Dr. Cooper on Manning, My Reply

The Primary Reason Why I Am Not Convinced by Roman Catholic Claims
Dr. Jordan B Cooper | 3 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr7QS8zsuVw

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

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?

[The following two were censored]

7:03 It seems to me, as long as you are "evaluating claims" you are in the position of ... Festus.

Or an as yet unbaptised Jew of the synagogue of Beroea. Which by the way is an early part of the bishopric of Thessalonica. Yes, the Jews in that Synagogue seem to have converted like a man, or at least there is a very old parish of the bishopric of Thessaloniki (as they say now) in Veria (as they say now).

I don't mean claims about specific credenda which are free or at least have an appearance of freedom (Pius XII gave more freedoms than he disposed over to Evolutionists in 1950). I mean claims about what a Christian has to follow simply to be a Christian.

Once one is a Christian, one is either backing or repudiating such a claim, like I back the claim of papacy, like I repudiate the claim of sola fide (when it comes to staying justified).

7:53 I'm sorry, but are you basing your evaluation of Catholicism on Newman and Manning?

Incidis in Scyllam, si vis vitare Charybdim or sth?

A saner convert wrote a book with a quote "One God, One Lord, One Baptism" as title, and he was even arguing:

• bishop in the times when NT was written referred to what we call priest
• what we call bishop had no unitary word in the NT (apostle, evangelist, angel and a few more refer to bishops).

In other words, his point is, the Catholic dogma is found as believed in the NT, it's just that one has to dig a little deeper, and not get stuck on surface similarities of terminology.

I made a similar point about the necessity of apostolic succession (episcopal pedigree, like Pope Michael I had pedigree from Duarte Costa, after reconciling thitherto schismatic bishops to the Church) by stating, the early CCFF were not actually talking of this, they were talking of the series pastorum. Why? Because episcopal pedigree from the apostles is nonsense? No, because they were talking of the refutation of heretics. Maybe already some heretics had valid orders, as certainly was the case later (Nestorius). But one bishop ruling five years in a row before the next takes over in the same diocese is more visible than who was on a given day consecrating whom.

But the NT is describing episcopal pedigree of those having consecration from St Timothy going back via St. Paul to Simon Niger, via Simon Niger to the Apostles (unless Simon Niger was a temporary pseudonym for the chief apostle, as one CF claimed).