Defining Papal Infallibility: The Maximal Infallibility Position of Manning

[@scottforesman7968]

when I was Catholic (and began to have doubts...)I studied the Papacy, in particular the Papal claims of Vatican I. (I read portions of Kung's book, 'Infallibility'). I also re-studied the RCC doctrine of justification. These renewed studies, which took a lot of time, and caused considerable emotional anguish, I did come to the conclusion to leave the RCC, eventually becoming an LCMS layman. Thank you for THIS particular series, which I find -still- particularly interesting

[@Hainzbeans]

I'm glad our tradition was blessed with Jordan B. Cooper whether it be books printed at an affordable price or his podcasts explaining complex topics with great simplicity he continues to have a tremendous impact.

[@Gibsonsghost]

He's putting in good work

[@javierperd2604]

We are so back 😎

[@ChristianCombatives]

@javierperd2604 Eyyyyy

[@tychonian]

This kind of quality material is why you and Gavin Ortlund are my favourite Christian youtubers. Looking forward to next installment! // Geocentric Swedish Lutheran

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

This is by far the greatest video on KZbin (I’ve only watched the intro)

[@legomegaman101]

We're lutheran boys! Of course we watch critiques of catholicism at midnight!!

[@Gibsonsghost]

"Nuh uh" - Lutherans

[@legomegaman101]

@@Gibsonsghost (my comment was a joke in reference to Costco guys. Watch that and then the meat canyon parody they are funny)

[@Zero1990B]

Catholic here. You are right in many points. Many of the usual suspect in catholic circles commit a lot of errors in this area which leads to holes you are right to point out. If you are still interested in the subject, and you want a very different way of arguing about this, I would recommend Raymond E. Brown short books, Peter in the New Testament (its a dialogue with Lutheran schoolars), and the book Priest and Bishop. I believe there is a much more ecumenical way of looking at infallibility and the role of the Pope. If you like Brown (many protestants do and many catholics don't), his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine lays out a great foundation for understanding the development of doctrine that is more fair than Newman's. God bless.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Following this series, I'll be doing one on Lutheran/RC ecumenical dialogues. Lots of fruitful work there, and yes, Brown is going to be part of that discussion. He was quite fond of LCMS theologian A.C. Piepkorn.

[@toddvoss52]

@@DrJordanBCooper I know there has been some fruitful dialogue in recent years between Confessional Lutherans (i forget the international body) and the Catholic Church. Actually I found out about this from a video you did a year or two ago. I found that very hopeful as I expect less fudging on both sides than occurred in the JDDJ (not there wasn’t some progress there). Is there any chance of you becoming involved in that as a representative of your Church body? I think that would be great .

[@toddvoss52]

@@Zero1990B thanks. A Catholic here and will check those out. In exegesis, I prefer the later Brown to the earlier Brown.

[@vngelicath1580]

​@DrJordanBCooper I'm glad to hear you'll be revisiting that soon. I've been looking forward to restarting that series. The internet is overly concerned with sensationalist polemicism.

[@lane2677]

Just wanted to say I'm Eastern Orthodox, but have found your work invaluable for many years.

[@caineburleson3612]

Late night Luther-posting

[@vault13dweller15]

This is one of your best videos to date (and this series as a whole). I can't wait for video on Newman since his arguments are most prominent in more rigorous modern Catholic apologists.

[@jeffryan5302]

As a soteriological Calvinist, Dr. J is my go to YT channel for Christian Lutheranism doctrinal teaching vs other reformation denominations statements of faith and practice ! I’m interested in signing up for his other online courses…

[@Scoma19]

I've been looking forward to this. Infallibility has always been one of my biggest issues with the papacy, so I find videos like this really interesting to watch. Thanks Dr Cooper.

[@Dilley_G45]

Didn't the same pope who created infallibility also excommunicate socialists and communists? Then Bergolio the heretic is not absent be pope and they owe him no loyalty

[@ChristianCombatives]

The absolute shade at 12:44 , glorious.

[@tookie36]

More of a self report that cooper doesn’t hear the gospel

[@TheologyMom]

Thank you for this very helpful teaching. It’s a great service to the Body.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

Excellent video Dr Cooper! ….now cue up the multitude of Roman Catholic response videos 😉

[@kjhg323]

This might come up in later videos, but it’s important to note that Vatican I on its own terms rules out any room for doctrinal development on papal primacy: “To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.” It’s difficult to see how something can be “absolutely manifest” and “always understood” by the church but also subject to development.

[@IAmTheSlink]

I think there are two answers to this. One is that Manning's ideas don't go away, they just stop being said out loud. So whenever a doctrine needs to be developed, and that development is challenged, you get to ignore the challenger if he isn't a Pope. Another answer is that, like most modern people, today's Romans are ignorant of history, and have no idea that Vatican 1 says anything like this.

[@AlexSmusiak]

My favorite series so far. Looking forward to Newman.

[@not_milk]

Love this video so much. It’s crazy how much the apologetics of Manning are mirrored in presuppositional apologetics of Van Til. And I find it equally infuriating.

[@kylie5741]

Looking forward to watching this

[@not_milk]

Ironically I was just pondering this. Catholic apologists are so quick to dismiss troublesome papal teachings as “not a matter of faith or morals”, it becomes possible to categorize almost nothing as a matter of faith and morals. It’s to the point where I could say, the assumption of Mary is a matter of history, not faith and morals. Nicea II is a matter of liturgical practice, not faith and morals. Papal infallibility itself is a matter of ecclesial authority, not faith and morals.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Papal infallibility is literally based on faith and morals. It’s part of the criteria for it being used. Vatican I says this. Infallibility is: A teaching That is defined And is regarding faith and morals That is binding on everyone. Infallibility doesn’t occur in issues that are not regarding faith and morals. Let us define our beliefs please. We are not subject to your interpretation.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

You need to research Catholic beliefs that are definitive and non-definitive. Infallibility is based on teachings that are defined on faith and morals. Non-definitive teachings are under indefectibility per Matthew 16:18-19 and Luke 10:16

[@adeptusjoker7176]

Good stuff, Cooper. Thank you for your hard work

[@prussianhill]

A great piece to listen to while I paint my basement.

[@Mark_Penrose]

Manning's view of Papal Infallibility reminds me of that Spin Doctors song (little miss can't be wrong) or Jen Psaki.

[@mrs.teilborg649]

Thank you so much!! This has been so helpful!!!

[@stephenkneller9318]

I could see Manning’s maximal papal infallibility concept, leading to the Pope being completely isolated from ever speaking about any meaningful issue to prevent ex cathedra contradictions. Such a pope could end up isolated as the Japanese emperors often were. That would most definitely move much of the power to Cardinals and Bishops.

[@rodrigoNuland]

I thought I would sleep, but guys... JBC always has something better for us (2:38 a.m. here).

[@ExaltedTilemaker]

"The pope is never wrong, except for when he is, and you can never know whether or not something he says is one of those exceptions, and when two popes say things that are completely opposite to each other, then the previous pope must have meant what the current pope said all along." This isn’t development or evolution of doctrine, as Rome claims. It's change. It's a fallible authority claiming to be infallible.

[@toddvoss52]

In keeping with your method of first looking at historical sources, hoping you managed to read Bishop Gasser’s Relatio and Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (which is actually a small book). I had suggested both in the comments of your first video. The latter is especially important when discussing Newman’s views . I didn’t see them on the list in this video .

[@johnpacheco5355]

Does Jordan not see that his critique of Manning makes Protestants very uneasy when it concerns his epistemological conclusions? The irony should not be lost.

[@tookie36]

Right. Mannings quest for truth was quickly turned into a bad thing by cooper. But I’m guessing the Protestants didn’t get that far or will just ignore it

[@4jgarner]

Does it? I am not uneasy. that's interesting.

[@donatist59]

So where is the list of infallible statements?

[@Outrider74]

So here’s a question: what would Manning say regarding this current pope’s 1.) revocation of the Latin Mass and 2.) his softening on the Scriptural doctrines regarding sexuality?

[@CarlosGomez-gj5tg]

So I see I'm not the only one watching this at midnight.

[@jaredmindel5068]

Can you give a full explanation of the Loftonite view? Thanks.

[@CaptainMayo]

Thanks!

[@251089soren]

What would be some recommendations for reading or podcast om Lutheran/pre modern epistemology? There is a great deal of criticism of seeking certitude but what about the words of the catechism "This is most certainly true"?

[@zipppy2006]

As someone who objected to the excerpt video from September 3, I find that this was much better in context. Manning's position is terrible, but I also think _Pastor Aeternus_ is deep flawed itself, and this is a common opinion in the Catholic Church today. With that said, I would invite Dr. Cooper, as a confessional theologian, to eventually make a video (separate from this series) about the thorny problem of dogma. The fact is, many of his arguments in this video cut against the very notion of dogma itself, given that dogma is in a certain sense unfalsifiable. Is the Christian to hold to dogmas as more than private or historical opinions, such as for example the dogmas of the first two ecumenical councils? Best, Z.

[@TheChurchofBreadandCheese]

Dr. Cooper, can you help me understand defence of chicago statement views on the bible? I feel from what I've learned from Catholic monastery I was in, its hard to defend? What do you think? I know your synod affirms it.

[@sebastianinfante409]

Thanks a lot for your work

[@ryanroehrig54]

So basically the Papacy has ultimate authority but also we can’t agree on how much authority?

[@torbjorntoll1481]

Great introduction to this issue! Knowing that you have dealt with biblical infallibility, it would be helpful if you would at some point turn around the argument against papal infallibility and test them on the view of the bible as infallible. E. g. is it the case that when you argue for biblical infallibility, that the claim is falsifiable?

[@paulmualdeave5063]

In your first 17 minutes, you portrayed Catholicism truthfully. The only so far is using self-described traditional Catholics as the bar for accurate Catholic teachings. They are traditional in name only. Don’t forget though, an infallible statement needs to have a teaching that is defined, such as the Trinity at Nicea I. Using an example of something that isn’t defined isn’t infallibility. That would be indefectibility, the teaching will not be so severe of an error that we would be eternally destroyed being bound to it. Redefined? The Nicene creed we use isn’t the original Nicene Creed defined Nicea I. There are teachings that are reworded through time to be made more clear and that is part of doctrinal development, a term used in early Catholicism. Not all of our beliefs have been fully defined 100% yet. There is a term for this but I forgot what it is.

[@edwardsmith1060]

It's the same as cops being able to to whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, and there is nobody able to hold them accountable. 💯

[@joekey8464]

You mean dirty cops, because legit cops are bound by the law. Without the justice department (Supreme Court), every one can interpret the law to suite themselves and that leads to chaos and division. - same as a headless religion or a baseball game without the umpires, not workable in the real world.

[@oliverlamie3449]

Now here's a question: why would the Church need to establish a canon of scripture if the pope can simply speak the truth infallibly? Why would we have something to read when we could all gather around and listen to him, a living voice? Especially if you need the Pope to interpret scripture, why do any of us have access to it if we're doomed to read it wrong on our own?

[@tookie36]

Why do you need scripture at all? Why not just Jesus?

[@harrygarris6921]

I'm not catholic and don't believe in papal infallibility, but posing these questions of necessity really isn't helpful because you can just keep going with them and become the ultimate skeptic who isn't convinced of the necessity of anything. Clearly it's necessary to have those who are older and wiser than us teach us how to understand things, this is just generally true for all of human experience. Does this have to be the pope? No, but let's not act like people are capable of just understanding things in a vacuum either. Every protestant who's ever picked up a Bible and read it is doing that after having learned how to read, how to understand grammar, how to interpret meaning, historical context, what passages are metaphor and allegory vs literal, etc..., from older and wiser people that came before him.

[@dodavega]

I don’t understand why there are “views” on infallibility. If it has been defined by Rome, how was it defined.

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

Scripture is infallible. The Pope definitely is not, if papal infallibility even had an agreed-upon definition to begin with. Bible study, not Papal study.

[@tookie36]

Tobit is my favorite ❤

[@a.ihistory5879]

Who's interpretation of the Bible? There are hundreds of different denominations reading the same exact scriptures as you, yet all have different conclusions.

[@davecorns7630]

@@a.ihistory5879 thats not an argument for rome though, catholics disagree all the time between them, the pope says the death penalty is contrary to the gospel, thomists say the opposite.

[@davecorns7630]

@suzerain840 doesn't matter wheter its infallible or not, the comment was talking only about interpretations. also nothing of what you said about first world countries is taught by the church, the church seeks its abolition WORLDWIDE (ccc). I haven't misunderstood anything

[@a.ihistory5879]

@@davecorns7630 Are you going to answer the question? lol

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Matthew 16:18-19 states the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. That is describing something ongoing. We have the papacy established, we have succession in Acts and the Bible never says this succession ever ends. Therefore, this divine protection of the papacy (Peter) and the church continues forever. Otherwise, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church. A great example of a Church not having this protection is what happened to the people in the Jim Jones cult.

[@theodosios2615]

If the current Pope is anyone's idea of "infallible", God help us.

[@joekey8464]

You think Pope Francis is bad?, you should read about the really bad popes, murderers, frauds, womanizers, incest, etc.

[@joekey8464]

Pope Francis is an angel compared to the 8 bad popes in history, who were murderers, womanizers and frauds.

[@fantasia55]

Pope Francis has never spoken infallibly.

[@Gibsonsghost]

Don't listen to what the jews say about him. Mostly lies. Pay attention to who your messenger is

[@donatist59]

​@@fantasia55How do you know that? You're not infallible.

[@rickdockery9620]

All religions are paths to God, like different languages that express the divine". Glad that’s not infallible

[@harrygarris6921]

I don't think that Rome requiring catholics to be obedient to doctrine that hasn't been infallibly declared is inconsistent, this is simply a functioning authority structure.

[@zacdredge3859]

It is inconsistent if you criticise Protestants for seeing Church authority in this way(which many Roman Catholics do) and have the same issue despite the existence of the Papacy and Magesterium.

[@N1IA-4]

You do know that Manning wasn't a church father, or even better..... a pope, bestowed with the charism of infallibility, right? So attacking a man who the Catholic Church knows can err seems pretty pointless.

[@rickdockery9620]

Attacking?

[@NerdyCatholic2122]

Hey Dr. Cooper, I highly recommend reading "Magisterial Authority" by Fr. Chad Ripperger. It's a quick and easy read and it clearly difines Papal Infallibility as the Catholic Church has always viewed it, pre-Vatican 1. As a man of Academia, I think it will be an insightful read for ya. The peace of Jesus Christ be with you.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Thanks for the recommendation. That's one I have not encountered yet.

[@WesleyKwan_]

1:08:45

[@fantasia55]

The last time a Pope spoke infalliblely was in 1950.

[@davecorns7630]

truth is, there is no official catholic document that confirms that despite what catholics say. according to some interpretations of vatican 1, recent documents like pope jp ii affirmation of male only priesthood could be infallible

[@fantasia55]

@@davecorns7630 1950, the Bodily Assumption of Mary

[@reinhardfuchs5181]

In Ephesians 4 there are Apostel, prophets, evangelists and pastors and teacher's but no pope. Don't waste time with catholic religion

[@fabiobighetti4594]

Dr. Cooper, have you ever read "The Infallibility of the Church", by George Salmon?

[@SaltShack]

1:12 “there is always going to be this problem of private interpretation”. That statement may be true in reference to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism because each subordinates the authority of the Holy Spirit to the authority/interpretation of the individual. The Popes individual/private interpretation or Martin Luther’s, there is no epistemic deference. 1:13:17 “you have to have subjectivism because you are interpreting something. So you have Scripture, well if you can’t interpret Scripture right you have to have sort of document to help you interpret Scripture. OK so there you have the Roman Tradition.” I am dumbfounded by this for two reasons. One, there is no practical difference from Roman Tradition and the Protestant Tradition as each is rooted in the authority of an individual even if that individual ultimately is yourself. Two, Scripture tells us whose interpretation is valid and how to recognize it. It is the Holy Spirit’s continued inspiration of the Body of Christ. Scripture then defines how we can recognize his inspiration through the resounding voices of the many that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou refers to it and that Scripture calls pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Seriously I’m doubting that Dr. Cooper has even read the Bible as this notion is fundamental to Scripture and 2,000 years of Church History never Challenged until Rome. All Luther did was replace the Pope and therefore “Reformed” nothing. He just replaced one flavor of heresy with another. The surrendering to doubt that is expressed here is astounding and should never be given any serious attention when discussing abject “Truth” of the Trinity and Salvation. Good enough in these matters shouldn’t be good enough. If I didn’t have certainty that my Tradition wasn’t True and kept me free from being taught heresy I’d find another Tradition.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

One cannot understand papal infallibility to reject it unless they have read the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils in the first 1000 years. Infallibility is: A teaching On faith and morals that is defined And binding on everyone

[@ameribeaner]

Jan Huss wasn't burned at the stake because he didn't believe the pope was infallible under extraordinary circumstances that only happened twice.

[@aussierob7177]

The Pope exercises a primacy of authority as Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church. He receives the divine assistance promised by Christ to the Church when he defines "infallibly" a doctrine of faith or morals. I have never criticised any Pope, including the so called "bad Popes". Baptism is the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit Any historical institution that has been around for more than 2,000 years, will have people affiliated with it who do bad things. Christ did say his Church must suffer great trials and tribulations before it can be perfected. Christ started one Church (Body of Christ) only The One Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church in 33 AD.

[@joekey8464]

Yes, there were terrible popes, murderers, womanizers, incest, frauds, etc. But they never dared change any doctrines of the church in faith and morals to suit themselves. -No saint ever disobeyed the church. Mary in her many apparitions specially instructed her visionaries to obey their priest and bishops.

[@kodyoneill497]

Except the office of the pope didn’t exist for the first 200 years so it was not established by Christ

[@ProfesserLuigi]

An infallible Pope by definition cannot disobey the Church since he has the ability to define what the Church says.

[@joekey8464]

@@kodyoneill497 There were already 15 popes by the year 200AD New World Encyclopedia - Britannica Pope Saint Zephyrinus was pope from 199 to 217.

[@kodyoneill497]

@@joekey8464sorry your biased sources only prove RCC retcons popes back to Peter. It is clearly a group of presbyters/elders that ran the church before a single bishop in Rome was established

[@JoseGomez-n4k]

Shave