Sharing my Doubts about Catholicism with a Catholic Professor | Dr. Barnabas Aspray

[@pianoatthirty]

Everyone should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church! It's a breathtakingly beautiful work by men and women who have completely dedicated their lives to God. Go into a church and talk to a priest. So grateful for Catholicism.

[@KasparPel-r9d]

So true. This is what’s sealing the deal for me, since it is what officially represents the Church’s teachings, rather than random persons on the internet. The indigenous understanding of Creator, creation and the interconnected of all things, the light and beauty that is God, the love God has for us, thus giving us freedom but still having a plan of salvation for us when we stray… its approach is so universal, by which it is aptly called Catholic

[@Golfinthefamily]

the catechism is false... CCC841 is patently false no matter how you interpret it... Muslims don't adore the same God... they will tell you that... they reject the trinity, they reject Jesus as God. That statement alone sinks it.

[@thomasglass9491]

In whcih has many errors and contradictions to the Bible. No thank you!

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@KasparPel-r9d but what if it is patently false?

[@Golfinthefamily]

CCC841 is not true.

[@traditionalgirl3943]

Dr. Aspray is so intelligent and wise, kind about the treasure that is the Catholic Faith in the face of facing reality squarely and so makes me feel so wonderful about being Catholic! Thank you to both men for this discussion. ✝️🙏❤️👏👏👏🌷

[@tayalollipop2317]

Fascinating conversation. Thank you! As a recent convert to Catholicism I just couldn’t find in Protestantism the consistent belief and practice that baptism was regenerative and that the Eucharist was truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and as I read the the Church Fathers i couldn’t find any who did not believe this to be true. I struggled forever and probably still struggle if I’m honest with some of the Marian dogmas, etc but I felt even more lost and disillusioned with my Protestant upbringing. What church could I go to that honestly believed and practiced what the early church did on just these two issues? It was a driving force to seriously investigate the claims of the Catholic Church for me. If I only submitted to the things I agreed with then really i was only submitting to me. That was basically the approach I had to take on some of these other issues. Who determines orthodox doctrine and who has the right to determine it? Thanks again for the great content and guests you have on your channel. Also appreciate the irenic spirit.

[@geoffjs]

Tks for your comment. I encourage you to read about & meditate on Marian dogma as it will bring you much peace, pray the rosary!

[@Sayu277]

Do you count Lutherans as protestants?

[@pdxnikki1]

@@tayalollipop2317 I love what you said: if I only submitted to the things I agreed with then really I was only submitting to me.

[@M00Z1LLA]

“I just couldn’t find in Protestantism the consistent belief and practice that baptism was regenerative and that the Eucharist was truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ” It sounds like you didn’t actually look and fell for the Roman Catholic caricature of lowest common denominator Protestantism. Both of those beliefs are upheld by Lutherans in the strongest possible terms. “What church could I go to that honestly believed and practiced what the early church did on just these two issues?” FYI, the early church did not withhold the cup from the laity, re-sacrifice Jesus, or over explain things with pagan philosophy. “still struggle if I’m honest with some of the Marian dogmas, etc" You are absolutely right to push back against beliefs that are completely unfounded and contrary to scripture, and you shouldn’t have to crank the cognitive dissonance up to 11 to be a Christian. Rome is not the only option, and you would profit from investigating other options like Lutheranism or even Orthodoxy where you can find the fullness of the sacraments without the Marian baggage.

[@blancabibriesca4939]

Thank you for your comment. I so relate to what you’re are saying.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

As a Catholic, I appreciate this conversation. I think anyone with a logical mind that keeps at a distance the disposition to defend and believe what one *wants* has to sympathize with Austin’s reservations. To believe and defend only what *can be* defended will leave one in a perpetual state of fresh testing and constant openings for doubting a particular system. No system is so invincible that it can’t falter under the rightly engineered criticism. The Catholic philosopher is right to call one to faith. However, I have to say that we Catholics are in a bit of our own challenge when we have to resort to the adjustability, flexibility, and changeability of the Magisterium’s own continuity. That power of adjusting and reformulation can easily come across to the inquirer as a self-serving editorial privilege that forces the continuity. I think that is one of the deepest challenges and people like Austin are simply looking against that and saying, “hmm, how can I feel comfortable having to resort to what seems like an epidemic hack to defend the Catholic system? I’d like to be able to defend Catholicism with its own nature conforming to itself rather than having to employ what appears to be inorganic work-arounds.”

[@charlesjoyce982]

Is faith certainty?

[@HallowMas-m3s]

Erick _The Ace of Spades_ ♠ Ybarra watch?v=86Iwytfa6ms ("and don't forget the Joker!" ) 🃏

[@foodforthought8308]

Thank you Eric. I'm a Protestant in the exact same boat and would love to discuss my current journey sometime over email. I know you're a busy man, so no worries if that's not feasible

[@masterchief8179]

@@charlesjoyce982 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11, 1). Albeit it is a specific kind of certainty, it is very different kind of certainty than those we achieve by reason and objectivity. In this very biblical sense, faith is even antagonistic with objective certainty: we wouldn’t need assurance of things hoped for if we had already achieved them; we wouldn’t need conviction of things unseen if we simply had seen them prior. The things gotten or seen would suffice in the mere getting or seeing as vehicles of the certainty formulated. Faith is entirely different. We can only have assurance and that kind of conviction by the movement of the Spirit INTO us as subjects, yet so many could claim things entirely different believing they were moved by the same Holy Spirit (that’s EXACTLY the case of Protestant epistemology) grounding it all in the faith a particular subject has. If that means certainty, then it can only demonstrate how Protestantism and relativism are inevitably intertwined. Which is the case, obviously.

[@zke1085]

Thanks to both of you for the respectful approach made in the spirit of friendship this dialog took. The humility demonstrated will go far further healing the body of Christ (John 17:20 - 23) than any loud statement made by a proud apologist.

[@pdxnikki1]

Love the dialogue. Jewish Catholic here. 😊🌹🙏

[@thejoshuaproject3809]

I hope you realize the Roman Church heavily persecuted the Jewish people for hundreds of years.

[@kevinninja787]

Appreciate the conversation gentlemen

[@christiancubero96]

Praying Austin that you interview in your channel Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Dr. Tim Gray, Dr. Brant Pitre and Bishop Barron 🙏🙏🙏

[@GospelSimplicity]

I would happily interview any of them!

[@valwhelan3533]

Or Trent Horn/Joe Heschmeyer - these are great apologists

[@saradorris3554]

​@GospelSimplicity have you done an interview with Matt Fradd?

[@po18guy-s4s]

“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.

[@geoffjs]

Excellent comment which I endorse!

[@Mrsg123]

Pray for me please. I’m starting to question Protestantism and it’s scary. I want to come to the right conclusions. And I’m afraid of setting off a bomb in my marriage if I were to convert. :( my (Protestant) husband and I are best friends and have no major disagreements on anything, and this could send us into a tailspin.

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Thank you for sharing. Sometimes we forget that not everybody can simply come to the Church on a wimp.

[@kevinninja787]

I prayed for you that Christ helps you find where He wants you to be and that your marriage remain strong

[@cassidyanderson3722]

That’s a tough situation and you have my prayers. Check out Orthodoxy. It doesn’t have a lot of the hang ups Protestants have with Catholicism.

[@Mrsg123]

Thank you so much everyone

[@pianoatthirty]

Watch “Lectio: Salvation” with your husband.

[@newglof9558]

As a Catholic... I like Protestants and I'm not sorry.

[@ninjason57]

What makes you different?

[@SolaPastora]

We can joke on the internet, at least for me. But in the real world it’s all love.

[@domanicvaldez]

I love all people but I won't stand for heresy and disrespect towards Our Lord Jesus Christ.

[@SergioBriMa]

@@domanicvaldezisn’t that pretty similar to what Peter said before Jesus called him Satan? Or am I remembering that passage wrong

[@zacdredge3859]

How dare you like us. Apologise immediately.

[@RealBadgerScrutiny]

I’m trying to make a top five books to understand Catholicism, so far I’ve got: 1. The Holy Bible (comprised of 72 books) 2. The Catechism of Trent 3. The Confessions of Saint Augustine 4. The Imitation of Christ by Kempis 5. The Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas In that order. If you are not Catholic and read these five books I would say that you have a true insight into Catholicism. And if you are a Catholic all these books are guaranteed to help you grow spiritually.

[@GospelSimplicity]

That's a solid list!

[@littlerock5256]

Excellent collection. A Bible with commentary, such as Haydock, is very helpful.

[@andrewknorr3869]

I hope you do this on Orthodoxy as well. I'm searching myself, and you've been super instrumental in that journey.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'd love to do an in-person dialogue on that with someone. Perhpas I can get Fr. Damick down to Maryland some time

[@bobjenkins3rd]

@@GospelSimplicitygotta get one of the based ones too 😏. Fr Turbo Qualls is always interesting and was Protestant for a while. I don’t remember which denomination or non.

[@terrencemedders1867]

There's good options for a priest to speak with. Fr Damick is good, as is Fr De Young, Fr Trenham, and Fr Qualls.

[@bonniejohnstone]

@@terrencemedders1867 These Priests have been on many times except for Fr. Quall’s. Fr. John Strickland is an excellent historian (look at his old podcast or Book Age of Division, from Schism to the Reformation) Dr. Jeannie Constantinople A++ most knowledgeable!

[@kyletussing2382]

I'd suggest trying to get someone like John Behr or Andrew Louth but that may be very hard

[@pendletondrew]

Sola Scriptura falling apart and the Eucharist are what caused me to disqualify Protestantism. The Marian Dogmas and the Papacy got me to Catholicism. Not an easy or simple journey and I don’t think we’re all expected to become Bible scholars or be in a position to spend our life tirelessly going through every verse of Scripture and every moment of Church history in order to find the truth…that’s why Christ established a Church. Always appreciate Austin’s thoughtful discussions, he always has the best questions to ask. Lol

[@domanicvaldez]

Glory be to God.

[@WilliamSantos-cv8rr]

Christ did not establish any ''human'' institution. That is so that there many places where the Gospel arrived prior to Rome.

[@joekey8464]

@@WilliamSantos-cv8rr He chose 12 men, to build His church to spread His gospel to all nations..

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@WilliamSantos-cv8rr God has a strong history of working through his humans. They are his helpmates and created to be such. He has always revealed himself through his work among people. That doesn’t seize with the cross, but continues in his apostles and his church.

[@sgtadhesive9044]

​@@WilliamSantos-cv8rr couldn't agree more. The Catholic Church isn't a "human" institution at all. It is the body of Christ. Glory to God.

[@Dustin_Quick_Holy_Smokes]

Great discussion here! Former Protestant and Muslim; God bless everyone!

[@wonderingpilgrim]

Loved (and am still processing), your interview with Dr. Sijuwade on the A Priori perspective. I look forward to watching this one as well.

[@mikeryan3701]

Yes, the Catholic Church does keep on adding things. It keeps on adding clarity. That is the Catholic Church's strength; it provides the People of God with clarity and understanding where there is disagreement. The Protestant Churches have no such mechanism. They just keep on disagreeing and leaving their followers in total confusion.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

32:20 generally persons are “infallible” and texts are “inerrant.”

[@chloerules07]

CANNOT wait to see this as a "Protestant" (Raised Non-Denominational) and very invested in researching Catholic theology, but I too have issues with it

[@GospelSimplicity]

I hope you enjoy it!

[@michelleishappy4036]

i was raised a Baptist and had many of the usual handed-down prejudices and false ideas about the Catholic Church. But I've been a Catholic for 37 years and all of the things I assumed about the Catholic Church were proven wrong. There is full Biblical support for every Catholic teachings and Dogmas. I never knew that the Holy Bible was compiled BY the Catholic Church more than 1,100 years BEFORE any protestant sect ever existed. That blew my mind.

[@richlopez5896]

I'm a former-Evangelical who became Catholic in 2004. I now have over 20 years of studying early Christianity. The Bible is a Catholic book. The Gospels and letters all composed by members of the Catholic Church. 3 Popes are mentioned by name in them(St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Clement) The term "New Testament" comes from Catholic priest Tertullian of Carthage. The council of Rome is what gave us the Christian canon of scripture. The term "Bible" comes from Pope Sircius. It was later two Catholic Archbishops that would later divide the Bible into chapters and verses. The entire Early Church was Catholic. "The Fathers know best" by Jimmy Aikin is the Gold Standard book for writings on early Christianity. Hundreds of quotes from early Christians and info on early councils and heresies that popped up. St. Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253] St. Augustine of Hippo “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397] Renowned historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440). St. Justin Martyr “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). St. Irenaeus “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). St. Cyril of Jerusalem “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350] St. Theodore of Mopsuestia “When Christ gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]

[@peterzinya1]

@@michelleishappy4036 The Cc says Jesus sacrifice didnt get rid of all sins. And even if you are a good catholic, bow to all the pretty graven images, eat all the god crackers, pray to the virgin queen all day and night, you will still wake up in the flames of some pergatory. At least they are honest about waking up in flames.

[@Hoosie_]

​@@peterzinya1all of this is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

[@CatholicaTV]

Great guest! Met him in person and lovely guy.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Hes convivial, but his insistence that faith is not certainity, is absolutely false.

[@BrandonG667]

52:59 the discussion of using scripture to confirm preexisting doctrine in the early Church is 🔥

[@frederickanderson1860]

Healthy to have genuine doubts. Critical thinking is important, seek and you will find. Wisdom is more precious than gold

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Why believe in the new testament canon is a very interesting question. Lately I'm asking myself, if we accept the early churches verdict on the New Testament, why would we reject their authority on the Old Testament canon? And I guess there is no good answer to that. So the pre-reformed canon ot is I guess?

[@AL_YZ]

Someone wrote, "...I just can’t make the connections necessary to buy into Catholic dogmatic teachings...", referring specifically to the audacious claim of the Catholic Church of having magisterial authority coming from being the church that Jesus Christ left behind. Fair enough. It is a risk. But if we apply those objections to the question of why you should accept the Bible as the word of God, we will not believe the bible either. For us to trust the Bible is also a risk. After all, who bequeathed to and told Luther that it was scripture? The Catholic Church. And what was the Bible? The scripture of the Roman Catholic Church. It took centuries to compile a definitive canon of scripture. The Catholic Church had absolute and total control of the Bible from the start up until Luther. Could they have added, subtracted, edited, replaced passages and entire books? Absolutely. No one could counter them. There was no other body to say otherwise. Why trust Catholic scripture if they have no magisterium? After all, we would never trust the Quran just because Mohammad claimed it was scripture or the Book of Mormon just because Smith said so since we reject the Islamic or Mormon claims of prophethood and magisterial authority. To trust the scripture of a false church that bases its claims on a non-existent magisterium just because they assert that it is scripture is nuts. If you apply the objections to the question of why you should accept the Bible as the word of God and follow the trail back, you will not believe the bible either.

[@josiahalexander5697]

“The Catholic Church had absolute and total control of the Bible from the start up until Luther.” I see this talking point common enough but I can’t help but see it as disingenuous. The Catholic Church of the 14th century is not the Catholic Church of the 2nd. This talking point sounds nice, but the reality is far more complicated and it neglects to acknowledge the possibility that other Apostolic Traditions are faithful to… Apostolic Tradition.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

That's why some Protestants are now throwing out St. Paul from the Bible because he's inconvenient for feminism.

[@leojmullins]

I am thankful for Protestantism because it led me back to Catholicism after 40 years of seeking the truth. That search revealed that Protestantism is a denial of the FULL truth of Christ. It is thus the core deceit at the centre of the heresies of the end times we are now experiencing. Like all of Satan's lies, it is built on half truths and personal subjective interpretations of the scriptures while denying the traditions that brought the scriptures into being from the beginning.

[@thisartistsdream]

Leo, the Protestant church didn't lead you back to Catholicism if they heard you say this they would rip apart their clothes. Don't stop searching for the truth because if you stopped at Roman Catholicism you aren't done finding the TRUTH. They changed some very important tenants to the faith as they walked away from the unified faith that is now identified as Orthodoxy. There is a reason why the Protestant faiths stem directly from the Catholic church the Devil is there. There is so much obviousness to how Satan caused this spiraling of truth and the the "faith" and how to commit oneself to Christ through true "worship".

[@dylanwagoner9768]

Blah blah blah

[@lucasperez7149]

How does it deny the full truth of Christ?

[@Luna-ds4ww]

@@dylanwagoner9768 Thank you for your answer is very mature and wise🤣

[@pianoatthirty]

@@lucasperez7149 Check out the Augustine Institute

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

Generally the rule is that “Saint” comes before a title unless that title is of the level of Patriarch. So “Pope St. John Paul II” or “Patriarch St. John Chrysostom.” But “St. King Louis IX” and “St. Emperor Constantine the Great” and “Bl. Emperor Charles I” and “St. Padre Pio” and “St. Mother Theresa.”

[@mikelopez8564]

Does Austin’s argument against having faith in the magisterium out of despair 58:10 remind anyone else of Luther’s argument that Jesus taught hard things to bring us to despair, so that we would accept salvation by faith alone? Now I want to know what Austin thinks of Luther’s argument there.

[@Captain_Autismo]

I am leaning heavily towards Catholicism, but also believe that Christianity is more about being brought into union with Christ to learn to Love the things he loves and hate the things He hates. To be transformed and renewed by his gospel then holding to a set of propositions. I believe Catholicism actually balances this view well though.

[@vanessajohnson330]

Loved this interview! Great guest!

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

''using Gavin Ortlund's definition of accretion'' LOL

[@liamagyar]

Yeeaaah, I'm a wee bit confused as to why he'd defer to him for a definition.

[@barneyaspray]

@@liamagyar Sorry to be confusing. It was a way of saying that his definition isn't very good because it would undermine things he believes in.

[@kazager11]

​@@barneyasprayhim being wrong doesn't make you correct.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

@@liamagyar I think Mr. Aspray was being slightly sarcastic there. Oh, I see he has already answered :)

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

@@barneyaspray It was a wonderful conversation, Dr. Aspray. I just found it funny that the ghost of Gavin Ortlund was about to pop up for a moment there, during the discussion.

[@DanielRaymondZink]

I’m extremely excited about this. I just cannot get past a lot of the Marian Dogmas and the claim that the Papacy started with Peter. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence to back any of it up, and the only Catholic response in the face of evidence seems to be, “Well, we’re the one true church established by Jesus so you just have to trust our magisterium.” Hope to have my mind changed, but I’m somehow doubtful lol UPDATE: Mr. Austin did an excellent, excellent, excellent job and asked many of the very questions I wrestle with. In the spirit of charitability, I personally didn’t really hear a single satisfying answer from Dr. Aspray. Mr. Austin raised many excellently worded questions, and I felt like they were almost being sidestepped or deflected instead of taken head on. It was quite perplexing how instead of directly answering Austin’s reasonable questions about infallibility, Dr. Aspray saw fit to tackle the definition of the word. If these teachings are so obvious as to form the backbone of one of the world’s oldest institutions, they should be quite easy to defend without delving into these strange, off-handed arguments. One question that stuck out is when he was asked about the historical assertions of the church that are REQUIRED to be Catholic, and Dr. Aspray just delved into a philosophical argument instead of directly addressing the completely reasonable Protestant objection to historical assertions that lack historical evidence. It’s just a continuous cycle of, as Austin brought up, circular reasoning. The argument basically boils down to 1: You have to accept X dogma to become a member of Y church 2: Why? There isn’t evidence to support that dogma. 1: It’s carried down through sacred tradition and can be found in the writings of the church fathers. Z church father wrote about it. 2: The church fathers disagreed about many things. B church father wrote against that belief. 1: Well our magisterium was directly appointed by Jesus and they tell us to believe it so it’s true. 2: I don’t see the evidence to support that your magisterium was appointed by Jesus. 1: 1: It’s carried down through sacred tradition and can be found in the writings of the church fathers. Z church father wrote about it… 2: The church fathers disagreed about many things. B church father wrote against that belief… And now it’s become a circular argument. Anyway, I’m completely satisfied with the questions, and quite dissatisfied with the answers. I wish I could become Catholic. I know many lovely people and have greatly enjoyed each of my visits to Catholic parishes, and yet I just can’t make the connections necessary to buy into Catholic dogmatic teachings required to become a member of their church. I hope I don’t come off as unfairly critical of Dr. Aspray, I just find it quite frustrating that these questions are apparently so hard to answer 😢

[@peterzinya1]

If their graven images and funny looking costume holymen dont convince you, nothing will.

[@pdxnikki1]

There is lots of Scriptural evidence. Keep digging in! 😊🌹🙏

[@pianoatthirty]

Dr Brant Pitre's work helped me understand the Marian dogmas. It's a beautiful tradition, very very grateful to be there.

[@fddooley1]

Daniel, please read Genesis and Revelation. You will find Mary as the ark of the new covenant established by the sacrifice of Jesus to Mary, crushing the head of the serpent in Revelation. If you missed these two vital points, then of course you can not see the relevance of Mary in the process of humanity's reconciliation with God the Father.

[@josephmiller3672]

Can you please explain why you don't think there's any evidence that the papacy started with Peter. As a catholic, it seems obvious to me that the papacy started with Peter, and I'm genuinely curious why you don't see it that way.

[@charlesjoyce982]

One of Newman's most interesting observation is that historically orthodoxy stood or fell based upon the difference between the mystical and literal interpretation of scripture. All heresies derive from a literal interpretation of scripture -- or an approach that only accepts the literal. Catholicism , who alone always maintained orthodoxy, always held to an approach to interpretation that accepted both the mystical and the literal.

[@thomasfolio7931]

I see the Shaff translation (or a few selected volumes) on the shelf. The good points are that it is one of the most reprinted of the translations of the Fathers, so you can find sets for very low prices most everywhere. It is also out of copywrite, so you can also find it online in both Catholic and Protestant websites. The drawbacks are that the translation has a very mid 19th Century anti-Catholic bias among both the individual translators and Schaff himself as General Editor,. Another less obvious bias which is less evident as it's does not show up in vocabulary and word choices such as translating Episcopi and Presbyteros as Elders and Pastors.... Schaff removed large sections of the text because (as with Ortland's bias) Schaff determined for himself that they sounded too Catholic. Sometimes he would put the text into the footnotes other times they would be removed and forgotten. During the time Schaff was editing the set, texts that were older and more complete than what Schaff and his translators were using were found (in many cases by Protestants travelling though the Middle East, who promised the Monasteries they would be returned, but in most cases never did) These texts which predated the Schaff documents by 500 - 1200 years, all contained those passages that sounded too Catholic to Schaff and he insisted were inserted by later Catholic copyists in the 15th to 17th Centuries. There are better (alas more expensive) translations done by Catholic, Orthodox and some Anglican and Lutheran translators that are not only more true to the original and complete. Rather that Accretions as Dr,. O runs to in defense of his rejection of Roman Catholic and to a lesser extent because of his lack of familiarity with Orthodoxy, is driven by the use of Schaff which omits those teachings the Fathers held and Shaff removed,

[@JohnVander70]

Great conversation.

[@notatall8722]

@GospelSimplicity: Austin, this conversation was great! ...but on the topic of the Orthodox (@22:05 and following), I feel that you and your guest both missed a critical issue: There is NOT simply one "Orthodox Church!" If an Orthodox apologist were to claim (as you say), "Yeah, we kinda hammered out the faith. We got it!" ..., the just response would be: "Okay, which one of you? There are, after all, several Orthodox Churches which are _not_ in communion with each other. Let us know which communion continuously _was_ The Orthodox Church in the wake of Chalcedon -- the Chalcedonians, or the non-Chalcedonians? -- and whether, right now, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is autocephalous? And whether we must be in communion with ROCOR, or the True Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East?" The reality of Orthodoxy's _multiplicity of authority_ means that Dr. Aspray is making his own case _too weakly,_ when he says, "Again, you can't prove either way. It comes down to your view of history...." (@23:18 and following). Buck up, Dr. Aspray: Your position has more ammunition left than _that!_ It might seem that, by poking at open wounds in Orthodox unity, I am being unfair: The current schism between Russian and Greek Orthodox over the authority (or, non-authority) of the Ecumenical Patriarch to declare Ukraine's church autocephalous is embarrassing, but surely the existence of antipopes in past centuries is equally embarrassing? And, if Protestantism's divisions are sufficient to falsify _Protestantism's_ "Epistemology of Faith,"* and if divisions between the various Orthodox claimants falsify _Orthodoxy's_ "Epistemology of Faith," then surely the divisions in _Catholicism_ falsify the Catholic "Epistemology of Faith," right? And if all three are falsified, haven't we therefore falsified _everyone's_ claim to know "What is Christianity?" Have we not demonstrated that "the required content of the Christian religion" is a thing _unknowable,_ a thing lost in the mists of time, to be dubiously reconstructed by us moderns from whatever evidence we can dig up, with anybody's guess being as good as anybody else's? Perhaps all these attempts to answer "What is the required content of the Christian religion?" have, by their failures, sufficiently compelled us all to adopt a kind of _Agnostic Liberalism_ about what Jesus requires of us! But, not so fast. First, I doubt we could sustain Jesus' claim to be God, at all, if His ecclesiology was as bad as all that. What would become of His claim that we shall "know the truth," that we are not "left orphans," that the Holy Spirit will "lead [us] into all truth?" Or, of the claim that He knew what was in the hearts of men? (Really: Could not _anyone_ with sufficient experience of humans predict that the response to church disputes would _inevitably_ be competing claims of "Which Church is THE Church?" Any competent sociologist could have foreseen _that,_ let alone God Incarnate!) So, I keep returning to Matthew 18's church discipline process: "If he refuses to listen _even to the Church,_ let him be to _y'all_ as a heathen or publican. For, whatsoever _y'all_ bind on earth is [has been already] bound in Heaven; and whatsoever y'all loose on earth is [has already been] loosed in Heaven." That passage, in light of 1 Cor 5 and Acts 15, leaves us no doubt that "The Church" is expected to have a capacity to judicially determine who's in, and who's out. If you have _that,_ then surely the only remaining question is, "If two groups mutually excommunicate each other over some dispute, what objective standard do they offer to determine _which one retains continuity_ as THE Church, and which one has just been expelled, creating a new and separate entity?" Famously, none of the Orthodoxies have any single agreement on how such a question can be answered. There are several theories; but none have majority support (or ever have had). If one were to be settled upon _now,_ the question would immediately arise: Whence comes the _novelty_ of this sudden adoption of an objective standard determining which side of a division retains continuity with Christ's Church? And by what _authority_ can that new standard claim to have been validly adopted?" It seems impossible that any of the Orthodoxies have, or ever _could_ have, an answer to _that_ question which is consistent with their ecclesiology (with _any_ of their ecclesiologies!). It is, so far as I can tell, the unavoidable kill-shot. Meanwhile, the Catholic answer to the continuity question is, simply: "Which of the two dividing bodies retains the Al Bayith, the Successor of Peter, validly selected according to the existing laws of the Church?" And that, really, is a mic-drop moment. One can _know the answer._ And with _that_ system, the continuity of the church and the finality of a highest-court-of-appeal for disputed matters is _knowably_ established for all to see. Even the scandal of three claimants to the papacy a few centuries back doesn't interrupt it. After all, only one of those claimants was validly selected; the others were antipopes whose pretenses began _while the office was already occupied._ That doesn't mean it's true! ...but, it does mean it is _workable_ in a way that no other proposed ecclesiology on earth can claim. So, _contra_ Dr. Aspray, one needn't retreat to something as subjective as "one's view of history" to cope with the authority-claims of the various forms of Orthodoxy. Thanks, Austin! * = I define "Epistemology of Faith" as, "The _means_ by which Christ intends us to know, and to _know that we know,_ with well-founded confidence, what is the required content of the Christian religion: The belief, praxis, and group-membership which Christ has made obligatory on us, as Christians."

[@rjyahin05]

Nice discussion

[@lane2677]

Great conversation! I don't know if you've already considered it, but Fr John Behr is a good guy to talk to on the EO view of this topic.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

It’s “St. John Henry Cardinal Newman”

[@theodoreperkoski1951]

He was formally canonized in 2019

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

You mean @GospelSimplicity?

[@amertlich]

Great discussion! It seems that doctrinal development has been limited to an intellectual tradition shaped by reason and consensus. However, the concepts of a closed canon and a fixed deposit of faith weren’t primary concerns for prophets and early Church Fathers. Historical revelation was not just an intellectual exercise. By relying solely on uncovering doctrine through examining the past, rather than seeking fresh inspiration from above, do we risk closing off the heavens? Jesus says in John “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear” - would this include doctrinal developments that are more revelatory in nature?

[@GottaFly]

On knowledge/certainty see The Ascetical Homilies of St Isaac the Syrian, and Vladimir Lossky.

[@Guy-d2e]

O Simplicime! Your choice boils down to Catholicism or Austinism.

[@looqo7632]

I think the Orthodox response for many "new" questions is "The question premise is based on a VIEW (modernism, for example) that already has a response.

[@jeremiahong248]

That is what most honest Protestant start with, until they end up crossing the Tiber.

[@jellyphase]

I always find it so odd how Catholic responses tend to use the same repetitive, slightly awkward, slogans. Almost like they are AI or something.

[@jeremiahong248]

@jellyphase Strangely the same comes from Protestants too.

[@DanielRaymondZink]

@@jeremiahong248No. No they don’t.

[@pdxnikki1]

@@jellyphasesome slogans don’t make sense til they do.

[@henrik_worst_of_sinners]

There are no meaningful difference between you Western christians. You're all humanists pretending to worship God.

[@OzarkKen]

I have considered myself a centrist seeing the truth in many arguments, your comment about living in a tent and not a house is so familiar. I have said the plight of the centrist is he is never at home. In a way he is always on the outside looking in. Eventually the arguments aren't enough and a hunger for a settled place remains. This is one reason a leap is inevitable or a dismissal.

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Once you chose one of the houses, you have to let go of the other two. The loss of potential that comes with that can be immobilising.

[@hyreonk]

Hey! What are your thoughts on the following statements? 1. It is always possible to avoid schism and heresy, and be neither. 2. If the magisterium gets things wrong, then one must be a schismatic in disagreeing with it, or a heretic in agreeing with it. It would not be possible to be neither. C. Therefore, the magisterium doesn't get things wrong. The only remaining question would be which magisterium.

[@littlerock5256]

The conciliar religion came into being with Vatican II.

[@SeanusAurelius]

2. Is flawed, heresy and schism are not defined by a (human) magisterium but conflicting with the authority of God Himself.

[@hyreonk]

​@@SeanusAurelius Well, that's certainly true for heresy. God gave us the faith. However, it seems like Paul means, when he says by the Spirit that schism is a sin - it seems like he's talking about splitting off into factions, trying to make your own team out of the Christian church. In disagreeing with an existing church's magisterium, refusing to be in communion with it, *and then creating a new church*, it seems like you're committing the sin of schism. What was once whole is now divided. What do you think schism means?

[@tonywilson4291]

What a thought-provoking discussion gentlemen. Thank you both. I know that engaging in historical counter-factual discussions is always a bit hazardous, but this episode prompted a thought experiment. What if the Church had never sifted orthodoxy/heresy through the Councils, but had instead taken the approach we that took root in Protestantism? Your example of Arianism is a good one. As Dr Aspray said, Arius had a solid line of scriptural argumentation along with strong theological and philosophical points to support his position. He also had a sizeable group of Bishops who sided with him. A sola scriptura approach would not have been sufficient to determine the correct position and so the tools within Protestantism couldn’t help. It isn’t too difficult for us to guess what would have happened under Protestantism because situations very similar to this played out across the first few centuries of the Reformation. I suggest that the Arian Christian denomination would have been founded with a large minority of Catholic bishops going into the new church. We could say the same perhaps for Gnosticism, Marcianism and all the rest. My question is, what would have happened to historical Christianity if it had become so heterodox so early in its development. Would it have lost its identity so quickly that it would have dissipated and died out long before Luther had an opportunity to object? My gut instinct is that the Church would not have existed into the second millenium and, it certainly couldn’t have been capable of defending its distinctive qualities (because it would be difficult to point to any) against different world faiths that emerged. Does anyone have any ideas?

[@zacdredge3859]

53:33 I'd really like to know whether Dr Aspray says 'literary' or 'literal' sense here, can't make out the word properly. I think there are a couple problems with this line of thought; firstly it seems to assume 'the Protestant approach to Scripture' is to treat it like a textbook(though again I couldn't hear him properly so I may be misunderstanding his statement), whereas I think something like Covenant theology only makes sense because people are looking at Scripture as a narrative with certain structures to it. I guess he's saying this is a modern problem but that's why I'd like more clarity on what he meant. I think it's somewhat mistaken either way though. Secondly he seems to suggest a false dichotomy when asserting Scripture is really there to be 'used to nourish my soul and spirit' which sounds very nice and all but kind of just assumes Biblical doctrine isn't nourishing? It's also the kind of thing that's easy to say with the luxury of living after the Protestant movement lent to the Scriptures being accessible to people in the first place. If you weren't a Latin speaking member of clergy you wouldn't be using Scripture this way, so there's this weird paradox where Protestantism has allegedly made the reading of Scripture into this very stoic quest for extracting doctrine, while sort of claiming Scripture was being used more to bless and nourish people before this which isn't true for laity living in the Middle Ages. Unless you mean them receiving from it second hand, which would then involve theologians extracting doctrines and teaching, assuming that's where they got them from. To be clear I think Protestantism put Scripture front and center and many Roman Catholic's have benefited from this. It's quite frustrating to hear Aspray pin a narrow use of Scripture on Protestantism while ignoring how central the preaching of God's Word is in Protestant understanding of liturgy(which is very much still the case in the kinds of fundamentalist contexts he seems to be alluding to) and how much it has been an impetus in mission work, scholarship and translating Scripture not just into English but many languages globally. If the Catholic Church passed on the Scriptures then the Protestant Church gave it to the masses in a form they could read. Lastly, not to extend my ramblings too much, but the Scriptures themselves seem to contain didactic content that is very much conveying doctrinal commitments. Sure there are narrative aspects which are descriptive rather than prescriptive, but you also have sermons within those narratives, epistles written to both Churches and individuals regarding doctrinal issues and things that are straight up commandments. How you read these without inferring doctrines is a baffling proposition to me honestly, it seems you end up simply mishandling them so I'm not sure how they are nourishing at that point. Which is partly why I'm not convinced even the early Church saw Scripture in the way he describes; it seems both doctrine and being built in the faith flow from reflecting on God's Word by the same Spirit who authored it.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Before the printing press, was it difficult and costly to provide bibles? If so, would it be hard to provide the bible to a great number of people? If so, would that mean that the poor who could not have a bible would not be able to be nourished because they do not have a bible? Wouldnt that mean that before the printing press, which was obviously quite a long time after the beginning of Christianity, that somehow God's plan was stupid? Why wouldnt God have waited for the printing press to initiate His saving plan if having and reading the bible were essential to salvation?

[@zacdredge3859]

@@charlesjoyce982 The printing press didn't translate the Bible into English; doing so and trying to spread the Bible in this way is what Tyndale was killed for. If someone is using a Latin Bible for the liturgy then they aren't reading it aloud in a way the laity can understand, which is why I then pointed out any such teaching is necessarily the kind of second hand information that involves exegeting the text. If in fact this is the basis of much teaching at the time. I do think you're being quite obtuse and ignoring the context of my response to Barnabus. Please don't put words in my mouth, including blasphemy, without a sincere attempt to understand what I was saying. The point is preaching requires learning the Bible which implies doctrinal knowledge and falls to my charge of a false dichotomy; I have no problem with the Scriptures being read aloud to the Church before the printing press, but that requires it be in a language they understand.

[@charlesjoyce982]

@@zacdredge3859 and you dont think the Church was preaching the word of God? The hierarchy was trying to deceive the people for 1500 years? The word of God exists apart from the scriptures. It existed before the scriptures. The apostles were preaching the word at least a decade before anything was written.

[@charlesjoyce982]

@@zacdredge3859 tyndale was killed for heresy -- not innocently translating bible.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

A fundamental reason for doctrinal development would be that modern culture is totally different from early Christian culture. Back then, people regarded the world mostly in supernatural terms, while we often use scientific explanations. We simply can't go back to early Christianity. We need some form of translation to understand what people meant because we don't speak their cultural language anymore.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Why would scripture be the fountain of revelation? The word of God existed prior to the NT scripture. The apostles and the presbyters they appointed were preaching the word long before scripture was written.

[@charlesjoyce982]

God sure was stupid to start His saving plan so long before the printing press.

[@julesgomes2922]

Is Traditionis custodes, Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia supplicans, Synodality, and the reversal of the death penalty doctrinal development?

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

None of those deal with doctrines. So no. I'm interested: where did you get these from? Any channel you want to recommend?

[@geoffjs]

@@dyzmadamachus9842. Why do you say that they are not doctrine? They appear to be attempts to develop doctrine, if I’m wrong, pls explain.

[@littlerock5256]

Those are all creations of the conciliar religion that started at Vatican II.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

​​@@littlerock5256You're not Catholic, you're not united to the Holy See and in your pride you have created a religion of selective nostalgia instead of following the universal faith.

[@christianfontenot9435]

I’m inquiring a lot into Catholicism and Orthodoxy but I don’t see any positive cases that this Catholic makes for the reason to believe in the papacy. Most of it just draws on which belief system makes it easier to not be a skeptic. But if you are downplaying the reliability of scripture and tradition than you are downplaying the two things you have to derive the papacy from. This would compel me to Orthodoxy but it is so hard to believe that the one true church would be widely unknown and not participants in most of the world and it’s issues.

[@atgred]

Your last point makes a lot of sense!

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

I think there is a misconception about this. The Catholocs believe in the inerrency of Scripture and other apostolic Tradition as much as Protestants do. And when asked about the Primacy of Peter and his office they point to those . (Peter=the rock, the keys of the Kingdom, Jesus' prayer, "tend to my sheep", who is the greatest of the apostles etc., and to early Christians like Ignatius of Antioch who clearly believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.)

[@tianamenezes7548]

Hierarchical structures with one person as the head exist in almost all human institutions, whether it be a Dean of a university, a CEO of a company, or a President of a country. As a society, we've determined that that is the best way to organize. So then why is it so unreasonable for the same structure to exist in the Church, arguably the most important institution in the world?

[@mikelopez8564]

Sorry, Calvin’s post hoc belief regarding how we know scripture is demonstrably false (even well intentioned Protestants don’t all recognize the same scriptures) and it is very much like Joseph Smith’s burning in the bosom for his Book of Mormon. It’s just another “I want it my way” and no one can judge better than me.

[@gk3292]

@mikelopez…spot on!🎯

[@trollsneedhugs]

The Truth is God. In the end, Christ is literally The Truth, not a denomination. However we can discern where The Truth is most earnestly loved and worshipped.

[@kylesilva4063]

In my opinion the Catholic professors take that the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrinal development is mistaken. Personally, I feel that doctrine is not a development but an affirmation of what scripture says already. That being said I don’t think you can make the same affirmation regarding prayer to saints. Most arguments for prayer to saints in my opinion are outside of scripture. This seems more clearly to be a doctrinal development.

[@Isaiah53-FL]

These dialogues are nice but given the direction of the culture and society at large, I wish we could focus less on "friendly fire"

[@barneyaspray]

This is a very valid point and I agree! That's what my podcast is for :)

[@leomullins]

Pride is the cause of Protestantism and orthodoxy and the highest hurdle to accepting Catholicism as the highest truth.

[@chrissimon5821]

That’s a prideful statement

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

I agree. I was tempted by Orthodoxy because I wouldn't need to obey unconditionally a bishop. Whereas in the Catholic Church you can't just leave you have to obey the Magisterium you can't make yourself the guardian of tradition to the exclusion of the Pope. Whereas Orthodox are literally saying that if their Patriarchs all reunite with Rome they have no problem leaving the Patriarchs in disobedience.

[@leomullins]

@chrissimon5821 It's a factual statemen. It was the only church for 1000 years and is the oldest church by 500 years. I left the Catholic Church because I thought I knew better and came back to it 40 years later when I discovered that I didn't. And yes, I am a prideful man. For especially that I am thankful for the Catholic sacrement of confession.

[@chrissimon5821]

@@leomullins the same could have been said to Jesus and His disciples by the religious leaders of their day that they were prideful and rebellious when in actuality they were walking in truth.

[@SeanusAurelius]

No, it's conscience and loyalty. Jesus humbled me and saved me despite my own pride and will to sin, and gave me the free gift of grace. I'll never deny that it was free, it would be an insult to my rescuer.

[@pigetstuck]

somehow I get the impression that we aren't dealing with the most robust form of protestantism in these conversations....

[@ThruTheUnknown]

Austin seems like he's searching so he's perhaps somewhere in between I guess. Nothing wrong with that.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

Sadly true!

[@geoffjs]

@@ThruTheUnknown. Austin is obviously searching but is embarrassingly ambivalent about Catholicism to which he is very strongly drawn.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@geoffjs he is and he's perhaps going through a deconstruction, but a deconstruction of a good kind where he'll eventually reconstruct in the one true church of Christianity. Just gotta have faith.

[@maxellton]

Which denomination is the 'most robust form of Protestantism'?

[@benjaminshirley]

In my simple mind.. the gospel is Christ, the God Man condescended to men to give us himself and a covenant family... The Church. Now we just have to tease this out 😅

[@TheCatholicCorridor]

Can you all please just come back, so we can be one again. 🙏

[@julesgomes2922]

Is Vatican II a non-negotiable?

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

What do you mean?

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

Yes, it's an Ecumenical Council.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Uh oh -- faith isnt certainty? Thats not what Aquinas would say.

[@AbetTorontoAdventure]

Austin is not interested in the Canon because he knows it is detrimental to his Sola Scriptura belief as a protestant. When Dr. Barnabas asked if the Early church got the Canon right it's over for him..

[@ninjason57]

Except Christians arent Christian because of a correct canon of scripture. The gospel message is the reason anyone is a Christian and it existed before the written scriptures.

[@AbetTorontoAdventure]

@@ninjason57 And protestants attack Catholics be non-christian because it's not biblical Christianity.

[@pigetstuck]

Has Austin ever said if he holds to sola scriptura? Not all protestants do...

[@AbetTorontoAdventure]

@@pigetstuck Do you?

[@pigetstuck]

@@AbetTorontoAdventure No

[@SusanBurrows-y9t]

I strongly disagree that " the gospel" is the [whole] deposit of faith. I understand that the gospel is salvation, and maybe close issues -- like what is required, definitions, how it is accomplished, and what it guarantees. Catholics and Bible Christians ( aka protestants) use similar language terms but have VERY DIFFERENT understandings & definitions...like for the word and concept "salvation." In Catholicism Jesus''death on the cross is only about 10% of salvation, getting to heaven & being acceptable to God. SO SO SO DIFFERENT WITH BIBLE CHRISTIANS'' BELIEF & UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOOD NEWS/GOSPEL!

[@stratmatt22]

Wrong

[@JanGavlas]

The problem is - Catholic are Bible Christians. And about "Jesus''death on the cross is only about 10% of salvation" is just false at every level.

[@EricAlHarb]

Uhm 😂 this guy is milking the Catholics.

[@Ditendo64]

Orthodoxy

[@tomgncc]

This is a great insigtful conversation, as a ex-RC. Thank you

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@charlesjoyce982]

Huge error made in this debate. By both interlocutors. They say faith is not certainty. They are wrong. Faith is certainty. Its a certainty caused, not by human reason, but by God Himself moving the mind and will to assent. This is a huge error that they both made by denying that faith is certainty.

[@masterchief8179]

​​⁠ “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11, 1). Albeit it is a specific kind of certainty, it is a very different kind of certainty than those we achieve by reason and objectivity. In this very biblical sense, faith is even antagonistic (not strictly, but broadly speaking) with objective certainty: we wouldn’t need assurance of things hoped for if we had already achieved them; we wouldn’t need conviction of things unseen if we simply had seen them prior. The things gotten or seen would suffice in the mere getting or seeing as vehicles of the certainty formulated. Faith is entirely different. We can only have assurance and that kind of conviction by the movement of the Spirit INTO us as subjects, yet so many could claim things entirely different believing they were moved by the same Holy Spirit (that’s EXACTLY the case of Protestant epistemology) grounding it all in the faith a particular subject has. If that means certainty, then it can only demonstrate how Protestantism and relativism are inevitably intertwined. Which is the case. I guess you should have nuanced it.

[@charlesjoyce982]

​@@masterchief8179 Its not antagonistic with objective certainty. It is not the certainty that comes from nature -- you are correct. But as Aquinas says, it is an even stronger certainty than natural certainty. Yes it is caused by God. These interlocutors in this video pretend like faith is just a hunch -- as if there is some doubt involved. That is not faith. Faith is certainty -- no doubt. Doubt and certainty cannot co-exist.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

Orthodoxy rejects doctrinal development because it suggests that we understand Christianity better than the apostles and Church fathers. I think the opposite is the case. Early Christians understood Christianity at a much deeper level intuitively, because they lived in tje same culture. We don't really understand that culture anymore and need the crutch of a detailed re-explanation to understand what was obvious to early Christians.

[@FlameofLoveCarmel]

Perhaps you're being called to become a priest.

[@TheOtherPhilip]

After studying history and historiography, I’ve come to understand that our ability to determine the difference between a historical fact and a historical legend is the written record. So when a person wants to know what the apostles taught, I always point them to the written record, because that’s where factual certainty lies. I also found it interesting that he would place a person’s doubt in the Pope as a doubt in the Holy Spirit. Charismatic faith healers do the same thing when they “heal” a crippled person. They’ll say God will heal you if you have enough faith. This implies that if you are not healed, then it’s because you don’t have enough faith. In this case, he’s implying that if you doubt Pope Francis’ orthodoxy, it’s because something is wrong with you, not the things that you see. It’s not helpful at best and it’s abusive gaslighting at worst.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Right. One can maintain belief in the Spirit's guidance of the magisterium without having to believe that any particular pope is good or right. What is protected is the extraordinary magisterium.

[@RyanOlander]

Abraham, Moses, and David were absolutely Trinitarian. Also, Lutherans called for a council and were denied by the papists.

[@j.g.4942]

Be fair, the council was called after Luther died and the Lutherans weren't invited in the way they had been promised

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

If you were to say to any of those men that God is One in three Persons, I'm pretty sure they would have started picking handy rocks.

[@stratmatt22]

Saying "The papists" exposes you as a clown.

[@RyanOlander]

@@dyzmadamachus9842 Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad for it. He even welcomed the preincarnate Christ to his tent before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses foretold of the Son of God being born of a woman and testified as to the workings of the Holy Spirit throughout the Torah. David pleaded with God to not take away the Spirit from him and told of how "The Lord said to my Lord". Furthermore, Christ plainly says that the Scriptures (which he would be speaking of the Old Testament) testified of Him. On the road to Emmaus, he showed those two disciples beginning with Moses and the Prophets all things concerning Himself.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@dyzmadamachus9842 Moses saw God, period, complete with feet, in Exodus 24.

[@ninjason57]

I really looked into the RCC. My doubts include Papal infallibility, Purgatory, and Indulgences. Those things are not seen in other apostolic churches. I listened to this whole video and wish I could say I got some clarity but instead it made everything seem more vague.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

"...if their sins were more serious and bind them for a longer duration they are kept in Hades, but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard."

[@geoffjs]

All Catholic teaching is biblical. Purgatory The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030) This seems so simple. It’s common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” Mt 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny I Cor 3:11-15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved 1 John 5 16-17 reference to deadly (mortal) sin & non deadly sin (venial) sin Luke 12 40-48 the four servants are treated differently, the faithful one gains Heaven, the second Hell & the other two, purgatory Mt 18:34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. II Mac 12:39-46 Mt 5:25-26 I Cor 3:11-15 1 John 5 16-17 Luke 12 40-48 Mt 18:34 Indulgences are biblical as is Papal Infallibility

[@ninjason57]

@@ThruTheUnknown What is this quote? You gave no reference

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@ninjason57 a quote about purgatory obviously

[@ninjason57]

@@ThruTheUnknown but who said it? When was it said? In what context?

[@pigetstuck]

#facepalm as if only the protestants engaged with the critical method examination of scripture... jesuits?

[@masterchief8179]

Like St Robert Bellarmine and St Peter Canisius, Doctors of the Church? Like Molina and Suarez and other Scholastics? Like Cardinal Avery Robert Dulles, one of the most influential Jesuit of the 20th century? American Protestantism - and the new versions of it, among people who left Protestantism, but maybe Protestantism hasn’t left them - seems to be obsessed with accusing “the Jesuits” of whatever.

[@jeromepopiel388]

St Jerome said that Shepherd of Hermas is nothing but foolishness. The wisdom of men will never parallel the word of God.

[@StoaoftheSouth]

You're appealing to the wisdom of a man.

[@dogmatika7]

The entire argumentation from the Prof. regarding "the bible was not designed to answer these questions" only works if the premisse is that God was not able to see these questions coming up and therefore his word is not inerrant, infallible and sufficient. So - nice philosophy but "vanity oh vanity"...

[@tomgncc]

Consider turning off your air-conditioning or whatever it is that is tuning on and off making a noise, I found it irritating.

[@DontYouWantToLiveForever]

In the 52 years since I was saved, have never belonged to any church denomination, though I have attended from time-to-time. The Body of Christ, the Church, is the dwelling place of the Most High in the Spirit, not in houses built with human hands. I have perfect liberty in Christ, why would I want to limit myself to man made doctrines and creeds? (Eph 2:20) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner [stone,] (Eph 2:21) in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, (Eph 2:22) in whom *_you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit._*

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

And I see why you might believe this. But what do you make of the claim that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth."?

[@stratmatt22]

Perfect liberty?

[@MB-zy4cm]

I left the church ... I will always follow Christ .. Jesus was always getting into trouble at his place of worship by challenging religious bigots... I followed that trend!😂

[@jdude932]

How can you follow Christ, without partaking in His Body the Church?

[@topper009]

And yet Jesus to follow the religious bigots' religious authority anyways: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses ' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

[@marklomax7452]

'catholic' is a translation from the Greek word. Another English word that means the same is 'universal'. Let's use that word for a minute. The Catholic Church is also called the Universal Church. Put into a different perspective, if I object to the 'Catholic' Church, I am objecting to The Universal Church of Christendom. god bless you on your journey to find truth.

[@marklomax7452]

God bless you. Sorry for the lower case.

[@ninjason57]

Word use fallacy. Just because a word has an old definition doesn't mean that it's current use does not imply different definitions. You can't appeal to the original definition of the word and ignore the modern definition of the word

[@Lilpiktdude]

@@ninjason57Can you say that any other Church strives to be more universal?

[@SeanusAurelius]

Well sure, but as you reject the Orthodox Church.... This is a silly argument. FWIW, in Protestantism, we happily read the Apostles' and Nicene Creed, complete with the word catholic, with a lower case c.

[@JWM5791]

At this point, I'm fed up with every "Christian" sect. None of them are the "only way" to God, Jesus fulfilled that role. Religion is man's attempt to bridge the gap between himself and God, Righteousness is God reaching across the gap to rescue man.

[@3miL_2012]

You forgot that Jesus himself ordered the establishment of Christianity due to the corruption of Judaism, so no you can't go your own way

[@ninjason57]

Good point

[@tonyfisher9961]

Jesus started the church. Are you saying Jesus is adding an accretion? If you reject the church, you reject Jesus. Good luck.

[@pianoatthirty]

In other words, “I’m going to believe whatever I want to believe. God doesn’t require any kind of worship or obedience. I can put all faith in my own belief about God and disregard anything He’s asking us to participate in regarding His church.”

[@ThruTheUnknown]

What is the righteousness of Christ without his mystical body?

[@dylanwagoner9768]

The Romish guy is unconvincing. It’s always sad to see “Catholics” down playing the importance of scripture in the life of believers and in formulating the doctrines of the church. You would NEVER get that idea from reading someone like Augustine.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

I don’t think it’s that the Orthodox can’t have an ecumenical council, but that they don’t need one. What “new challenges” have they not already addressed?

[@1984SheepDog]

Female deacons, rebaptism, autocephalous churches, primacy of Constantinople

[@tonyfisher9961]

I’ve heard that the Orthodox churches don’t really get along. It’s a bit more like different Protestant denominations not getting along with each other.

[@Cklert]

Rebaptism, contraception, IDF, divorce, jurisdictions, etc. You can also just look at the Council of Crete in 2016 and see the merits of that.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@ We definitely have disputes from time to time, but every Orthodox Christian is welcome in any of the various autocephalous jurisdictions.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@1984SheepDog All of those issues have already been addressed.