The Primary Reason Why I Am Not Convinced by Roman Catholic Claims

[@DrJordanBCooper]

This video is a small section of an upcoming talk on Cardinal Manning's maximal infallibility approach to papal infallibility. Following this lecture, I will be giving another talk on Newman's development hypothesis and his moderate infallibility view. And yes, I am well aware that most RCs do not follow Manning's approach (though I run into the occasional trad who does). However, I contend that many of the issues with Manning's approach here remain in much of contemporary RC apologetics, even though hardly any follow him directly. If you would like to see the basic argument here laid out systematically, you can see the article I wrote on this subject here: open.substack.com/pub/jordanbcooper/p/why-i-have-not-gone-to-rome?r=4b9z92&showWelcomeOnShare=true

[@gregorywullaert8618]

Have you seen the KZbin series How to Be Christian? It turns out that it is run by Catholics professing Catholic doctrine and not once do they appeal to papal or Magisterial authority. They mostly use scripture and reading comprehension.

[@zipppy2006]

Yes, Manning's approach was rejected at Vatican I. To say that apologetics often looks like Manning's form of Presuppositionalism strikes me as a lowest common denominator argument. Once we rise above lowest common denominators the issue is not that Ultramontanism is unfalsifiable, but rather that it is dogmatic via Vatican I. I don't think Dr. Cooper is correct, given the way he conflates apologetics and theology.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

@@zipppy2006 Manning's approach was not rejected at Vatican I. It wasn't *codified* at Vatican I (which Manning wanted), but he nonetheless continued to defend his perspective past the council, and he believed it to be representative of the teaching of the council, as did John Walsh (Bishop of London) among others.

[@ThomasReeves-s7u]

Catholic here, thanks for acknowledging that on Manning as the focus on him seemed a bit strange. He had some good qualities, but he doesn't even look to be a blessed in our church. Also don't worry. I'm not here to start a fight or evangelize. Just saw you on recommended or something and glad you addressed my befuddlement.

[@cmac369]

As a catholic, I have a question. 1 how would you falsify the early church's claim of authority? If Peter came to you and said we're not going to circumcise gentile converts and that's what God revealed to me. What if you were unsure if that's the right thing to do, what would happen? 2. Does the fact that's the catholic claims are unfalsifiable disprove the claim/or make it less likely true?

[@James-v1o]

Lutheran churches need to be generously supporting Jordan Cooper and his KZbin channel.

[@ckwachsmuth]

I’m not Lutheran (Reformed but a big follower of the Continental Reformers and Reformation), but I’d hope that more than just Lutheran churches would support. A lot of his videos don’t just pertain to Lutheranism but the Protestantism and the Christian church (holy, catholic, and apostolic) in general!😢

[@James-v1o]

@calebwachsmuth5597 Totally agree. But speaking of the Continental Reformed, I've learned a lot from Reformed theologians like Michael Horton. Back in the 1990s, I used to listen to Horton, Riddlebarger, and Rosenbladt on the White Horse Inn radio show. Those 3 made the Reformation come alive with their Gospel centered, Christ centered broadcasts. Everything came back to Christ and him crucified. A Gospel saturated ministry. I still go back and revisit those programs that are available online.

[@ckwachsmuth]

@@James-v1o Thank you for sharing and God Bless. I’ve only heard of Horton from that list so you have me some new Christian theologians/preachers to look into :)

[@James-v1o]

@calebwachsmuth5597 No problem! Horton and Riddlebarger were the Reformed and Rosenbladt the Lutheran. Their broadcasts, in my mind, were invaluable, calling Evangelicals/Protestants back to the Reformation.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

That would be a great help! Right now we rely almost exclusively on viewer donations rather than churches.

[@voyager7]

It's unfalsifiable because it's utterly circular in its reasoning. You see it over and over again explicitly or implicitly in "pop" Catholic Apologist's arguments. Usually contrasted by implication if not outright offered (to insulate it), is the fear of uncertainty and as a necessary corollary to it, the natural desire then for certainty; which they argue is satisfied in their claim. It does not, it merely wags its own tail.

[@paulallenscards]

I wonder, how is this aort of reasoning any different than that employed in favor of scriptural infallibility?

[@mattm7798]

Interesting: the pope is infallible because he dates back to Peter, and we know he dates back to Peter because the pope proclaims it? It's funny that many people believe the major split was in the 1500s, but 500 years earlier, the orthodox church split with the catholic church.

[@derrickbonsell]

I don't like the pop Catholic apologetics of doubt. If a Romanist succeeds in causing doubt but fails to convince with his case he just kills faith instead of bolstering it.

[@petros810]

@@derrickbonsellYes, and the EO apologists tend to do the same thing. If a Protestant accepts their claim about sola scriptura , he will still have to face the dilemma of which one is the true infallible church. That will still be a fallible Decision based on personal judgement ;the very thing that both camps condemn in Protestantism. It is not a good Path to be on

[@gregorywullaert8618]

No he doesn't. Thomas doubted and then became the first person to explicitly call Jesus "God." Doubt can be necessary for and lead to deeper faith.

[@capturedbyannamarie]

It’s so true.

[@migueldejesus5945]

This right here! I read through the entire CCC, George Brantl’s old pre Vatican II book “Catholicism”, listened to and read ‘Catholic Answers’ articles, Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin and many others. And this video right here summarizes perfectly how it all leaves me feeling.

[@Aleksas01]

Try early church fathers..

[@migueldejesus5945]

@@Aleksas01 Elaborate

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

The Lutheran doctrines are all dependent upon scriptural infallibility that falls into a similar category Dr Cooper accuses of Manning's position on Papal infallibility. A Lutheran infallible scripture exists without reference to any other infallible authority. The stand alone truth claim is defended by fallible men and fallible accusers with fallible problems and responses that involve the problem of believers' ignorance. There are many biblica problems that remain unresolved contrary to the Lutheran doctrine of scriptural infallibility. Lutheran scriptural infallibility is true regardless of any problems in the scriptural text. For example, no one has successfully synthesised the gospel accounts of Jesus trial, passion and resurrection accounts. Many other examples could be given showing the Lutheran quandary of asserting scriptural infallibility without reference to apostolic succession, church infallibility and an infallible oral tradition. Lutheran scriptural infallibility is far worse than the apparent Catholic problem. By asserting an infallible text, the assertion involves the infallibility of all human authors including the apostles. And the apostles are pillars of the church (Eph 2:20), making the church infallible from the apostles. The scriptures also refer to oral tradition as the word of God comparable to the scriptures as the word of God, inferring both apostolic oral tradition and the scriptures are both infallible. Acts 2 records an infallible Jerusalem council recorded in the infallible scriptures. The precedent founds an infallible binding teaching authority in the church. The three sources of divine revelation in tradition, scripture and the church are all integrated into each other. If one is infallible, all three are infallible. If the scriptures refer to or defer to another source, the other source is also infallible. The scriptures refer and defer to the Church (Mat 16:19-20, 18:18, Acts 2) and oral tradition (1 Peter 1:12, 25) from the Holy Spirit. The Lutheran position in exclusively holding to an infallible text is ironically against the text referring to infallible sources of tradition and the church.

[@bairfreedom]

​@@Aleksas01Reading the apostolic fathers convinced me roman catholicism was not true

[@spiritnone2818]

The title of the video is problematic. Manning's views aren't official Church doctrine. Refuting him is merely… refuting _him._ I'm not Catholic, by the way, but this is a strawman.

[@FRodriguez_]

But the video is not just about Manning.

[@JW_______]

If you were being charitable you would recognize that Cooper's use of the phrase "refuting Roman Catholic claims" is a completely valid way of speaking. He didn't say he was refuting the Church. Claims made by Roman Catholics are Roman Catholic claims.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@FRodriguez_It is, it’s a short clip of the video he’s making

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@JW_______it’s “the primary reason why I’m not convinced by Roman Catholic claims” and he’s using a weak argument. Imagine me saying “I’m unconvinced of Lutheranism because there’s women pastors” when there are traditional sects of Lutheranism…

[@isaacromero3475]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@JW_______I think you’re being uncharitable to the comment you’re responding to. The title of the video is very misleading it should be more accurately titled “The primary reason I’m not convinced by Henry Edward Manning”

[@johnnylollard7892]

"To be steeped in history is to realize you need a current infallible magisterium to tell you what history is." - average Roman apologist.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

Catholic Answers apologist*

[@blamtasticful]

Underrated comment

[@TJMcCarty]

🤣🤣🤣

[@silveriorebelo2920]

you seem to forget that you will be judged by God... (but, of course, the Lutheran dreams about the true Gospel are clearly grounded in Church history)

[@johnnylollard7892]

@@silveriorebelo2920 The true Gospel is grounded in the Bible.

[@olkjamab]

My friend, you can't argue with RC. When the scripture works they will use it and when it doesn't they will turn to tradition. I have stoped discussing with my RC friends, it leads nowhere. I just get frustrated and sometimes angry because they take this above position like you're a child. Especially my frinde who has converted from the Lutheran church in Sweden where I live. Like your channel keep fighting the good fight. Blessings. /Olof

[@xwaazes6375]

Because it's not about the truth. It's an instinctual fleeing from the insane wokeness that has infested our Church. I realized the best to do with converts from the CofSw to Rome is to empathize with them, not fight them & that leads to better understanding.

[@gregorywullaert8618]

How so do you mean Catholics use scriptures "when it works?" In what situations does it not work?

[@petros810]

@@gregorywullaert8618I think he was saying that they use scripture when it supports them but when doesn’t support their positions they will turn to tradition. But I will certainly let him respond for himself

[@rickydettmer2003]

lol right, cuz Protestants don’t do the exact same thing when scripture doesn’t work for them😂. No offense man but it’s a very weak argument. An educated RC or EO could say the exact same thing about you

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@petros810I typically see Catholics turn to tradition when interpreting a certain passage, which I don’t see much problems with.

[@dmthighway]

George Salmon's book 'The Infallibility of the Church' is to this day the best response to Rome. He argues similar to Jordan here.

[@trevorgetty2968]

Hey Dr. Cooper, Want to say that the Lord used your youtube videos to lead me to the Lutheran church with my young family. All of us were baptized into the church 2 weeks ago. That being said big concern when I look around, after being to 3 different congregations I have noticed there are no other young families. Are lutheran evangelical tactics just poor? Is the church just Lukewarm as we close in on Christ return? I'm studying scripture and reading the catechism deeply along with the augsburg confession to prepare myself to properly share the faith with those around me in the neighborhood but if you could address this, that would be Awesome!

[@billyhw5492]

Your church is literally named after Martin Luther.

[@trevorgetty2968]

@@billyhw5492 it was a name given to those who followed the scripture as final authority. A derogatory name that is used now as an easy way to tell you the beliefs I hold in my views of Christianity. What is this strawman argument?

[@aaronraju8254]

I’m currently attending an LCMS church I do see young people but no one within 9 years of me. (I’m 25) most mainline denominations suffer from this. I really only see non denominational churches have younger audiences

[@momdad5368]

I am attending a LCMS too and it is full of young, middle-aged, and elderly people. I am in Texas.​@aaronraju8254

[@MestredosMagos-dj1ym]

@@billyhw5492 No, the original official name of the lutheran church was the Catholic Church of Augsburg Confession

[@jonathanbennigsen5625]

The problem is their "3 legged stool" of scripture, tradition and the magisterium. In theory, they should all line up to support each doctrine. The problem is they often don't. When you press them, they switch the standard. It's essentially a 3 tired pyramid with scripture at the bottom. You start out arguing with scripture. When the arguments are weak, they turn to tradition, when the arguments are still weak, they turn to the magisterium and can just claim doctrinal development. It's nearly impossible to debate with them honestly. The magisterium and papacy is essentially circular reasoning which is functionally fideist.

[@dylanwagoner9768]

Great point!

[@MrTeaSPoon12]

Do you believe Moses and Jesus can attest to the truth of the other?

[@LHWakefield]

The “three legged stool” is not a math equation where you plug in a doctrinal problem and get a perfect, clean answer on the other side, it’s a foundation to keep Christianity cohesive and functioning. All Christians have problems to work through, but without Scripture, the Magisterium and Tradition working together, the answers to those problems are constantly changing, contradicting themselves and leaking in and out of “Christianity.”

[@lynnmmartin]

Although I'd suggest that, for them, the magisterium is the real authority that judges the others.

[@jonathanbennigsen5625]

@@lynnmmartin Yes agreed

[@Mark_Penrose]

They're prosecuting their own defense and your just observing. Now silence or their bailiff is going to get you!

[@levipatterson1905]

Baptist here, Dr. Cooper is a top G fr. Keep on protesting peacefully man✊

[@CrownOfThornss]

True that, brother

[@AnselmInstitute]

Everything the Pope says is right? That isn't the Catholic position so why mislead your audience?

[@pamelaroth3497]

You do hear that kind of nonsense from traditionalists and sedevacantists; ie that the pope is like a quasigod. No pope will ever live up to the standard they've set. They can't even acknowledge there have been scandalous popes in history. If that's what Manning believes then I think it's folly to use his teachings to buttress the decision to reject Rome IMHO

[@henriquebellon4215]

He knows that, he has laid this out in other videos, perhaps he has forgotten, or just assumed that his audience already knows this,it also says full episode coming right? So maybe he lays out this in the full video IDK, God bless

[@henriquebellon4215]

And by forgotten I mean forgotten to say it, not that he actually forgot that the Pope is just infallible in very specific cases

[@dylanwagoner9768]

@@AnselmInstitute Not what he said. No one took him to say that. Don’t mislead yourself

[@obscuredictionary3263]

You’re not really grappling his points properly. He is well aware of what you’re saying.

[@r2nexility]

Hey Dr. Jordan B Cooper, how about having subtitles in Portuguese for your videos? I believe you have a large Brazilian and Portuguese audience,Including me, and I really like your videos. ❤😅

[@RuanXzz-c1t]

This is True 🙂‍↕️

[@kira.mp4965]

I like Dr.'s videos, I'm also from Brazil.

[@rodrigofernandes5242]

How would this argument be against oriental orthodox, since they deny the doctrine of the papacy and also Sola Scriptura?

[@BrockSamson18]

"Rome is true because the Pope says Rome is true." "Orthodoxy is true because the Ecumenical Coucils say Orthodoxy is true."

[@manueljosegandarillas6625]

y los protestantes dicen que son verdad y mira 40.000 de ellos aclamando ser la verdad.

[@graysonguinn1943]

@@manueljosegandarillas6625 I love that I don't even need to hit the translate button to know this is the same canned response you see every time

[@Jesus_loves_you2004]

And Protestants are true because well, they say they’re true, even though they’re the most divided out of all the denominations….

[@Furinkazan541]

​@@Jesus_loves_you2004Because Protestantism isn't a denomination, genius. Like seriously, how can you be interacting on a Protestant channel and be this bad at basic church history

[@Jesus_loves_you2004]

@@Furinkazan541 yep. You’re right. Protestantism isn’t one denomination. It’s a million and none of them can agree on anything 🤡🤡🤡

[@k9builder]

Circular reasoning is never a valid doctrine.

[@jesuscorona3562]

Wuut, how do you prove logic without using logic? How do you prove the bible without using the bible's narrative? And if you're a foundationalist, how do you know or perceive the notion of properly basic beliefs? Is that notion a properly basic belief as well? There is no escaping circularity to a degree.

[@traesaint9328]

@@jesuscorona3562How do you prove that the dog is alive without another dog who is alive or dead in order to see which is which? How do u prove that the sky is blue without another blue sky? How do u shut up without typing anymore stupid things on your keyboard?

[@empo2085]

@@jesuscorona3562 ever heard of axioms ?

[@xwaazes6375]

It sounds an awful lot like idolatry imo.

[@notavailable4891]

Isn't this just picking a bad argument and then knocking it down? I don't see a lot of Catholic apologists going around saying you can't understand scripture or history on your own, and it isn't officially taught by the church either.

[@Phlebas9202]

I have run into exactly this.

[@notavailable4891]

@@Phlebas9202 I don't doubt it. But I have run into some really bad arguments for protestantism, I don't think it would be fair to consider those representative.

[@justinmayfield6579]

In my experience, every road kind of ends here in engagement with modern RCC apologetic arguments. Not saying it's everyone's experience.

[@notavailable4891]

@@justinmayfield6579 We need to get good then, cos these kinds of arguments aren't gonna cut it.

[@ryanroehrig54]

This is the argument I hear the most actually not always at first but when the discussion goes down a path on anything it ultimately ends with the authority of the papacy. Jordan is right here that it is the doctrine to which everything between Lutherans and Catholics stands and falls.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Plus, It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@kennethcostigan1367]

I suggest that you have a conversation with Bishop Robert Barron.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I like Barron quite a bit.

[@DeusVult838]

@@DrJordanBCooper A talk with the two of you would be great to see one day!

[@john-paulgies4313]

I think you're impatience has prevented you from understanding this Cardinal Manning (whoever he is) and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Else you would have more to say than what's wrong... i.e. here's what's right; here's the real way we know (a) with absolute certainty (b) in times of doubt what Divine Revelation contains.

[@tomekmieszkowski2849]

Sorry but this completely false what Dr. Jordan is saying about papal infallibility. According to Dogma the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra and only then and when his claims concerns morals and faith. His is not infallible when he is giving a speech to the audience or an interview. A couple of recent popes including the present one said plenty false statements even in terms of morals and faith but they didnot say them ex cathedra. But this is different problem concerning the heresy of modernism(modern philosophies rooted especially in Kant and phenomenology/Heidegger) which infected the minds of bunch of catholics shepards including bishops, cardinals and popes and which was condemned by Saint Pius X. If this your only objection Dr. Jordan I strongly recommend you joining the one and only true catholic Church.

[@SuperGamerCatholic457]

Not all catholics agree with the pope. There are different types you know(just like protestants). And by the way, TONS of Catholics say that not only we make it to heaven but also protestant and orthodox

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

Cardinal Manning is not the Catholic magisterium, so why do you call this video "Roman Catholic Claims" rather than "Cardinal Manning's Claims"?

[@AD-sx7ix]

Why do I, as a Catholic, have to follow what manning thinks? What about Catholic apologists who don’t use manning’s system?

[@graysonguinn1943]

Doesn't really apply to you or them, then. Apologists exist on the Manning Insanity to Raymond Brown Giga Development continuum with most in between

[@AD-sx7ix]

@@graysonguinn1943 So then I’m confused as to why an optional method of interpretation is supposed to be someone’s case as to why they’re not Catholic. Just find a new method and keep searching for the truth

[@graysonguinn1943]

@@AD-sx7ix It is indicated at the beginning this is a clip of a future video. Assumedly he deals with this method in this clip, and other methods in the full video yeah

[@justinmayfield6579]

@@AD-sx7ix He said that this is the method of most modern RCC apologists so, if that be the case, it's worth discussing. That has been my experience, as well.

[@dmthighway]

All Romanists have to agree by design. When Scripture and tradition disagree with Rome it doesn't matter. Rome starts with doctrine and dogma and chooses which evidence it wants to say it's always been.

[@drummersagainstitk]

Thanks you Dr. Cooper for your work. It is very important. YOU ARE INDEED A SOLDIER FOR CHRIST.

[@keithrobert5117]

May I say (as a traditional catholic) the 3 fold system is really more an interlocking system. Example. We know there is a period before the Gospels were written and the antiquity of The Church sheds some light on this.That, and the many centuries since, give us Tradition. The Magisterium is simply the teaching aspect.

[@dillonstandley4330]

This is simplistic thinking at best. You literally have no clue what you're talking about

[@AdithiaKusno]

As a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church I find some truth on Jordan Cooper's criticism but in my observation it's directed against caricature popularized by rad trads. We don't need to use Fiducia Supplicans as an example, we could use Formula of St Hormisdas. The Greek text didn't claim what Latin apologists claim to be. If everything the Pope says settle it why would St Augustine wrote back in opposition against Rome on Pelagius. Unless his praises on Rome was flowery language. When we understand the ancient context we wouldn't be debating strawman arguments. To be Catholic is to understand that even when the High Priest was installed by Herod that didn't invalidate his authority. Even Jesus obeyed the High Priest and didn't create Protestant temple near Shiloh. Why would St Paul after resurrection still worship in the temple and submit to the High Priest. Unless we understand corruption in the members as one thing and the divine institution that God founded as entirely different thing. I hope there would be a Lutheran Ordinariate with their own bishops similar to Anglican Ordinariate that recently has a new bishop. We can do reformation within the Church not outside. Follow Jesus and Paul's example reform the Temple from within and obey the High Priest appointed by Herod in obedience.

[@pete3397]

Pope Leo and his immediates successors up to an including the ones who convened and excused the Council of Trent burnt the bridges that might have led to a Lutheran ordinariate by refusing to even discuss matters with the Lutheran Reformers. The responsibility lies with Rome to repudiate Trent and rebuild the bridges that Rome purposefully destroyed rather than Lutherans unilaterally submitting to a illegitimate and somewhat heretical papal "authority."

[@gregoryross1693]

Beautiful response. Thank you for it. I will continue to pray for more internal reform and communion - your comment regarding a Lutheran Ordinariate is the way. 30+ rites under one Catholic umbrella, and more to add... bless.

[@davidon1984]

Loved your response!

[@labradortea7873]

I’ve found that a lot of Protestants are believe many things about the Catholic Church that aren’t true. I’m currently an LCMS Lutheran who’s leaning towards Catholicism and very confused. Both sides make seemingly good arguments, and I’m not yet wise enough to discern what I think is right, and I’m not sure if I ever will be. Please pray for me 🙏

[@mdkvproductions9977]

@@labradortea7873 I will pray for you I hope eventually you will come back to us!

[@timothymcdonald7407]

Yes, it’s so much better when we each interpret the Bible the way we want to. What could go wrong?

[@imover9999]

I'm strongly leading towards Catholicism and stumbled on this video to challenge my own view. I can see your argument and it's absolutely valid that circular reasoning does not work, but I still have the question of this: how do we interpret the Bible? An infallible book without an infallible interpretation will lead to a multitude of opinions on what the book means. Hence why there's thousands of Protestant denominations. Not trying to be combative, just genuinely curious. How can we assume we're wise enough on our own to interpret Scripture on our own? Or how can we trust the local pastor that does not have thousands of years of doctrine? I suppose you could make the argument that doctrine had to made by men at some point in history, albeit perhaps it were a council of many wise men. Your video has given me a lot to think on.

[@christopherastudillo2918]

He has more videos talking about this topic, I would encourage you to watch them they are helpful. Dr Gavin Ortlund also is helpful. The beauty about Protestantism is that what draws you in is the gospel in many occasions what draws people to Rome is fear and uncertainty not the cross. Hope that helps

[@justanotheragamuffin]

I too am leaning towards Catholicism after having been raised a Protestant preachers son. Growing up I was taught that one could discern scripture by trusting the Holy Spirit and allowing it to guide in faith. This has been a fairly common statement I have encountered among Christians of various denominations, and it sounds good, it sounds right. However, the fruits that such teaching has born out amongst the denominations would seem to show it to be a statement in error, considering that most can't even agree on the nature and gifts of the Holy Spirit, let alone on how it guides the Christian.

[@imover9999]

@@christopherastudillo2918 I was raised Protestant and for sure it's Christ that draws me to Rome as well, but of course I want to always keep an open mind to the truth as I will seek that relentless. I sort of default to what the early church believed and practiced and I see that most closely mirrored in the Catholic Church, but of course I do want to hear both sides and keep an open mind that I may discern the truth with honesty and not bias. Thank you for your comment, and regardless we are still brothers in Christ.

[@labradortea7873]

I’m in the same boat as you. I was raised a Lutheran (LCMS), and now I’m strongly leaning towards Catholicism for basically the same reasons as you. Paired with the fact that I like how they have more traditions than a few of the Lutheran churches I’ve been around, and the community around me is Catholic, and they have been so helpful with any religious questions, and lovely in general, I feel a great urge to go be with them. Maybe the Catholics aren’t right about everything, but there is an urgency within me and an ache in my heart to join them, and I know that if I did, it would deepen my commitment to Christ. Please pray for me that I figure out the best way to proceed 😅

[@harrygarris6921]

@@christopherastudillo2918 that’s a broad generalization that has so many occasions in which it doesn’t apply. For example: some Catholics preach the gospel, and some Protestants use the scare tactic of fire and brimstone. Is there an appeal of Protestantism that’s always true rather than just a generalization?

[@dylan3456]

Christians should be apologists for Christ, not for their institutions, first and foremost. Most Roman Catholic apologists are divisible into two camps: those who work in defense of the institutional Church Militant (traditionalists and conservatives) and those who work to obscure the exclusivity of the institutional Church Militant (cultural Catholics and theological liberals). I find that neither camp preaches Christ crucified except to one of those two ends. Both camps are entirely enthralled or even captured by carnal, temporal, interests for or against the institutional Roman Catholic Church. I’m often bewildered that so many converts to Rome are impressed that an institutional hierarchical structure of the predominant religious community would retain power and influence (i.e., “survive preserved”) for the two thousand years during which people have given it money and power. I’m never the least surprised or amazed that there would be large institutions with Christians that last centuries or even millennia as long as there are Christians with global influence and power. The papacy is just one manifestation of the first "camp" or model. Btw, try to have a conversation on the called to communion blog and find out what it must've been like for Alice in wonderland. Is there such a thing as hyper-circularity? Can one be more circular than a circle?

[@mroxannevh]

What examples of carnal or temporal interests?

[@dylan3456]

@@mroxannevhit’s shot-through with that. I’ll make this a reminder comment to come back to and list some things if you’d like.

[@b.melakail]

"except to one of those two ends"....? I dont understand this part. If you mean to say that Catholics dont focus on Christ's crucifixion and sacrifice for our redemption then no, thats blantantly wrong. Pathetically wrong. If you mean something else then apologies. At least there is an unintentional acknowledgement that its been around for 2000 years and not just from the time of Constantine. If you want a third camp in this frame work of yours then I would add the communio Catholics

[@thelonelysponge5029]

Bro, WE HAVE CRUCIFIXES THAT PREACH CHIRST CRUCIFIED 😅 What are you talking about? Online apologist? They’re cringe honestly

[@dylan3456]

@@b.melakail I think the simplest way to get at it is to say that the Roman Catholic apologist is either preaching a “Christ consciousness” in order to undermine institutional authority (Jesuits hah), or else he’s preaching in order to draw catechumens into the institution.

[@guyparker1749]

Well my my, we have to balance it with docs of Confession😅, but for sure they didn't settle the west..! Peace..😊

[@jamesgarlick4573]

I'm a life long non-denominational protestant and this year I almost became Lutheran (LCMS) but then I applied Sola Scriptura and Martin Luther's criteria for his interpretations of Sacraments and Apocrypha and found him to be in error. I then researched the Catholic Catechism to better understand the Catholic beliefs and by applying Sola Scriptura I found the Roman Catholic Church to be correct and the Protestants to be wrong. I ask you this: if Sola Scriptura is the only way to properly know how to be Christian, then why is there so many different denominations and interpretations from Protestants, all of whom believe in Sola Scriptura? Who gave such authority to decide how Scripture is interpreted?

[@luisaymerich9675]

Protestantism itself is the biggest proof for the papacy.

[@Pablo-gl9dj]

What was the error that you found?

[@Acek-ok9dp]

You literally refuted yourself there.

[@BramNguyen]

Pretty similar to how Muslims engage with Muhammad and the Quran.

[@rafalrocks]

I’m Roman Catholic and, pardon my ignorance, but who is Manning? Newman I’m aware of and a variety of the popes and the great saints throughout the ages, but who is this Manning guy? Do you see the problem here?

[@xinosaj]

Catholic arguments fail because they are based on a category mistake. They treat "tradition" like it is a fixed, concrete source of information - like a book - that they can contrast with the Bible. Purgatory isn't clear in the Bible? No problem - it's part of Tradition. Same with Papal infallibility, Marian dogmas, etc. But no such "tradition" exists. You can't quote "tradition" or pull out a document that defines a doctrine like Purgatory in exact, complete detail. Tradition is only a hazy set of ideas, piety, and attitudes, even fashion and cuisine, innovated over the centuries. We don't know what exactly "tradition" is. It's hard to argue about Purgatory, for example, because there isn't an authoritative statement of just what this doctrine is. Official statements from decades ago will be dismissed by today's Catholics as flawed and misleading - there are no clearcut teachings on just what Purgatory is. The Catholic Apologist retorts that we are to trust the bishops, led by the Pope, to define such things. Why? Because that's "tradition." Circular reasoning, completely unverifiable - or realistically disproven, since neither the Bible nor ancient documents like the Didache contain such ideas.

[@georgepierson4920]

And you just gave an example of the Protestant tradition of ignorance.

[@xinosaj]

@@georgepierson4920 The great thing about exchanging comments in text is that one-liners don't work. Prove your point with logic and evidence or get lost.

[@dakolev]

Can we say it's pretty much the same for Orthodoxy too?

[@adolphCat]

Orthodoxy does not make the claim that any of her Patriarchs are the Head of the Church, in Orthodoxy just like in Lutheranism Christ alone is the Universal Bishop of the Church. All of the Patriarchs in Orthodoxy are just Heads of regional Churches having no Authority over the Universal Church and any Authority they might have outside of their region is by consent of the Church and not Divine decree, the Canons of the Church that the Whole Church agreed to. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the 1st among equals not because of Divine Law, but because of the Canons of the Church that the Whole Church consented to. Dr. Luther would not have objected to the Pope of Rome being a Figurehead signifying the Unity of the Church if the Whole Church would agree to this, the objection of the Papacy was because of the Pope's claim that the Pope is by Divine Decree the Universal Bishop of the Church thus replacing Christ as Universal Bishop of the Church. Dr. Luther objection was not that certain administrative functions outside of the Dioceses of Rome would be given to the Bishop of Rome if the Whole Church agreed to this and as long as the Whole Church continues to agree that this is a good idea.

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

For me orthodoxy dies on its doctrine

[@ScroopGroop]

Honestly, they might be worse, because they don't even have an objective standard like a Pope.

[@adolphCat]

Why was my reply deleted did it contain any factual errors, was it even remotely disrespectful to anyone? Do you just arbitrarily delete posts for the fun of it?

[@IC_XC_NIKA]

​@@adolphCatWhat did you say? This has happened to me a few times too. I hate when people suppress the truth. People can respectfully disagree.

[@JamesT4819]

I’ve heard a lot of Catholic apologists defending the papacy, and I’ve never heard any of them simply make assertions to the effect “because the Pope said so”. Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Joe Heschmier to name a few. They all give arguments from scripture and history to support the Papacy. You may choose to disagree with their arguments, but arguments are made. So I don’t know why Dr. Cooper is saying this.

[@nickynolfi833]

@DrJordanBCooper. When I was a young convert to Catholicism, I would have given anything for a Dr Hahn/ Dr RC Sproul conversation. The world was robbed of that because Dr. Sproul refused to do it. I have followed you for a couple years now. You are definitely my new RC Sproul ( although I think you go deeper and have more honesty). Erick Ybarra is who I listen to the most from the Catholic side. I was so happy with your conversation on Justification. This topic of the Papacy needs to be discussed between you two. It seems like the debate I was hoping for on pints with Aquinas fell through but I think the world of KZbin theology viewers NEEDS to hear this discussion between you guys on this topic. Erick as you know will be very honest and will shut down bad Catholic arguments that are often used in modern apologetics. I personally would do anything I could to help with a debate/discussion between you guys. I hope you can make this happen. I know Erick would do it in a second. If you do it I might even send you a bottle of my homemade wine 🍷. That should be all the bribe you need lol.

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

Lutheranism remains what Protestantism was always supposed to be - the continuation of the catholic Church reformed only by Scripture. Evangelicals like Baptists and the Papists in Rome remain two different kinds of misguided.

[@mattm7798]

It remains what Luther set out to do: literally reform the Catholic church. There were other high profile reformers beyond Martin Luther.

[@Procopius464]

Baptists aren't so bad. They bring a lot of new people into Christianity, and they have produced some great apologeticists (like Kent Hovind). The problem with them is that they are minimalist. The bare minimum of what it takes to be saved, and the bare minimum of what it takes to build a church and conduct a service. That works great for getting people in, but not as great for helping them grow spiritually.

[@mattm7798]

@@Procopius464 Actually, if you look at the early church described in Acts, it was very minimalist. Worship and teaching mostly. There was little to know pomp and circumstance we see in the Catholic church, and certainly no one figure who demanded people kiss a ring!

[@Procopius464]

@@mattm7798 And that is part of their logic, but it didn't take long for traditions to start developing. You can see from some Roman records where they are arresting Christians that they're already having chalices, silver cups, candlesticks, etc. Tradition is also good, because it can serve as a teaching tool, and it can also keep your church from going off the rails. These days, with the modern external culture being such garbage, it's important that we take measures to keep it from influencing the church. Look at what has happened with Pentacostal churches. That will eventually happen to everyone if we don't do something to keep it out.

[@mattm7798]

@@Procopius464 True, traditions in and of themselves aren't bad. My issue is when a church elevates them to the same or near level as scripture, as Catholic leadership does. I attend Calvary Chapel, which is mostly similar to southern baptist but less formal. Are we perfect? By no means. But our method of teaching, verse by verse, book by book, I think helps us stay closer to scripture than other protestant denominations who teach more topically.

[@Jerome616]

It’s entirely falsifiable, it’s called prove a material contradiction. If you prove that then Catholicism is false.

[@MaximilianoMendes]

Very well presented. Trying to argue with someone who reasons based on this method is indeed very frustrating.

[@noahdaugherty8413]

I just discovered you, brother, and I’m telling you right now. This channel deserves so many more views than it’s receiving. People don’t realize this is absolute gold.

[@LXX-Mercedes]

The burden of proof is on their side

[@wms72]

Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes". Protestant dogma is religious and scriptural relativism, repeating the sin of Eve: deciding for oneself what's right and wrong, true and false, good and evil. Protestants mistakenly assume Scripture is a comprehensive "do -it - yourself" manual for Christianity. The Bible NEVER says and Jesus NEVER said "ALL true instruction to lead to eternal life is to be found in Holy Scripture." Where does the Bible say this? What New Testament Bible did Peter preach from on the first Pentecost Sunday? The first Gospel, Matthew's, would not be written for 15 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven, and the last book would not be written for almost 70 years. Yet St. Stephen and countless others were martyred for the Faith BEFORE any of the New Testament was written down. They believed, lived and died for the ORAL New Testament, also known as "Divine Tradition." DIVINE TRADITION IS THE ORAL WORD OF GOD JESUS TAUGHT HIS APOSTLES. IT'S NOT LESS THAN THE BIBLE. BOTH MAKE UP THE "DEPOSIT OF FAITH." PROTESTANTS THREW AWAY JESUS'S ORAL DIVINE TRADITION SO THEY *DO NOT HAVE THE FULL GOSPEL* Deuteronomy 4:2 says: "You shall not add to the word of God, ... nor take away from it. " Protestants didn't just throw away Divine oral Tradition but also threw 7 books out of their Bibles. Matthew 4:4 says, "Man does not live by bread alone but by *every word* that comes from the mouth of God." Protestants don't have EVERY WORD, only PART of the written Word, none of the Oral Word. Remember, we're NOT Jews. The Holy Spirit guides the Church hierarchy, not the rabbis. Jesus and His Apostles used and quoted the Septuagint Bible. Protestants use the rabbis' shorter Masoretic text that DID NOT EXIST until almost 100 years AFTER Jesus ascended into Heaven. Remember what Jesus said *TO HIS APOSTLES* in John 16:12,13: "I HAVE MANY MORE THINGS TO SAY TO YOU, BUT YOU CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW. BUT WHEN HE, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH...." Truth NOT written in the Bible. The Catholic Church guards Jesus's oral teaching -- called, not tradition of men, but *Divine Tradition* -- which Jesus taught His Apostles, and which the Bible tells us to keep, in 2Thessalonians2:15, 1Corinthians11:2, 2Timothy1:13, 2Timothy2:2 and Titus1:9. Protestants threw away Jesus's oral teaching, violating: Deuteronomy 4:2, "You shall not add to the word.of God ... nor take away from it," Psalm 118:160 says, "The *SUM* of Thy Word is Truth" and Matthew 4:4 "Man does not live by bread alone but by *every word* that comes from the mouth of God. Oral Word of God (Divine Tradition) + Written Word of God (Holy Scripture) = Full Gospel Truth Holy DIVINE Traditions guarded by the Catholic Church are: the 7 Sacraments, especially the various rituals of Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the correct interpretation of Scripture, especially teachings on Mary's sinlessness, on the intecession of the saints and on Purgatory, use of holy water, relics, blessings, and other sacramentals. These make up the Full Gospel. Only the Catholic Church HAS the Full Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus may say to protestants who DENY His oral Word of God, "Depart from Me. I never knew you."

[@psallen5099]

Actually the Pope is only infallible when he speaks "Ex Cathedra" or "From the Chair" and only on a matter of faith and morals that are consistent with traditional beliefs. A Pope has only spoken "ex cathedra" or infallibly 2 times in the last 170 years. In 1854 on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and in 1950 on the dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

[@andreashoepfner9465]

Machen Sie mal ein Video über die Jesuiten

[@hglundahl]

6:09 Do you think a Christian should be continually weighing the arguments for and against any given interpretation, for instance of Scripture? For instance, Marc 10:6. I'm not here making the YEC case, which is obvious, but the verse in context. Since Henry VIII was married to Katherine of Aragon, he was NOT married to Anne Boleyn. Since Philip of Hesse was married to Christine of Saxony, he was not married to Margarethe von der Saale. You know, Luther and Cranmer felt free to weigh the arguments. And came down on the wrong side. How is that compatible with Matthew 18:17?

[@paulpenfold867]

This reminds me of so-called "presuppositional" apologetics, remarkable similarities with Manning's approach, though most often used by Protestants.

[@frankcagnetta5792]

The amount of errors made in this video by Jordan is in just about everything he is saying. He is misrepresenting the official stance of the Catholic church while intentionally not dealing with the shortcomings of his own protestant epistemology. He has no way of knowing whether or not the seat of Peter is an actual thing because scripture does not present sufficient evidence one way or another. Therefore, if sola scriptura is true given the protestant perspective, you have no way of knowing infallibly if something like the seat of Peter did really exist. You must presuppose that the infallibility of the Pope is not true because of a previous presupposition, that is Sola Scriptura. The seat of Peter is a real thing, and yes, for 1500 years you can find this written all over the theologians of the church, including the fathers of the east. These arguments are nonsense.

[@Robert-bm2jr]

I've been trying to substantiate your claim about Cardinal Manning, and I can't find any place where he claims that the Pope is the SOLE interpreter of faith. I think if you were honestly trying to understand where Catholic doctrine comes from you would find that, Catholic Doctrine was developed by many Councils and Scholars throughout the history of the church. In the first generation, you had the Apostles who passed down the faith mostly by spoken Tradition. We know that by the time Paul enters the scene there was already a creed of sorts. He makes reference to it in one of his letters. Paul himself speaks of the traditions handed down both those spoken and written. Then, after the time of the Apostles, you have the era of the Church Fathers. In that era you will find the writings of Irenaeus of Antioch. He writes of the pre-eminence of the Roman church. Those writings are second century. And before you claim they are fake, look for the writings of Dr. John Oakes, a Protestant Scholar. Beyond the Father's we have many known as the Doctor's of the Church whose scholarship have been pivotal in our understanding of faith. Many of whom were not Popes, and a few of whom were women. So, I think if you were at least being honest, you could recognize that your argument that you can't trust the church because we say the Pope is always right falls apart. But, let me just take one moment to speak about Papal Infallibility. First, most of what a Pope says is not Infallible. He may only speak Infallibly on matters of Faith and Morals. And it's only happened a handful of times. Like many things in Catholicism, there is a form to that.

[@linenonthehedgerow741]

Your problem is that Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman proved that Catholicism is true whilst he was at Oxford University.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Maybe because the Catholic Church gave the world the scripture, the tradition and the magisterium (which most Protestants don’t understand), you think it’s circular reasoning. Christ left a Church not a book. The Church wrote a book. The Church and the book are the basis for the magisterium.

[@Aleksas01]

Never heard it explained this way. Simply brilliant

[@Pablo-gl9dj]

The church of Rome wrote a book?

[@Aleksas01]

@@Pablo-gl9dj church of rome lol :)))) one theme is common for all the "united" 30000 protestant churches is inventions of terminology like "church of rome" or claims like "catholics are not christians" . Sweet :)

[@hallinden3942]

Ok, first off this man gets it wrong when he defines the Pope's infallibility in the manner in which he did; tragically, even many Catholics do not understand what the Infallibility of the Pope actually means.

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

Papal infallibility is correctly defined as a negative protection against error and does not affirm a positive property of Papal power. Therefore hypothetically, if we presume Papal infallibility has an overwhelming amount of historical evidence with successive Popes correctly defining dogmas and doctrines and resolving many faith based controversies, there still isn't enough evidence to affirm Papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is tied into a historical Papacy with succession until the end of time which can only be affirmed inductively if man has access to all Papal statements throughout the entirety of human history until the second coming when the Papacy is finally made redundant. Then and only then can the sum total of all Papal statements be assessed to determine if the negative protection is true. In practice, opponents of Papal infallibility only have access to past and present Papal statements and can only scrutinise a limited number of Papal statements less than the sum total expected accounting for the future Papal statements. And opponents of Papal infallibility are themselves fallible individuals without authority and according to canon law, unable to judge the Pope who is the supreme church head. Any claims against Papal infallibility are always problematic. A Protestant Christian who believes in the infallibility of the biblical text also has a similar problem comparably worse than Papal infallibility. The biblical text in the Protestant world is a stand alone infallible document without reference to any infallible tradition, or infallible church with an infallible binding authority. The text itself may always be subject to scrutiny over the value of each verse and each word compared to other ways of knowing through history and science. Many problems associated with the biblical text remain presently unresolved and possibly permanently irresolvable. The real or apparent biblical errors make affirming the bible infallibility a near impossible task to perform with a high degree of certainty, and yet many Protestants insist the bible is infallible. Belief in the infallible bible is in practice impossible to prove and necessitates a belief system excluding invalidation.

[@danieldoherty5034]

Not a single quote from Cardinal Manning to back up this caricature of his arguments. How different from videos by the likes of Joe Heschmeyer whose videos are chock full of quotes to back up his assertions displayed on the screen with citations.

[@erinblack9689]

So well put! I have had the most frustrating "debates" with Roman Catholic friends for this very reason.

[@Liminalplace1]

I agree. I wonder if all claims to have an authoritative body to interpret scripture question the ability of the authors of scripture to speak clearly and with authority.

[@davidfarrell4289]

I guess I'm one of those happy, unassailable-by-logic, confoundingly ignorant Catholics. Dr Cooper's argument was thought-provoking but didn't come near the actual foundation of my faith that the Mystical Body of Christ is shepherded by a single human pastor. The sinners and saints of the papacy remind me very much of the kings of Judah. Very human, but nonetheless the leader of God's people . . . and firmly subject to God's foolishness that is above the wisdom of the world. I don't believe in the papacy because the pope said so. I believe in it because it is ancient, unchanging, beautiful, and fruitful. The fact that the papacy is foreshadowed in the old testament, established in the new testament, attested by the fathers, and endures to this day are reassuring confirmations of my belief. At any rate, Dr Cooper hasn't said anything that falsifies my belief . . .😜

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Great comment. And if the Catholic Church was good enough for Jesus…

[@davids7646]

There are plenty of early church writings that would falsify your belief, but ofc we can't interpret scripture and history without the magisterium therefore RCC is always right.😮 Well if you care to actually seek the truth anyway literally just look up videos that has actual arguments by Jordan or Gavin instead of watching this video that is more of a rant on how frustrating it is to debate a RC when they keep using circular reasoning.

[@davidfarrell4289]

@@JasonMcAllister-d9g I believe the false teachers the NT warned about in the first century are the Gnostics as well as those who taught various christological heresies. I'm curious. Do you believe the apostolic church existed continuously? If so, describe its form during the first 1000 years

[@davidfarrell4289]

@@davids7646 I do care to actually seek the truth. Do you think papal infallibility is inherently impossible? There are logical impossibilities that even God cannot effect. For example, I don't think God can make a square circle. But I do think he can incorporate humans into the body of Christ and infallibly guide it with human shepherds. If that is indeed a possibility, how would you verify it falsify it?

[@z8urducks]

It’s easy to talk but it’d be nice if you had a discussion with catholic that can give you pushback on your arguments/concerns.

[@robr.5646]

Can you make a video defending the Protestant Canon of scripture & why The Deuterocanon isn’t scripture

[@hglundahl]

1:30 Is Manning the guy behind the canard that "we cannot understand Scripture" (like at all) apart from what the Pope tells us?

[@timlarkin4471]

Perhaps this will help protestants to understand the nature of the Church. Like Christ, the Church has a physical presence in the world. Jesus physically chose 12 men. Jesus lived among them and taught them, focusing on Simon who was renamed Peter (the rock). Jesus especially focused on Peter above all others. Peter was always first. Historically, there was always one single man who God chose to lead his children. Abram (renamed Abraham), Moses, David, etc. There can't be two men who lead, and certainly can't be 1000 men, or every man for himself. There can only be one Church for one God and it is explicitly established on Peter, the Rock.

[@KevFer]

“To me it doesn’t seem coherent…” uh yea, it isn’t coherent… I haven’t read Manning but I’m going to trust you’re representing him accurately. You claim this is how Catholic apologists argue… but I’ve never heard claims be defended in this way and I obviously disagree with what Manning said (according to you) since it is very circular. In other words, if the Catholic defenses I’ve heard of any doctrines would have sounded anything like Manning, I wouldn’t be Catholic… Perhaps read other theologians? De Soto, Lagrange, Pesch… Also, I hope you know Newman did not invent development of doctrine. Catholic theologians had been discussing it over 6 centuries before Newman, who was still Anglican while he wrote the essay. Many Protestants seem to be unaware of that and think Newman is some sort of scapegoat for us.

[@slideGMD]

Thanks for this! Will be listening while driving❤️

[@riverasamuel911]

At the end this argument from Jordan this can be applied not only to the papacy but the bible as it is as well. Ultimately it also backfires for everyone thats christian

[@danocinneide1885]

Matt 10.2 These are the names of the twelve...first Simon who is called Peter....

[@gto2111]

Two Protestants debating each other can encounter a similar issue. You present a doctrine from the Bible and may even appeal to history, yet nothing seems to change the person's belief.

[@davids7646]

We don't appeal to infallibility tho, that is the problem of the circular reasoning. We can still give our reading of the interpretation without needing to appeal to authority to say we're right, we would have to look for evidence.

[@gto2111]

@@davids7646 They don't claim to be infallible, but they act like it. They are their own authority, their own pope. This might be true for some people, but not for everyone. For example, I was once a Protestant but changed my mind.

[@gto2111]

@@davids7646 I look at the evidence. And reject sola scriptura. If I genuinely believe it contradicts Scripture. Can I reject it?

[@mcfarvo]

Papal infallibility, works-based soteriology, Mary worship, saint worship, etc.

[@benperry3380]

Pretty weak. This is no different than an atheist saying “Christians say the Bible is infallible because the Bible says it’s infallible. Christianity is just circular reasoning”

[@XDiez.]

Can you confidently say that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one among others?

[@MikeyAGoGo101]

Thank God I'm Byzantine Catholic 😂😂

[@felixleyva2936]

I was wondeing if you ever thought of writing a book on roman Catholicism or any kinda work on print that encompass a bulk of your videos? I think itd not only be a great tool for us, but even impactful to those in roman Catholicism! As always, appreciate your videos and input!

[@jonathanbennigsen5625]

Go check the playlist on his channel. He has a lot of videos refuting RC claims, some very long.

[@felixleyva2936]

@@jonathanbennigsen5625 yes! I have seen and love those videos. I just thought it'd be cool to have it all in a book, but doesn't matter the videos are worth it🙏 Thanks so much for your advice!

[@Yeshua_is_king_2024]

I would scripture and early church history provide enough evidence each to show you how the office of papacy was never ordained at times of apostles and was a development of man later on coinciding with power of Rome had through political favor. This is why honest Roman apologist would admit that it was probably development by the church later on. But the issue is still assuming the church as a whole continues this apostlic authority to make such an office.

[@davidfarrell4289]

Do you believe any person or institution on earth authoritatively interprets scripture?

[@petros810]

@@davidfarrell4289Pastors have authority to interpret scripture. But that is not same as infalliblity

[@davidfarrell4289]

@@petros810 thanks for the reply. I'm genuinely curious about how my fellow Christians' theology: do you recognize the authority of all Christian pastors to interpret scripture? . . . And when they contradict one another how do you discern the truth?

[@petros810]

@@davidfarrell4289 As an Anglican, I would answer this two ways. First, if the church’s consensual tradition has settled the matter, then ordinaryly, it is settled for me. Second, if the tradition is divided on it and it is not a top tier issue then “we can agree to disagree” with out anathemizing the other. As an Anglican I am ok with not every issue being settled. Having differences does not mean we are divided and ready for a divorce. Adiaphora is necessary. Marriage is a good illustration of that. I would like to point out that you have that in the Roman church as well. The issue of divine election is case in point.

[@davidfarrell4289]

@@petros810 👍🏻 thank you I completely agree with the analogy you made to marriage. I keenly felt the Catholic-Anglican 'divorce' when I visited Canterbury cathedral and I yearned to celebrate the Eucharist there in restored full communion. May it be so one day! Catholic Study Bible 11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:11 RSV-CE

[@roblatour3511]

Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

[@inkman102]

Thank you for putting into words my frustrations with current Catholic apologists.

[@lutheranaquinas]

This whole method of making the papacy unfalsifiable reminds me of how Joseph Smith claimed that there was a long ending to Genesis 50 which foretold him by name, but it had been lost and God had to reveal it again through him. Under his system, you can only have the evidence to prove that he is a prophet by already believing that he is one.

[@James-fk2ki]

i would rather stay with the church Christ gave us than luther and his cohorts. period.

[@jettoth3]

It's a lot like Darwinism. There's no way to verify Darwinism and there's no way to falsify it either. So Darwin's theories amount to a nice plausible-sounding story for people to believe...if they find it compelling. The Roman Catholic Church likewise favors a narrative that can never be proven because they think it's a great story.

[@georgepierson4920]

It is called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not called the Roman Catholic Church anymore than the United States of America is called the United States of New York; the United States of Philadelphia; or the United States of Washington, District of Columbia. Once you Protestants get that through your thick heads, you will be all the better for it.

[@BirdDogey1]

An argument with Manning closely resembles an argument with my ex wife.

[@CatsRMetal]

Do you think you can do a video like this on EO as well?

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

You hit the nail on the head.

[@a.ihistory5879]

A church community cannot excommunicate a member causing issues if the church isnt infallible because the person causing trouble can cherry pick verses and say "thats my interpretation" and he couldnt be wrong due to sola-scriotura. So we do need am infallible authority to interpret the scriptures

[@davids7646]

Does the court of law require infallibility to give a death sentence punishment?

[@a.ihistory5879]

@@davids7646 Matthew 22:22 "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

[@mrbatista666]

Can you please do a video about pope benedict xvi's theology on the eucharist?

[@georgepierson4920]

Why ask a Protestant when he must object to what God revealed and Jesus instituted.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Isaiah 55:11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

This is a better articulated version of what I've been saying to my Catholic friend for some time.

[@Fitzn]

So, still not a great argument😂 Rome is Home my friend! Check out Dr. Scott Hahn's book, "Rome sweet Home." It is his conversion story and explains why the Catholic Church is the true Church!

[@christopherlampman5579]

Catholic convert here, this argument is the strongest case against Rome. I’m not comfortable in a sola scripture world either, outside of Rome Christianity is based on a dead letter and “muh interpretation.” It’s not clear where the Bible came from without an authority to compile it. If Rome’s not real I’m just sleeping in on Sunday because the truth is unknowable. Why bother listen to pastor Jim-bob pontificate on his personal theory of scripture?

[@nickynolfi833]

Hey, I remember you from a comment on the catholic ocd podcast. Glad to see that you and your wife came into the church

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Protestant churches have confessions of faith that have more than 400-500 years old and pastors must submit to them. Lutherans have their confessions, also Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, Congregationalists, Anglicans etc. So this "muh interpretation" argument is just a fallacy. If my Presbyterian pastor say something that is a contradiction to the Westminster Standards, i can literally denounce them for perjury. Maybe it is different in non denomination, Pentecostal and some Baptist churches, but none of them came directlty from the magisterial reformation and don't follow the ideas of the reformers. So is both funny and tragic when modern evangelicals convert to Romans Catholicism and start talking about "how it was to be protestant" while they never have been part of historic protestant church. The phrase "is not clear where the Bible came from without an authority to compile It" It is just a mind blowing statement from someone who was protestant. Your former pastor should be ashamed for not teaching you well, because we have zero problems in affirming that the church had the task to compile It lol but that simply does not make it infallible. Thruth Unites made a video about that just some days ago, but this is something every Christian should understand.

[@bairfreedom]

The way they defend the RCC Sounds cultish

[@georgepierson4920]

It is called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not called the Roman Catholic Church anymore than the United States of America is called the United States of New York; the United States of Philadelphia; or the United States of Washington, District of Columbia. Once you Protestants get that through your thick heads, you will be all the better for it.

[@ichthus1890]

The primary reason why I am convinced by Roman Catholic claims is the lives of the Saints; the holiness of their lives, their witness to Christ, their virtue, the miracles surrounding their lives, etc. And by the way, incontestably, it is the Church Jesus founded on Peter, as evidenced by the witness not only of the NT, but the early Church fathers. The smartest Protestants become Catholic, Ie. Scott Hahn, John Bergsma, etc. etc.

[@MrJayb76]

Total strawman. The pope does not prove the pope. Jesus, scripture and tradition proves the pope. The Pope is what Jesus uses to be the principle of unity within His Church. Dr. Jordan is basically saying that the keys given to Peter are not at all important. He is also saying that Jesus founded His Church on sand instead of rock, because if the Pope isn't THE principle upon which His Church stays one as He is one with the Father then Jesus wanted His own Church to fail. Dr. Jordan is saying that the the gates of Hell can overcome His Church...Ultimately Dr. Jordan is saying that the Church can only exist divided and never sure of any interpretation. No dogma or doctrine can ever be settled. The Papacy is the vessel through which the HS keeps His Church pure and free from all error. Dr. Jordan is looking at the office as human made. Was Jesus really that incompetent to found His Church in such a way that matters of faith can never be settled?

[@Quisl]

How can the pope understand the scripture without the writings of Martin Luther and the Church fathers?

[@georgepierson4920]

Why does the Pope need the heretical writings of Martin Luther?

[@Quisl]

@@georgepierson4920 According to Mt 16:18 all religions lead to God.

[@fantafan02]

Great, can’t wait for the full video

[@thomasthellamas9886]

Help

[@mattm7798]

I love my catholic brothers and sisters, but Catholicism reminds me of what the pharisees did to Judaism: they took the core of the truth, kept it, and then added all this man made tradition on top of it.

[@davidfarrell4289]

As a Catholic priest, I resemble that statement!😂 Nevertheless, Jesus did say, "the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you." Despite their sins, Pharisees like Paul were legitimate custodians of God's word and covenant. So, I believe, are we unworthy, sometimes-sinful, sometimes-hypocritical priests today.

[@mattm7798]

@@davidfarrell4289 Interesting you would quote Matthew 23. Those following may want to read that whole chapter to see what Jesus thought of the Scribes and Pharisees of His day(and before) Like I said, they taught the OT was correct, but then added all this man made tradition(i.e. not Biblical) on top of it. Also, to be clear, I was comparing Catholic leadership to the Pharisees not in their authority, but their practice of adding to the Word of God man's traditions.

[@davidfarrell4289]

@@mattm7798 yeah, Jesus' critique of the pharisees is withering. As a pastor, I read Matt 23 first of all as a critique of me personally, secondly as a critique of my brother priests. The depth of Jesus' criticism reflects the high standard Jesus has for spiritual leaders and the importance of their role in his flock. Sure, we practice a lot of 'manmade' traditions. Those are necessary ways of practicing faith. Christianity without a tradition of hymns, artwork, scripture commentary, liturgical rites, prayer methods or charitable organizations would be much impoverished. The focus of Jesus' criticism is not on our development of particular spiritual practices, but on making our own practices into idols, failing to distinguish between them and divine revelation, or using them as a cudgel, hypocritically, or to aggrandize ourselves.

[@mattm7798]

@@davidfarrell4289 Except many of these man made traditions are made mandatory by the Catholic church. Curious, do you personally still hold that indulgences are scriptural? I picked one of the more extreme examples to make a point. I could point to others like the intercessment of Mary, the infalibility of the pope etc.

[@davidfarrell4289]

@@mattm7798 yes I apply indulgences to the poor souls in purgatory, ask for Mary's intercession and believe the Pope teaches morals and doctrines infallibly (provided the proper criteria are met)

[@prestonwade1848]

You would have made a great priest.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Thanks.

[@WineSippingCowboy]

1 Cor 1:22. Jews demand signs. Greeks demand wisdom. (Your video addresses wisdom.) Jesus did demonstrate signs. The Catholic Church ⛪ recognizes signs. Marian apparitions in non Christian nations: La Vang in Vietnam 🇻🇳 (mostly Buddhists ☸ and atheists c/o Communism) and Vailankanni, India 🇮🇳 (where Hindus 🕉 and Muslims ☪️ noticed miracles). Where are the major miracles in Protestantism including your denomination, Dr. Cooper? And, your response to Cameron Riecker on 3 reasons not to become Protestant? "Those who learn history cease to become Protestant. " -- St. John Cardinal Newman, ex Anglican minister.

[@N1IA-4]

Manning's epistemology is not the founder of Catholicism. Nor does Catholicism rise or fall on Fr. Manning's claims.

[@JW_______]

True, but Cooper didn't say that they were.

[@harryallenpearce89]

@@JW_______ But it’s very easy to prove Catholicism. Did the Apostles teach anyone Christianity? Did the whole ancient Christian World get Christianity wrong in the exact same way immediately after the death of John?

[@Furinkazan541]

​@@harryallenpearce89That still doesn't prove Catholicism. You are presupposing that Catholicism is the same as the early church. It isn't

[@JW_______]

@@harryallenpearce89 Speaking of a straw man, that's not a position that any protestants put forward. The apostolic fathers do not demand or even lean towards a Roman Catholic ecclesiology. The road to papism was a slow development over many centuries.

[@rickydettmer2003]

@JW kind of like how the apostolic fathers weren’t sola scriptura, that too was gradual