DIALOGUE: Are Catholics or Protestants More United? (w/The Other Paul)

In this episode, Trent sits down with Protestant KZbinr The Other Paul to discuss the methods Protestants and Catholics use to achieve doctrinal unity among believers.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Timestamps:
00:00:00 Introduction
00:01:21 Issue with the term "Protestant"
00:09:00 The Infallible Rules of Faith and Division
00:22:16 Catholic Church on Infallible Teaching
00:23:54 Methods of Infallibility
00:32:30 Unity within the Church
00:40:41 Methods of Authority and Heresy
00:48:20 Infant Baptism and Authority
00:50:37 Personal Interpretation vs what the Authority says
00:54:40 Visible Authority and the Criteria
01:00:00 Clarity of Scripture
01:06:00 Essential Beliefs
01:12:30 How much can you get wrong about God?

[@lukegetz9785]

After his debate with Jimmy Akin I'm surprised he's still in the other camp. Akin presented a case so strong my coffee tasted weak afterwards.

[@RenegadeCatholic]

Yeah, but you see that's part of the issue....Paul swears he demolished Jimmy in that debate.

[@michellebernal5668]

It’s called pride. Anyone who doesn’t accept facts, it’s usually pride and they don’t want to admit they’re wrong or have to much too lose such as followers, family and/or money.

[@ezekielcarsella]

@@michellebernal5668 wrong. Expectations frames your reality. If your looking for a catholic rebuttal to a prot, and he does a good job you will feel he must be right no doubt about it. Functionally true on the other end.

[@michellebernal5668]

@@ezekielcarsella not always true. I’ve seen many debates where Catholics don’t do a good job and I can see from the Protestant perspective how would confirm that they have the truth. I’m just stating cold hard facts and you can tell when someone doesn’t have a rebuttal when they resort to name calling, deflecting or attacking the faith. For example I had a conversation with a very anti catholic girl, her issues with the faith were all misrepresentations then when I show her the root source which is the church and what the official teaching is, she won’t accept it. I told her it was thanks to a pope (she hated popes and frequently attacked them) that the Bible she loved so much was even compiled. That authority gave you that book. She said “not true”. with absolutely no rebuttal, no facts. I made her Google Pope Demasus and Google council of Rome and just started attacking me personally when she read it saying we’re just a bunch of pedophiles and we’re all corrupted and can’t be trusted. That’s pride. James White does this often constantly attacking people and not the topic or these imaginary misrepresentations that are continuously told to him are not true.

[@ezekielcarsella]

@@michellebernal5668 that's a very fair point. My dad was raised Catholic but left and eventually came to charismatic protestantism and is very anti Catholic now. I grew up and until recently was heavily anti Catholic and I've become much more sympathetic to my high church brethren. It's really tough because I think everyone (outside JWs Mormons, and seventh day adventists) make very compelling cases generally speaking.

[@TheAmberHarvey]

I'm a Protestant - Evangelical to be more precise. This conversation about not wanting to be identified as Protestant, because of all of the varying belief systems and varieties, seems to actually make an argument for Catholicism. The unity and tradition in Catholicism seems to add to the church's claims. The Catholic Church is looking more and more appealing everyday.

[@MarvelGamer2023]

Thanks for your honesty brother. May you come home to the one true Church ❤

[@theologyofthebody2870]

Good eye

[@theologyofthebody2870]

@@MarvelGamer2023sister

[@Ladya12345]

My parents are evangelicals and I got confirmed this Easter. It’s truly a wonderful thing being able to rely on the tradition and unity of the church rather than have my own answers for everything!

[@contemplatingchrist]

Me too! It's been 3 years and an incredible blessing!

[@thistagworked]

I’m not catholic (yet) but something I heard from a converted catholic keeps sticking with me that I can’t stop thinking about during these Catholic Protestant debates which is that Protestants basically have each became their own pope. Basically all I’m hearing now is “if people could just think like me there’d be unity” whereas Catholics refer to the church and it’s not as individualistic. I think it terrifies us Protestants to in a way relinquish our problem solving to an outside source which is required to become catholic but something about doing that feels so freeing to me at this point.

[@Jasper787217]

I think even with what is right and wrong being defined by the Church through Its' morals and dogmas' there is still plenty where you must use your intellect in your everyday life. "Should I give more?", "Should I help this person, but this other person needs my help too..", "These two people make good arguments against each other, how should I resolve their problem". I think its' kind of like learning to drive, follow the rules and don't go into places you shouldn't but you still have to use your intellect. Another analogy you might like, I think by Trent Horn (which I don't remember verbatim) was something like; you are more free with rules, think about language we have many rules for language and if we don't follow them we can't can't communicate.

[@ericcarlson9885]

@thistagworked You'll have to explain this to me. Are you saying that individual Catholics CAN'T honestly say, "If people could just think like me, there'd be unity"? Similarly, are you saying that Protestant's CAN'T refer to their church and say, "Come join this huge collective I belong to. We love each other and do our best to act like Jesus!" If you're going to relinquish your autonomy to an "outside source," how do you go about choosing that outside source? The Mormons are pretty nice. The Armenian Orthodox Church is probably the oldest continuously functioning church. Go with them? The magisterial Protestants correctly pointed out the corruption of the Medieval Catholic Church and did their best to align themselves with what the church had been before it went astray. Maybe you should choose them. And then there are the Charismatic churches. They sure seem in touch with the Spirit (so much so that the Catholic Church has incorporated many of their practices into their own worship)!!!

[@TheOtherPaul]

Thank you heaps for having me on Trent :) I seriously hope viewers on both sides were given greater insight into the depths of this issue.

[@jans1135]

Great talk, but one thing i found repugnant is your obstinate use of a clearly derogatory term for catholics, while you continue to complain about catholics' use of a long established and self-accepted label of protestants. Despite the assurance you don't mean it derogatory, it came off as bad faith and i couldn't really take you seriously. Maybe consider getting off your high horse next time, and people will be more likely to listen to you.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@jans1135 Based

[@Stigma-ba115]

​@@jans1135no, Romanist

[@TheOtherPaul]

@@jans1135 given your clear overconfidence in your moral stance, allow me to humble you. "Romanist" is as derogatory as Calvinist and Lutheran are. They *all* originated from the same polemical context; terms of a local focus (a place or a teacher) used as a replacement and denial of the title of "Catholic." Rome called the Reformers Calvinists, Lutherans, Henricians, etc. out of their denial of the Reformation's catholicity; likewise, the Reformers would use Romanist or Papist to denote Rome's lack of catholicity. Reformation traditions, for whatever historical reasons, decided to adopt certain terms used against them; Rome did not. Yet, there was not inherent difference in these terms and their origin was the same; the only difference was Rome's (commendable) desire to keep close to the title of "Catholic." Now, just as terms like Lutheran and Calvinist came from a negative to a neutral connotation purely through the will of those who used it, the same can and *is* happening with Romanist/ism; I am far from the only one using it, and I know *many* people in the Roman communion who are fine with the term given my explanation. It's perfectly reasonable, it's not some inherently mean or slur term; it's a simple identification of your communion with its centre, Rome. If you want me to drop it and use your preferred "Catholic" or what have you, too bad, because it is a perfectly reasonable term, my intentions are made clear, numerous others of your religious kindred are okay with it. I will *not* grant your side the linguistic edge in relegating to you the term Catholic, because guess what? My tradition has *always* claimed catholicity for itself, yet yours has always denied it, in substance and in the refusal of calling us Catholic. But you never really gave thought to how we feel about that, did you? So why should I care one iota for your feelings? This is just another "use my preferred pronouns!" No thank you, I will use a fair term to equal the playing field. Get off your ivory tower. And if you or others are too offended at the briefest moment of a word use they think is mean to listen to what I have to say, that just speaks to your own intellectual and moral weakness.

[@datvince2890]

@@TheOtherPaulThere is no linguistic equivalence between "Romanist/Papist" and "Lutheran, Calvinist" because adherents of latter do not object to being labeled as such. If you really don't want to use the word "Catholic" as a singular, I don't mind the term "Roman Catholic," but you willingly use a term that has been associated with persecution and discrimination in many English-speaking countries meaning you embrace such a legacy. On a more personal note, It is a legacy that has persecuted my ancestors for nearly half a millennia. And don't say term "Prot" is equivalent. It's a silly internet term, we only say it when you annoy us, and anything it's fair consolation for the centuries of persecution we had to put up with. Until you revise what you call us, we will think that you believe that Roman Catholics aren't made in the image of God and have no dignity conferred to by Him. I will pray for your soul and make intercession to St. Thomas More. Good day.

[@theCatholic-Defender]

Trent is just an extremely talented and patient person. It's clear God intended for him to do this. I pray Christ continues to bless him, with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother!

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Trent Horn is a paid employee doing his job. 5 years of full time practice & experience.

[@christinemcguiness9356]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc I would say more of a calling than a job. God has given him a great gift as a communicator, spreading the word of God🙏

[@stellar6072]

test the spirits....

[@mybrainhurts3727]

Becoming more inclined to Catholicism every day.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

I've been in communion with the Church for 5 years now and I'm still scratching the surface. You should find a parish close to you and visit a mass. Whatever diocese you live in, you can search parishes and mass/ service times.

[@sivad1025]

Keep watching Catholic Answers and you will start to understand why Catholics believe what they believe. I converted in under 10 months. It happens real fast once the Sola Scriptura foundations start to crumbpe

[@renaldoawes2210]

On what grounds? They're a cult who believe the Pope is infallible which is easily the most dogmatic kind of belief in religious circles. Easily disproven by basic history, as well. That same group ran around exterminating people who moved away from the corruption of the Church and even hid murders and rapes for hundreds of years before they were revealed in the Papal archives in modern times. While the Catholic church may be less dogmatic today, they still hold false teachings and claim that they were always God's chosen Church. If they were honest they'd understand that God gave up on them a long time ago and it is their duty to move closer to God rather than pull proper Christians away from him.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

You'll be so fulfilled when you make that trip across the Tiber. God bless you, brother.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.

[@ThisIsTheWay-66]

So, Paul doesn’t particularly enjoy the label of “Protestant”, but he proceeds to refer to Catholics as Romans and Catholicism as Romanism lol

[@roberthughes9295]

Because Protestant is an extremely broad category that encompasses a lot of different church traditions. It is not a singular church such as Catholicism. And he calls it Romanism not to be disparaging but because us protestants use the word "catholic" often to describe the universal church, not the institution of the Roman Catholic church, so he wanted to make that distinction clear.

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

@@roberthughes9295 So you heretics dishonestly use the term "catholic" like the Orthodox do, in order to spread confusion. Got it. I am going to still call you guys Protestants, since that is what you are doing, which is a lifelong process of protesting THE Catholic Church.

[@joane24]

​@@roberthughes9295 Except (a) Catholic Church is a proper name of the Catholic Church, and (b) Roman (Latin) Catholic Church is not the only Catholic Church, there's also Eastern Catholic sui iuris Churches.

[@socialsmigs1626]

@@roberthughes9295 No, but we are Catholic, we are not "Romans." We can say the same thing about our wanting to be distinguished from the broad category of protestantism that emerged from the Reformation.

[@socialsmigs1626]

​@@roberthughes9295 If he wants to be distinct about which flavor of protestantism he's referring to, then say that exactly. What do you mean 'universal church'? Does that include the Catholic Church? If it does then just say Christian; if it doesn't then it's Protestant.

[@MelissaGilmerSalamanca]

I appreciate Trent’s charity and patience towards other Christian traditions. I hope to one day be able to discuss as clearly and calmly our position as he does. He is saving many souls with these dialogues. Great job, Trent!

[@rickdockery9620]

Do you lose or not have salvation if not Catholic?

[@ignatiusjackson235]

Yeah, I'm still at that stage where St. Nicholas was right before he punched Arius in the face.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

@@rickdockery9620 The Catholic Church has never proclaimed anyone to be in Hell. That has always been God's call, not ours. Hans Urs von Balthazar claims that we can and should hope for the salvation of all souls, because to think it impossible would place limits upon God's mercy, while still acknowledging that Hell exists as a potential state of being for those who stubbornly choose separation from God. Aside from that, Hell is reserved for those who die in a state of *mortal sin,* which is defined by three qualifications: It must be a free act of the will concerning a grave matter with sufficient understanding of wrongdoing. Outside of that, the sin would be counted as venial, and would likely be cleansed in Purgatory. What this means for Protestants is that if they're *genuinely* not aware of the fact that not being Catholic is wrong, there could certainly be hope for them. If they were raised believing that Catholicism was anything other than a Church established by Jesus Christ, for instance, that may reduce their culpability. Of course, we could never know that happens for sure as long as they refuse the Sacraments, which are *outward signs* of God's mercy. They are the only route to salvation that has been revealed to us; so we say that no salvation can be found outside of the Church, because it's the only true way of doing things. It doesn't mean that every single Protestant will go to Hell, or even that half of them will, or even that any of them will. The only thing we can say for sure is that *everybody* in Heaven will be Catholic. No ifs, ands, or buts on that last point. God bless!

[@MelissaGilmerSalamanca]

@@rickdockery9620no, I don’t believe that and neither does the Church. Knowingly disregarding the fullness of truth is how you lose salvation. So, a person raised Protestant who doesn’t know the full truth of Church doctrine but has a belief in Jesus and has been baptized and is following Him to the best of their ability is, most hopefully, saved (because we can’t possibly know for sure, as we’re not God). But, if you were to know the Church doctrines, specifically the doctrine of the Eucharist, and reject that, I would surmise that it would not benefit your salvation. However, I am not God, and I believe we serve a merciful Lord who knows our hearts. One of my favorite prayers is this: Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead ALL souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy, amen.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

👆Trent Horn has had 5 Years of full-time employment practice. Recruiting for Catholicism started with Vatican 2. Online Saturation of Catholic Apologists began in response to Vati-Leaks aka Sex Scandal 2, Church Corruption 2. One Protestant Pastor speaks about Catholicism, then 💥 One Dozen Catholics start talking in opposition. Indoctrination is mind control programming. IF you hear the same thing over & Over & OVER ~

[@oggiep3915]

Just ask the question, "Do you protest the Catholic Church"

[@rickdockery9620]

I don’t. We should be past that

[@marshalbrummel]

@@rickdockery9620 If you don't protest the Catholic Church, are you pursuing becoming Catholic?

[@cooldude2847]

he doesn't even consider Catholics brothers in Christ

[@Gaz4113]

​@rickdockery9620 thats nice of you. But the denominations that flowed forth from the reformers are still in protest of the Catholic Church it was the reason they were born and until they die and those that make them up join with us Romish they are also still in protest of the Catholic Church. Come home.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Officially, per permanent record, Protestants are ANATHEMATIZED HERETICS to Catholics. “Separated Brethren” is an ecumenical term that continues to blur the irreconcilable differences.

[@nickfrench3776]

10:26 the entire discussion at the beginning where he is attempting to qualify where he draws his boundaries of Protestantism and their denominations is just proof that those that are separate from divine authority given to the church are more divided than Catholics.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

Exactly! He spends ten minutes explaining why Protestantism is wrong, and then uses that as an excuse to complain about them being "treated unfairly." It's a distinctively high-church Anglican way of viewing things, I suppose. What kind of lucid theology can one expect to find in a Church that was essentially founded by a divorce?

[@Jessica-rb3ci]

💯💯💯💯

[@wabisabi6248]

@@ignatiusjackson235 that is being decently charitable...

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

​@@ignatiusjackson235 The reformation was a return to what the reformers believed was the actual pathway, not peddling indulgences or burning people. A divorce from the spiritual mafia is a good thing.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

@@lifewasgiventous1614 "The reformation was a return to what the reformers believed". At least, you got that part right.

[@PatristicRecluse]

So many Protestant denominations cannot even agree on the basic fundamentals and essentials like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism and the Eucharist. I'd rather take internal spats and drama than doctrinal heresies and discrepancies. Trent delivered as always ❤

[@n4ughty_knight]

There are more than 45,000 protestant denominations worldwide.

[@elKarlo]

Have you even listened to redeemed zoomer? Basically he’s about trying to go back and reform the old line denominations which I’ve become very liberal and basically unbiblical. His idea about going back and restoring the old line churches is because they have a lot of social and institutional power. Meanwhile the Catholic Church has never split like all the other denominations splitting out of other denominations. Of course if you don’t have a small group of like-minded people you have disagreements. Which is why the Catholic Church is messy. But it’s also a good thing because there’s pushback on things instead of retreating and running away and making another new Church

[@StoaoftheSouth]

​@@n4ughty_knight Don't use this argument.

[@n4ughty_knight]

@@StoaoftheSouth It's just for some shock.

[@PatristicRecluse]

@@elKarlo I know very much about redeemed zoomer. He's trying to save a sinking ship that hasn't even left Port yet. He gets memed a lot. Not a fan and many of his takes I see on Twitter and Instagram are insufferable to say the least. I'm not listening to a kid that compares the seven sacraments to magic

[@arucaneshurtugal1523]

"I call it Romanism, it's not an insult its just a category thing" If it's just a category thing, why not name the category what its adherents call it? To do otherwise means you're intentionally being insulting

[@TheRoark]

Same reason why you wouldn't call the Eastern Orthodox church the "one holy catholic apostolic church" despite them claiming that title as well. To call them that, even if they claim it for themselves, would be to cede the whole debate.

[@arucaneshurtugal1523]

@TheRoark The Orthodox don't call their church by that title officially, although they believe their church holds those attributes. They call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church. I'm perfectly happy to call them Orthodox because that's not "ceding the point" or admitting that my beliefs are unorthodox. In the same way, calling a Protestant group the Church of Christ or referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn't imply that I accept their claims to be the true Church either. In both cases it's just being rude.

[@Rome_77]

@@TheRoark it’s not even up for debate which is the funny thing. Prots like The Other Paul are fighting to take a name that is already universally and unanimously recognized as belonging to the Roman Communion. I don’t even mind the “Roman” name btw, but it’s just a fact that we are widely acknowledged as the Catholic Church. Which is a sort of proof on its own. Everybody wants to call themselves “Catholic” but nobody could seriously do that without cringing inside and having to explain why he’s a “true Catholic”.

[@dbbiggs1042]

@@arucaneshurtugal1523 Do you call them the Orthodox Catholic Church or just the Orthodox Church, even though the go by the Orthodox Catholic Church?

[@dbbiggs1042]

@@Rome_77 Eastern and Oriental Orthodox call themselves the Catholic Church without cringing.

[@dawnfiegen3249]

As a “Protestant” who converted to Catholicism . This discussion completely confirmed that I made the right move.

[@Justas399]

Scripture and 1st century history doesn't support you.

[@Justas399]

Scripture and church history doesn't support you.

[@Cklert]

@@Justas399 That's just like, your opinion man

[@Justas399]

@@Cklert its an argument with facts to back it up.

[@TriduumOfSacredHearts]

Welcome back Sister.. ✝️🙏📿❤️💚💙

[@KEP1983]

I love how the debate is supposed to be about Protestants being more united than Catholics, yet the debate/discussion starts out for a dozen minutes where he struggles to define the term "Protestant" and admits that other Protestants will not even define the term the same way. So they can't even define themselves in unity, yet they're supposed to be more united? Lol.

[@justhair17]

The only thing they agree about is their disagreement with Rome. Thus, calling them protestants is very accurate

[@shanahendricks9831]

Sounds like what is a woman all over again

[@kais.1684]

Yes the debate was over before it started.

[@TheOtherPaul]

This actually works out for me, for reasons that - respectfully - you certainly did not understand. That my "struggle" to define the term Protestant is somehow a problem for unity between such traditions presupposes that I believe in a "Protestantism" to begin with; I actually don't, that's my whole point. I don't believe in some super-tradition around which unity subsists; I am a staunch Anglican and identify myself as such. I certainly share a lot with Lutheran and Presbyterian brothers, even to the point of many fundamental points (especially on authority), but I don't pretend that we're part of some super-denomination ala Protestantism; we aren't. Thus, since I deny the category of "Protestant" as a whole, I fully admit the distinctions between myself, Lutherans, and other denominations without any pretence of some quasi-denominational unity (tho we do share a true unity of faith). Therefore, since I strictly identify as Anglican, any arguments about my tradition not having unity with Lutherans or Reformed are as meaningful as arguments about Rome not being in unity with Constantinople or Alexandria; it's not meaningful at all, since it doesn't demonstrate any real problems in the system in question. I hope this makes sense.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

@@TheOtherPaul Protestantism is a term that describes anyone whose religious convictions follow a simple definition. You're correct in saying it doesn't denote a communion, but that doesn't stop you from having the burden of proof to show the things that define protestantism are correct. As an analogy, I'm a monotheist. I'm not in a communion with muslims, but I still need to defend monotheism if I'm talking to an atheist. you cannot "deny a category" unless you show an incoherency in its definition. You can deny that the category of protestant applies to a "denomination", sure, but if you fit the definition of protestant, you're a protestant. I think it's quite obvious that protestantism means you're a christian and you believe the laity has the ability to reject episcopal decrees. That's a simple, and accurate distinction between the three main approaches to christianity: protestants believe the laity can reject episcopal decrees (some think that's because there are no bishops, other think that's because the bishops defected from the Faith, it doesn't matter why); orthodox believe the episcopate can reject papal decrees; catholics believe that the laity must submit to the pope and to the bishops teaching in communion with him. It's quite clear that Luther and Calvin were not orthodox nor catholics, their appeal to the laity to rebel against the established church hierarchy is protestant. If you consider yourself in communion with them, therefore you're protestant by the definition. If in your tradition the laity must defer to the bishop's call, you're not a protestant and you should just argue about the chain of transmission of the authority from the Apostles to today.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

Yes, retiring the term "Protestant" would be very convenient for those who would like to obscure from view all the damage inflicted to Christ's body by the "Reformers" and their intellectual progeny. But it's a bit humorous, because even with Paul's preferred, narrower definition - using "Protestant" to refer only to the initial wave of churches created during the Protestant Reformation - the problem with Protestant doctrine is still obvious, since we're referring not to one church but a wave of rival churches. Even within the first generation of "Reformers," the massive, rapidly compounding schism had already begun. Almost immediately, in fact. If Protestant doctrine didn't have a schism problem, Paul would be able to restrict the use of the word even more tightly, to refer to only a single tradition. Then he'd get the "apples to apples" comparison he wants, in which he could dismiss all the competing Protestant sects and only compare the original Catholic Church to the original Protestant Church (with a capital C). But he can't have that, because the "Reformers" instantly kicked off a chain reaction of schism after schism that had already produced dozens of separate, feuding, parallel churches even before Luther's death. And he can't even say that the authority clearly rests with one particular church that emerged from all this schism, or that Christ's body broadly agrees that its torn-off members are illegitimate churches, because we're not talking about one giant church and a handful of tiny, competing appendages. We're talking about dozens of similarly sized regional churches with competing doctrines, already within the first generation, with new ones popping up every year, unabated, for hundreds of years, until today. The process has gone on for so long that many churches have "died" due to being broken into pieces too small to sustain a community and pay for services. But it was already highly problematic in the 16th century, and that's extremely obvious when you compare the first generation of Protestant churches to the "Romanist" Church. Besides, for centuries, Protestants have valorized the entire generation of "Reformers," as if they were all heroes, even though they were all rivals of each other. It's entirely fair to lump the entire Protestant family tree under the term "Protestant," since we're talking about a specific approach to authority that Luther innovated, and that plainly causes schism by straightforward processes. It's not an umbrella term, it's a taxonomic term, in the sense of phylogeny. The kingdom _Animalia_ contains the huge diversity of life forms that evolved from a common animal ancestor, but you wouldn't say it's unfair to compare animals to their most recent common ancestor because "animals" is an "umbrella term," since the relationship between animals is not arbitrary; it's hereditary. Those churches that broke off from Luther still fall under this term, because 1) they descend from a common hermeneutic and approach to authority (i.e. defiance of the bishops), and 2) the wide variety of disagreements over doctrine that produced so many competing Protestant churches (e.g., most recently, disagreements over whether to condone forms of degeneracy popular in the modern west) are not disagreements over authority; all Protestant churches agree that each individual Christian has the authority to interpret the Bible by the light of his own reason, and to abandon his pastor at any time over intractable disagreements (which philosophy, by the way, is the clear progenitor of the rampant, malignant individualism implicated in the slow-motion train wreck that is 21st century western civilization). And similarly, it's entirely fair to compare the "Romanist" Church with its immediate cousin, the "Protestant" clade. To say it's unfair to compare a single church with a large group of churches is to beg the question, since what we're trying to demonstrate is that the "Catholic" clade has remained a monotypic taxon (i.e. a taxonomic group with only one member) for thousands of years, while the "Protestant" clade has bifurcated into a complex web of thousands of competing denominations in just a few hundred years. The fact that the Catholic Church is a single unified church is precisely the point. The immediate ancestor of the Protestant clade is the Catholic clade. So when the Protestant Schism came along, it added a new offshoot from the Catholic clade. That means the modern Catholic clade has the same relationship to the Protestant clade that, say, lions have to leopards (it's actually a pretty apt comparison, since lions are very social, forming large prides, while leopards are more solitary). If there were thousands of different species of leopard, it would still be fair to compare lions to leopards, since they have a very close phylogenetic relationship with a very near common ancestor. So we're comparing two branches of the same tree, the nearest branch on the right (the Catholic clade) with the nearest branch on the left (the Protestant clade). And it turns out, when you make that comparison, you find that the Protestant branch on the left has many smaller branches coming off it, and those have many smaller branches coming off of them, and so on. The density of branches turns out to be so high that there's almost no space between them, leaving little space for leaves to grow. Meanwhile, the Catholic branch on the right is not even really a branch at all; it smoothly juts straight out of the trunk, and it's impossible to tell where the trunk ends and the branch begins. Still, the nearest neighbor of the Protestant branch is the Catholic "branch." At the spot where the tangled Protestant branch splits out of the trunk, that's where the trunk ends and the thick Catholic branch begins. This comparison is useful, because the difference between the Protestant clade and its nearest neighbor and immediate ancestor needs to be explained. Why is the Catholic clade still effectively a monotypic taxon, while the Protestant clade is not? Actually, the reason it's monotypic is the same reason the Protestant clade can be considered a single clade in the first place: the approach to authority. It's impossible for a sect of Catholics to branch off into a new "species" of church without forming a new clade, because the Catholic clade is defined by communion with the pope. In order to really speciate and become a new sect, you have to deny the authority of the pope, which obviously puts you outside of this clade. So we arrive at the key distinction between the Protestant tradition and the Catholic tradition: the Protestant tradition permits people to leave their church for any reason and start a new one on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible, resulting in an endless proliferation of separate churches with competing doctrines, all descending from the same branch of Christianity but disagreeing on fundamental matters. Conversely, the Catholic tradition is able to maintain a stable, monotypic taxon for nearly two thousand years, and indeed probably indefinitely. Moreover, that monotypic taxon, despite endless schism (not to mention enormous efforts and resources expended by Protestants to smear the Catholic Church with the most vicious slander imaginable, for 400 years straight), has miraculously managed to keep communion with (and thereby maintain authority over) more than half of Christians - just barely over half, 51% to be precise. No matter what, the Catholic Church always remains the dominant church worldwide, ensuring that people discerning Christianity need only ask which church _most_ believers trust to guide them to the truth. It's not a huge margin. Just barely over half. But if anything, that only gives the Church even more credibility, since it really makes one wonder how such a thing is even possible. With the huge amount of money and effort invested in evangelical and baptist missions, with the precipitous decline in the Church's influence over secular affairs, and with the relentless attack by media corporations and leftist governments (who, you'll notice, seem to unconsciously treat the pope as if he speaks for all of Christianity), you would expect the Catholic Church to be down to 30% by now. But somehow it's managed to stabilize at 51%, just enough for it to claim majority support. This is pure speculation, but when I was discerning Christianity (I was an atheist, raised without religion) and looking at all the various denominations, trying to find one that carries forward the authority of the Apostles, the Catholic Church's slim majority was one point in its favor, one of the things that convinced me of its supernatural direction and protection, along with its miraculous survival for two thousand years of course. The mere fact that it survived for so long as a single, coherent institution with stable traditions and hierarchy, is already bizarre enough. Add to that its miraculous, razor thin margin of dominance over Christendom, in spite of all the forces arrayed against it, and it's even more impressive. Of course, those are just intuitions that reinforce what we already know from reading Acts and the Church Fathers. But it does say _something_ to the discerning catechumen.

[@Christ-Is-King_]

I’m glad I’m not the only person who writes essays in comment sections ❤ well done, brother. You have a future in apologetics, if that be God’s will.

[@sentjojo]

This comment is a masterpiece. I was raised Catholic, became atheist, then returned to the Church. The mere existence of the Catholic Church when I considered all historical facts left me with two conclusions, either the Catholics are the true Church or Christianity itself is false.

[@gilbertsaller913]

@@sentjojo I was in the same exact place with those two conclusions when I was an "Exvangelical" agnostic. Was confirmed this Easter, praise to Jesus Christ!

[@joshy3614]

I agree mostly, although I do want to mention that it is a bit unfair to call the Catholic Church one sole branch. We do have a large church in the Roman/Latin Catholic Church but we also have smaller branches in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Granted, those do not truly bifurcate from the Roman Catholic Church as with the case of Protestant churches, but it’s worth noting where one’s analogies fall apart somewhat.

[@undolf4097]

Thank you for your essay

[@RJDJ__]

God bless from an eastern Catholic

[@justinmartyr6454]

Does your branch of "christianity" come from the roots of the Protestant Revolution? Not that hard to understand.

[@matthewoburke7202]

lol

[@JohnHenrysaysHi]

Thank you, Trent. And thank you for your video earlier this week. Hope you're feeling better!

[@CMVBrielman]

Minus one point for calling Catholics ‘Romans.’ Minus one million for preferring Crusader Kings 3 to Crusader Kings 2. (at least until the upcoming expansion that does justice to the Byzantines)

[@BeauBeckwith]

Throughout this entire discussion, I can't stop thinking of the meme from The Big Lebowski where The Dude says, "that's just your opinion man." He doesn't like being called a protestant, but his tradition is one of many that grew directly from the so-called reformers, and by using their (and his) FUNDAMENTAL (inerrant/infallible) criteria, most all disagreements, including sects such as LDS or JWs, are not technically off the table.

[@christianmaestas4435]

Also he doesn’t like being called Protestant but won’t call us Catholics. Bro is unhappy with his word and wants ours.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@christianmaestas4435 The irony is that this refusal to accept the word instantly refutes his position lol

[@christianmaestas4435]

@@matthewoburke7202 and conversely the insistence of different peoples like the orthodox and various Protestants on using the word Catholic despite being far from universal lays bare the truth of it. They want the word Catholic because of the marks of the Church. But by attempting to show their Catholicity they are really showing how lacking their view of the universality of the Church. Only in the RCC is the Eucharistic sacrifice made all over the world bound together in a single communion. All other options, even our orthodox brothers are far too divided and regional to realistically be called Catholic. They have to start futzing with definitions and call us Romanists or Latinists or Papists.

[@elKarlo]

There’s a video that Sam Shamon posted if mormons schooling Protestants on sola scripture. They had no answers that the Mormons couldn’t use too

[@263sparky3]

Catholic, Greek for universal. The Catholic Church is THE church. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!

[@LeoRegum]

And Protestants are a part of it.

[@reactionaryopinions200]

Ugh... I'd refuse to talk to anyone who calls Catholics "Romanists". Trent is a better man than me.

[@n4ughty_knight]

This is why I think Trent is too soft

[@StoaoftheSouth]

"Romanist" makes sense from a Protestant perspective because they want to emphasize the particular and the parochial about the Catholic Church. If they call us Catholic, they would implicitly grant that they are heretics and/or schismatics. But it hits the Catholic ear like a slur (imagine if Trent or Paul kept referring to American blacks as n***ers. Regardless of what you say after that, you've already poisoned any discussion possible.) People who do this when talking to Catholics really shoot themselves in the foot, at least in trying to make a convincing argument.

[@lawrencecastle2777]

Doesn’t sound very united

[@saltoftheearth316]

​@@n4ughty_knight Turn the other cheek? I believe it is YOU who may be too soft if something as simple as an ignorant comment like "Romanist" will put you into a place where you believe Trent of all people is too soft... he just doesn't get verbally violent over absolutely nothing. Do you react to every mild insult with outrage? Is that how people will know we are God's children, by showing anger when we are known by our love? Tranquility in the face of insults and pain often leaves a far bigger impression on people. Christ was angry, righteously, once? The Temple Merchants? Maybe another and that was because it was a perversion. Meanwhile, he is spit on and verbally torn apart by all kinds of people and yet he remains steadfast, and calm and shows them love ( which can be present in different ways).

[@lewkbauer]

Humbly and with love: 1 Peter 3:15 says to explain to anyone the reason that there is hope in you. Do it with gentleness and respect. (Paraphrasing). I have been called a bigot and many other nasty things and I have reacted poorly. Often and recently. It is a struggle. But it doesn’t make it right. Keep at it brothers and sisters. It takes effort to remain. Love from WV. ❤

[@KEP1983]

So are Eastern Catholics also "Romanists"? How about Eastern Orthodox who hold to about 95% of Catholic teaching, including nearly all of the teachings that Protestants object to... are they also "Romanists"? Lol 🤣

[@ProLifeChloe]

as a Maronite Catholic, yes I’m a Romanist 😂

[@KEP1983]

@@ProLifeChloe great. So how about Eastern Orthodox, who still hold to most of the beliefs that Protestants object to? And when the Pope was in France instead of Rome, were Catholics Avignonists?

[@TCM1231]

@@KEP1983no the other Paul is being dumb….

[@kurtnotafed4645]

Yes they are, the church is Roman, because the Bishop of Rome is it’s visible head, it has nothing to do with liturgical rites. The Church refers to herself as Roman,for example in Humani Generis, that includes the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. I also have seen EC parishes refer to themselves as Maronite-Roman Catholic or Greek-Roman Catholic etc. to point out that they acknowledge the Pope of Rome as their head.

[@NcLovin96]

Bro is trying to retcon the reformation 😂

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

The New 52 Denominations!

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

Exactly.

[@gnomeresearch1666]

Slippery fellow. Yes, protestants are more divided; each protestant is akin to his own Pope, a point the Other Paul displays brilliantly.

[@matthewoburke7202]

Lol

[@bradyhayes7911]

This guy doesn't want to be called 'Protestant', but refers to Catholics as 'Romanists' despite not all Catholics being in the Roman/Latin rite. Seems a bit like he's .... protesting or something Also - just using our reason, it's obvious that no two Catholic parishes will be as different as comparing an Anglo-Catholic service to a liberal UMC service to a non-denom megachurch service. Obviously Protestantism is more divided - the only uniting factor is opposition to the Catholic Church, and perhaps the 5 solas

[@thepickle5214]

This was a very good decision, thanks for uploading it

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Glad you enjoyed it! -Vanessa

[@RabidLeech.]

Thanks for the discussion! I haven’t watched it yet but these discussions always benefit Christianity! Thanks Trent! You are Great!

[@yosiyyahu.bar.stephen]

I’m Protestant and haven’t seen a second of the video and can confidently tell you that protestants are more divided. On a surface level they are more united but on matters of deeper faith, there is probably more division than Catholics or Orthodox christians as a whole.

[@vincenzorutigliano7239]

Let's do a thought experiment. Catholic and Orthodox have 3 separate churches on Ukraine. That is a formal institutional and political division. Yet they OCU, UOC-MP and the UGCC all agree on Baptism, the Eucharist, the Veneration of Saints, Relics and Icons, and the governance of the church. Lutherans Anglicans Presbyterians and Baptists in Ukraine disagree with each other on all those things. So, while Catholics and Orthodox can have practical historical divisions, Protestants have BOTH doctrinal and institutional divisions. Protestants are more divided.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Not so! I felt this too, so I understand it, but I've learned that large portions of the Catholic Church--say, above 30%--don't even believe that God exists. Something approaching 50% believe that abortion is morally permissible (this is against a dogma of the Catholic Church which all are required to hold to). If you, then, say that they aren't true Catholics, then--equally--this applies to all those that have significant differences within Protestantism.

[@justhair17]

I wouldnt even say they are united on the surface. Its very clear a baptist and a lutheran dont rly have anything in common. They completely disagree about the sacraments and even though they both believe in sola scriptura and sola fide, they have a very distinct understanding of it. In Catholicism, on the other hand, while there may be different rites, they are all united on theological issues and all submit to Rome. The only disunity we have some some Catholics disagreeing with each other, but we have the Magisterium's teachings that gives us the correct Catholic understanding, and anyone who disagrees with it is heterodox at best, and a heretic at worst

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I haven't yet watched it either. It's fair to say that protestants are more divided overall. The claim that Catholics are wholly united because of the pope is a false front though. The internal struggles and disparities are just as strong and get really vitriolic too.

[@justhair17]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 thats irrelevant. If someone publicly dissents from the Pope or the Magisterium on faith and morals, they go against the Church. If they do so with regards to dogma, they are heretics

[@gilsonpassos1047]

Bruv is saying it depends on the terminology meanwhile he goes to imply about half an hour in that some bishops of his own church aren't bishops because they adhere to a doctrine he disagrees while his church agree (women ordination i mean).

[@Young_Anglican]

Yoooo this is bout to be fire

[@gaspartiznado6418]

Thanks, John Calvin, for using the moniker of “Roman Catholic”. I hope you come out nice and clean from your predestined purgatory.

[@cooldude2847]

In his debate with Jimmy, he denied Catholics being his brothers in Christ. I'm not particularly interested in his opinion on this.

[@AttackDog0500]

Good dialogue Paul.

[@jmferris542]

Thanks for such a productive discussion. I think all traditions, Catholic, other ecclesial, and Protestant are subject to the same challenges of doctrinal disunity. It may take a non-hierarchical tradition longer to work out a position on a new challenge, but it will happen. An infallible Pope and Magisterium certainly do speed up the process. Trent's distinction between a tradition's choice to survey history for doctrinal continuity vs for institutional continuity was helpful. The Catholic Church does have an impressive historical institutional continuity, and that is to be appreciated. But we see doctrinal continuity as primary. And that is exactly what the Reformers were aiming for: reclaiming the Church's Patristic and Early Scholastic catholicity from doctrinal errors that had crept in. This is a drawback for ecclesial traditions; once an error is established, it is very difficult to uproot it. Unity is an important goal for any tradition and for the Church as a whole, but never at the expense of purity of doctrine. Unity in and of itself does not make a tradition superior in truth or legitimacy - as Islam and the Mormon Church prove. As far as unity between ecclesial and non-ecclesial traditions, If the Catholic Church did not bind Christians to extra doctrines such as the Marian Dogmas, conservative Protestant traditions could consider more visible unity. We just can't violate our consciences before the Lord for the sake of unity. This is a Romans 14 issue, not to require a believer to act against his conscience. But I do appreciate how much essential doctrinal DNA we share.

[@thebigperch2832]

That court simile from Paul was really good.

[@N1IA-4]

If one wants to break the tie in their mind when it comes to Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox as being correct, it is helpful to ask the question: "which one is persecuted and lied about the most, as Scripture promised it would be?". The answer to that question is, of course, Catholicism. It is also the single group which has survived the most attempts to snuff it out over the course of history. This is no small thing.

[@Blasian62]

It's nauseating hearing this nonsense. How can you consciencely be a part of a church that broke off because the king wanted to divorce his wife for not having male children? How can you claim sola scriptura, then make up exceptions that the "whole church" agrees on something. What is the the whole church? What is the church? What about those who disagree? Just arbitrarily say they aren't in the church? It literally makes no sense.

[@n4ughty_knight]

The whole protestant movement is basically about a handful of German princes lusting after the Church's stuff and how they want to tax the peasants EVEN MORE!

[@Catmonks7]

lol so true when I found out how the Anglican Church was founded I was like this ain’t the one true church 😂

[@Blasian62]

@MatthewBrender-wy6bb doesn't matter how infallible the Bible is if there isn't an infallible interpreter. That's why there's so many denominations. They all claim to read the same Bible, but can't agree how to interpret. They only can agree, well the Catholic Church can't be right cause we rebelled against them. We'll claim whatever we disagree in is nonessential and ok to disagree on.

[@Bxtcxt1865]

Paul, let me get this if you're suggesting that Catholicism is Romanism, then by that logic, Anglicanism could be considered a form of Henrism, given that it was founded by King Henry.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

​@@n4ughty_knight Or it was the indulgences, burning people and insistence of doctrines that are not found in the Bible

[@HellenicCatholic]

I do love our Protestant brothers and sisters, I just… don’t like the ones that accuse us of worshipping Mary and the Saints, paganism from Roman Empire, not loving Jesus, disregarding His work on the cross and etc. Not saying all or most say those, I just take issue with those specific Protestants who attack my faith based on such blatant ignorance and sometimes hate. I do enjoy debating with Prots in Christology and philosophical ramifications/differences in our doctrines.

[@justhair17]

Yeah, those pisses me off

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I appreciate that. When comes to protestant resistance to praying to saints and Mary, that is usually an offensive that protestants go on. When it comes to disregarding Jesus' full and perfect atonement for us on the cross, it is invariably Catholics who invite that, because the number one thing Catholics go on the offensive about is works. They think protestants discount works, because protestants put faith as our only means of salvation. Then the debate rages on and Catholics do pin themselves into that niche by their own insistence on doctrines.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Some Caths aren’t hostile.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc I'm not sure how to categorize that some Catholics aren't hostile. It's true for sure, but they get hostile when you don't agree w/ them on doctrine, or submit to the one true church, as they see it. Protestants can be very hostile, claiming Catholics aren't saved, because of doctrines they hold dear. We have a lot of work to do w/ showing grace and love for one another, as we are all called to do.

[@Jerome616]

Thank God for Christian’s who are willing to talk to Catholics, and thank God for Catholics who are willing to listen to our brothers in Christ.

[@gilsonpassos1047]

Your premise is wrong, Catholics are Christians

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

One of the few unifying comments I've seen yet. In a video that is looking for echumenical dialogue, I'm mostly seeing a whole lot of, "nah, lets stay divided and hash out what divides us".

[@specialteams28]

Nice sentiment. I agree. The catechism more specifically refers to Protestants as “ separated brethren”

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

“Anathematized Heretic” is official Catholic label for Protestants. Anathemas must to be officially removed OR “Separated Brethren” is meaningless & deceptive.

[@TheExtremeIRON]

Catholics aren't any less Christian than a Protestant

[@adamtommy4066]

'Romanism' - but we musn't say Protestant. No my friend come to the true Church which Christ founded.

[@user-qh4dr1vy9d]

Orthodoxy -> Romanism -> Protestantism

[@pyotr94]

The mental gymanstics and redefinition of words required for the other Paul to justify his positions just proves Trents point.

[@matthewoburke7202]

Yep

[@davidricci9894]

I heard Bish Fish speak at world youth day in Lisbon this year! He was great

[@regost5634]

Love these two men! This is gonna be great

[@bearistotle2820]

Others have pointed this out, but protestantism being such a broad label is the fault of protestantism itself. The core idea of sola scriptura makes it impossible to get even a vague sense of what protestantism even is.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Solo Scriptura / Prima Scriptura means The Word of God is essential requirement the must conform to standard of every single teaching. that all teachings must conform to.

[@Cklert]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Okay, according to whom?

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Other Protestants have different definitions of Sola Scriptura. Also, Catholics believe that too, but we hold that the Word of God is represented by scripture and Apostolic tradition. We also believe that the Church has been given authority to teach and to authoritatively interpret scripture and tradition. "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven" see Matthew 16 and Matthew 18.

[@sgtadhesive9044]

I understand this is a dialogue and not a debate. But i find it interesting that the first thing the other paul does is shift the converstaion from protestant vs catholic to the differences between denominations, which he includes catholics to be a part.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

You are just, then, missing the point. Trent asked him why he objected to usage of the term, and his response is that it is--among other things--because it is often used as a way of unfairly critiquing Protestants. Answering a question isn't "shifting the conversation".

[@justhair17]

​@@Real_LiamOBryanits unfair tho. He just proved the term is accurate. There is no unity within protestants theologically, other than the fact that they are protesting Rome

[@sentjojo]

​@@Real_LiamOBryan isn't admitting to denominationalism an admission of Protestants being more divided than Catholics? Sure Catholics have disagreements, but those disagreements don't end with us creating new denominations of "Catholics". There is only one Catholic Church, and to be otherwise is schismatic by definition. The Other Paul is Anglican. There are dozens of "Anglican" denominations. If someone sufficiently disagrees with Paul's Anglicanism, they'll join or form a different Anglicanism.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@sentjojo *"isn't admitting to denominationalism an admission of Protestants being more divided than Catholics?"* No. I don't see any reason to think so. I suppose it depends on what one means by "more divided". *"Sure Catholics have disagreements, but those disagreements don't end with us creating new denominations of "Catholics"."* Not just disagreements. According to Pew Research, something like 30% of Catholics don't even believe that God exists, maybe more. Also according to Pew, something like 50% are pro-choice, which is explicitly against Catholic dogmata. I think that people are divided, no matter where they are at, Catholicism or Protestantism. I don't think that it's a victory that atheists and theists can both belong to the same, earthly, organization and be called Catholics. Protestantism has this same problem, but I'm just saying that I don't see where Catholics get the sense of superiority because they all call themselves Catholics. I don't see any more unity within Catholicism, than within Protestantism, except in name only. *"There is only one Catholic Church, and to be otherwise is schismatic by definition."* Thought experiment. Suppose that the Arians had won against Athanasius (which nearly happened) and that the faithful, non-heretical, Church split from it. If, then, the Arian sect kept a more original sounding name, but the faithful saw themselves as the main assembly of the catholic (lowercase 'c') Church, then would the Arians truly still be the one, catholic Church, with the faithful being "schismatics"? *"The Other Paul is Anglican. There are dozens of "Anglican" denominations. If someone sufficiently disagrees with Paul's Anglicanism, they'll join or form a different Anglicanism."* Yep. I'm Anglican too. I don't know if he is ACNA or not, but I'm pretty sure we are both GAFCON. Still, we have unity on the essentials of Christianity. Roman Catholics are part of the catholic Church, in our opinion, they just aren't the sole members of the catholic Church.

[@aquariuskiwilog]

To me Paul seem to make good case for Catholicism, and I really appreciate Trent giving a platform to different folks!

[@jiherrera5521]

"The Roman Catholic Church is like a Lioness. She doesn't need to be defended. Just let Her out of Her cage, with the Truth, and She will defend Herself!" - Unknown

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Roman Lion 😉 play on words ~ Out of the non existent cage the roaming lion defends itself by defending itself. Lots of Roman Lions on internet.

[@davido3026]

1Timothy 3:15 Acts 5:38-39!

[@jiherrera5521]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc I'm not sure I get you...but ok. 🤔

[@Josh-yk6xk]

Paul's explanation of how we can use the fathers without accepting an infallible tradition is basically what caused me to be protestant. Super stuff!

[@t.d6379]

L

[@redink71]

I think we have a pill to fix that now!

[@Jay_Ira]

An easy definition to abide by is defining everyone outside the Catholic Church as Protestant. Those outside communion with Rome. Simple and easy to understand.

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

So the Eastern Orthodox are Protestants?🤔 Never heard that one before..

[@thebenzaga]

None of the Orthodox traditions are Protestant, so you would need to be a little more specific

[@Jay_Ira]

@@thebenzaga Mr dinosaur picture I couldn't have been more clear.

[@bearistotle2820]

​@@Jay_IraYou need to be more specific. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox both have valid sacraments to a degree that Protestants don't.

[@justhair17]

Wouldnt call Orthodox Christians protestants. They still have apostolic succession, valid clergy and valid sacraments. A better way to describe them would be churches in schism

[@Poland805]

Commenting as I listen, but I frankly I think the meme is entirely fair. The only thing that unites "Protestants" is their opposition to The Universal Church. I think rejecting the tradition of revolution and rejoining the Universal Church would seem to be the surest way of escaping the "Protestant umbrella". Their "method" will always lead to the endless denominations and spin off communions because they rejected the original authority of the Church. This paradigm has set them up for rejecting further authorities such as creeds, definitions, and magisterial bodies, the fragmentation is a feature of the Protestant paradigm. This is all rooted in rejecting the ultimate authority of the Church.

[@ShuwshanEmeq-xb3mk]

Maybe because we are STILL supposed to, "Come out of HER My people!" I believe the TRUE assemblies will always look more like the Tabernacle GOD ESTABLISHED! It's more like Messianic Judaism because Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. He taught God's Laws by perfectly keeping them as an example and said, "Follow Me!"

[@Poland805]

@@ShuwshanEmeq-xb3mk The Divine Liturgy is a natural outgrowth Temple Jewish worship as we participate in the eternal sacrifice of the cross.

[@ShuwshanEmeq-xb3mk]

@Poland805 What does that even mean? Do you obey God's commandments, Laws, Sabbaths, Feasts, Food laws???

[@Poland805]

@ShuwshanEmeq-xb3mk Your initial comment was a bit of a non sequiter, but I was doing my best to address what I thought was there. Christ fulfills the Law, but in the Divine Liturgy, we offer up the bloodless sacrifice through the Crufixion, which is an eternal event.

[@ShuwshanEmeq-xb3mk]

@Poland805 I get it. You believe Christ kept the Law so you don't have to obey God! You have believed the same old LIES of the enemy.... "Hath God really said..... (to obey) AND "You surely won't die..... (if you disobey) .... Look no further than the prophets to see who faces God's wrath in the end! I'll give you a clue. It's not the one's obeying! How can you follow a perfectly obedient Messiah by being disobedient?

[@susand3668]

I appreciated this discussion very much! Thank you both for sharing your knowledge. And yes, St. Teresa of Avila also speaks of the virtues, like fortitude, as being "manly". One thing I regretted growing up in the 60s was how feminism reduced the meaning of "Man" to exclude us women.

[@caffeinated_chesterton]

Alright, Paul if you're going to call us Romanisim, Romanist, Papist, etc. Then I am going to start calling Anglicans the following: English heretics, English Usupers of Catholic ascetics, King Henry VIII daddy worshipers, and English Larpers of apostolic churches. cause you know, some Catholics don't know what an Anglican is so I need to define my terms carefully. Otherwise, they may not know what I am talking about. I think those terms help with making distinctions, and I don't mean it in an disparaging way I just think they are helpful. (This is sarcasm I won't call Anglicans that, I am just trying to make a point. Call us what we go by, it's the most respectful thing to do, and you wouldn't like Catholics, or anybody else for that matter calling Anglicans the pejoratives I listed.)

[@gnomeresearch1666]

Larpers definitely. Playing house while Daddy gets divorced again...

[@Anglochog1]

Romanist and Anglican are basically equal terms though. One is someone who is of Rome, the other is someone of England.

[@caffeinated_chesterton]

@@Anglochog1 no they are not, that is a derogatory term invented by Anglicans which has historically been used by the English Protestants to violently subjugate Catholics in Ireland and the United States. This is would be paramount to using a racial slurs given the history. It also immediately turns off anybody who is Catholic from hearing your side out. He poisoned his well before even getting out his argument. Also nobody outside of bigoted protestants usea this term. If you went up to an Atheist and said "that person is a Romanist." They are not going to know what you're talking about; however, if you say "that person is a Catholic" they know exactly what you're talking about. What Anglicans want to do is try and associate Catholic with themselves of the "invisible church." Unfortunately, that's never going to happen because they're not universal because they have zero reach outside of English speaking world, and they weren't the ones to convert pagan societies.

[@caffeinated_chesterton]

​​@@Anglochog1I would wholeheartedly disagree. Romanist, papists, etc. are derogatory terms. Historically, they have been used by Anglicans and English Protestants more broadly to violently subjugate Catholics in Ireland and the United States. Given that history, these terms would be like using a racial slur towards a group. It also did nothing, but turn the audience against him because he decided to use historically disparaging terms. Finally, nobody uses this term besides bigoted protestants. I guarantee if you went up to a normal secular person and said "That person is a Romanist" they would have no idea what you're talking about. However, if you said "That person is a Catholic" they would immediately know what group of person you're talking about, and news flash they aren't thinking Anglicans.

[@Anglochog1]

@@caffeinated_chesterton The reason we don't just call you "Catholic" by itself is because that would just grant to Rome the fullness of Catholicity, which we reject. You guys also gave the Augsburg Catholics the name "Lutherans," so I don't see why calling each other shortened names is necessarily bad considering you guys also do that. Usually I try to avoid saying Papist or Romanist, especially when talking directly to Roman Catholics, but I still don't see why its so offensive.

[@alexreams1060]

Wherein Trent and Paul attempt to answer the age old question: what IS a Protestant? This will eventually become a movie.

[@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm]

Trent; I am still waiting on who is the blessed man. Either you had an Ace down your sleeve, or you had a great poker face. Great work brother.

[@IlluminosaImmortalis]

I truly appreciate the Other Paul's views and enjoyed hearing both sides of this discussion however I'm not so sure about his thoughts on the Anglican community and female ordinance. Primarily due to the fact that Anglican seminaries (at least the ones I'm familiar with like Trinity in Pennsylvania) welcome females to study to be priests. So even though I appreciate his thoughts on the subject I'm not sure it's so simple as some bishops disagree and are clearly going against accepted teaching...but I haven't finished the dialogue yet so he may touch on all of this thus proving my points of little consequence.

[@kurida7]

Romans 16:17-18 [17]But I beg you, brothers, to take note of those who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine that you have learned, and to turn away from them. [18]For ones such as these do not serve Christ our Lord, but their inner selves, and, through pleasing words and skillful speaking, they seduce the hearts of the innocent.

[@ShuwshanEmeq-xb3mk]

And what is that DOCTRINE? .... "My DOCTRINE is not My own but His Who sent Me!" ..... The DOCTRINE of God..... The TORAH! It is why Jesus perfectly OBEYED GOD'S LAW! Why don't we???? How can we claim to be children of God and followers of Christ when we REBEL AGAINST God's Laws and REFUSE TO FOLLOW Jesus in Obedience to God's Laws? Seems more likely we ate off the wrong tree and ate the fruit of the LAWLESS ONE who's children are called SONS OF DISOBEDIENCE!!!! Repent before it's too late! And turn back to God in obedience!

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

“Watch out no one deceives you. For many will come in my name Claiming “I am the Christ” and will deceive many.” Vicar of Christ= I am the Christ ?!?

[@kurida7]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc eh? How did you figure that? You're mischaracterizing the Pope. And why do you hit "like" on your comments? You also completely ignore what I originally posted. Your reply is a strawman.

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc The Pope has never claimed to be Jesus.

[@1984SheepDog]

Now Trent should interview Christian Wagner

[@sentjojo]

DIALOUGUE: Am I a heretic? (w/ Christian B Wagner)

[@TheRoark]

Great dialogue! I do have an issue with the title, as the question isn't really discussed in the video. What is discussed rather is whether comparisons between protestantism and the Roman Catholic church are fair as one is an individual communion and the other is a loose grouping of communions. It would be like asking are Eastern Orthodox churches or all other churches more united? Like, duh a single communion is more united than all others. Most of the comments are talking about Paul's use of Roman rather than Catholic for Trent's church, but if you view the word catholic as "whole" or "entire" church it makes sense why Paul would not cede this. Would you be comfortable calling any other church the entire universal church, even if they claim that for themselves? No, certainly not. So calling that communion by the name of the bishopric that has direct jurisdiction over all of its churches is not a bad call.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thank you for the feedback! -Vanessa

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

I don't see how you can square the circle of thinking your denomination is right when it came in 1500 years later with obviously novel doctrines. Paul also holds to a view of authority closer to the first protestants/earlier protestants, yet the reason why protestants fled from the terms tradition and identifying aby explicit authority into this bizarre situation we see today is that the earlier beliefs were so embarrassing and roundly defeated. He can't get around how protestants can dissent from the Church then turn around and play Papist to their own dissenters. The protestant view on authority, this weird sense of local autbority, is incoherent

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

IF Pope gave King Henry the 8th speedy annulment OR quickly refused annulment, then it is possible that Henry would’ve remained Catholic. Pope kept him Expecting “yes” for YEARS. Delay, then “no” was experienced as a personal, deceptive betrayal. Church of England was Henry’s REACTION to Pope playing politics

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc You're really trying to justify Henry VIII, who left the Church because he wanted to divorce his wife (for reasons that did not justify annulment), then later murdered her and his other wives? Also, the Pope did refuse to annul the marriage, which is why Henry VIII broke away to begin with.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

25:00 I know this doesn’t really address the infallible authority issue, but certain things like the assumption of Mary or her perpetual virginity: the first had witnesses. It wasn’t written down at the time, but we seem to be retro-actively impeaching testimony that the church held and believed from that time that it only came out and definitively states later due to controversy and disbelief. On the latter, it’s a fundamental interpretation, but we have testimony to a certain interpretation of scripture that is rejected (again, retro-actively) by people much further from original witnesses. I think perhaps my biggest problem with anyone interpreting scripture divorced from the earliest Christians is an assumption that they are capable of declaring those early witnesses wrong. We are not the first generation of Christians - Christianity has existed for 2000 years. And there are witnesses to the church standing in every generation, not just the original. I get this guy says HE doesn’t, but is that his personal conviction or an authoritative (if infallible) rule of Anglicanism? And even if it is authoritative, it’s lack of infallibility means that a new authority can rise up and authoritatively reject that tradition. Hence why I’m not Episcopal anymore. The authoritative structure of Catholicism *should* prevent alteration of doctrine on the whim of its leaders. At the moment, I don’t think Catholics actually believe that anymore.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

👆It’s so interesting that Mary wasn’t made official before 1854. Odd that all Mary ExCathedra declarations weren’t all made at the same time- 1854. 2nd excathedra- 1950. Council of Trent was so very thorough about so many issues. Certainly, Mary could have been included in the 1500s. So interesting.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc it wasn’t disputed in the 1500s. All the reformers have high views of Mary. It’s not until you get to the rise of Baptist theologies that you see a diminishing of Mary

[@davido3026]

You are a bible-reader, however you do not believe what you read! Just for starters, the Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD. He leats her to all truth, developing dogma and doctrine!!! You do not believe that!!! "I will be with you evey day till the end"...you do not believe that! The Catholic church guided by the Holy Spirit made the bible in 382AD, you do not believe that either, and so forth, etc.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@davido3026 who are you referring to? I just converted to Catholicism.

[@juandoming6688]

The Shiite Muslims have unity and so do the Sunni. Unity is not indicative of truth. Also, we have something that is more solid than eye witness testimony. We have foundational documents from St Paul. If u want to consult the early church fathers. What is Paul?

[@kathyweiland4732]

Nice talk however I'm following the theology from the apostolic line of Bishops and Priests that go back to the day of the Apostles not man-made Reformation changes

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Reform = form back to *Original BEFORE The Reformation, people & groups of people lived their faith as close to *Original as possible ~ *Albigensians in S France & N Italy were targeted by Catholic Dominicans for centuries. Genocide of dangerous Heretics ? OR relentless harassment and vile “elimination” of peaceful, helpful, hard-working, trustworthy friends & neighbors ? *Peter Waldo, Waldensians *John Wycliffe, Lollards *Jan Hus/John Huss, Hussites. There were *Others who disagreed with Catholicism, but Believed in Christ. CHRIST by word & by example, did NOT force or coerce anyone, but 75 consecutive Popes approved of “elimination” of Europeans for 6 centuries.

[@Cklert]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Ah, I see you believe the Prince of Lies. You do realize that in the 30 Years War, Protestants ended up killing more Protestants than Catholics, correct? Is this what the "Original Church did?" Reformation implies an internal fixing of the institution. All these sects however separated themselves from the Church and then ended up killing each other over their differences. They reformed nothing. All they did was divide Christianity for some self-righteous hypocrisy. The Reformation wasn't a reformation at all, it was a revolution.

[@haydongonzalez-dyer2727]

Nice

[@sandraelder1101]

I’m curious why Paul accepts the Letter of Clement but not other documents from the Apostolic and near Apostolic age. Also, does he accept the Councils that gave us the canon of Scripture and defined the doctrine of the Trinity. If so, why those but not other councils? Kind of wondering his criteria for accepting one over another.

[@martinciglenecki526]

God bless people like trent who have the patience to keep debating heritics. Honest question... when do we as a church take the hard/unfavorable position (like the church has in the past) and call spades what they are and treat them as such.

[@sassychimpanzee7431]

We don't take that position because that position never worked.

[@imbecilicGenius-hn3jo]

You mean burn us all at the stake again?

[@amysill3815]

We don’t… we behave as Christlike as humanly possible. Love is patient, love is kind.

[@ponti5882]

⁠I think you’re misrepresenting the Church’s historical position when it evangelized (and evangelizes) the world. The Church’s teaching on evangelization has been rather consistent about declaring the truth but meeting people where they are. The world was in a different place in the past, and the Church met those people in those cultures with methods that they would be more receptive to. It meets these people with the patience of charity keeping in mind St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13. When the Jesuit missionaries spread the truth of the Gospel to the indigenous of the Americas, it was not with a sword that won their hearts, but in communicating in their language, with their symbols, that the true source of good in the things that they themselves held dear was the One True God; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. While you may point to exceptions to this guiding principle, those aren’t indicative of the Church’s teaching, and are more often used by the Church’s critics to discredit Her.

[@n4ughty_knight]

Don't pay attention to the heretics preaching Christian "pacifism" but answering your question, the Church is suffering persecution externally and internally so it really depends on the local communities to start being more vocal about these matters.

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

Watching The Other Paul try to do theology gives me that same so-bad-I-can't-look-away vibe I get from the Whatever podcast.

[@TheOtherPaul]

Paul here, let's hash it out :) What do you find so awful about my points?

[@trevorhanlin4247]

4:30 I believe this is His Beatitude Sviatoslav, patriarch (major arch bishop) of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church

[@NC-vz6ui]

In Protestantism Anglicans, United Methodist, and Pentecostals believe in Prima Scriptura. Anglicans also include tradition and reason. Methodist include tradition, reason, and experience. Pentecostals include experience. Each one of these streams are connected more closely. Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheranism, and Baptist are more sola scriptura.

[@gregorypizarro9403]

I would have to disagree with Trent on Newman‘s quote. If part of the Anglican authority structure is the consensus of the church, but yet the Anglican Formularies contradict that consensus, one would have to stop being Anglican and protestant. Also, the High Church Anglicans are not the same as Anglo Catholic. High church Anglicans were very committed to the formularies and rubrics

[@masterchief8179]

🎯

[@TokenTech]

This guy seems genuine but man his logic is inconsistent. I think he is open and trying which is good

[@TheOtherPaul]

Paul here, I appreciate your greater charity compared to most comments; let's hash something out. What is inconsistent with my logic?

[@jmferris542]

Yes, "essentiality" is in both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster :)

[@TheOtherPaul]

We are so back.

[@tonywallens217]

Up is actually more down than down when you think about it

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Yes, this fellow is arguing not from submission and obedience, but from personal preference. How does that square with: "If one will follow me, let him FIRST deny himself..." Luke 9:23 I realized the "Protestantism" or "bible belief" was actually the human EGO forcing its will on God's Word. I bailed, being thankful for the foundation laid, but there is no looking back once hand is put to plow.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

👆 the ME to follow = CHRIST NOT any religious leader. “Vicar of Christ” is EGO however. IF anyone Thinks that all Popes and/or Councils were made from only those who were filled with Holy Spirit + who were daily reading & conforming to GOD’s WORD, then please Think Again. Biographies of religious leaders including Popes can dispel that myth.

[@gregorypizarro9403]

How does Paul account for the book of Homies and the articles that condemn the use of images and prayer to the saints when the church not only practiced them but also defended them. There seems to be a major contradiction with the Anglican formularies and the consensus of the Church.

[@merecatholicity]

I know you meant "homilies," but the "Book of Homies" sounds like such a legit read. To your point though, as an Anglo-Catholic with respect for the formularies, I would argue that just as local churches have made mistakes throughout history, so too the English church has made mistakes. Not every council, synod, and document in the history of Christianity has become dogmatically binding. In fact, there are some facts of history found in our various traditions that we wish to forget. This is equally true of Rome, the Eastern churches, and the English church. Since our Articles of Religion explicitly speak of local churches erring, we would recognize that our church does not escape this same standard and scrutiny. In reading the Homilies and seeing the strong condemnation of images, I would simply argue (with the Articles) that since churches can err and since no one can "openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God" (Article 34), we are right to reject that which does not comport with the larger ecumenical authority of the Church. The ecumenical voice of the Church in council has a stronger evidential weight than that of a local church document. And I would argue that the Articles themselves affirm that.

[@gregorypizarro9403]

Hahaha I did t notice that. With all respect, I do not see Anglo Catholics and Traditional Anglicans the same. If I could compare it to something, it would be the leaf village in Naruto. The Anglo Catholics live in the leaf village but they are a different group known as the foundation lol I used to be an Anglican, so I’m looking at this from a traditional, high church position. Also, if the Church of England was wrong in their formularies and denied many Catholic doctrines that were held by all, wouldn’t this have made them heretical?

[@merecatholicity]

@@gregorypizarro9403 I think context plays a huge role in all of this. For example, the Council of Florence condemns all people to hell who are not in communion with Rome, whereas Vatican II refers to Protestants as separated brethren and even claims that Jews and Muslims worship the same God. Without proper attention to context, one could assume that this is an abandonment of earlier beliefs or even a condemnation of those earlier statements. I would argue that the same is true for Anglicanism. I don't think the condemnation of image veneration was necessarily wrong in the context that the English Church was in-a very corrupt Roman Church, with almost everything to do with images tied to (what I would call) heretical articulations of purgatory. That being said, our current context is quite different, and therefore I can now recognize that our condemnation of those things is no longer contextually appropriate given the ecumenical council's greater authority.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Per permanent written record, Protestants are “Anathematized Heretics” per Catholics. “Separated Brethren” hides harsh “official” reality of irreconcilable differences via Anathemas that make NON-Catholic Believers Heretics. Separated Brethren is dishonest, but necessary tactic to bring Protestants near where many, Many, MANY Catholics voices saturating the internet selling Catholicism via repeat loop. Trademark of Catholicism is full Gospel Truth is NOT presented

[@HaleStorm49]

It would be interesting to see a unity scale including other major denominations. If some unity is good. More is better. And most is Godlike. Where do protestants and Catholics fall on the scale?

[@justhair17]

Wdym where do Catholics fall on that scale? As the one true catholic and apostolic church, the Catholic church holds the entirety of the truth. How much 'unity' there is should be measured based on how close or far away they are from the true church

[@HaleStorm49]

@@justhair17 ok but the video is comparing Catholics to Protestants. Is this a high bar for unity?!?

[@silassarkodie15]

Trent please what happened to your camera ?

[@hyperclearphoto6573]

This conversation seems to make a case for catholicism rather than "protestant," and Trent didn't even need to talk.

[@tonyl3762]

The "whole Church" has never agreed on anything. Always been heretics and schismatics, even in apostolic times. Luther, Calvin, etc. had no problem going against the "whole Church."

[@calebwheeler8143]

That's why I (as an Orthodox catechumen) think that it's a nonsense metric. For example, I'm sure Other Paul would affirm that the bodily resurrection of Christ is part of the (small-c, to be clear) catholic faith. Gnostics denied it, so does it stop being part of that? No, the Protestant would say, because they're heretics. Why are they heretics? Because they deny things like the bodily resurrection of Christ. Or for another example, baptismal regeneration was nearly universal until Zwingli. Did it stop being a core part of the faith when he came around?

[@justhair17]

Exactly. Do they agree with the Council of Ephesus? Because Nestorian, a prominent bishop, and some of his followers clearly did not. What about Nicae? I doubt Arius agreed. The exact reason there was a need for these councils is because of disagreements. Does that mean he refuses the concept of the Trinity or Jesus' nature?

[@verwesne8121]

Dear Trent, please listen! I have an impotent suggestion / idea for you. On the podcast Flagrant with Andrew Schultz, Billy Carson was a special guest and he’s got lots of super interesting stuff to say about aliens and reality, other worlds etc BUT he often raises questions, talks about Jesus, the Bible. He says so much outlandish wrong claims. It would be fascinating having you and Billy Carson talking about the Bible, ancient texts, Christianity etc. he is pretty outspoken against Catholicism and “organized religion”. just listen to the latest podcast I mentioned above and you’ll see it. Trust me this would be a banger of a discussion and maaaanh people would be super stoked to see it and learn from it ❤

[@jiherrera5521]

The GREAT IRONY here is that since there has become SO much Protestantism, The Other Paul wants to now REDFINE "PROTESTANTISM"!!! What a laugh. Listen, I am a sincerely devout Roman Catholic, with many Protestant brothers in Christ. We disagree, of course. But, I don't condemn anybody. I invite them to Rome as often as I can and let the Holy Spirit do the converting of the heart.

[@gilsonpassos1047]

Calling us romanists is beyond disingenuous and spiteful

[@footspike55]

Idk, would you want to call a church that you didn't believe in the "universal" church? I'm kinda ok with it, as a fellow Catholic.

[@TheRoark]

It really isn't. If protestants called every church that claimed to be the catholic church "the catholic church" it would be deeply confusing, especially as giving any one institution that title would be effectively saying that all other christians are out of the catholic church, which we deny. The word catholic could easily be substituted for the "entire" church. Would you be comfortable referring to the Eastern Orthodox say, as the entire church? It is this same uncomfortability that we have. I can't say that your church is the entire church anymore than I can any other. I believe that the members of your church are members of the Catholic church, but that your church is not representative of the entire church. Would you cede that title to any other?

[@morghe321]

But calling protestants "prots" is ok. So I guess Catholics could be called Caths or Cats.

[@Clif87]

Unity, in and of itself, is not as descriptive a metric as we often think. I think it's objectively true that America is more divided than North Korea. But I know where I would rather live (and I am a brit, who is not particularly enamoured with America!).

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Unity is impossible without essential agreement of essentials Folks who obtain accurate and adequate historical information + scriptural literacy & discernment Won’t submit to papal rule. Folks who get indoctrinated Will submit beyond reason to extremes

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Flat out wrong. ALL OF YOU agree, NO divisions, SAME mind, SAME judgement. 1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV - 10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that *all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.*

[@Clif87]

@@alisterrebelo9013 This is true, I obviously agree with God's Word. Paul exhorts the churches to be of one mind, undivided and of the same judgement. And yet he himself separated from Barnabas and Mark, though he did restore his connection with Mark later. I do not think that disunity is a good thing, I just think that true unity cannot be top-down institutionalized. There is a lot to be said on this, and I am more than happy to have a back and forth discussion on it; especially as my comment above is a trite oversimplification. But ultimately, what I mean is that I consider it Biblical (and rational) if unity is sought after from a place of freedom and love (For God and each other), rather than an imposed unity. As a protestant, I do acknowledge that large portions of the Protestant church are in a complete mess, and others are downright abominable. And I do admire the relative steadiness of the Catholic church. However, I have seen great unity in pockets of the Protestant church where differences of doctrine and opinion still remain, but incredible unity is achieved by a focus on Christ and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. The classic line of Unity within Diversity, rather than uniformity. Having said all this, rather than me presuming to know what you believe about this passage in Corinthians, I would genuinely be interested to know what you think it means to be of one mind and same judgement? Not just for an argument but so I can grow in understanding too.

[@billcynic1815]

It doesn't seem like The Other Paul was interested in discussing who is more united. This felt more like him calling other Protestants to account so they can have some semblance of unity.

[@HJEvan]

I have no idea how St Vincent of Lerins phrase 'We believe what has been believed by all everywhere,' is an objective means to establish orthodoxy. Instead, that will result in orthodox belief being that which gets composed by the victors (what ends up being popular). I believe that when Vincent wrote that down, or spoke that, he was only making a subjective claim. He obviously hadn't been everywhere to verify his claim. He was simply claiming orthodox belief for his own position. That's all. He was simply insisting that his belief/position is orthodox belief. It's similar to me just saying, 'you can't criticise my faith because I'm one of the good guys.' Anyone can believe that about themselves, whatever they believe, no matter how popular they are or aren't.

[@-GodIsMyJudge-]

Well if you base it off of that quote alone I could see why you might think that, but if you read the rest of the 'Commonitorium' it clarifies things a great deal.

[@theologyofthebody2870]

If calling Catholics, Romans, is not offensive, then neither is sporting a big cross while opening the top button…

[@mloy1915]

54:34 Trent misquoted 1Tim 3:15 dropping the definite article “THE” saying,”..ground of Truth”. The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth. God Word(Truth) Jn 17:17, is upheld by the Church(Pillar&Foundation)

[@maciejpieczula631]

Is anyone else getting an ad every 3 minutes?

[@Bxtcxt1865]

Catholicism is Romanism, then by that logic, Anglicanism could be considered a form of Henrism, you know because of King Henry.

[@noahwhite6062]

That's not really true he only separated himself from the Catholic Church but did nothing to give it its distinctive protestant theology and actually tried to stop it from being to Protestant as he still considered himself Roman Catholic.

[@mewster1818]

​@noahwhite6062 you mean except for his gripes about wanting to divorce women over not having sons because getting them executed was too much work... but yeah no differences with Catholicism.

[@gnomeresearch1666]

Divorcism Contraceptivism Thank you Anglicans for being the tip of the spear in mainstreaming the sexual revolution in society and within protestantism.

[@justhair17]

​@@noahwhite6062then just call them 'divorcism'

[@noahwhite6062]

@@gnomeresearch1666 not anglican

[@frekigeri4317]

So the “other Paul” prefers not to be called Protestant because of all the various beliefs? So he nuked his own position from orbit before the discussion ever began? lol, nice

[@Mother_of_God_Sanctum]

Oh wow.

[@damyankuzmic5605]

Hi hallo howdy greeting s bless

[@cronmaker2]

The quibbling over "Protestant" is pedantic - its a term to distinguish those who affirm sola scriptura - call them SSists if it matters. The comparison should be at level of rules of faith and official church docs, not individuals. So when you compare all churches affirming SS to the RCC (whose rule is STM-triad) the answer to which has more doctrinal unity is obvious. Arbitrarily dismissing SS churches you disagree with as not true SS churches is just no true scotsman.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

The grimace on Trent at 4:08 when Paul was saying that Romanist wasn't an insult when he used it that way. I guess there's no way around Catholics being insulted by this term. I don't use that, or Papist, because Catholics clearly don't like it. I will use the abbreviation, RCC, at times though. I sometimes get corrected, but hopefully it doesn't come as an insult. I usually just say Catholic.

[@Jasper787217]

Because unless you have a bone to pick with the Roman Rite aka Latin Rite, it doesn't make sense. You'd be labeling Oriental Catholics who are in full communion with the pope and all dogmatic teachings of The Church as Roman Catholics which they are not; The Oriental Catholics and Roman Catholics can be said to just be part of The Catholic Church. To erroneously call The Catholic Church RCC bothers us because The Catholic Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic and by calling and RCC in your context implies exclusion and non-universality. "Roman Catholic" is a rite within a Church not a Church unto of itself. As for the pope he is the Bishop of Rome (as well as the head of all The Church), Rome has no other Bishops presiding over it, but he is also head of all the Church. Keep in mind Bishop of Rome being Bishop of an area this does not imply a Roman rite just an area. The pope could be any other rite not just Roman.

[@PaxChristi7]

I think RCC is mostly fine. I would assume you’re referring to RCC bc the point you’re making doesn’t refer to the Byzantine Rite or the Chaldean Rite etc. I’d recommend that when wanting to focus a discussion on the RCC, to refer to it as the Latin Rite. The usage of “Rome” in religious discussions does carry an aggressive and somewhat hostile connotation sometimes. Latin Rite still distinguishes the Church that started in Rome but doesn’t have all the baggage. Otherwise, you can use Catholic to reference the Church at large

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@PaxChristi7 I'm not that sophisticated in understanding all the rites, as I'm not Catholic. As far as I understand it, the latin rite and novus ordo are all under the umbrella of RRC anyways, so why make a distinction? That's where Catholics need to have some grace w/ other Christians. We're not Catholic, and unless we were raised in and converted out, we're not going to know these things. So often calling it RCC or Roman Catholic is innocuous and nothing is meant by it. Also, Catholics in real life so often tend to refer to themselves as Roman Catholic. I used to find this odd, but I just went w/ the flow on this.

[@PaxChristi7]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 you’re correct that the Latin Mass and Novus Ordo are both under the Latin Rite. The majority of Catholics you run into will most likely be Roman Catholics but there are those that may respond, “actually I’m Eastern Catholic or I’m Maronite”. And now that I think about it a little more, I think Roman Catholic is perfectly appropriate as most will fall into that category and those that don’t will charitably respond. Sorry for any confusion!

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@PaxChristi7 I don't think I've ever run into Eastern Catholic, but I other Catholics will point out that other rites aren't under Rome. It's pretty confusing, because we assume they all are. That's supposed to be the stellar unity that Catholics like to point out that they have and we don't. So if all Catholics aren't under Rome and presumably the Pope, then where is that unity. Now you have me scratching my head? I thought Marionites were under Rome too? I was attending a Catholic parish w/ my ex and he said the Deacon, who is a lovely man, was a Marionite, or Marion rite might be how he said it. Said something about don't bring that up, because there's some sort of rivalry. But this is all over my head, so it's not like I would even know how to broach it. I loosely know there are different rites, but don't really understand how that all goes.

[@steveimhoff5646]

Trent-- I was very surprised you didn’t ask Paul the basic question that started the Anglican Church… that being divorce. Paul said early church fathers in a general consensus on a matter is very high on his means test. Weren’t the early church fathers consistent in their interpretation of scripture ( Jesus’s own words and St Paul’s epistles ) against divorce?? King Henry VIII and his wanting a divorce was THE BASIS to break from the Catholic Church. I would like to know how the “other Paul” could use his own logic on early church fathers vs the entire foundation of the Anglican Church!!

[@TheOtherPaul]

Henry VIII wanted an *annulment*, not a divorce; he didn't "divorce" a single of his marriages. This basic factual error takes the wind out of your whole argument here. Nor did Henry's desire or his Act of Supremacy "start the Anglican Church." It was the same ecclesial structure and church body from the time of Augustine of Canterbury, though with a reasserted supremacy of the king, just as the ancient Roman emperors held supreme authority over the ancient united Church (to the point of deposing multiple bishops of Rome over the centuries).

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

​@@TheOtherPaul annulment/ divorce, same thing in religious terms, dude was mad that the Pope didn't grant him an annulment, so he started his own church and murdered some of his ex wives. How disgusting of the founder of Anglicanism. How are the LFBTQIATUV people rights goin in the Anglican communion? And all your female "priests" ?

[@pigetstuck]

There is a biblical teaching on the “mechanism for unity”.

[@roshankurien203]

How is anyone still Angelican at this day and age. 😂😂

[@davido3026]

Because satan does exist!!!

[@TheBlinkyImp]

The standard of the Church agreeing 'always, everywhere, and everyone' just seems like a way to define away people you disagree with. A No-True-Christian fallacy.

[@elilowry8555]

I think there might be 3 ways to seek out the visible church, not two: 1. Doctrinal Survey 2. Historical Survey 3. Practical Survey - i.e., where do we see people living Christianly? where is faith in Christ vibrant and powerful? It seems to me that this third route is often neglected in KZbin Christianity.

[@Lumenenen]

Trent, that is Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, not the Latin patriarch 😭

[@Young_Anglican]

People in the comments are TOTALLY misinterpreting the conversation about the Protestant label. He isn't saying that he isn't a Protestant or doesn't like the label. He is saying that in terms of comparison, Protestant should be compared to "Ecclesialist" or some other hermeneutical category, whereas when he is being compared to Roman Catholicism he would prefer to compare that to a single tradition as well like Anglicanism. Protestantism is a category not a tradition. Thats all.

[@cronmaker2]

You compare rules of faith. SS is ToPs and Protestantism rule of faith. STM-triad is Trent's and RCisms rule of faith. ToP cant just arbitrarily subdivide.