed by removing the filioque clause (false), Rome changing the Apostolic Tradition of communing in both kinds and not communing infants, led me to conclude that the Orthodox position was the correct position of remaining more faithful to the beliefs and practices of the first millennium Church.
Rome neever accused the east of removing the filioque from the creed. That was some frankish theologians, and the pope rebuked them for making such an error.
Sounds like you based your decision primarily on history that occurred 7th century onwards. Rather than sacred scripture And earlier patristics. With issues that have been addressed by Catholic apologists? Such as point 3: "dogmatically authoritative" Is not the same as saying it is an infallible council. They can say: "everyone has to believe this to be in union with us!" And that doesn't make it an "ecumenical" council.
@@kianoghuz1033 it certainly doesn't disprove it? Anymore than the early patristics greatly disagreeing on the best age for baptism or eschatology. Not all tradition is sacred tradition. If papal primacy is biblical (+ hinted at in early patristics) then later events are merely evidence against the papacy but FAR from conclusive proof. I'd say sacred scripture shows such a degree of authority for the Petrine office that it is then... Able to bind authoritative clarifications on the boundaries and extent of its authority. Many arguments against Petrine authority act as though the office is an ontological change. It is not. ANY bishop with ANY succession from the 12 may sit in the Petrine office as Peter's primacy was not one of ontological supremacy. But we see St Luke contrasting this authority in Acts. Just as in Luke 1 he contrasts righteous Zacharia with the blessed mother. When one speaks to Peter a lie he says: "you have not lied to man but to God" Contrasted with Herod in acts 12-13 "not a man but a god speaks!" This we see Petrine authority contrasted with other leadership. This occurs after the "IRON" (a scriptural reference to Rome) gate opens "of its own accord". This is the third time St Peter is let out of prison in Acts. Rome was the third seat Peter's held according to Church history. In addition we have the event with the coins in the fish The prayer in John "Satan wants to sift Y'ALL like wheat, but I have prayed for YOU (Peter) that..." The typology of the net of Peter with 157 fish being "unbroken" The other argument levelled is: well that's authoritative not infallible. It is however... Authoritative ENOUGH to be able to determine its own level of authority. In other words... Petrine primacy is authoritative enough that you can't really assert your own opinion of HOW authoritative it is/isn't. One must either say the Petrine office is completely equal... Which is unscriptural. Or really on tradition alone to refute it. Without knowing for sure if this is sacred tradition... Or just... Things that happened.... So what if early Christians, even saints, rejected papal actions... Even now, modern Christians, even saints, reject papal actions.... That doesn't change facts. Just shows opinions of other fallible men Sacred scripture ought to hold the prime weight for a decision one way or the other IMHO
Scripture proves that Jesus appointed a chief among His apostles on whom He would build His Church. If primacy existed then, why wouldn't it exist now?
So we are to look in pagan philosophy to prove the papacy now? Even if one does that, does philosophy accept contradiction? The Papacy contradicts itself over time, over and over again. Pope Urban does a crusade against the Muslims and JP2 kisses the koran and Francis prays in mosques.
The Bible is full of phonological literature, so no philosophy is not pagan. Also just as math can be used to prove God’s existence, so too can philosophy.
@@lifematterspodcast The historical record is clear enough. The papacy is an innovation just like the Filioque. Ironically the Papacy itself admits it through the Cheiti and Alexandria documents. Any philosophical mental gymnastics won't help. Any innovation to the doctrine passed down from Christ and His apostles are evidently demonic in origin. Orthodoxy can demonstrate that it has the ancient Faith intact. Cardinal Newman would not have needed to put forth his doctrinal development doctrine if the Roman Catholic system was actually true.
No such thing as philosophical truths or historical truths. They believe in a God who knows all things human and divine is not even considered. Revelation of God is never been challenged. Just thede useless posts.
ruclips.net/video/ycdM_JEGxmo/видео.htmlsi=PK-v92cW75uE49oG You will never have all the answers. You must trust Jesus and have faith in the founder of HIS Catholic Church ⛪️. What's this inspiring and eye-opening video.
Did God intend that and provide the means by which the whole Church would be unified? If yes, then He also provided a visible principle of unity in every age.
Very well reasoned Doc, thank you. I must read more of your work. For me it’s simple. In scripture, was Jesus building a Bible, or a Church? Was that Church promised to be protected from being overcome and led into serious error? Yes Matt 16:18 and other verses. Then trust the Church established by Jesus Christ. No one else can do it better. You either trust in Christ and the Church He built or call him a liar. Your choice.
Irenaeus A.D. 189
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper,
by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”
(Against Heresies 3:3:2 )
the irony!
it says 'against heresies' -- yet catholicism is heretical.
@@tony1685 And yet you believe the Bible that came from a heretical Church, so that means the Bible is null and void... right?
@@MegaTechno2000 lol!
Bible isn't from catholicism, friend! i too was told that lie when i was catholic, but just a simple read shows they dont even follow It! Bible actually exposes catholicism for the fraud it really is.
notice:
not one in Scripture pretend the Lord's day is the 1st day, all kept the 7th day Sabbath, which is the only One which qualifies.
nobody in the Bible prayed to other humans, dead ('Hail Mary') or alive -- we pray to God alone.
none in the NT pretended another sinner can forgive our 3rd party sins -- God Alone does that.
there's much, much, much more -- but these are just a few facts, showing how apostate catholicism really is.
please don't fall for the lies. i wasted 35 yrs in that system of deception.
GBY on your journey!
@@tony1685 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
John 20
I came to think that IF God was real, became incarnate and wanted a church, it would look like the Catholic Church.
"The heart is deceitful above all things" never trust yourself on spiritual matters. Look Into orthodox christianity instead bro.
@@nikitaafanas Are you seeking something that matches your personality or the truth?
@George-sv6vc " I do the things I hate" as St Paul writes.
@@nikitaafanas I have met a few EO converts. Everyone of them are contrarian weirdos. They just joined the EO church because it fits their personality which is probably the case for you. Sorry, I don't want to join an outpost for the Russian federation.
@George-sv6vc generalizatjon based on biased self-assessment and extrapolation of those individual cases is always embarrassing bro ngl. Also the EO is not owned by Russia or just russian or slavic or whatever, ignorance is also embarrassing.
This is a shockingly good argument. Protestantism broke down divine providence and understanding Gods will by having a spirit of rebellion.
Shockingly good? Hardly. Incredibly weak I’d say. He has to assume revelation is unclear, which is disputed, and his whole argument about why we would expect an authority and that it would would be infallible runs completely against his reasoning for why it would be monarchical. In short, the argument is inconsistent and based on ineffective premises.
@@joshuascott5814 I am assuming you're protestant. If you remove all your prior assumptions and just look at it through a natural reason (philosophical) lens you will come away with this perspective. I have heard this from many agnostic/atheist's that did not have all the protestant antithesis to Catholicism. I just makes sense.
@@George-sv6vc do think people are incapable of criticizing the logic of an argument unless they disagree with the conclusion?
Considering epistemic authority, we do have the assurance of the relationship and interdependence of Faith and Reason, illustrated, I think, by Jesus when He said to His disciples, " Can Satan cast out Satan?", as well as the reasoning present in His parables. He did demand faith, but He wanted to give understanding also.
If this is the argument I think it is, there is a good response to it.
I offer some pushback at the end, so perhaps there will be overlap with the good response
@@GospelSimplicitySIDJUWADE is demon possessed, you can't argue, just exorcise
OF COURSE it can. Philosophy of the world _can_ prove anything it sets out to.
I think that clarity is more a reward for faith than its precursor. Jesus many times skirted around clarity in order to test faith. I don't think it was happenstance that Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to the rest of the Apostles. When Thomas' doubt was confronted, Jesus told him that he believed because he saw but blessed are those who believe but do not see. Abraham had faith though things were not clear, Jonah did not though God made things very clear.
I think his answer on falsifiability really rubbed me the wrong way. His argument is unfalsifiable, and that's expected? Unfalsifiable arguments are certainly not preferable.
I was glad I asked that question
@GospelSimplicity I wanted to ask as well, because this was one part you didn't push back on - I actually want to question his a priori premises. It doesn't seem obvious to me that a single authoritative head is expected by a perfectly good God, given the nature of the beings that this authority would be given to - humans. Humans are fallible and power-hungry. We have lots of tyrannical examples in history for what happens when a single person gets too much power. So, given the fallible/evil nature of humans, it actually can arguably be better for God to NOT create something like the Papacy. That actually seems way more like the kind of thing a human would invent rather than God. We see in the Western world the amazing benefits of representative democracy, for example. Why wouldn't a system like this be much more expected a priori given God's existence?
I wonder what you think of that?
A little push back - How is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura not unfalsifiable? Any appeal to divine authority is unfalsifiable. It's just a discernment as to which one is most likely and consistent.
@josephgoemans6948 If Tradition or the Magisterium could be demonstrated to be infallible either from Scripture or otherwise, Sola Scriptura would be falsified.
Or if someone went the atheist route and tried to show Scripture is not infallible.
@@theepitomeministry Many would argue they can. In fact Scripture identifies the apostles as having some infallible charism (and the church by extension), as well as Christ himself, and then obviously scripture itself. The Protestant objection is as to whether or not that authority continued beyond the Apostolic age - which is a historical contention not a scriptural one.
I think it is important to consider that the value of authority could be in its function as an anchor or foundation for the faithful, and rather than authority alone being the source of Christian perfection, it brings about, through guidance, obedience and love, the perfection that satisfies the demands of law , the strength of the law, and can make us free indeed. Faith, Hope and Love. With faith in the Holy Spirit's guarantee there is no need for fear, which is a breeding ground for confusion. (e.g. "The strength of the Law is sin". "You will have no need that any man teach you". ??)
The argument for a single authority vs partner or group authority seems to contradict everything that came before it. On the one hand, the argument is that we should expect an authority that can clarify revelation, because God wants us to understand that revelation. Implicitly this means He can make sure whatever that authority is actually not going to err, since otherwise we can’t even get to the idea of authority at all-there’s no point. But then when we get there, suddenly God can’t make sure there’s no stalemate or badly formed consensus? How then can he protect a singular authority from error? Surely if He can protect one kind, He can protect any, right?
Reason cannot prove supernatural mysteries.
Philosophy? Yes! Sure, why not? There are many kinds of philosophy, there will be one to prove it.
But I have a question:
- As Christians, should we even care about what philosophy says about any ecclesiastical issue?
We absolutely should because it helps us know where the Church is and where it isnt
I'll agree philosophy is a useful tool. I also agree that logically and philosophically there is no good reason to believe that a loving God would allow any of his creation to suffer without end in hell. Thankfully there is much more biblical support for annihilationism and universalism, which are both more philosophically tenable positions.
If only the Catholic church itself could follow the line of reasoning here!
@ben1344 Jesus Himself in the Bible specifically condemns both positions.
@@lifematterspodcast I'd love a verse if you've got one
@@ben1344 Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” So clearly hell is eternal fire & clearly some creatures go there. Matthew 13:41-42 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom* all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” So clearly some people go to hell. Jesus also says in the Last Judgement He will separate the sheep from the goats and some will go to heaven and others he’ll.
“Philosophy proves the papacy!”
*Jay Dyer appears*
Philosophy, like any human invention, has its limits. It can contain some truth, but when we put our faith in philosophy instead of Christ, we are led astray. The modern predicament we find ourselves in is the result of putting our faith in the works of men rather than in the omnipotence of God.
Philosophy is not a human invention, but rather the exploration of wisdom. The Bible is full of wisdom literature and so the Bible itself is a philosophical book. One great way man can know God is through philosophy, and through philosophy we come to understand the infallible arguments for the existence of God. It just also so happens that philosophy leads us to know that the Pope is necessary for the sake of the unity of the Church
@@lifematterspodcast I would argue that philosophy, at least in the modern sense, isn't of God. Many people now approach the writings of figurs like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates as if it they were on the same level as Holy Scripture. Many Christians today are more familiar with the writings of modern philosophers than they are with the writings of the Saints - I am guilty of this. This is not how it should be. Many modern philosophies are opposed to God.
Also, I would caution against using the term "infallible" when describing arguments for God. God is beyond human comprehension. If we seek to know God through reason alone, we will fail. That's not to say that arguments cannot be made for the existence of God, but at some point, you either believe or you do not. Our intellect can only take us so far.
@@guntotinpatriot8873 okay, just because there’s false philosophies, that doesn’t mean that Christian philosophies are bad. Also, the Bible is infallible and literally contains philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Romans 1 is an example
The modern predicament we find ourselves can be traced directly back to the philosophy of the Reformation: individualism, subjectivity, liberalism, determinism, cessationism, etc.
@@kevinmauer3738 true
This is a fallacy of authority...
That is, it doesn't matter who talks about the papacy, what matters are their arguments.
That said, the Papacy is a theological issue, NOT a philosophical one... Perhaps even history can come into it. But not necessarily philosophy.
I believe that the only thing that philosophy can contribute to this discussion is about "papal infallibility", if it can be logically possible... The rest, I believe, does not require much Philosophy.
Of course, a philosopher can give an opinion, debate, etc... But he will not necessarily talk about philosophy.
That’s not what the fallacy of authority is and it definitely is a necessary theological issue to understand.
it's a historical issue. We can ask "was there an early papacy?" The best evidence to that question is "no."
@@geoffrobinson if you read the Early Church Fathers it’s a pretty good case for “yes”. St Cyprian of Carthage “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.”
@@lifematterspodcast Cyprian thought every bishop sat on the seat of Peter, so your problem seems to be anachronistically reading old texts assuming the papacy exists.
@@geoffrobinson He is right, each Bishop derives authority from the Petrine office and the role of Bishop is distinctly Petrine. But to claim that Cyprian here is stating that ALL bishops sit in the ONE Chair of Peter is silly. The quote is clear. There is One Chair of Peter that unites the Church. Each Bishop then derives his authority from the Petrine office
This is not how the Apostles and Fathers used philosophy. So, no.
Austin, I very much enjoy so many of your interviews, but this was literally painful to listen to. Absurd is an understatement to describe the arguments and logic used here.
The things that were the "kill shots" to the Roman Catholic argument for me when I was determining whether the East or West was right in the Great Schism:
1. Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Even though Rome at first rejected it because it changed the ancient order of the Churches, Rome eventually adopted the ordering in the 4th Lateran Council which has Ecumenical authority in RCcism. However, the real point of why canon 28 is significant is the fact that the eastern Churches believed that the Roman Church had been "granted privileges from the fathers", and that the Roman Church had preeminece among the Churches because it was situated in the capital. The eastern bishops did not believe the bishop of Rome had a special divine charism above other bishops. While RCs reject this reasoning the fact remains the eastern Churches believed this and thus didn't have a Papal mindset that RCcism eventually came to have of the Church of Rome.
2. Pope Vigilius was suspended and Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic. The eastern Churches understood that their authority, when gathered in Ecumenical Council, was above the Pope to the point that they could suspend him and/or excommunicate him for heresy. This is in contradiction to Vatican I which claims the Pope's authority is above an Ecumenical Council, and canon 1404 of Roman Catholic canon law that states, "The First See is judged by no one." Again, this shows that the Churches of the East didn't have a Papal mindset.
3. Constantinople I was convened without the participation of Rome and seen as dogmatically authoritative in the Christian East long before Rome signed off on it. Furthermore, the Council was presided over by Meletios who was not in communion with Rome at the time, and even died out of communion with Rome, and yet is considered a Saint in the Church. This demostrates that for the eastern Sees Rome's approval of an Ecumenical Council, while certainly sought for due to Christian unity, ultimately was not a deciding factor as to whether a Council was authoritative for the Church in the East.
4. The Lateran Council of 649, was at the time an attempt for the Pope to convoke an ecumenical council at the time. It condemned monothelitism by the Pope, and despite it all, it received no recognition as ecumenical and the emperor convoked an ecumenical council 30 years later
These, as well as other things such as Rome accusing the East of changing the Creed by removing the filioque clause (false), Rome changing the Apostolic Tradition of communing in both kinds and not communing infants, led me to conclude that the Orthodox position was the correct position of remaining more faithful to the beliefs and practices of the first millennium Church.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts!
Rome neever accused the east of removing the filioque from the creed. That was some frankish theologians, and the pope rebuked them for making such an error.
Sounds like you based your decision primarily on history that occurred 7th century onwards.
Rather than sacred scripture
And earlier patristics.
With issues that have been addressed by Catholic apologists?
Such as point 3: "dogmatically authoritative"
Is not the same as saying it is an infallible council.
They can say: "everyone has to believe this to be in union with us!"
And that doesn't make it an "ecumenical" council.
@@RedRoosterRoman seems as though you didn't read anything. All of this proves no one thought in a Vatican I mindset, which is now dogma.
@@kianoghuz1033 it certainly doesn't disprove it?
Anymore than the early patristics greatly disagreeing on the best age for baptism or eschatology.
Not all tradition is sacred tradition.
If papal primacy is biblical (+ hinted at in early patristics) then later events are merely evidence against the papacy but FAR from conclusive proof.
I'd say sacred scripture shows such a degree of authority for the Petrine office that it is then... Able to bind authoritative clarifications on the boundaries and extent of its authority.
Many arguments against Petrine authority act as though the office is an ontological change.
It is not.
ANY bishop with ANY succession from the 12 may sit in the Petrine office as Peter's primacy was not one of ontological supremacy.
But we see St Luke contrasting this authority in Acts.
Just as in Luke 1 he contrasts righteous Zacharia with the blessed mother.
When one speaks to Peter a lie he says: "you have not lied to man but to God"
Contrasted with Herod in acts 12-13 "not a man but a god speaks!"
This we see Petrine authority contrasted with other leadership. This occurs after the "IRON" (a scriptural reference to Rome) gate opens "of its own accord".
This is the third time St Peter is let out of prison in Acts. Rome was the third seat Peter's held according to Church history.
In addition we have the event with the coins in the fish
The prayer in John "Satan wants to sift Y'ALL like wheat, but I have prayed for YOU (Peter) that..."
The typology of the net of Peter with 157 fish being "unbroken"
The other argument levelled is: well that's authoritative not infallible.
It is however... Authoritative ENOUGH to be able to determine its own level of authority.
In other words... Petrine primacy is authoritative enough that you can't really assert your own opinion of HOW authoritative it is/isn't.
One must either say the Petrine office is completely equal... Which is unscriptural.
Or really on tradition alone to refute it. Without knowing for sure if this is sacred tradition... Or just... Things that happened....
So what if early Christians, even saints, rejected papal actions...
Even now, modern Christians, even saints, reject papal actions....
That doesn't change facts. Just shows opinions of other fallible men
Sacred scripture ought to hold the prime weight for a decision one way or the other IMHO
Scripture certainly cannot. Lol
Arguable. But the Church came before the NT and in fact the Church gave you the NT.
Scripture proves that Jesus appointed a chief among His apostles on whom He would build His Church. If primacy existed then, why wouldn't it exist now?
No
Longer answer: you can’t force God’s hand on how He will arrange things with an argument
@@geoffrobinson 100
seem like a rationalistic circular argument
So we are to look in pagan philosophy to prove the papacy now? Even if one does that, does philosophy accept contradiction? The Papacy contradicts itself over time, over and over again. Pope Urban does a crusade against the Muslims and JP2 kisses the koran and Francis prays in mosques.
The Bible is full of phonological literature, so no philosophy is not pagan. Also just as math can be used to prove God’s existence, so too can philosophy.
Also, your comment highlights that you do not understand the doctrine of the Papacy. None of those things contradict the papacy
@@lifematterspodcast The historical record is clear enough. The papacy is an innovation just like the Filioque. Ironically the Papacy itself admits it through the Cheiti and Alexandria documents. Any philosophical mental gymnastics won't help. Any innovation to the doctrine passed down from Christ and His apostles are evidently demonic in origin. Orthodoxy can demonstrate that it has the ancient Faith intact. Cardinal Newman would not have needed to put forth his doctrinal development doctrine if the Roman Catholic system was actually true.
@@lifematterspodcast the Papacy is inherently contradictory.
@@henrik_worst_of_sinners How so? I welcome actual arguments.
As an old fart catholic all this media and attention in regards to the pope is silly and waste of time. Gee!
Look into the orthodox church instead bro you'll never regret it 💯 ❤
No such thing as philosophical truths or historical truths. They believe in a God who knows all things human and divine is not even considered. Revelation of God is never been challenged. Just thede useless posts.
ruclips.net/video/ycdM_JEGxmo/видео.htmlsi=PK-v92cW75uE49oG
You will never have all the answers. You must trust Jesus and have faith in the founder of HIS Catholic Church ⛪️.
What's this inspiring and eye-opening video.