Are Protestants Their Own Pope? w/ Trent Horn & Gavin Ortlund

📺 Full Episode: • Catholicism, Body Buil...
Gavin and Trent answer a question about if Catholics are more, less, or the same judges unto themselves regarding matters of Doctrine.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[@errolugdamina815]

The Catholic Church was the New Israel which was based upon the Old Israel that had the Prime Minister in Isaiah 22:21-22 pertaining to the keys 🔑 of the Kingdom.

[@ntlearning]

I agree with the Orthodox. The keys were his confession.

[@joshlicari6430]

I agree, just not the Roman Catholic Church. We need no human intercessor to our fellowship with God other than Jesus Christ Himself, who alone has the power to forgive sins and sits in heaven as the high priest, the blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat, the propitiation. This we cannot see, therefore all things the Roman Catholic Church does to visualize this is idolatry, and turns the incorruptible God into a creature.

[@kiryu-chan577]

Yes there are so many similarities in the Mass and Jewish worship. Jesus loves Israel and has a plan of salvation for them too. The 2 witnesses will come, and Jesus will intervene for them.

[@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448]

​@@joshlicari6430 Do you ask others for their prayers? Have other persons led you to a knowledge of Jesus Christ? God usually works through secondary, instrumental, created causes in leading us to Him, the Primary Uncreated Cause of all things. This is a fact of reality seemingly often missed by Protestants, and it is often because of this that Protestants deny the truth of Catholic teaching. But, once one acknowledges this fundamental principle of reality, one is more readily able to see the truth and wisdom behind Catholic Doctrine.

[@dylanschweitzer18]

​@@joshlicari6430 the point went right over your head

[@tategarrett3042]

I just gotta say, I really appreciate Matt for posting both Trent and Gavin's responses here when it would have been easy to only show one side of the debate. ALSO! I finally subscribed to Pints with Aquinas after Matt so kindly asked "please subscribe, or you're a dingus!"

[@kiryu-chan577]

Epic debate. Love Trent and starting to love the other guy too. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy too.

[@Joh-jf5kc]

"God is love." 1. John 4:16 Love is not only what God is like, Love is who he is. Love only exists in communion, in relationship. Therefore, God by his very essence must be something like a relationship of love. The love between Father and Son. And since God is beyond our human intellect and reason, love can be what Christian theology calls the Third Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit. One in being/essence, three in person. In our human experience, perfect love seems to manifest itself when we give to others willing the good of the other. It is truly unconditional. Unconditionally giving. And here is God becoming man, living the perfect - sinless - life, taking all punishment upon himself and dying the most dreadful death one can possibly imagine sothat we might be saved. What more could one give - how could one give more unconditionally? Love is who he is. In Thomas Aquinas' words God is 'ipsum esse per se subsistens'. Being itself subsisting. The sheer act of being. God is to be. God is Love. Love, which offers itself by its very nature/essence without diminishing, exists of its own. In other words: It subsists. Therefore, true love must be unconditional. That is what we see in the first books of the bible to our salvation in Jesus Christ. From the God who gives by creating, from the burning bush which was not consumed by its flames of self-giving love, to Pentecost. Then, "what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on their heads" - the Holy Spirit. God is love. :)

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Gavin is wonderful and they are just lovely together. It's nice to see.

[@gatekeeper96740]

Martin Luther Said ... everyone with a Bible makes himself his own pope.

[@johnmendez3028]

True, Luther is quoted as saying that. Though there is one Church that only has one Pope.

[@Davidjune1970]

One of his dying letters too … not expecting what he had spawned would turn out the way it did. Given his untreated mental illness it makes you wonder how many would have followed had they known the person behind the dogma.

[@ilonkastille2993]

That is a strange mentality.

[@TheChadPad]

@@ilonkastille2993 Not when you want nothing between you and God

[@Richie_roo]

Not if you submit to what the church teaches

[@davidr1620]

Good questions; both gave great answers.

[@jamesholt8516]

First off, I just wanna say how much I appreciate Dr. Gavin Ortlund and his charitable responses. This is where I can’t seem to agree with him however, me being raised Protestant up to about two months ago, I have never heard of a Protestant denomination ever excommunicating or even rebuking a member of their Church to reconciliation. Never. Respect to my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, but what I found in the Catholic Church is more grounded, and that’s what I was looking for the whole time.

[@CanesGunners]

Jeff durbin with Shawn mccraney in like .. 2022? I think, reformed baptist in Utah.

[@rudya.hernandez7238]

Answer: YES

[@sf4323]

At this point of the conversation where it's important to notice that reformationists are in a very bizarre position describing private judgment. On one hand they'll say they need to submit to the church, but they can't actually point to where that church actually is. One of the distinctive teachings of reformationism is the idea of total depravity which leads into the idea of irresistible grace. So they talk as if they believe in the teachings of the church especially on man's nature and his will but if you press them far enough eventually they will collapse into exhaustive Divine determinism. It is important to note that that is a key feature of the reformation, the rejection of the authority of the church based on several presuppositions one of which is total depravity.

[@soteriology400]

Paul said we are ambassadors of Christ. So I guess yes is the answer to that?

[@andonedave]

To me this is the big difference. Gavin says he submits to the Church. But as a Catholic when I hear “the Church” coming from a protestant, in my mind, and in reality, he can only be referring to his particular denomination and perhaps those churches that agree with him. Authority is everything for me. A Protestant might submit to a particular denomination, but at the end of the day, what authority does his particular church have? It’s not infallible. So if one chooses to leave, you can pick back up with another fallible church. You haven’t really lost anything. I just can’t understand it. What authority does a protestant pastor or church have to teach me what authentic Christianity is that I don’t have myself? I just don’t see anything necessary or validly authoritative to protestant churches. What real difference does it make which Church I go to or if I even go at all if none are infallible? For me that would be a huge conundrum outside of Catholicism. On the other hand, the Catholic Church does claim to be *the* authoritative and infallible Church. I believe her claim to be valid. That’s everything for me. If I reject or get myself separated from this Church, I’ve lost everything. The Catholic Church is human *and* divine. It’s the divine nature of the Catholic Church that holds me close to her. By divine nature, I mean, founded by Christ and guided/ protected by the Holy Spirit (infallible).

[@TheChadPad]

"But as a Catholic when I hear “the Church” coming from a protestant, in my mind, and in reality, he can only be referring to his particular denomination and perhaps those churches that agree with him" This is absolutely wrong, because we see the Church as the body of believers that are washed in the Holy Spirit and that believe in Jesus Christ, as per 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. So in our mind, we are all in communion with one another, but the split comes from our differing view of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) and our rejection of papal authority (a view shared by Orthodox)

[@andonedave]

@@TheChadPad I'm just thinking out loud. Forget for a minute that I'm Catholic. Pretend that I'm a newbie and I'm curious about Christianity so I decide to visit three protestant churches. Church 1: The pastor says "the church" teaches: ABC. Church 2: I tell the pastor that I've been told that *the church* teaches ABC. The pastor replies, "No sir. Here we follow God's word (points to his bible). *The church* teaches: DEF." A bit confused I venture on to church 3: I greet the kind pastor and tell him that after visiting two previous Christian churches, I've been told that her teachings are either ABC or DEF. The kind pastor looks me in the eye, pats his Bible and says: "Well my friend, here we follow the Bible and *the church* doesn't teach ABC or DEF. *The Church* teaches XYZ." I would have to accept that based on my initial introduction to Christianity, *the* (singular) church contains at minimum three differing and contradictory teachings. My logical mind can't make sense of this. Then I'd have to accept that regardless of which protestant church I visit, there really isn't a way to decide who is actually correct. I wouldn't be able to join a church under these circumstances. Or if I did, it would be simply for fellowship. I wouldn't feel any obligation or that *the church* could give me something that I couldn't get myself. Or pushing the argument further. Maybe I could study and earn a Theology degree and start my own church that teaches QRS. Actually, I do have a Theology degree. Can I now speak for *the church* ? See where I'm coming from? There's just nothing solid and sure to grasp hold of. I've had agnostic/ atheist friends come to the same conclusion. It just doesn't make sense. God bless my Protestant friends but Jesus founded one Church and we need to be one for our own sake and for the sake of the world.

[@TheChadPad]

@@andonedave My opinion is that the doctrines that they all teach, ie, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and others found in the Bible, are the most important to focus on. Human fallibility comes into play, and if you do find bad pastors, well, there comes the human part of being human. I would suggest you truly do go attend a Protestant, maybe Baptist?, church to see what it's like. Try a few, even! By and large, they all share the same common ground of the teachings of Christ, and on top of that, it is actually very creative and inspiring how pastors can spin instruction out of the Bible. It is such an amazing book. This is why Sola Scriptura is important, because it is the backbone of our faith, what we all have in common, being Scripture

[@andonedave]

@@TheChadPad Naww. I'm Catholic to the core.

[@TheChadPad]

@@andonedave 1 Timothy 4 might change your mind

[@rebekahzwink8278]

I like your videos as they very informative to me as a protestant. Question: how do you go about testing what the church says? Like, what if something was said that goes against what scripture says?

[@enshala6401]

Good question! I'd like to see others' responses, but here is an example: though this is no where found in the Bible, RCC has made it clear that masturbation is a grave sin since it is sex outside of Marriage. Those was known very early on by the Church Fathers to the point where one hermit through himself on a rose bush to deal with the temptation. 😅 The scholars in theology figured it out, but I don't know what council and/or encyclical dealt with it. Thing is, as a faithful Catholic, do I really need to know these details? See, I don't have to worry about this since I trust our Church. At some point, we just have to figure out which elders we trust. I had to take a leap of faith after 30 years as a Protestant, and I now feel like I am the happiest Christian on the planet.

[@TheRealDealDominic]

Find an example of the RCC church creating a dogma contrary to the teaching in the Bible. It takes a church years, decades or even centuries to determine if something is Dogma outside of what is explicit in the Bible. It's a development done through theologians over a long period of time to flush out and be lead by the Holy Spirit to become a doctrine of the church. Much better then a small body of individuals ina short period of time (say like Luther or Calvin) and declare a new dogma.

[@sandstorm7768]

It's pretty simple honestly. God has given us multiple ways to hear His word: through men, writing, tradition, history, etc. When one of these things is out of place, we look to our other resources and we'll surely find our answer eventually. One source can be destroyed. But multiple sources keeps our faith alive!

[@enshala6401]

@sandstorm7 So, I would love your take on this... I have been thinking about this lately... what if the RCC didn't exist, meaning there would be no more Popes, and the 1.3 Billion Catholics in the world would have to find another faith tradition. I mean, you and I know that's not possible (thank you Jesus!) But I don't think the Protestants would like that, no matter how much they complain about our Church. When I have asked this question of the most belligerent Anti-Catholics, no one could say "yes". Interesting, isn't it? They say they want us to repent, to which I say, have you never heard of how much confession and penance we do? 😅

[@Lerian_V]

Former Protestant pastor, Marcus Grodi explains it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWise3qwhtGiZ9k

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

I know Trent and you are on each other's channels frequently, but why is his debate on your channel?

[@alandoughty6320]

Isn’t that the problem with Protestantism though , if a person goes to a certain church , they submit to that church , not , the church , Gavin kinda made the Catholic point !

[@HisLivingStone241]

Classical Protestantism does not limit itself to separate self governing local Churches. The less liturgical ones are closer to that model but still have creeds and confessions that unite it into one Church body.

[@alandoughty6320]

@fireEagle Most protestant churches I've encountered, are independent, they usually have the word independent in their name , they are proud to be self governed , which leaves the door open to all kinds of heresies!

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@HisLivingStone241 "that unite it into one Church body" Imperfectly united, with a wide variety of doctrinal chaos, confusion, and disagreement.

[@Justas399]

The RCC has never officially nor infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. Therefore, the RC must interpret the Scriptures for themselves.

[@FabianoCastanhola]

You are incredibly wrong. The Church not only made the bible 😂 but also intepret It the same way from Mexico to Korea. On the other hand, every protestant denomination interpret It in their own way. Thats why there are 10.000 of them. Not difficult to understand.

[@Justas399]

@@FabianoCastanhola Jews created the Old Testament. Not the church. They were entrusted with the oracles of God. See Romans 3:2 There is no infallible or official interpretation of the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church.

[@sanguinesteven790]

@@FabianoCastanhola We didn't make the Bible (the writers of the Holy Books did), but we did compile the Bible and clearly lay out (multiple times, dating as early as 382 AD) what is and is not Sacred Scripture

[@cronmaker2]

This old chestnut . The RCC sets interpretive boundaries via it's infallible dogmas and articles of faith (which no Protestant church claims authority to do). One can't interpret John 6 in a zwinglian fashion or Jesus brothers as entailing Mary was not PV, as one of many examples. Sure RCs interpret scripture, that's how one's understanding and at a higher level theology and doctrine develop, but there are authoritative guardrails provided by Tradition and Magisterium. The Protestant paradigm eschews this.

[@johnyang1420]

Dont listen to Justas!!!!

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Everyone employs private judgement, sure. But the Catholic advantage is that it enjoys a larger data pool from which to uncover truths. The other advantage is the Catholic ecclesiastical structure was established by Christ. ;-)

[@johnyang1420]

Amen!!!!

[@HermeneuticsMatter]

Christ never established the Roman Catholic Church

[@defeatingdefeaters]

@@HermeneuticsMatter no, he really did.

[@HermeneuticsMatter]

@@defeatingdefeaters no he didn’t study church history and your Bible a little bit harder

[@defeatingdefeaters]

@@HermeneuticsMatter that’s funny. This is a subject I know very well.

[@wendyfield7708]

Protestant means to protest, and they do indeed protest against the primacy of Peter. Sadly many Catholics today are also protestants. The Church existed before scripture contained a single word of the New Testament. The Catholic Church is the authority over scripture interpretation. +

[@Justas399]

Where has the RCC every infallibly or officially interpreted the Scriptures? It has never done so.

[@johnyang1420]

Where does bible say it must be there? Still….Matthew 16:13-19

[@wendyfield7708]

@@Justas399 It was the already existing Catholic Church which decided on the teachings of Jesus to be included in the written New Testament, many years after the crucifixion. The Catholic Church claims to be infallible only when it proclaims something officially ex Cathedra to do with Faith and morals. This includes canonisations of saints. To accpt this doctrine is merely accepting the infallibility of the Holy Spirit. Pastoral methods can evolve and change according to time and place. Because Scripture appears to be contradictory at times, it is far better to have the Magisterium’s interpretation, and not individual opinions.

[@Justas399]

@@wendyfield7708 The Catholic church is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic church. That church did not start until much later. Where has your magisterium infallibly interpreted the Scriptures?

[@wendyfield7708]

@@Justas399 Catholic simply means universal, and it does not only cover the Roman rite. The Roman rite is part of it, as are eastern Caholic rites, Maronite, Coptic and many others around the world which all obey the Magisterium.. it has always been so. I am an 88 year old convert from 1958 who worked as a translator n the Vatican as a lay translator. If you watch Papal Masses for large special celebrations, you will see Patriarchs from all these rites taking part. All are Catholic. +

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Since we don't believe in the office of the pope, definitely no. We are all responsible for our guarding our own salvation and to remain steadfast. Catholics believe this too.

[@issaavedra]

Hell is not a doctrine from the Church in the sense Trent was referring to. Is explicitly Biblical, unless you are talking about a particular interpretation.

[@Dave-wu5ic]

"They [the Reformers and Puritans] thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but they held on to sanctification by the law. They threw out the church's authority over your soul but hung onto the church's authority over your conscience. They discarded priestcraft, but kept clericalism. They rejected the authority of church tradition (and Papal infallibility) but replaced it with man made creeds that have become the infallible authority (tradition) in the church. In reality they replaced a two-legged pope with a paper pope. They cried "Sola Scriptura" while waving their creed in one hand and a sword in the other hand." - John G. Reisinger, Abraham's Four Seeds New Covenant Theology

[@Justas399]

Where did the Reformers throw out " justification by the works of the law, but they held on to sanctification by the law"? No one in the 1st or 2nd century hold to papal authority nor infallibility.

[@Dave-wu5ic]

@@Justas399 were the systems of dispensational or covenant theology found in the early church? for that matter, were they found before the Reformation?

[@Justas399]

@@Dave-wu5ic define covenant theology.

[@Dave-wu5ic]

@@Justas399 invented by John Calvin, and it was the theology of the Puritans, Presbyterians, & Reformed. John Calvin & John Knox were both Sabbateans and that should tell you what the basis of that theology is. dispensational theology is followed by the majority of America evangelicals. It views the church & modern Israel as two separate groups of God's people with two separate plans. Obviously, the basis of this theology is also evident as they have the same interpretation of the covenants as the Pharisees in Jesus day. They reject the teachings of Jesus & the apostles on the fulfillment of the covenants.

[@Justas399]

@@Dave-wu5ic Covenant theology is based on Scripture. What the relationship of the Jews to Christians has been debated through the centuries. Doesn't the RCc teach that the Jew are not to be converted to Christ?

[@strikevipermkII]

I'd love to see Gavin defend the 'little c' catholic church because that makes absolutely no sense to me. The church is either completely universal or it is not. The idea that one church started by so and so and another church started by another so and so are the same 'church' because they agree on A,B,C doctrine just leads into circles upon circles on logic to defend. One Church, One teaching authority, one doctrine. Either you submit to that Church, or you aren't the 'church'.

[@devon7321]

Is there salvation outside the Catholic church according to Catholic teaching? If so, you can answer your own question about defending “little ‘c’ catholicism.”

[@joelpenley9791]

Exactly. Gavin is trying to circumvent this issue by glossing over what he is calling church authority and the church authority as described in the Bible and practiced by the early Church. Now it could be that the Catholic Church was not the same church that existed in the 1st century and all the way to the reformation. But it is undeniable that the 1st century church had authority and exercised that authority in ways that are fundamentally different from the Protestants. For example, Gavin mentioned being barred from the Lords Supper. (Ignoring the obvious problem of defining the Lords Supper and things like the Real Presence.) What is to stop a Protestant from going against their church, being barred and then just starting their own church? At least in the Catholic Church we can point to the authority structure and such a person can be told what they are doing is wrong. Of course this assumes that infallibility is true and is protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error.

[@strikevipermkII]

@@devon7321 There was an entire council on this. Yes, one can be informally part of the Catholic Church, but that still means they are Catholic, not some little c catholic. It means to the best of their knowledge, they are living their faith, which includes just about anyone that hasn't heard about the Catholic Church, but not someone like Gavin. He's studied the Church's teachings and rejected them, at least so far.

[@franciscoguzman1065]

@Joel Penley well acts 15 is a prime example why you need someone in authority when it comes to issues outside the church . It has been proven through history with the heresies that tried to destroyed the church early. Catholics believe that authority was passed on to peter and his successors. Apostolic succession. Having different churches and different disagreements is not something jesus started.

[@jotunman627]

@@devon7321“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin” (John 15:22) No one who knowingly and deliberately rejects the truth will be saved. It doesn’t matter how good of a Muslim, Jew, Baptist, or anything else he may be. If anyone rejects the truth of Christ and his Church-even one definitive teaching-they will be lost. "Religions that have as tenants of their respective faiths the rejection of Jesus and his Church have no power to save anyone. In the case of one who is ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith, “through no fault of his own,” he can be saved, if he is truly “invincibly ignorant, is given the supernatural virtue of faith and has perfect charity in his heart” " (cf. Instruction of Holy Office of Dec. 20, 1949)..

[@ratatoskr9366]

I guess I missed the part where God had a key duplicator and made a bunch of keys for the laypeople.

[@alandoughty6320]

Good comment ! That’s a great point !

[@mjramirez6008]

👍👍👌👌❤❤

[@wendyfield7708]

If you are referring to the Synod, that is a wrong interpretation. The Pope wants internationl feedback from different cultures on the NEEDS of his flock to help him be the good shepherd. +

[@ratatoskr9366]

@@wendyfield7708 but he is not saying the laity should all be there own Pope's (as in sola scriptura). Matthew 16:18 is very clear on that.

[@wendyfield7708]

@@ratatoskr9366 I know that, and I did not say otherwise, but Popes have an enormous burden and to know what is best to do PASTORALLY everywhere in the world with all its different cultures, different ways need to be used to get the message across, and this is why they need feedback. It is also the Jesuit way. If you understand your sheep you can be a much more effective pastor. +

[@batmaninc2793]

You forget that Catholicism *is* orthodoxy.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Gavin : "I submit to hell because it's the historic consensus of the Church" Interesting this. Then too, be consistent, going back and submitting to the "historic consensus of the Church" on : - The Eucharist being the resurrected body and blood of Christ. - Baptism salvific, regenerative, how we are born again scripturally - Infant baptism - Intercessory prayer to those in heaven - Salvation by faith and works of love (never by faith alone) - Hold to what has been taught, by the Written and Spoke word. - The Church, Catholic - 46 writings in the Old Testament. Reject 16th c men 1500 years after the apostles, who did not HOLD themselves, to the "historic consensus of the Church" and departed from the faith, all the while they disagreed with each other (Priests Luther and Zwingli, and the Catholic lawyer Calvin)

[@dman7668]

Yeah I mean really, I love Gavin and he is great to listen to, but I feel he just finds these ways to take issues that really were not that all misunderstood and try to muddy them in order to allow his own ideas to exist where they really didn't before.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@dman7668 Agreed. He says he wants to go to the "Historic Consensus" of the Church then he immediately rejects it on multiple doctrines (not a few). I find his words dishonest, and I judge him by them. So for example, he should be honest and start with the sacraments. Make two columns for say Baptism. The first, Baptism being salvific, regenerative, sanctifying or how one is born again scripturally, that one receives grace.. The other that baptism is what he believes, a symbolic only act of faith (no grace). What does the "historic consensus" show? It's really NOT that hard to do. Pretty easy actually. And note for each of the men above, who were they (mostly Catholic priests and bishops)??

[@bolt.22]

One problem though, while those traditions are not in scripture they are also unquestionably NOT the historic concensus of the early church. So you have neither. Especially the one brought up here, the pope as ruler of the church succeeded from Peter. The early church did NOT interpret Matthew 16 like the Roman church does today.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@bolt.22 Hmm. Somehow that "historic concensus" produced a succession of Popes all the way back to St Peter. The first 500 years below. Not one of them was a protestant. St. Peter (32-67) St. Linus (67-76) St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) St. Clement I (88-97) St. Evaristus (97-105) St. Alexander I (105-115) St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I St. Telesphorus (125-136) St. Hyginus (136-140) St. Pius I (140-155) St. Anicetus (155-166) St. Soter (166-175) St. Eleutherius (175-189) St. Victor I (189-199) St. Zephyrinus (199-217) St. Callistus I (217-22) St. Urban I (222-30) St. Pontian (230-35) St. Anterus (235-36) St. Fabian (236-50) St. Cornelius (251-53) St. Lucius I (253-54) St. Stephen I (254-257) St. Sixtus II (257-258) St. Dionysius (260-268) St. Felix I (269-274) St. Eutychian (275-283) St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius St. Marcellinus (296-304) St. Marcellus I (308-309) St. Eusebius (309 or 310) St. Miltiades (311-14) St. Sylvester I (314-35) St. Marcus (336) St. Julius I (337-52) Liberius (352-66) St. Damasus I (366-84) St. Siricius (384-99) St. Anastasius I (399-401) St. Innocent I (401-17) St. Zosimus (417-18) St. Boniface I (418-22) St. Celestine I (422-32) St. Sixtus III (432-40) St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) St. Hilarius (461-68) St. Simplicius (468-83) St. Felix III (II) (483-92) St. Gelasius I (492-96) Anastasius II (496-98) St. Symmachus (498-514) St Augustine, who led the Bishops when the Church decided your bible's table of contents (46 Old Testament writings and 27 New Testament writings) speaks of this succession: “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.” _To Generosus,_ Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400). The best cure for protestantism is education.

[@bolt.22]

@@TruthHasSpoken With all due respect, having a list of names that the rcc has deemed popes proves nothing considering they have no power over God's church, and that Peter was never appointed the first pope. The earliest church interprets Matthew 16 not as building the church upon Peter but upon his confession of faith. Ambrose: "faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh (His person), but of his faith... Ambrosiaster: "...'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life" Augustine: "Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession." Chrysostom: "that is, on the faith of his confession... for Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith was perfect, said, upon this confession He would build the Church" There's a small handful of the early church disagreeing with romes and your current interpretation of Matthew 16, I have many more but something tells me you won't care. You must keep in mind, Catholicism has never "always believed". Their doctrine has changed and transformed over time because they have put aside the one measurable rule of faith, scripture. They make history conform to the present through manipulation. Educate me, what is one oral tradition verifiably passed down from the apostles that is necessary for salvation and not found in scripture?

[@ryanbeaver6080]

I’m not so sure it was ever intended for any Christian to have a Pope? Protestants and Orthodoxy reject the infallibility claims of the Roman Pope. It’s never been made clear to me Rome’s papal infallibility claims. How is one man infallible when he sits in a chair a certain way? I hope the next debate’s subject is the Pope.

[@koppite9600]

Would you argue that Christianity was to be One and Universal?

[@CPATuttle]

Brant Pitre’s Jewish roots of the Papacy is a good video

[@jotunman627]

Only twice in history was the "chair" of infallability exercised. - Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. And with the Immaculate Conception, this doctrine was confirmed by Our Lady herself in Lourdes. She said it so herself at her apparition in Lourdes, "I am the Immaculate Conception" in 1858, four years after Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary in 1854. The Blessed Mother gave her name to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, the Lady responded in the Bigourdane dialect, “Que soy era Immaculada Conceptiou,” which means, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” St. Bernadette-who was 14 years old, unlettered, -couldn't even pronounce "Immaculada Conceptiou" when she told others this was who the Lady said she was. Priests certainly knew that the Immaculate Conception is the Mother of God. There is no way St. Bernadette could have fabricated this, which proves the miraculous nature of the Our Lady of Lourdes apparitions.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

Jesus never founded christianity or a new religion. He was born, lived and died a jew. He practiced Temple Judaism. So what actually happened? If you study the Jewish roots of the faith you realize how jewish the papacy, Seat of Peter/Moses and Catholicism is...I speak here of Temple Judaism, not Rabbinic Judaism. From conception the “Church” was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Judaism and Catholicism were born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier of the Davidic Kingdoms. The KEYS are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the Davidic kings were away the steward/vizier was in charge and he wore the keys the King gave him so the citizens knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The keys were then passed onto a successor when that steward died/removed. (Isaiah 22 v15-25) The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. All the Apostles were given special gifts by Jesus but only Peter was given the KEYS. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, His mother is the Gebirah, Peter/successor Popes are His royal stewards/viziers who sit in the Seatt of Moses and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium of the CC. Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and continues to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Jewish priests who followed Jesus brought the temple rituals over: we kept the priests, the altar, the eternal sacrifice, the holy incense, the shewbread, the tabernacle, the sanctuary etc, etc, etc Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new. Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood (which pre-exists the Aaronic priesthood). This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham.

[@jon6car]

​@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Loved everything you just wrote. Is there any books or sources you could point me to so I can read what Rashi and other prominent Jewish sages talk about the roles of priests and san hedrin elders in 1st/2nd temple Judaism?

[@cronmaker2]

The answer is yes. Very odd Gavin says infallibility doesn't offer much difference. If you assume RCism is true, there's a difference pre and post assent/submission to the church (due to its claims of infallibility and divine authority), even as you used PJ to conclude RCC is credible - you are no longer warranted in constantly examining the RCC's teaching and only accepting if it meets your interpretation (to do so entails you never submitted to it's authority claims in the first place and treat it like any other Protestant denom). If you assume Protestantism is true, nothing changes pre and post assent - it's perpetual PJ and everything is constantly revisable - hence Gavin's praise of "semper reformanda" and his critiques of non-SS rule of faith as subject to tyranny and corruption. Any Protestant church has no more authority than any civic or voluntary org that one chooses to associate with which Trent also noted - charges of heresy or schism carry no weight. Gavin's appeal to the "consensus of the historic church" likewise falls flat. Simply ask to define "the church" - who counts in or out of this "consensus"? There were lots of Arians - do they count? Why does he not follow the consensus on things like baptismal regeneration or loss of salvation or episcopacy? As above, given Protestant principles, any church, council, creed, confession is revisable under SS - they are authoritative only insofar as they conform to the individual's current interpretation of Scripture. No need to take my word for it, as other luminaries of confessional Protestantism echo Luther: Turretin: "“Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.” Hodge: "What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.”

[@HisLivingStone241]

For the first part, Catholics do not escape the problem of private judgement. The point of having an infallible interpreter may be granted, but you still have to interpret what the interpreter says and not only that, there is not infallible decrees being issues by the Pope every day or an ecumenical Council assembled every 10 years. The RCC relies simply on its authority in proclaiming what has been infallibly decreed before and or what has not (as there is no infallible commentary on Scripture). The classical Protestant removes the infallible interpreter by going to the infallible source itself (Scripture) as in the Church (no singular person makes up entire Confessions of Faith). For the second point, this ambugiruty only works if one believe in Sola Ecclesia. The removal of the ability to judge so much that if the Church declared Arianism to be true, it would have to be believed though no serious Catholic or Protestant would believe it. For the third point, these quotes from men like Turretin do nothing when one considers men like Turretin believed in the legitimacy of Church discipline and in Church Confessions.

[@cronmaker2]

​@@HisLivingStone241 1) Just because an RC fallibly interprets the infallible interpreter hardly means there's no advantage or clarity. That's just obvious. If I have James Joyce sitting next to me while I read Finnegans Wake and he can offer feedback and iterative clarification, I obviously have an advantage in understanding FW over someone else reading FW without such an interpreter, even as we're both fallibly interpreting. And RCs and non-RCs alike have no problem identifying many RC infallible dogmas even though we're all fallibly interpreting (e.g. The assumption, baptismal regeneration, Romans and Sirach are inspired, the real presence, loss of salvation, etc). The Protestant, classical or not, has no such guarantee or guardrails for their interpretations of Scripture - and of course none even for doctrines like the scope and extent of the canon itself, inerrancy, or even SS as the rule of faith itself - all such doctrines are offered as revisable and provisional in Protestantism, i.e. offered as opinion rather than divine articles of faith. 2) If you appeal to the "consensus of the church" to deflect from the PJ critique, it is logical to ask "ok, define the church and the consensus". A Protestant such as Gavin will just end up saying "whatever people agree with my judgment of what doctrines are Scripturally warranted" which is why he has no problem discarding councils/creeds or widely held beliefs from the early church, or why some anti-catholic Protestants exclude RC/EO from counting. So it's a smokescreen. And no, one doesn't need to believe in "sola ecclesia" to dispute the SS paradigm - the RC rule of faith is sola STM-triad - the three necessarily work together. 3) Turretin and SS proponents believe churches and confessions are authoritative only insofar as those agree with their interpretation of Scripture, Turretin had no problem ignoring Lutheran confessions. That's what the quotes say - every offered teaching is revisable and to be re-examined. This, along with pt 2, is why Sola always reduces to Solo Scriptura.

[@HisLivingStone241]

@a for the first point, you do not have the Pope or those at the Ecumenical Councils with you. It can be granted that the infallible interpreter helps but the infallible interpreter is not always infallibly interpreting. Such a move is unnecessary anyways since Rome provides no infallible commentary on Scripture, but simply uses its authority to enforce its own opinion and what has already been infallibly declared. Besides the 21 Ecumenical Councils, there is only one decree infallbly declared by the Pope. And those Councils more often then not were responses to already occurring error. So the argument from help is not especially powerful, only in those very select cases (and that is simply allowing that to pass). Moreover, you do not have the ability to decide what is and is not infallible, you rely on the Pope and Bishops under to tell you as you alone are not infallible. And since heretical Popes do take office, you cannot argue but simply have to submit if they do speak doctrine for the entire Church. And the classical Protestant does have guardrails. Namely, the ancient Church, the Church clergy / confessions of that Church, the witness of the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and Jesus Christ as the rock of the Church. Thus, a classical Protestant can know and can therefore dialogue having access to knowledge. For the second point, it is still not a problem with private judgement because everyone (entire Church bodies included) will have to decide what to make of the Early Church. For the third point, the belief that confessions are authoritative insofar as they agree with Scripture is fine because Scripture is the sole infallible authority for the Church, by default that it is God's decree. Moreover, these Confessions outline certain interpretations and traditions of that communion, so the point that they are only authoritative insofar as they concur is not accurate, because Confessions are the Church's attempt at outlining what the faith is (not just with Scriptural interpretation, but also a listing of what books consist of Scripture and the like).

[@HisLivingStone241]

@@cronmaker2 and I say point number 3 as a Lutheran myself

[@cronmaker2]

@@HisLivingStone241 1) Infallibility is not limited to ex cathedra or conciliar definitions - all 3 parts of the STM-triad are sources of infallibility, not just the M. No the infallible interpreter has not set an infallible commentary on Scripture (if it did, there'd be no growth in theology or development of doctrine), nor does it need to - it sets interpretive boundaries based on its dogmas, e.g. RCs can't interpret Jn 6 in a Zwinglian sense or Christ's statements about the Father in a non-Trinitarian sense. So just because there's no magisterium hotline hardly makes infalliblity worthless. But within those boundaries, diversity and fruitful discussion can occur (e.g. Molinism vs Thomism, material suff vs partim partim, etc). Within Protestantism, there are no such boundaries - one SS church's confessional boundaries are another SS church's enshrinement of error or heresy due to the consequences of SS principles (i.e. perpetual PJ). You're Lutheran, you presumably know the harsh words Lutherans and the Reformed had for each other even at the start of the Reformation and why some still bar each other from the altar. 2) Again, the issue is any SS church's identification of "the church" is non-principled and revisable due to perpetual PJ. Councils and creeds are rejected or reformulated. Liturgies and ECFs are rejected. Certain christian-professing bodies are not considered part of the church by SS churches. Why? Because they are judged to be in error due to the individual's current interpretation of Scripture - ecclesial judgment can never bind or obligate over the individual's PJ (as SS confessions and the earlier-cited SS proponents attest). 3) "Scripture is the sole infallible authority for the Church" is precisely what's in dispute, so one can't just beg the question. "Confessions are the church's" - and we're right back at point 2 - define "the church" in a non adhoc or special pleading way. SS won't allow for it, so as said before, it reduces to Solo and perpetual PJ.

[@brg1213]

I’m a dingus

[@tbojai]

With a few qualifications and distinctions- yes.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

the pope? #justTakeNoNotice

[@hglundahl]

1:17 Protestantism certainly does _not_ mean a person is always free to say the Church has misunderstood Scripture. Anglicans and Lutherans have had state Churches such that if, for centuries, a Catholic stated they misunderstood Scripture, he had to face possibilities like exile and execution. Anglicans persecuted Wesley and Swedish Church got the books by Elias von Walcker confiscated. Though in both cases, that was more lenient than against Catholicism.

[@coffeeanddavid]

Is the Pope his own Pope?

[@jotunman627]

yes, but he does not have the power to change doctrines on faith and morals. No pope, even the bad popes, ever changed anything to suite themselves. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change." As testified by John Paul II "the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone" and wrote that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".

[@coffeeanddavid]

@@jotunman627 So, if the Pope can be his own Pope, why can't Prots be their own Pope?

[@TheChadPad]

@@coffeeanddavid I like you.

[@TheChadPad]

@@jotunman627 Just the sheer fact that you can have bad popes that simultaneously call themselves the "vicar of Christ" is beyond me

[@janela424]

They don’t understand why there is authority or what Catholics mean by that. They’re stuck on the Pope.

[@whiterosesforthebrideofchrist]

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter, and Paul were not Roman Catholics. They were all Jewish. The first non-Jewish believer in the gospel is Cornelius in Acts chapter ten. Every believer before Acts chapter ten is 100 percent Jewish. When the LORD commanded Peter to go preach the gospel to Cornelius Peter didn't want to go because he knew that Cornelius was not Jewish. The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, was written by Jews. The LORD commanded Peter three times, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium. And Peter wrote to the sheep (2 Peter 1:5-11) and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep. Peter has been feeding the sheep by sharing the keys to the kingdom with anyone who will do what he tells them to do in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall. So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall? If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11). Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44). ... ... ...

[@fantasia55]

Gavin is the Pope of Ortlundism.

[@JubalBed]

No. The only infallible authority are the scriptures. Authority, tradition and wisdom of past generations of Christians matter.

[@lukewilliams448]

So the Apostolic College whose members were god-breathed were not an infallible authority?

[@Thedisciplemike]

What you just said isn't in the Bible, therefore refuting your own position

[@florida8953]

@@Thedisciplemike it’s God’s own words. It’s pretty obvious and doesn’t even need to be stated. It’s common sense. By your logic, Rome is wrong on nearly everything, since it’s not in scripture.

[@Thedisciplemike]

@Flo Rida89 it's Gods words spoken through men, as he chooses to do often. Are you really saying God has been silent since John wrote Revelation? The point is not denying God's Word. Of course not. The point is denying the silly proposition that God's Word is limited to Genesis through Revelation.

[@tinag7506]

Infallible authority is the Word. That is the spoken word WHICH was written later on with tradition.