Answering Jayni Jackson

The One Question That Shuts Down the Catholic and Orthodox ‘Authority’ Trap
Jayni Jackson | 16 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02FmU-NfmkE

3:05 Seing he had already done that once before, at the beginning of His Ministry, the priests certainly had thought of that.

9:38 "every Christian has a mandate to read the Bible for himself"

From Jesus or from Luther?

10:11 So glad you asked.

Under the authority of Moses. For instance Deuteronomy 13.

I'm not sure whether a representative of the Sanhedrin was among the Beroeans, but the duty of them to reject a false prophet is parallel to that of stoning a false prophet.

So, the Beroeans acted under the authority of the Old Law.

Jayni Jackson

@jaynijackson

@hglundahl That’s an interesting point, and it actually reinforces the very argument I’m making. If the Bereans were acting under the authority of the Mosaic Law, as you say, then their standard was still Scripture, not institutional tradition. Deuteronomy 13 doesn’t say “trust your leaders no matter what”—it says to test the prophet’s words against God’s revealed commands. If what they preach contradicts God’s Word, they are to be rejected—even if they come with signs and wonders.

That’s exactly what the Bereans did with Paul. They heard him preach and didn’t say, “He’s an apostle, so we must accept it.” They went home, opened the Scriptures, and tested him. That’s the heart of the point: authority doesn’t override the need for discernment, and discernment must be anchored in the Word of God.

So whether you say they were acting under Moses or under general covenant responsibility, the takeaway is the same. Even an apostle was not above being examined. That’s not rebellion; it’s faithfulness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jaynijackson "then their standard was still Scripture, not institutional tradition."

Not quite. Non-Cohanim reading Scripture was not foreseen by Scripture, at least not the law of Moses, which stpiulated the High Priest had to read the law to the people once every seven years.

"Deuteronomy 13 doesn’t say “trust your leaders no matter what”—it says to test the prophet’s words against God’s revealed commands."

Catholicism doesn't say "trust your leaders no matter what" ... the command is immediately adressed to the leaders. However, in the time of Ezra these had stipulated that people who were interested should be studying the law even if they weren't priests or scribes. That's the foundation of the Pharisees.

"If what they preach contradicts God’s Word, they are to be rejected—even if they come with signs and wonders."

Roman Catholicism agrees. It's primarily the responsibility of ecclesia docens, that is Popes, Bishops of Dioceses, sui juris Abbots (and I think also generals of some orders like the Jesuits and Opus Dei).

"That’s exactly what the Bereans did with Paul."

Who was so far not one of their leaders. He was recognised as an Apostle by the Christians. He was recognised as "one of those Christians" by the Beroeans.

"They heard him preach and didn’t say, “He’s an apostle, so we must accept it.”"

Because they weren't accepting Apostles of Jesus in the first place, so far.

"They went home, opened the Scriptures, and tested him."

Who says they went home and opened the Scriptures there? I take it that Sts. Paul and Luke and a few more heard every part of the testing, as it was an openly conducted debate.

"authority doesn’t override the need for discernment,"

Cannot be the point, because St. Paul was at this point not yet an authority to them.

"and discernment must be anchored in the Word of God."

Indeed. And primarily in its continuity of the Christian faith, be conducted by clergy. The Beroeans were obviously at a point of discontinuity, when changing leaders, from Sanhedrin to Apostles.

"Even an apostle was not above being examined."

No one, and also not the word of God, is above being examined by an honest enquirer not yet accepting the authority.

Beroean Jews had a right and duty to examine the authority of Christian Apostles before submitting to it. A modern atheist who is a scientist or an archaeologist, has a right and duty to examine Genesis 1 to 11 before submitting to the Torah, the Tanakh or the whole of the Christian Bible.

10:18 If the Pope should ever teach heresy, under the authority of Pope Paul IV and a few more we should conclude he is no Catholic and therefore no Pope.

There are also Church Fathers and ultimately Jesus for this move.

Now, a counterquestion. If I can detect an otherwise apparent Pope as teaching heresy, is it by contrast with what daddy heard in Catechism more than 60 years ago, or is it by contrast with what a highly learned man dug up as the Bible really meaning, even if no one ever heard of it, despite everyone reading the Bible, or what that highly learned man assures us the early Church did before Constantine?

10:39 No Catholic will say you have no right to believe the Bible.

The question is whether you have the right to interpret it.

If you say things like Ephesians 2:8 to 9 prove, not just justification without previous works meriting it (which we also believe), but also without an obligation to works from justification on, we could ask "who gave you authority to omit verse 10?"

If you say things like Matthew 16:18 having Jesus as the rock, we could ask you "and who gave you authority to omit verse 19?"

If furthermore we say Matthew 16:19 is a clear parallel to Isaias 22:22 speaking of Eliacim, and you respond "nah, Peter and Eliacim are two different persons" we could ask "who gave you permission to interpret the OT as if it were not about Jesus?"

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Did you note: "in all the scriptures"? ... all of the OT is about Himself.

Including the relation between the House of David (=Jesus Himself) and Eliacim (can you find a better candidate than Peter?)

10:51 You are aware that Beroeans were at that point not yet Christians?

11:13 An Apostle's teaching "was tested by the very word of God"' by people who had not yet accepted his authority as an Apostle.

This is not a blueprint for how Christians should behave to their pastors ...

11:24 F. F. Bruce is not an Apostle. Nor someone the Catholic Church accepts as a legitimate successor of them.

And, in this context, not someone that I see as very well analysing the situation of the Beroeans.

11:34 If what you are doing is discerning simply from the Scriptures you accept whether you should become Catholic, fine, you are following the Beroean model.

However, what it seems to me you are doing is looking for excuses to reject Catholic authority, which reminds me more of how some groups of Pharisees were dealing with Jesus.

Like "Beroean model" vs "Catholic model" ... won't fly. Bad excuse. While examining St. Paul they were not yet accepting him as authority, but they were open to it. They were like any Jew today asking if Catholicism fits the Torah ... and some conclude it does.

12:06 The dilemma you have painted falls apart.

Current Church teaching indeed has a standard to live up to (so, higher). 1) Bible. 2) Oral traditions codified in post-Biblical times. 3) Past Church teaching.

Biblically, whatever is the true Church has an assurance that this will not fall apart into contradictions. Matthew 28:20.

12:46 Found the quote:

5. But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case

St. Augustine is not arguing for indivudual Bible reading to decide individual belief. He's arguing to take a schism to the Bible, the one authority both parties claim to adher to.

A little later he goes on to warn against churches or interpretations found only in some nationalities:

But if the Church of Christ is delineated among all peoples with divine and most certain evidence of the canonical Scriptures, whatever they should bring to bear and whoever should read it should say Look! Here is the Messiah! Or, There he is! Let us rather hear, if we are his sheep, the voice of our pastor saying Do not believe it (Matth. XVIV, 23). Indeed, those individual churches are not found among many nations, where that Church is; but this Church, which is everywhere, is found even where they are. Therefore, we seek it in the holy canonical Scriptures.

Like if you go to Ethiopia, you are likier to find Catholics and Copts than Protestants. If you go to Austria, you are likelier to find Catholics and Protestants than Copts.

13:12 "not just to the clergy"

No, but principally. Timothy is selected as clergyman because he is expert on OT Scriptures. He's instructed on how to chose clergy:

Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime
[1 Timothy 3:9-10]

There are two criteria. Faith (to be judged by ordaining or consecrating bishop). Pure Conscience (to be judged by ordaining of consecrating bishop).

13:24 "the Beroeans weren't rabbis"

Did rabbis, as a distinct institution, even exist?

They were however Pharisees, i e students of the law, like Paul himself had been. They were not fishermen from Galilee.

14:15 No, there is nothing about either right or responsibility of weighing every single teaching of someone you already accept as your legitimate pastor ... unless you have reason to doubt he is such.

The key point is, Luke is describing the behaviour of Beroeans prior to becoming Christians, prior to accepting Paul as their authority.

The way you put it, it sounds as if Paul came in, held a speech, and then Beroeans at home verified. If that had been the case, how would Luke have known they verified? He obviously knew because they voiced the test criteria. "OK, but does this really match up with ...." and Paul answered.

This was not an ordinary occasion, it was a missionary one. Same problem that Sabbatarians have with the text, they think Paul worshipped mainly by preaching in the Synagogue. No, he worshipped at Holy Mass, on Sundays. He preached on Sabbaths, because he was a missionary. They voiced objections, because it was his duty to answer objections as a missionary.

14:44 "my allegiance is to Christ, and to Christ alone"

Can you source that in the Bible?

Daniel Kim

@danielkim672

Are you looking for a direct quote? Only Through Christ can we have salvation. Only Through Christ are we restored into relationship with God). Jesus is the Head of the Body, all Christians make up the Body, just like Jesus is the Head of the Church. And Just as Jesus is the Groom.

You will agree that God is explicitly taught to us to have allegiance in only God and to God alone. Jesus is God, so what is the issue with saying Christ Alone as well? The Spirit Alone? As just because he said Christ alone, doesnt imply Christ but not God or Holy Spirit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@danielkim672 "You will agree that God is explicitly taught to us to have allegiance in only God and to God alone."

Again, a written quote would be welcome.

You are here making a reasoning, a plea, and not giving a direct quote.

The allegiance of the Beroeans was not just to God and Moses on Sinai, but to all of what they had grown up in ... with a healthy conception that some of it could be temporary for up to the arrival of the Messiah.

Peace2U

@Peace2U-LM

@danielkim672 HELLO…. Whom ever hears you hears Me!

Daniel Kim

@Peace2U-LM sorry, not understanding your point

Daniel Kim

@hglundahl What type of verse are you looking for?

Exodus 20 And God spoke all these words, saying,

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God,

Deuteronomy 6:5 is only for God. Is there any teaching to give this to Moses?

In Isaiah 45:23. Is anyone bowing to Moses? Or any other human like we all will do for God? The only one everyone of God will swear allegiance to is God alone.

23 By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:

‘To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

Peace2U

@danielkim672 Luke 10:16. Jesus gave his authority to His church.

Daniel Kim

@Peace2U-LM Of course Jesus gives authority to His Church, He is the head of the Church. But I am not sure I agree with you that is what Luke 10:16, Jesus is teaching this. First, this is before the church is formed. Second, this power and authority is given to the 72 disciples that were sent out. That is a specific number and not all of the disciples of Jesus at the time were sent out nor given this authority. This was a special power and direct given at a specific time by Jesus.

Peace2U

@danielkim672 The 72 were taught and ordained priests before they were sent. This is parallel with the 72 priests under Aaron in the OT.

One was not to teach unless sent by the church. Jesus refined the OT Priesthood.

Daniel Kim

@Peace2U-LM I do not disagree with you regarding teaching others that there is extra responsibilities with teachers as that is what the Bible teaches. But how do you jump to 'one was not to teach unless sent by the church'? Again the church was not established yet and Jesus is sending these 72 out not the church. I do know where you are leading with this, but I disagree.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkim672 OK, if that's the standard of allegiance, yes.

But in ordinary life allegiance to a King doesn't mean you defy police officers because they are not personally the King himself.

So, the allegiance to God, to Jesus Who is God (thank you for sourcing "every knee shall bow" in the NT to Isaias, proving it is a statement of Jesus' Divinity) involves obedience to others than the King of Heaven Himself. Insofar as they act in His name, which the Apostles and their successors do.

@danielkim672 Jesus was, with His disciples, in the last 3 1/2 years before the New Covenant, dress rehearsing the Church.

The hierarchy that He established before (72, 12, Peter above the rest in each case) remains in the Church afterwards.

This is especially obvious with Peter ("I will build my Church, I will give thee the keys" in Matthew 16, as well as with the 12 / 11 ("all power is given me" is adressed to them, if you look at Matthew 28:16, the intro verse to the passage).

Peace2U

@danielkim672 Because the scriptural name given as “Apostle” means one who is sent out. Only these men were empowered by the one who sent them. Others who also went out without being sent did not receive condemnation however, because they were not in succession of Jesus taught truths plus errors. This is why there were many heresies. The early church fathers “those taught by Apostles” wrote several letters which make clear the meaning of much that the CC teaches throughout the centuries. If one doesn’t adhere and instead assumes for himself he often teaches others errors.

@danielkim672 The church did exist in its infancy yet not fully developed. Christ gave His authority to forgive sins to his church in the upper room. It’s not always easy to recognize someone from their baby pictures lol. To many Christians do not understand many passages unless they are denotatively written. It’s a shame that the English words used to replace the ancient Koine Greek cause a loss of understanding.

TickettoRide!!

@TickettoRide-b8x

Apostle Paul — everything is but dung compared to knowledge of Christ. Philippians 3.

@Peace2U-LM YOU: The 72 were taught and ordained priests before they were sent.
ME: No. Jesus ordained them as traveling APOSTLES who were PREACHING the Good News of Jewish Messiah/Redeemer Jesus. PRIESTS are those that do rituals in the Jewish Temple, APOSTLES are traveling preachers (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 1:8, etc) — and Jesus' Apostles were to travel/preach ONLY to the JEWS — Matthew 10:5-6, etc

@danielkim672 YOU: But how do you jump to 'one was not to teach unless sent by the church'?
ME: Thats a false Roman belief — Acts 9:15-16 — and Paul immediately started preaching without any contact with the Church in Jerusalem — Acts 9:20. It is GOD that gives the Holy Spirit GIFT of any particular ministry: preaching, apostle, teacher, etc — the church has nothing to do with it. 1Corinth 12.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TickettoRide-b8x Compared to, yes, but if in relation to, no.

@TickettoRide-b8x "PRIESTS are those that do rituals"

Pertaining to a covenant, a sacrifice.

In the words of Institution, Jesus describes the chalice as a new covenant which is eternal, and in Malachi 1:11, the OT prophet describes a food offering as the sacrifice by which God's Name is Holy among the Gentiles.

But this question goes beyond the scope of the video, since the video is supposed to defend Sola Scriptura.

"Paul immediately started preaching without any contact with the Church in Jerusalem"

Not without any contact with Ananias, who already belonged to the Church, and the preaching in Acts 9:20 was a proclamation of a miracle witness, not ordinary doctrinal preaching. By the time Paul and Barnabas set fourth as teachers, they clearly are sent by the Church, and more specically ordained, see Acts 13.

@TickettoRide-b8x "It is GOD that gives the Holy Spirit GIFT of any particular ministry: preaching, apostle, teacher, etc — the church has nothing to do with it. 1Corinth 12."

Looking up the passage about the Spirit giving, that's about charismatic gifts, not about offices in the Church.

TickettoRide!!

@hglundahl YOU: not about offices in the Church
ME: LOL. It IS about offices in the church — see 1Corinth 12:27-28. Apostle, teacher...... Other offices such as Deacons/Bishops or those with other ministries such as "service", are voted on by the entire congregation/disciples based on certain qualifications (Acts 6:2-5) — such as Bishops MUST be married with well disciplined children in order to be QUALIFIED — 1Timothy 3:4-5. Sometimes it's even the least esteemed in the congregation that makes binding decisions — 1Corinth 6:4. The Roman hierarchy is NOT the Ekklesia/Church -- ekklesia means "congregation of believers, assembled believers, the called out ones".

Chris

@FreeTans239

Mat 10:34-39

TickettoRide!!

@FreeTans239 Matthew 15:1-9, 2Timothy 3:15-17

Chris

@TickettoRide-b8x what’s your point?

TickettoRide!!

@FreeTans239 That like Jesus, we are to use Scripture to CORRECT false doctrines of religious leaders (2Timothy 3:15-17) and to REJECT the added traditions of religious leaders (Matthew 15:1-9) — which will cause our friends and family to be our enemies (Matthew 10:34-36) — but if we are not willing to leave our families/friends to follow the truth of Jesus Christ, we are not worthy of Jesus (Matthew 10:37-39).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TickettoRide-b8x "see 1Corinth 12:27-28. Apostle, teacher"

In that exact passage it is "God has set" and doesn't specify how. The immediate context of "the Spirit ... according as he will" has been first replaced by the analogy of the body before coming to the point of a diversity of ministries, also known as hierarchy.

BOTH the charismatic gifts AND the body parts were leading up to this.

"are voted on by the entire congregation/disciples based on certain qualifications"

Your example from Acts 6 involved a very holy congregation. Not necessarily a model for how deacons are chosen hereafter, especially not an obliging model in case of a less holy congregation.

"such as Bishops MUST be married with well disciplined children in order to be QUALIFIED"

There is no requirement of marriage, just a maximum of wife as only one. Equally, there is no requirement of having children, just that if one has, they must be well educated.

1 Cor. 6:4 is actually not giving a regular hierarchic decision making, but making an outrageous proposal in the midst of a quarrel. It's not necessary the decision was binding simply because of them making it, it may have been confirmed by more responsible, but the decision delegated to the least esteemed in order to avoid a quarrel within the set of the most responsible.

"The Roman hierarchy is NOT the Ekklesia/Church"

Thanks for showing your fondness of strawmen. We believe that all believers ARE the Church, and the Church HAS a hierarchy, just as She did back then.

@TickettoRide-b8x "we are to use Scripture to CORRECT false doctrines of religious leaders (2Timothy 3:15-17)"

In 2 Tim 3, St. Paul was not instructing St. Tim to correct anything in "religious leaders" since he had already made St. Tim THE leader of Ephesus.

"to REJECT the added traditions of religious leaders (Matthew 15:1-9)"

That's not an "added tradition" in the Protestant sense, that's a simple compromise to make certain choices easier, like if your dad wanted to waste the perfume box on someone you didn't like (like Jesus).

What you need to look out for is not "anything in Roman Catholicism that you aren't used to finding in the Bible and therefore need to regard as an added tradition", but a recent compromise about choices that recently have become hard.

"if we are not willing to leave our families/friends to follow the truth of Jesus Christ, we are not worthy of Jesus (Matthew 10:37-39)."

Hence the duty to convert to Catholicism, even if some family members oppose it.

15:43 The Beroeans were pretty close to at least first year theology students and they were at the point described not being faithful to Jesus Whom they hadn't accepted yet, but to Moses.

16:04 When they consulted the Scriptures, it is very arguable they also consulted the Oral Torah, as still not yet adulterated among them by rejection of Christ, as it was going to be.

17:24 They discerned under the authority of Moses.

Daniel Kim

@danielkim672

Under the authority of Moses? Why would a dead Moses have authority over people thousands of years later? Under whose authority is and was Moses? Did Moses create the Ten Commandments or God? Did Moses create the Levitical Laws or God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@danielkim672 God set the law up through Moses. This means Moses had authority.

The specific Pharisaic habit of non-cohanim and non-levites studying the law was set up by Ezra, under the authority of Ezra and so of Moses. It was not a requirement under the law of Moses, which only prescribed every seventh year the High Priest should read all of the law to all of the people.

In fact, one could in a sense say, they were even acting under the authority of the priests in the temple, but those priests (unless St. John the Gospeller was among them) were mainly apostates by rejecting Jesus, so, the authority of their persons being annulled, it devolves back to Ezra and Moses.

The point is, the Beroeans were acting, not simply under the authority of a written text, but of a whole ecclesial arrangement, that of the old law as it was in this Second Temple period. They were not braving a system to make personal Bible study their rule. They were hearing about a change of the system and checking whether it was warranted from within the Old Covenant, all of it, not just bare texts.

@danielkim672 You also miss that Jesus told the Pharisees "Moses will judge you" — Our Lord didn't think Moses lost authority by dying.

Daniel Kim

@hglundahl I will ask you for the verse here. I think I know what you are referring to but want to make sure.

The Law of Moses, was it Moses that gave that Law any power or GOD?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkim672 God gave the law and its human author Moses authority under Himself.

Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.
[John 5:45]

This means, Moses still has authority.

Either way, whether they were right or wrong that Moses had authority, they were acting under the authority of the law, specifically I would say Deuteronomy 13, the grave duty of rejecting false prophets.

The Beroeans were certainly NOT yet acting within the New Covenant or under the authority of St. Paul. Just as the Old Covenant didn't foresee you could defy a direct order by the High Priest by appealing to the law of Moses as written, so the New Covenant doesn't foresee you can defy an Apostle once you accept him as such or even just double-check him.

17:35 We should reject a heretical office holder or apparent holder as not Catholic and not office holder, on the authority of the teaching of the Gospel as it came down to our fathers within living memory.

If everyone within living memory in the Catholic Church had been decidedly Heliocentric, I would have no right to stay aloof from an apparent Pope who in 1992 said "Galileo was right" which he wasn't.

Fernand Crombette was Geocentric and Young Earth Creationist, and he died in 1970, two years after I was born. No one was telling him "no, you can't" ... because no such outrageous decision was taken prior to 1992.

So, I reject Wojtyla for 1992 bc Fernand Crombette is within living memory and because no previous Pope in an official statement adressed to all the earth's Catholics had come out as decidedly either Heliocentric or Old Earth. Pius XII did come out as Old Earth in 1951, but only in a document adressed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

[Comments posted after this previous one are invisible under the video.]

18:51 No, when I belong to Jesus, I'm already beyond the stage of the Beroeans who were at that point only disciples of Moses.

Jesus did NOT ask us to believe Him without any human institution as evidence, if human means consisting of human beings and visible in human affairs.

If Jesus told Apostles to teach all peoples, He expected all peoples to hear the Apostles. Not just critically, while deciding, but uncritically once they had decided.

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
[Luke 10:16]

I am a convert. My confirmation sponsor was a convert. His confirmation sponsor was also my friend, and his reason for converting was :

How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things
Romans 10:14-15]

In other words, we are NOT just supposed to believe Jesus because Jesus, but because credible human testimony which comes through the Church and refers to the Church.

19:56 "we all need reformation at some point"

We don't all need reformation at the same point in time. When Rome was as corrupt as Luther saw it (after that, St. Filip Neri is counted as Third Apostle of Rome), Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros made sure that Toledo was not corrupt.

When Poland needed cleansing from Lutheran errors, Rome was already OK again (one ancestor of Lewis XVI on the side of his Polish ancestors became a Lutheran, his son became Catholic again).

20:17 "who are the Beroeans to test Paul's word?"

So far, while doing so, still un-Christian.

20:36 In some cases one can.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
[2 Peter 3:16]

Note that in the previous words, St. Paul was not supposed to be scrutinised according to the OT (St. Peter was not adressing Beroeans before their conversion), but adherred to:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you
[2 Peter 3:15]

— Yes, but Romans 2:4 is different, that's Scripture!
— OK, how were they supposed to know it was Scripture if no one told them?

This by the way confirms that Peter was writing to Romans, he was near the Tiber, not near Euphrates.

But the point is, the easiest way for Romans to know the Epistle to the Romans was Scripture was, because Peter said so.

20:46 Can you point to any Pope prior to John XXIII doing so?

By the way, when Daniel cites Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus as adoring the true God, are they using the tetragrammaton name, or is Daniel interpreting their use of Nebo or of Ahura Mazda?

Just in case you should find one.

21:20 He is certainly not teaching obvious Catholic tradition.

The Catholic position would normally be, the Muslims have a correct philosophical grasp on what God is, but not a correct theological grasp on Who God Is.

22:05 I think pretty much all of your video has been challenging Catholicism on credentials instead of truth claims.

So, the question, why do we challenge your credentials can be answered: how do you know you are not one of the unstable and unlearned who twist the Scriptures.

If any Catholic would like to ask me that, I'd answer "I checked with Aquinas and Church Fathers on essential or doctrinal points, I just provide technical solutions" ....

24:18 As you asked for challenges, feel welcome to mine!

---

De Unitate Ecclesiae: On the Unity of the Church by Augustine
on the site Semper Reformanda
https://www.semperreformanda.com/de-unitate-ecclesiae-on-the-unity-of-the-church-by-augustine/

Une vision de la Création et du monde antique conforme aux Livres saints
Le savant de Dieu FERNAND CROMBETTE Un catholique français
https://ceshe.fr/loeuvre-dun-catholique-francais-fernand-crombette/

Also available in English: just click the button English (UK) or English (US) whichever you are more familiar with, and it will translate without changing the URL. If on first click it shows in your language and you would want to check the French, click the button Français.