Catholicism and Protestantism (Middle Third of Same Video)

Catholicism and Protestantism : Ecclesiology and Justification (1/3 of Video) · Catholicism and Protestantism (Middle Third of Same Video) · Last Third of the Video on Catholic / Protestant

4:57 Your OT parallel won't wash for two reasons.

1) The temple was not teaching a wrong interpretation of the Torah. It's not how Protestants see Pope Leo X, historically. It's how Catholics see that extra young Pope who invoked Jove and Venus, because he loved to party. I think he was Pope three times over. Obviously his going astray doesn't equal misleading magisterium or that the magisterium is not infallible. If that pope ever made a magisterial pronouncement, God certainly protected him from error in it, but he found it boring, and went back to partying. That's a very fair parallel to such OT priests or kings going astray. Let's say the canon is in OT times about what scrolls are in a particular basket in the temple. Such people were not misrepresenting the canon, they were simply staying away from that basket (the example may be anachronistic, I don't think that basket existed before Ezra, with 22 books, and a later expansion in Maccabee times).
2) The Old Covenant could be intermittent, the New Covenant can't. Deuteronomy 28 spells out a conditional covenant. Matthew 28 spells out an absolute and unchanging one.

5:12 Popes have received corrections from prophets like those in the OT.

Sts. Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Siena.

[Today too, a comment has to be remade, if possible, because the delay in "rolling" and disappearance when the page is renewed.]

5:27 "but clearly the Pharisees were not infallible"

False. They were sharing the infallibility of Ezra, much like the Holy Office has been sharing the infallibility of Pope Paul III.

When Jesus said "do as they say" He was in fact implying they were infallible — that obeying them (as long as the Old Testament still lasted) could absolutely not hurt.

The idea "they were not infallible" obviously is supposed to mean "they were not infallible, the way Catholics think the Church is infallible" ... which leaves the question very open to ask : what do you think Catholics mean by the Church being infallible, if you can say the Pharisees were not infallible?

5:43 "likewise"

No. The OT kings and priests who were falling to Baal worship of extorsion from widows, they were not making use of their infallibility and therefore not sullying it. They were not parallels to how Protestants see Leo X condemning Martin Luther (first his theses and then his person, two different bulls), they were parallels to how Catholics see that boy Pope who was certainly draining Roman prostitution resources into his chamber and was rumoured to have also invoked Roman "gods" .... if he ever used his magisterium, it was infallible, God saw to it that it was. In fact, if he ever did, he was bored and went back to his antics. And he was replaced by a saint, if I place him correctly in time.

5:59 "Protestantism is a continuation ..."

When the Reformers could say things like Church Councils have made false definitions? They were cutting themselves off from the credal content of previous generations of Catholics, so the pretence they were continuing Catholicism is rot.

6:15 Jesus actually used different canons depending on whom He responded to.

You cannot say that his use of the Pharisaic canon proves it correct, if He used it in relation to the Pharisees.

Precisely as the Torah only canon of the Sadducees doesn't become correct because He used it in relation to Sadducees.

Nor can you say, like, if He never quoted Maccabees, He didn't use it. He celebrated the Feast of Dedication, which is about Maccabees. You can't pretend Esther is not canonical even if Purim is not mentioned, so if Hanukkah is mentioned, so much more should you conclude He used Maccabees.

6:20 Jesus gave authority to the Apostles. That far, we agree.

In Matthew 28:20, He extended the authority to their successors.

This means, if the Apostles were infallible, they also had infallible successors.

It is through the infallible successors that we have a complete and exclusive list of NT books.

Neither Luke nor Paul nor Mark were of the twelve, and both James and John as hagiographers have different bids on being sons of Zebedee or otherwise.

In modern times James is seen as the Theadelph rather than as the son of Zebedee, which he was considered in Medieval times. Fr. Jean Colson published a thesis saying that the Johannine corpus, by the beloved disciple, is by someone other than John the son of Zebedee, arguably by a Cohen disciple of Christ.

But even if not just Peter and Jude, not forgetting Matthew, but also both James and John were of the twelve, that leaves seven of the twelve with no writings in the NT. Where do we get the testimony of Andrew or of Simon the Zealot? Is there an epistle of Nathanael? An Apocalypse of Matthias? The answer is, some of the apostles have falsely been credited with works that are spurious, and this has been sifted away by infallible Church authority. Likewise, it has put on the same rank as writings by the twelve that are genuine the writings of Sts. Mark, Luke and Paul. Likewise, it has preserved authentic tradition from apostles like Matthias or Andrew, even if they didn't write NT books.

This takes care of the idea that the extension in time would be to their writings rather than successors, if you were intending to come from that angle.

Rusty Shackleford

@POCKET-SAND

Yes, but the Apostles were not infallible. Let us not forget that Peter was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter, who was among the first to be called by Jesus and implied to be senior Apostle of the Twelve was veering astray and had to be corrected by Paul, who was not called until much later. If the Apostles were not infallible, then their successors could not have been either.

The scripture being infallible has not so much to do with the hand that wrote it, but of it being done through divine inspiration.

The problem of believing both the Apostles and their successors can be infallible will lead to contradiction. The Catholics are seeing this now. Francis has called for the church to now bless homosexual unions, even though Paul told us homosexuality is a sin in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Blessing the union would be blessing sin. Because Francis (who, as pope, is considered to be a successor to the Apostles by Catholics) is pushing for a practice that goes against what was told to us by Paul, there is a contradiction between the church and the scripture. So both of these men cannot be infallible, one of them has to be wrong regarding this.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@POCKET-SAND There are a few problems with your proposal.

1) It is not sure that Cephas in Galatians 2 is the Apostle Peter.
2) If it was, it does not concern his infallibility, since it was about the example he gave, not any direct use of his teaching authority.
3) Catholics do not necessarily hold that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is really "Pope Francis" and as such successor of St. Peter.
4) Those who do are not unanimous about what Fiducia Supplicans means (though, considering him a modernist Anglican, or very close, a non-Catholic, I think the heterodox interpretation is in fact likely).

Above all. Without an infallible teaching authority, how does a book get recognised as inspired?

Rusty Shackleford

@hglundahl We are pretty sure that Paul is referring to Peter as Cephas, as it was not only Paul that called Peter Cephas. In many translations, the Lord himself refers to him as Cephas in the John 1:42 - "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas' (which is translated Peter)"

This is because "Peter" and "Cephas" mean the same thing. Peter means "stone" in Greek while Cephas means "stone" in Aramaic.

And aside from that, we could also look back to the Gospels where the Lord told Peter that he shall deny Him three times before the rooster crows. Peter goes on to do just that, showing he was capable of making mistakes and being wrong.

And I would argue Galatians 2:11-14 does regard the teachings of Peter, certainly his behavior if we are to learn by example. The verses tell us that he would eat with Gentiles but later withdrew from them following the arrival of Jewish men from James. In fact the verses made it clear that this action by Peter caused others following him to also withdraw from the Gentiles, which Paul rightfully points out as hypocrisy and contrary to the mission of the Apostles to spread the Word.

As for Pope Francis, could you explain to me that one? He certainly was elected to be the Pope by the Cardinals in accordance with Catholic procedure. And since Catholics also believe the Pope is to be a successor to the Apostles, then Francis, as duly elected Pope, would be considered a successor.

The Apostles, or any of the authors of the books of the New Testament, do not need to be infallible in order to have been divinely inspired when writing the books. I admit to you that is a difficult question, but we must understand that no man can be infallible, because no man is without sin. Jesus did give them authority, but He never declared them infallible, or incapable of making errors. He Himself pointing out a few of their errors during His time with them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@POCKET-SAND "the Lord himself refers to him as Cephas"

He did so in an Aramaic context. Cephas means rock in Aramaic. The Galatians spoke Greek, probably Celtic too. In chapter 1, St. Paul had called the Apostle Peter.

"we could also look back to the Gospels where the Lord told Peter that he shall deny Him three times before the rooster crows"

Catholics don't claim popes are impeccable, but infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

"certainly his behavior if we are to learn by example."

A saint can become a pope, a pope a saint. But teaching by speech and writing is foremost for popes, teaching by example is for saints. The two categories do not necessarily coincide. "Came from James" ... James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, = it''s not certain that James was the bishop of Jerusalem, or an apostle at all.

"He certainly was elected to be the Pope by the Cardinals in accordance with Catholic procedure."

Catholics have taught that to be Pope, you need to be Catholic. A heretic is ineligible, even if the heresy is so far secret, and the cardinals to a large extent were already heretics, since a few decades.

"do not need to be infallible in order to have been divinely inspired when writing the books."

Divine inspiration makes them infallible for the books, inerrant as well.

"no man can be infallible, because no man is without sin."

Non sequitur. Jonah sinned against charity against the men God was sending him to and against obedience against God. He was nevertheless inerrant as well as infallible when writing the book.

Generally "infallible" doesn't refer to one's whole life, it refers to a specific limited set of utterances.

"but He never declared them infallible,"

I'd say a close reading of Luke 10:16 and of Matthew 28:16 — 20 argues the contrary.

Rusty Shackleford

@hglundahl There is debate on why Paul referred to Peter as Cephas in those verses. One explanation I heard is that it ties into the rebuking, with Paul deliberately calling him his Aramaic name to point out that Peter had reverted back to the Jewish way of thinking (by staying away from the Gentiles when Jewish men arrived when he previously ate with them). However, we know that Paul was still most likely talking about Peter in Galatians 2:11-14.

To be infallible means to be without error, in fact, to be incapable of making an error. The Bible is infallible, but the writers of the Bible are not, but they did not need to be because it was through divine inspiration they they wrote these passages through the guidance of the Lord. And the Lord, of course, is infallible.

I disagree with the idea that infallibility can be applied selectively or within certain contexts. In this sense, something can either be infallible, or not infallible. The Lord is always infallible, not sometimes or within certain contexts. In the case of the Scripture, divine inspiration does not make the writers infallible, it makes the books infallible. So if you regard a pope to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, than it is actually ex cathedra that you regard to be infallible, the pope wouldn't be because he could also say something else that is wrong.

But we are talking about Peter, who was both a Saint and (according to the Catholics) the first Pope. So if what you say is true, then both teaching through writing and by example would apply to him. And because there are examples of him making errors in the Scripture, he couldn't have been infallible.

If you believe that the pope and the cardinals are all heretics, which allowed for Francis to become pope, that makes it sound like the Catholic Church has become corrupted. To that, I would actually agree, though I believe it became corrupted long before any of the current cardinals took their positions.

Jonah was not infallible, the book was for the reasons I explained above.

In the case of Luke 10:16, Jesus is talking about them spreading His word. What He is saying to the 72 is clearly tied to the mission He had for them.

Matthew 28:16-20 is the same way. In verse 20, the Lord specified that they are to teach "all that I commanded you." This means that His word shall not apply should they attempt to teach anything that is not of Him. Both of these verses show that the Word of the Lord to be infallible rather than the messengers and Apostles sent out to spread it. Otherwise, Peter would not have been wrong in Galatians 2:11-14.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@POCKET-SAND "To be infallible means to be without error, in fact, to be incapable of making an error."

Including, in some uses of the word, in limited contexts.

"I disagree with the idea that infallibility can be applied selectively or within certain contexts."

Then you are wrong.

Peter was fallible when denying Jesus, and infallible when writing his two Epistles, as also when giving the Eucharistic liturgy to Rome.

"This means that His word shall not apply should they attempt to teach anything that is not of Him."

Oh, definitely. That's why it doesn't apply to Caerularius of Constantinople when he was wrong about the matter of the Eucharist.

However, that there is a specific Church that always is doing so follows from His promise in the last verse.

@POCKET-SAND The Catholics who agree with you about the identity of Cephas in Galatians 2 would also say, the fault he was reproached for was a temporary backsliding, and he immediately showed his sanctity by accepting the reproach even from an inferior, i e from St. Paul.

In other words, they say he got very quick about going back to teaching by example too.

A saint is usually not someone who never did anything wrong, but one who regretted everything wrong that we know of or that God thought worthwhile to care about.

Rusty Shackleford

@hglundahl To my knowledge, it is only the Roman Church that sees infallibility in that way. To everyone else, even other churches, something can be infallible or fallible, there no in-between or exceptions. Uses of the word that entail this line of thinking are almost exclusively used in Catholic contexts.

Because of this, Peter was never infallible, his Epistles were because they were written through divine inspiration. Without it, they would not have been infallible because Peter was not infallible. And he certainly did correct himself after Paul rebuked him, but he still made the error. And he probably would not have corrected himself if Paul never rebuked him.

The Bible gives authority to many things. It gives authority to parents in Colossians 3:20, among other places (including the 10 Commandments). It gives authority to governments in Romans 13:1. Yet nowhere does it declare anything that it gives authority to to be infallible, nor does it appear to regard infallibility as something that has conditions. So when the Lord gives authority to His messengers, infallibility applies to only to His Word. The messengers themselves, which include the Apostles, are not infallible because of this.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@POCKET-SAND "it is only the Roman Church that sees infallibility in that way."

Check out the Greek or generally Eastern Orthodox.

They don't believe infallibility resides in the pope as pope, but they do believe it resides in an ecumenical council as ecumenical council.

And check out who's most numerous on this earth. The stats I give can be old, but as I recall them:

• half the Christians are Catholics
• of the remainder, one third are Orthodox
• of the remainder after that, one third are Anglican / Episcopalian.

I think even the latter will accord infallibility to the six or seven first councils.

"Without it, they would not have been infallible because Peter was not infallible."

The inspiration made him so in the epistles. If X writes Y, you cannot pretend Y is infallible, unless you agree X is infallible when writing Y. Another infallible instance that's necessary for Scripture is involved in the Church recognising a writing as Apostolic and therefore Word of God.

If you had said Peter was not infallible in and of his own person, you'd have been right. He was so in his office as Pope and in his office as Hagiographer.

"And he certainly did correct himself after Paul rebuked him, but he still made the error."

Don't push it. Your explanation of why it says Petros in chapter 1 and Cephas in chapter 2 relies on unwritten traditions, which unlike ours have not been early written down. St. Clemens the Stromatist disagrees, he says it was NOT Peter in chapter 2. And using Aramaic all through would hardly have been "withstanding him to the face" in an open manner.

"It gives authority to parents in Colossians 3:20, among other places (including the 10 Commandments). It gives authority to governments in Romans 13:1. Yet nowhere does it declare anything that it gives authority to to be infallible,"

That's different. We may certainly be obliged to resist parents or state, because they go wrong.

"So when the Lord gives authority to His messengers, infallibility applies to only to His Word."

If infallibility applies to His word, it applies to His messengers when correctly giving His word. And by the way, the Catholic / Protestant divide is not on whether Bishops or even Popes can err. It is on whether error on the part of a Bishop or Pope is ever allowed the status of what we presume as infallibility, or is ever allowed the opportunity to eat out the truth. In the latter case, the promise of "all days" has been broken.

6:26 "only the prophets and apostles are infallible"

Noting you implicitly removed Esther, Paralipomenon, and Gospels of Mark and Luke from the canon, by denying Apostles and Prophets any succession that partake in their infallibility.

6:45 Oops ... you quoted St. Ignatius to the Romans of all texts!

"Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave. But once I have suffered, I shall become a freedman of Jesus Christ, and, united with Him, I shall rise a free man."

IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS
https://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/321/texts/ignatius_romans.htm

The problem is, you are forgetting that he was simply acknowledging his jurisdiction had been in Antioch, not in Rome, and unlike that of the Apostles, also not everywhere. He was basically respecting Roman primacy.

[Was removed, so I failed to add the following:]

He could also be acknowledging that, while a captive, his giving orders might be liable to be misused by his captors (whether in spying in affairs he deals with or in pressuring him to wrongful orders).

"I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave"