For deep dives no one does it quite like Reason & Theology. Michael Lofton, Erick Ybarra and Elijah Yasi are excellent. Thank you so much for having them on. I'm loving all these crossover episodes haha!
I saw Michael Lofton on Pints w Aquinas channel. I learned a lot, got good clarification, but this is EXACTLY what is needed. This is clarity! I cannot thank both gentlemen enough. I will be directing others to this video. . What a most relevant and desperately needed service you have both provided. God bless you both.
As a Catholic who struggles with the faith, I have found this really edifying. I would love to hear the conversation on development of doctrine. I struggle with the development that seems to be organic from scripture and what seems to be later (ie Marian, purgatory, etc). I continue to be so edified by your content. Not just the Catholic information and guests, but also learning about other branches of the Christian faith.
@@nicolentwiga7049 Hi ! Please refer to the following link which contains the writings of the Early Church Fathers showing what the early Church believed in. Please check it out. Marian beliefs and Purgatory are in there. They are not later inventions staycatholic.com/early-church-fathers/
Nicole read the Bible. I understand your struggles with the Marian doctrine. Such the pepetua virginity of Mary and her been born sinless. I know the Bible and I use a Catholic one do not answer those questions. But think of it this way weather she stay a Virgin or not the rest of her life after Jesus was born. It does not matter. She was chosen by God as a vessel for him to be born in this earth. Her spirit is present with his son in heaven along with the appostles and those saints (people who live a life in faith and obidience to Christ). Mary and the saint interced in prayers for you and me. When you read the book of hebrew in the Bible talks about the cloud of witness in heave. This cloud of withness referr to Mary and the saints I mention above. In the book of revelation you read how the take our prayers to God and the saint of heaven present them to him. About purgatory you will not find in the New testament any place specifically call purgatory. In the old testament it was understood that the place of darkness in some instant was purgatory. Jesus and the disciple talk more of heaven and hell. I would advice to focus on loving Jesus, the Saints to help you live a faithful and moral life that is pleasing to God. Always growing in grace with the power of the Holy Spirit. Do not be afraid not of all will ever be perfect human completely sinless. At any time we can felt but when we confess our sins and turn back to Jesus, he is there to forgive us and continue to guide us. If you walk into another religion you will find sin and fallen people in the same way you find in the Catholic church. Do not abandon the faith. Believe other religion traditions sometimes can not be directly be find. Many people will give you a gospel with out holy traditions. They present you a gospel full of worldly traditions in many instant. Pray a ask our Savior Jesus to help you understand the gospel and what it is his mothers role and the saints in helping us in our prayers and walk with God. I will be praying for you my sisters in Christ. God Bless You!
I think Humanae Vitae is a good example of the Papacy "defining" doctrine that is implicit in scripture but required clarification based on modern medicine. Many Catholics were expecting that the birth control pill was going to be an allowable form of contraception. Pope Paul VI used the extraordinary magisterium to show that the Catholic teaching of the unitive and procreation nature of sexual intimacy was founded firmly in scripture.
Beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1930 and concluding with the wholesale embrace of the pill in the decade that followed its release, most Protestants moved away from agreement with the Catholic Church on this moral issue and never looked back - Protestants, acceptance of contraception has created unintended consequences-cohabitation and a growing acceptance of same-sex marriage - and also led to the acceptance of abortion. Most Protestant churches discourage divorce except as a last resort, but do not actually prohibit it through church doctrine. Pope Paul VI was right.
@@jebbush2527 yes its ordinary. In fact it's the pope explaining something in the ordinary and universal magisterium, aka making explicit something taught by all bishops in communion throughout the ages
You have excellent listening and interviewing skills. Your questions help clarify and simplify the often complex topics your guests are presenting. Thanks for sharing and I pray you will keep on doing videos in the future. God bless you!
Just finally got through the entire video and I am SO glad I watched the whole thing! Austin (and Michael), this was such an educational and edifying interview that I cannot thank you enough for it. After watching Fr. Josiah Trenham give his Orthodox perspective on Catholicism I thought it was critical that I get a counterpoint argument from a Catholic with a similar depth of education (Fr. Trenham has a doctorate and is an astute church historian). I was intending to join the Orthodox church, but their Divine Liturgy is inaccessible for me. The endless chanting and a Capella singing (with only the homily being spoken) for someone like me, with no musical talent nor inclination, makes for a long and dull worship service. I always leave feeling frustrated, with my soul undernourished. Went to my first Catholic mass the Monday before Christmas last year, and immediately fell in love. I thought I was going to have to accept "heresy" like the filioque, so that I could attend the Mass (which makes me feel incredible grace, blessing, and closeness to our Lord). But Michael made such a nice case for the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal infallibility that now I know I can be confirmed in the Latin church with no reservations! God has blessed me tremendously and, again, thank you Austin for your ministry. This isn't the first time you've made an incredibly positive impact on my spiritual journey. God bless you!
I've listened to Fr. Josiah as well when coming back to the Church from protestantism. I enjoyed the Orthodox perspective. He mentioned only two reasons why he couldn't go Roman Catholic. #1 Filoquoy, #2 Papal Authority. I think the reality is Papal Authority is "the" #1 issue for Protestants and Orthodox. My opinion... I too love the Catholic faith!
This is an interesting topic which is seldom explored properly in CZcams videos. It shows Austin putting in considerable thoughts in choosing the topics. Great choice!
@@GospelSimplicity i hope one day perhaps you can consider doing a topic "The history of the bible". Will be great if can invite both a Catholic/Protestant scholar eg Ryan Reeves
@@jeremiahong248 The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables, recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age, until writing was invented, and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down.. ''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years. Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these. This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna. The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil, but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.'' ..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet. That was the old Testament!
@@briendoyle4680, science has been around since before humans discovered how to create fire. According to the Oxford dictionary science is: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Just because humans hadn't developed a written language is irrelevant. Things happened before there were paintings on the walls of caves. Regarding God, by saying, "that humans invented him", are you denying the existence of God? If you are, I posit that it is not possible to make a definitive statement regarding the existence of a transcendent being.
Excellent interview! Enjoy the explanation of Michael and the questions posted by Austin. Well done!! I am a catholic and has fully enjoyed the talk. Appreciate Austin’s honesty and respect toward Catholicism and our theology.
This reminds me of when Edward snowden was on Joe rogan's Podcast where the host is completely silent almost the entire time and the guest keeps talking and talking but everybody keeps listening because what they're saying is so intriguing. 😆
I tried to digest everything before I realised there was too much on the plate. Like always, your effort has taught me about my own faith. Thanks and Godbless!
@@GospelSimplicity I think you know more about the Catholic faith than some Catholics do! Thank you for your openness and for doing these kinds of videos.
Wow! So much information! I’m definitely going to have to watch this a few more times! Thank you Austin for bringing these people to the for front to learn from! God bless your work!
This should be super interesting! I have really loved your content Austin and it has caused me to think much more critically about my beliefs. - from a possible future Moody student next year
Michael laid out the argument for the Magisterium quite well, especially the Papal Magisterium. He was surprisingly harsh on Eastern Orthodoxy at the end, however, and I was taken aback by his statement that if a Christian didn't accept the Papacy, that "this thinking ultimately leads to atheism." As an Orthodox Christian myself, I would love to see Austin interview someone such as Dr. Clark Carlton who has studied the Orthodox position on the Magisterium and can articulate the Orthodox position on it.
Great session lm loving this👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 Personally lm learning a lot from here. Will have to watch and listen to this again. THANK YOU!! bro Michael & Austin🙏🙏🏼🙏🏼
Austin, Thank you for another excellent video; I greatly enjoy your work and it is a blessing to many. I know your primary goal is to pursue ministry. As a secondary option, have you ever entertained becoming an educator? You seem to have a true love to pursue knowledge, research, study and learn. Likewise, you naturally share the information you have learned or are currently learning about. You are at ease speaking, well spoken, and convey your thoughts extremely well. I can easily envision you as a future college professor within a Christian environment.
Austin you do such a great job interview your guest of different religion tradition. You show a humble and Christ like spirit! Great Job! Many Blessing my brother in Christ!
Had never heard of the argument for the papacy based on Popes Agatho and Hormisdas and the ecumenical councils until came across Lofton's channel. Good stuff!
WOW! Lots of great information, thanks, Austin! I'll definitely check out Michael's channel. This reminded me of a CZcams video by Dr. Brant Pitre on the Jewish roots of the Papacy. In it, Dr. Pitre mentions Isaiah 22:15-25 and how it relates to the keys and the authority of Peter. Another item of interest was the letter of Pope Agatho. I Googled, "Pope Agatho letter" and the letter can be read at the Catholic Encyclopedia website. I'll just say that introductions of letters written in the 7th century are lengthy to say the least. It is quite an interesting letter, particularly the part where he reaffirms the Trinitarian doctrine. Thanks again!
This whole channel is somewhat of a "cyber-monastic cell"... The best thing is: Austin styles himself as a "neophyte", in the same boat with the rest of us, not as a didactic/teacher, but a fellow student. That is what makes this channel different and very VERY special.
That was very helpful. I loved his passion and his thoroughness. I want to add though that in Acts 15:12 after endless debates from the Apostles and the disciples Peter spoke "and the whole assembly fell silent."
@@RGTomoenage11 The old testament was already there. The letters of the new testament had been gathered together by the time the Roman state run religion showed up 400 yrs later. The CC takes responsibility for the bible, which is just another one of their many claims. Thats all the CC has , is claims.It claims only catholics get to heaven. It claims missing a mass church service is a mortal sin. Those two right there ought to be enough to tell you its just a scam.
Hey Austin I am Catholic but another knowledgeable person who is Orthodox to hear their side is Craig Truglia of Orthodox Christianity Theology. He has been on Reason and Theology quite a few times.
I just wanted to mention a few more Catholics that are just as knowledgeable as Michael Lofton. Those people are Erick Ybarra and William Albrecth. They are both on Reason and Theology a lot.
For me - in brief - the belief in the Eucharist as being the real presence (not simply symbolic) was the primary reason I rejected Protestantism - since it is clear that those early apostolic fathers who knew the apostles hold to the doctrine of the real presence - and the papacy was the primary reason I chose Catholicism over orthodoxy
The only thing about his explanation that probably needs to be clarified and raised up for discussion is when he stated that Scripture is even higher than Tradition/Church's teaching authority. (Please find Fr. Mitch Pacwa's explanation on the topic on YT) I am leaning towards Fr. Mitch's explanation when it comes to Scripture and Tradition, in which he explained that Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand, and that one cannot stand without the other. The reason is that the Lord Jesus Christ, during His earthly time and public ministry, did not exactly commission His apostles to write books or be authors. Instead, the Lord instituted a Church. The Lord taught His disciples His ways and commanded them to teach others- to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Tradition was already in place when the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, decided to put Christ's teaching into writing. The Church was able to recognize, select, and canonize the Scriptures by contrasting it to the Church's beliefs and living tradition received from Christ through apostolic succession. Therefore we can't really say that Scripture comes first (talking about the New Testament). Ultimately, it was the Church that came first, as instituted by Christ, and through it God gave the Scripture, through Apostolic Tradition.
I agreed they can't be repeated and go hand in hand. But oral tradition is not God breathed. Scripture is. Oral tradition is harder to identify. Scripture isn't. Characters like these make scripture the first place to consult when we ask if something is part of the deposit of faith. Then oral tradition.
@@ReasonandTheology Hi ! Sacred Traditions from AD 33 to AD 400 are part of divine revelation. They are on par with scriptures. Oral teachings is part of the Sacred Traditions and is GOD BREATHED as well. Why ? John 21 :25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. 2 Thessolonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you,whether by word of mouth or by letter 1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. Not all traditions are Sacred and on par with scriptures. Anything after AD 400 the time of the Early Church Fathers is excluded. The Apostolic Fathers were taught the Apostles and their disciples like Timothy and Mark. They knew what Christ taught which were not written down. The letters that epistles were written to address certain issues in various local churches and not meant to be a set of instruction manual. So there are teachings by Jesus not written down and hence form part of the oral teachings. What are the oral teachings then ? The set of beliefs of the early Church fathers staycatholic.com/early-church-fathers/ This is why Catholics aren't Sola and SoLO scriptural czcams.com/video/mTBud-9Vlzo/video.html czcams.com/video/elINGUpOcTo/video.html
@Brian Farley I am distinguishing between oral tradition that was codified aka scripture and oral tradition that remains oral. The latter is not god breathed but is revealed by the apostles and guided and infallible.
@Brian Farley bc scripture itself records instances in which god revealed things to prophets and spoke by them yet we would not contend they were god breathed otherwise we would have them in the canon.
How did Paul get his authority if not by the apostles selected directly from Christ? Honest question. I know some people who are skeptical of Paul’s epistles due to him not being selected in the same way that the 12 were. Would he be the 13th apostle and the only one who claims his apostleship through private revelation?
I talked to your interviewee a few years ago during the period he described as having received bad formation and dabbling in Orthodoxy. A frustrating experience. That said, I'm glad to see he's moved out of that phase. And this interview was really good. I want to highlight one thing he said about the stakes involved about whether the magesterium is true. He noted that Theism, or perhaps a form of Protestantism would be the next most viable option. I think Protestantism would be the next most viable option, but as he alludes to, it would be a different sort of Protestantism than we enjoy today. It wouldn't be a form of Protestantism which could treat any issue as settled, or even have a settled canon of Scripture. It would probably treat the Gospels as sacred, but after that it would have to greet the other writings with varying confidence levels. It wouldn't have to be a full-on Progressive Christianity, but it would be a Christianity which says, "Jesus rose from the dead, the Apostles wrote these biographies of Him, we think Paul wrote these letters about Him, we're not sure what the correct way to put it all together is, but we're doing the best we can with what we have." (ActsApologist)
FYI, sola scripture is explicitly refuted by scripture itself. Namely, 2 Thess. 2:15, and another verse in 1 Cor. (I forgot the chapter and verse number.) On a related note, St. Paul refers to an "earlier epistle" to the Corinthians in the epistle 1 Cor. Which means that 1 Cor. is at least the second letter to the church in Corinth, and 2 Cor. is the 3rd epistle, and unfortunately the actual 1st epistle is believed by scholars to have been lost.
Jack Nicholson said it the best in the Departed. Being Catholic is only a way of saying we have eachother" just being a part of. I think attracts people to any religion.
I'm proud to be a Catholic, even though I don't understand all the doctrine of the church. But I believe in its teaching and that's faith. So many have disputed and opposed the Catholic church but I never doubted their authority to interpret and teach the Bible. But...yes but... supposed I am not a Catholic, then I will be one of the Protestant who disagree with the teaching of the church. But again that will not be the only problem, because if I'm a Protestant Lutheran, I will still be disagreeing with the over 34,000 different Protestant denominations all over the world, so what does that makes me??? That's why the sola scriptura is right, there must be someone to teach the true meaning of the gospel, sola scriptura becomes wrong because it becomes a free for all, to read and interpret according to anyone and everyone's personal understanding... ❤️❤️❤️ So I stand my ground, to remain under the teaching of the one and only Catholic church....
@gospel simplicity I've been trying to find some clarification on an issue from a Catholic perspective. I find that the Isaiah 22/Matthew 16 parallel is a pretty strong scriptural argument for the papacy - especially when operating within the patristic "shadows & typologies" framework. However, the strength of the argument comes from the usage of the word "key(s)" in both passages. The Septuagint doesn't use the word "key(s)"; instead, it says the "glory of the house of David". You won't find "key" until the Masoretic text much later. Do you know anything about this or maybe would you ask one of your guests?
@@GospelSimplicity UPDATE: the dead sea scrolls apparently do have the "key(s)" language. So it's in there and the Masoretic Text, but not the Septuagint. Odd. However, I feel better now haha.
@@GospelSimplicity Lofton is one of the better Roman apologists, insofar as arguments are concerned. I've already told you my problems with him, which are not academic problems but character ones.
Alright fellas. This is how it works. Step 1. Get notification of new gospel simplicity video. Step 2. Ignore family and responsibilities. Are 3. Open video and immediately click like because Austin is a disgustingly nice person (I hate people like that 😡) Step 4. Enjoy 😉
Acts 12:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Really interesting. I have been trying to figure some of this terminology out lately. Thanks! הייתי שמח לשמוע קצת על הסיפור של מייקל (מיכאל?). אני מניח שגדלת כיהודי, גם אם חילוני?
@3:50 the fiction is the trilogy of Philip Pullman based in an alternate Earth set about late 19 century steampunk type world with magic beginning with "His Dark Materials" the title of which refers to Satan's creations in Paradise Lost by Milton. Pulmans writingvhas been consideredvon par with Tolkien so no wonder magesterium comes up in searches.
I love Michael's take... Also if you are interested in the roots of the papacy from an Old Testament perspective and the jewish context of Jesus' time, I would reccomend you to have Suan Sonna on the show. He has a fb account and he is running the you tube channel "Intelectual Conservatism". He has done an extensive study, building his case by using protestant scholars as well
Just a few thoughts. I could have started sooner but i'll just dive in here where he talks about the magesterium from scripture. Citing Luke 10:16 is a favorite of catholics that want to prove that either the apostles or 'the church' is to be listened to or else. But what does the context here actually say? Luke 10:1 10 Now after *this the Lord appointed seventy others,* and sent them two and two ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. NASB Luke 10:16-17 16 "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." 17 *And the seventy returned* with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name. NASB Seventy went out, not 12. Seventy returned, not 12. There is nothing here about any magesterium or church, which hasn't been born or established yet. Matt 28 does say that they were to make disciples, baptize and teach all that Jesus had commanded. But does this mean that they alone had the authority to teach to the exclusion of all others? Of course not. 2 Tim 2:2 2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. NASB This isn't apostolic succession since it doesn't exist, not in a human form anyway. Teaching is passed on, not a pedigree of people. 2 Tim 2:24 24 And *the Lord's bond-servant* must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, *able to teach,* patient when wronged, NASB We all should at some point be able to teach. If its biblical it can be considered apostolic. If its not then its not. Too many teachings of the rcc are simply not found anywhere within the pages of scripture. Therefore it cannot be considered an apostolic church. There is no Petrine primacy in the n.t. Its all complete conjecture to say 'strengthen your brethren' means Peter is being singled out. I can make a better case for Paul being pope than Peter. Just one verse among many is in Acts 9 where God Himself says Paul is MY chosen instrument. Acts 9:15 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; NASB Just think if this had been said about Peter! We'd never hear the end of it. I'll finish the rest of the video later and comment more then. So far there is nothing to suggest there is any teaching/infallible magesterium in scripture anyway.
My Friends, can you help me out, please. On the one hand the guy is saying that if we don't know whether the teaching is ordinary or extraordinary we contact the pope and he settles the matter. A few minutes later he is saying that we need tools to establish which is which. So which is it? Wouldn't it be better if Magisterium stated beforehand if the teaching was going to be ordinary or extraordinary? Are they purposefully obfuscate their activity? Kind regards.
@@GospelSimplicity Dear friend, thanks for your answer. So then my question is: Why this is not the case? God and anybody who is in the teaching business should be concerned with clarity. If you are teaching and people don't understand it then clearly you are in the wrong business. I have additional question, please. Let's say christian theologians representing diverse denominations are sitting around the table, say 100 scholars, and they argue whose understanding of the Scripture is correct. Who would act as the arbiter in this argument and wouldn't it be more honest, on the part of the arguing theologians, to simply summon God to resolve the dispute? How come none of them, in the heat of the discussion, ever turns to God to clarify the whole issue for them, aren't they concerned about the truth of their teachings? Kind regards.
@@walterseliga9676 I'm no scholar at all, but from my understanding, the magisterium now DOES establish beforehand if the teaching is ordinary or extraordinary. I believe his point about going to the pope for clarification is when having to look back on previous teachings before such clarification was established. The teaching on papal infallibility was only established at the 1st Vatican council in 1869-70. It is still required that papal teaching prior to this clarification be sifted through to determine which ones are deemed to come from the extraordinary magisterium. However, now, when the Pope is speaking from extraordinary magisterium, it is definitely explicit. This, somewhat, raised another question though. When the pope declares that it is extraordinary, I assume that declaration is not extraordinary. Therefore, does that mean a future pope can decide otherwise later?
@@billyg898 Dear Billy. I am no scholar either. I simply reacted to what was being said. My understading was that dr. Lofton, who is supposed to know, was not so sure which is which and hence my question. A few hours ago I watched for a while a 3 days old video of his "Identifying the ordinary and universal magisterium with dr. Welch." To me the whole concept of "teaching about the mind of God" is empty, making no sense whatsoever. I wonder how you would approach my question directed to Gospel Simplicity in my second post above, the one with 100 theologians representing different denominations, sitting around the table and arguing fiercely about who is right. Your last observation about the teachings of the future popes is exacly the same as mine. I can demonstrate that it is another empty concept that makes no sense. I am off to bed, different time zone. I'll see you tomorrow. Kind regards.
From you questions, my friend, first I’d say that hard explanations never come effortlessly. To that point I would try the best I can (I will try to respond in parts), starting with the conceptual core on the very nature of the _magisterium._ For a fact, it means - technically - the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church He constituted and gathered around the Twelve Apostles, as heirs of the twelve tribes of Israel, to all eternity, being Peter their leader (in God’s providential ways) and the only one who assertively can (but not every time he will in fact and necessarily) speak on behalf of the whole apostolic collegiate. Catholics believe the Church received a command (insofar it received a charismatical divine protection by Jesus, the builder and the Head of the Church) to maintain the integrity and integrality of the “depositum fidei”, which means a perpetual assistance from the Holy Spirit to not refrain the Church from truth and unity in its solid collectiveness, gathered around the bishops and the successor of Peter. That teaching authority can be of two different kinds. Moreover, under some specific circunstances it will (or will not) have the charismatic ecclesial protection we call infallibility. The 2 (two) kinds or types of magisterium are: *1)* *ordinary magisterium,* exercised continuously by the bishops and the popes (ex: through encyclicals and other general types of documents and means), by which the Church is assisted and guided but not necessarily and "a priori" prevented from formal error by the charismatic guarantee of infallibility. But even so, the ordinary teaching must be revered by the faithful in terms of will and reason because it still has the generical assistance of the Holy Spirit that comes from the spiritual dimension of the apostolic embodiment that by faith we understand to be the continuation and historical extension of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space. Nevertheless, the fact that they are not immune from error does not mean that they are equivocal, since antiquity and uninterrupted continuity should be recognizable, being them some criteria to differ from a mere theological opinion given by the hierarchy. At last, the ordinary magisterium becomes infallible - and then the faithful needs to give the supernatural assent of faith, not mereley the reverent assent of will and reason - whenever the pope and all the episcopal collegiate dispersed throughout the world (meaning universally, never only regionally) agree to issue a definitive and authoritative sentence on the matters of faith and morals that is applicable to the whole Church. *2)* *extraordinary magisterium,* implemented by solemn and formal judgments and not through the simple disperse collegiality and continuity, under specific situations - ex: heresies, disbelief, ecclesiastical crisis or practical necessities, theological controversies, doctrinal uncertainties and so forth -, meaning the supreme teaching authority exercised by the Pope or the entire episcopal collegiate gathered in an Ecumenical (universal) Council, in full communion with the Pope, to specifically handle the situations and circumstances that made it be. It is infallible when it comes to judgments concerning faith and morals (so-called dogmatic judgments), being its teachings immutable and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These dogmatic judgments - which may not contain new revelations but maybe novel formulas to express what was already inside the deposit of faith, both implicitly or explicitly, insofar as the Church understands to achieve the propitious discernment - are expressed either in a positive proclamation, as in some sort of command of integral assent of faith, or in a (doctrinal) "anathema", meaning the express condemnation as wrong teaching, having maybe the format of decrees, papal bulls, dogmatic constitutions and others.
The assumption of Mary is not a revelation from the Magisterium. The basis of the assumption is Scripture (using typology in Revelations 12 and other passages), and the Apostolic Tradition (there is early testimony of this doctrine). The pronuntiation of the Magisterium didn't gave new doctrine, but gave an official postulation on how Scripture and Tradition should be interpreted.
"If what I am saying is not true, then the answer is not Orthodoxy, but maybe Protestanism" As an Orthodox Christian, hearing this from a Catholic was somewhat surprising. Most of this interview was a puff piece for the Papacy; perhaps that was the intention.
Yes. Why focus on the issues that are less controversial ? Papacy is the one with the most burden of proof. And yes I find EO utterly inconsistent even beyond Protestantism in some ways.
@@ReasonandTheology It appears that you'd rather have someone believe in Papal Supremacy over and above someone believing in the real prescence in the Eucharist
@@George-ur8ow yes the Orthodox have the Eucharist and in many ways are closer to RC. But the point is it is utterly inconsistent to point me to the first 7 councils and the fathers of the first millenium as an EO and then not affirm what they taught about primacy and worse consider it heresy. The protestant are more consistent here. Lastly, just bc a particular community or person believes in the real presence does not mean they receive it's grace. Orthodox have a valid eucharist but EO arent necessarily receiving its grace due to schism. If an EO is invincibly ignorant and only a material schismatic then maybe they receive the grace (only God knows) but the matter of schism is automatically a general impediment for receiving the graces of the sacraments. So simply saying someone believes in the Eucharist doesn't really mean a whole lot when they are in schism. Hence my position.
@@ReasonandTheology "Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, but are not receiving it's grace due to the schism" in other words, the Eucharist is only effective if one adheres to and is subject to Papal Supremacy, thus the Orthodox are partaking of the Eucharist in vain (unless they do so ignorantly)? If so, it appears you are essentially saying "Why bother with the Liturgy, it is only worth it if you recognize and assent to Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ and his infallibility Ex Cathedra" I missed part of the interview yesterday. Did you address Pope Honorius or the Donation of Constantine?
A couple of questions. If the majesterium can clarify all these disputes why hasn't it? If the bishops are the successors or the apostles why aren't there only 12 of them or are there?
The apostles appointed bishops through the laying on of hands. Those bishops appointed others by the laying on of hands. Those other bishops appointed others by the laying of hands and so on and so forth. Fast forward to 2021 we still continue to appoint new bishops by the laying on of hands. This is what’s called apostolic succession. You can trace a bishops laying on of hands all the way back to the original apostles.
@@footballtraininganddevelop1522 I get that is why there are so many. But if the arguments the the pope is Peter's successor succe they should also demonstrate that the other apostles have successors who should fulfill similar roles to the pope but not be in charge.
@@williamkeller5541 they do. The other apostles would’ve been considered bishops or overseers of the church. That’s the role of bishops. The difference with Peter and his successors is that Peter was named leader of the apostles (the church). That’s why the pope is called the successor of Peter, because he is the the overall leader/overseer of the church. Hope that makes sense
For the same reason Jesus and the apostles didn't. God has chosen to allow things to develop in time rather than immediately and at once. I prefer the latter but God sees the wisdom in the former, so I yield to his wisdom. Because 12 bishops would have a very hard time shepherding 1.3 billion Catholics. It would be impossible.
Why would the intent of the magisterium matter in a conciliar meeting? If it speaks truth, it speaks truth regardless of whether it intended to or not.
I’m sure the video is going to be great but I find the title of the video problematic, because asking “is it biblical?” Seems to presuppose Sola Scriptura and if that’s the case it begs the question against the Catholic case. I’m sure you didn’t mean to and the guy you’re talking to will give a Scripture based case for the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors but I just wanted to point that out
Hey JC, I'm not sure that asking if something is biblical necessarily presupposes a sola scriptura foundation, but I know exactly what you mean because some may look at it that way. I guess it's complicated, too complicated for a CZcams comment feed lol! God bless you!
@@DesignEcologies not necessarily. I've been reading the church fathers for a while in full context, and while my views have been changed to accepting belief in baptismal regeneration, literal presence of the Lords supper, and worship on Sunday, im not convinced by the papacy. I've seen some so called quotes as a defense being turned upside down by the context. I can admit the idea of apostolic succession as having some legitimacy, however at best the eastern orthodox church seems to be more in harmony with Peter's role, as first among equals. Im currently Lutheran as a result of my findings. The Roman papacy as understood from the dark ages and today seems to be a rather large stretch. The papacy seems to be more of a development over time. I can certainly see Peter having a primacy, and confessional Lutheranism does not necessarily see that as a problem, but Peter's authority in comparison to modern Rome seemed to be quite a bit more limited. I have more to read of course in the church fathers, but i feel in my research catholic apologists are not always 100 percent honest. I will not accept isolated quotes from the Fathers by catholic apologists anymore, without the full context, and more preferably the whole document from which it is quoted from. Im sure i will get bombarded with plenty of reasons why im wrong. But believe me when I say there isn't a single argument that anyone can make that i haven't already heard. Looking at history as a whole, the good, the bad, and ugly, im not convinced.
@@leeenk6932 - You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However I hope you will continue to keep an open mind. IMHO, Lutheranism has the same or worse problem in that there are no verses that directly and explicitly teach Sola Scriptura. There are far more verses that teach the primacy of St. Peter as head of the apostles. From a Catholic perspective it’s not a huge leap to think that the biblical model is one that would be passed on to future generations of Christians. 😇🙏🏽
"Is it Biblical" is a question which presupposes the existence and authority of the Scripture. I have yet to meet a protestant who can tell me which books are in the Bible without citing anything but the Bible. The very idea of Scripture assumes magisterial authority.
We don't even "have" Scripture without the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church comes first. The church defined the Canon of Scripture after hundreds of years of reflection and discernment.
@@LadyMaria Actually the Roman Church exists since St Peter became the first bishop of Roman (Pope). But the Catholic Church is the Church founded and promised by Jesus, not just the roman one.
As an Orthodox Christian, I'd say we can affirm pretty much everything Micheal speaks about, up until the point where he argues that all of this amounts to Papal supremacy and infallibility. That's where we'd get off the train.
@@GospelSimplicity Thanks Austin! To explain further the Orthodox perspective, I think it really comes down to the nature of Bishops. In our view, and we would assert the early Church canons support this view, is that Bishops are all fundamentally equal. So yes, we have Archbishops and Patriarchs, but these are simply adminstrative offices. They remain a Bishop like all other Bishops. There is no further ordination or grace imparted on those higher adminstrative ranks. To be a Bishop, means to be the leader of all the Priests, Deacons, and laity, of your particular diocese. No Bishop, not even a Patriarch, can meddle in the affairs of another Bishop's diocese. St Ignatius of Antioch says "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.". This means that wherever the faithful are gathered around their Bishops, there is the fullness of the Church. This is why one Bishop cannot correct another Bishop. Additionally, individual Bishops have never been understood to be preserved from error in any context. The human aspect of the Church can always be wrong, the divine aspect of the Church is infallible. We believe that divine aspect is expressed through councils and scripture, not one person by themselves. So we would agree that Peter had a special place amongst the apostles, and we would affirm that the Pope is the first amongst equals, but we would reject Papal infallibility and supremacy as defined in Vatican 1, as it aims to change what is fundamentally means to be a Bishop. Love your videos by the way! God bless.
Your guest suggested that Tradition is the glasses we wear to understand scripture properly. This is where I think much of Western Christianity goes wrong. The lens through which Jesus interpreted scripture is Christ, the Logos that was in the beginning, Jesus’ divine nature. Jesus’ first followers began to see not only Jewish scripture and tradition in Christ (which is both a worldview and ontological reality), but everything else precisely because they began to see Christ everywhere. Please get someone on to talk about the Universal Christ. Truly it is Christ who gives us eyes to see.
The apostle Paul calls it the Christ mystery. What does it look like? An emphasize on trust rather than certainty, a move beyond rules into wisdom, being able to rely on experience instead of doctrinal statements, whether in traditional or scriptural form. It’s not a rejection of tradition or scripture, though it may seem like it. It’s radical inclusion. It’s embodied love. It’s Jesus Christ, and it’s Christ in you.
Consider this image of the universal Christ. We are like aeolian harps. After tuning, the harp is put outside to be played by the wind. This is an image that Owen Barfield used to describe the way in which we participate in God. Our tuning, which we also participate in, is an image of becoming oriented properly in and to reality. Becoming properly tuned is what this life is primarily about. I think this is where our structures and hierarchies and sacraments and liturgies are vital. But we don’t play ‘ourselves’. God plays us. The wind is a fitting image of Gods spirit. One might call that spirit love. We are played, as it were, not as individuals, or as detached humanity, but as an entire symphony, as God’s good creation, heaven and earth. If we have ears to hear, perhaps we may discern a few notes today.
@TheJason909 "No, it's my way of accepting that all leaders are ordained by God (Rom 13:1)." Every leader got in legitimately and not by fraud and is good for the people. 👍
The case for the Magisterium is this: Matthew 28 : 16-20; either Christ's authority to teach is actually true and therefore is still in effect, or it is not. Tah-rah! simple gospelicity .. with admittedly rather difficult consequences for 'how' the Church (Jesus Christ, Himself, in Person, at One with His Bride, no other) works in practice. Modernist Catholicism, along with imperial Orthodoxy and most forms of Protest against Rome, has long since ditched this notion of divinely-originated infallible teaching authority at work among themselves .. chiefly because they are, more or less, correct it is not (because they do not want it). To see this shift in action, look at how the reigning Sovereign Pontiff presents a witness to gospel truth (which he does on rare occasions) and how even Paul VI tried to do this (in the teeth of undisguised rejection). Or, if more accessible (and easier to understand), how Bishop Robert Barron chooses to witness to the Faith (the living faith, the saving faith) and how Archbishop Fulton J Sheen did it etc: czcams.com/video/JxU0tXGewbw/video.html The Magisterium does not rest on personalities but is wrought in witness. And that, btw, is why we need to know the Faith, living and saving, not just what is said about it. Not all who speak in Christ's Name do so on His Authority .. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. May St Joseph stand by you, and please Lord, may you draw strength from his godly witness .. God bless. ;o)
i'm just 1 year old non denominational christian (convert )soo i'm sory if i make mistake but isn't sola scriptura debunk sola scriptura itself(Bible teach about how bible not contain everything, also bible teach about church's authority on teaching). Not just that but even claiming sola scriptura kind of bad when you realise bible is not eternal and christianity is not started with bible therefore it is a bit disrespectful toward pre biblical christians to say only bible have authority. I feels like we should give credit where we get our bible in the first place.
Sola scriptura is debunked by scripture itself! 2 Thes. 2:15 Paul instructs the church to hold fast to what he taught them, by either word or epistle. Also, there is a verse in 1 Cor. where Paul refutes sola scriptura, but I don't remember chapter/verse. Sorry. Just read the whole epistle :)
@@GrislyAtoms12 exactly that was my point :D i don't have denomination but at least i know i'm not gonna go with protestant one XD Because it not fit well with bible
@@EnderElohim How many services have you been to, either Catholic or Orthodox? To me, they are vastly different in style. I could not relate well to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, with its endless chanting and a Capella singing. However, with Catholic mass I was instantly smitten. Going to mass should be joyful, but the idea of spending the rest of my life sitting through Divine Liturgies which confused me more than anything else, made my choice easy. If you do go to Catholic mass, it is important that you NOT take the Eucharist bread and wine. Instead, cross your arms across your chest and receive a verbal blessing instead. Also, try to get a copy of the book "Didache". The Catholic mass is the original church service taught by the Apostles themselves. Protestantism is a very recent change to Christianity, comparatively speaking.
@@GospelSimplicity That’s a very fair comment. I indeed had to study deeply to come to the conclusion it isn’t really “that” complicated, so you got my point, hehe. But I think it is the best the Church can feed our intellects with. And she indeed gives that best, in my opinion, in all formal definitions and documents we actually have, for better or worse. The real job to catalogue all of this, what in fact we want (so to make things the clearest), must be the work of theologians and professors of theology but not necessarily another official doctrinal “production” of the Church: a catalogue of content or something like that.
Elias, let me try to explain it. The _magisterium_ means - technically - the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church He constituted and gathered around the Twelve Apostles, as heirs of the twelve tribes of Israel, to all eternity, being Peter their leader (in God’s providential ways) and the only one who assertively can (but not every time he will in fact and necessarily) speak on behalf of the whole apostolic collegiate. Catholics believe the Church received a command (insofar it received a charismatical divine protection by Jesus, the builder and the Head of the Church) to maintain the integrity and integrality of the “depositum fidei”, which means a perpetual assistance from the Holy Spirit to not refrain the Church from truth and unity in its solid collectiveness, gathered around the successors of the apostles (bishops) in communion with the successor of Peter (the pope, a bishop that has some specific order of duties and responsabilities concerning the universal church). That teaching authority can be of two different kinds. Moreover, under some specific circunstances it will (or will not) have the charismatic ecclesial protection we call infallibility. The 2 (two) kinds or types of magisterium are: *1)* *ordinary magisterium,* exercised continuously by the bishops and the popes (ex: through encyclicals and other general types of documents and means), by which the Church is assisted and guided but not necessarily and "a priori" prevented from formal error by the charismatic guarantee of infallibility. But even so, the ordinary teaching must be revered by the faithful in terms of will and reason because it still has the generical assistance of the Holy Spirit that comes from the spiritual dimension of the apostolic embodiment that by faith we understand to be the continuation and historical extension of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space. Nevertheless, the fact that they are not immune from error does not mean that they are equivocal, since antiquity and uninterrupted continuity should be recognizable, being them some criteria to differ from a mere theological opinion given by the hierarchy. At last, the ordinary magisterium becomes infallible - and then the faithful needs to give the supernatural assent of faith, not mereley the reverent assent of will and reason - whenever the pope and all the episcopal collegiate dispersed throughout the world (meaning universally, never only regionally) agree to issue a definitive and authoritative sentence on the matters of faith and morals that is applicable to the whole Church. *2)* *extraordinary magisterium,* implemented by solemn and formal judgments and not through the simple disperse collegiality and continuity, under specific situations - ex: heresies, disbelief, ecclesiastical crisis or practical necessities, theological controversies, doctrinal uncertainties, pastoral demands and so forth -, meaning the supreme teaching authority exercised by the Pope or the entire episcopal collegiate gathered in an Ecumenical (universal) Council, in full communion with the Pope, to specifically handle the situations and circumstances that made it be. It is infallible when it comes to judgments concerning faith and morals (so-called dogmatic judgments), being its teachings immutable and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These dogmatic judgments - which may not contain new revelations but maybe novel formulas to express what was already inside the deposit of faith, both implicitly or explicitly, insofar as the Church understands to achieve the propitious discernment - are expressed either in a positive proclamation, as in some sort of command of integral assent of faith, or in a (doctrinal) "anathema", meaning the express condemnation as wrong teaching (heresy), having maybe the format of decrees, papal bulls, dogmatic constitutions and others.
Notice that we CANNOT and should not draw a direct relation between infallibility (the highest level of theological certainty meaning not only the generical ecclesial guidance but the specific charismatic protection from error) and what we know as the “extraordinary magisterium”. They are not ambivalent concepts. This confusion is very common though. Infallibility is a whole other topic but it necessarily has to do - concomitantly - with doctrine of faith and morals and with universality (and we add to that some more specific details that wouldn’t matter much here by now). That means we can have non-infallible or infallible ordinary teachings; and we can have non-infallible or infallible extraordinary teachings. We could exemplify some cases: *(a.1)* As a non-infallible *‘ordinary magisterium’* teaching, we can point the disciplinary mandatory celibacy for presbyters (priests) in the West. The earliest formal definition came in the regional Council of Elvira in 304 AD, being the custom even more ancient (according to some historiographical registers) and it is held to be historically observed uninterruptedly. It is not a doctrinal issue nor it is universal, consequently it does not hold any sort of conceptual infallibility, but it demands the reverent assent of reason and will. *(a.2)* As infallible *‘ordinary magisterium’* teachings - that has the need to be universally held by the bishops and the popes altogether and historically considered -, we can say the immorality of directly taking an innocent human life and all other non-dogmatic moral issues on sexuality (like the condemnation of contraception, abortion or ‘in vitro’ fertilization taken to be intrinsically immoral, for example). Both Pope St. John XXIII’s 1961 encyclical “Mater et Magistra” or Pope’s St. Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” are (in those concerning parts) good examples of sentences that were made definitive, expressing the understandings of the universal collegiate of bishops, thus regognized as infallible (requiring the supernatural assent of faith), inside what is understood to be the ordinary and universal magisterium. *(b.1.[1])* As a non-infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teaching by a Pope, we can say the “Apostolicae Curae” papal bull issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, in which he analyzed the specific situation of the Anglicans and solemned declared, since it was understood and formally defined they are outside of legitimate apostolic succession, all of their ordinations to be null and void. It is for sure an universal recognition of the Catholic Church in its totality by the hand of the Petrine authority, but it does not concern to doctrines of faith and morals, therefore it does not hold to the predicative conditions of infallibility. That should only require the assent of reason and will. *(b.1.[2])* As non-infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by Ecumenical Councils in full communion with the pope, we can say the solemn definition of canonical privileges for churches or the assignment of any honorific titles given to churches after Rome, like in some canons of Nicea (325 AD) or Chalcedon (451 AD), as in regard of specific ecclesiastical necessities of the time. Therefore that only requires the assent of reason and will whenever it is demanded. Apart from that, we should not even classify as non-infallible “teachings” (but simply as ecclesiastical governance decision concerning to territorial organization, no teaching at all) any of those canons of Ecumenical Councils that merely defined metropolitan/ archepiscopal status of jurisdiction for larger and more important cities over the smaller dioceses, since it does not entail any sort of magisterial matter. *(b.2.[1])* As infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by the pope (rare cases), what we generically call “ex cathedra”, we can say the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX or the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. It is not a prerequisite but in both cases the popes have consulted the universal collegiate of bishops on these matters and constituted theological commissions to study and analyze the doctrines. It requires not the typical assent of reason and will but the supernatural assent of faith, being infallible solemn dogmas. *(b.2.[2])* At last, as infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by Ecumenical Councils in full communion with the popes, we can say the dogmatic definition of the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the consubstantiality with the Father (in Nicea, 325 AD), the divine nature of the Holy Spirit (in First Constantinople, 381 AD) or the dogmatic definition of the Christological union of two natures, both perfectly human and perfectly divine, in one person (in First Ephesus, 431 AD, and Chalcedon, 451 AD), every single one of them issued under grave controversies and serious spreading of heresies on those times. Those solemn judgments demand the supernatural assent of faith since we are dealing with infallible matter. I hoped that helped you, my friend!
@@brunot2481 Thanks for the detailed examples, and so great to know how much you know about your church! What I meant was to say was that Lofton didn't quite have an answer to how one really determines what defines a teaching as Magesterial, and which are approved as fallible/infallible. He essentially said it's a gray area debated by many theologians, which is fine, but it helps to make the point that some of us Orthodox make saying that even with a Pope as the ultimate source of authority in the West, you end up with a very similar situation of ending up in gray areas on what is ultimately dogmatic or not if it's not specifically written in the canons of an ecumenical council. This is a situation Catholics criticize the Orthodox for being under but it seems to me like the Catholic church ends up in a similar scenario but with a couple of extra steps. IDK if that made sense or not.
"The Roman Church, in fact, employs Scripture in her efforts to persuade men of her authority and that of Scripture. By so doing she denies in fact what she maintains in theory." Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture, p 101
Thats absurd. Scriptures is a source of truths of faith. Why should the Catholic Church that compiled and canonized the Bible gets rid of its book to persuade of its authority. Really the absurd thing is to use a liturgy book of an apostolic Church trying to persuade people that this book is a manual of an alien and a thousand year later church
@@Fasolislithuan You've missed the point of the assertion. That being, Rome seeks to establish it's teaching authority from the Scriptures, which puts Rome in the awkward position of appealing to the authority of God's Word to assert its supremacy. This, quite obviously, places Scripture as the sole Rule and Norm for Doctrine and Life. Again, unwittingly admitted by Rome herself in her appeal to the Scripture for its so-thought assertion of supremacy. "By so doing she denies in fact what she maintains in theory."
@@marcuswilliams7448 First, Rome is a City not the Catholic Church. Second, the authority of the Catholic Church is from Jesus not from the Scriptures. Christ established his only Church upon Peter, the Rock. Christ not even mentioned any Word of the necessity of writing his teachings, rather He established an authority to teach his commandments and It was an apostolic Church not a book. Third, the only people that argue his authority is scriptural are protestants, who denied the authority from apostolic sucession. Its understandable because they came a thousand year later than the Catholic Church defined the biblical canon.
In other words, what you are saying is: if the Catholic Church does not believe “sola scriptura”, then she should not be allowed to use Sacred Scriptures to show that her authority comes from Jesus. And that means either you are a Protestant or your are not allowed to use the Bible. There is a really bad argument made there.
Hi so wonderful to listen and learn . I'm Catholic and really appreciate that you want to learn more about the faith.God bless you. Some other wonderful teachers and tbere are many is Dr Scott Hahn at Steubennville University.Father Donald Calloway also at Stubenville. Father Chris Alair divine mercy. org I think. Father Chad Ripperger. They are wonderful teachers of the faith.
Brian Farley thank you for the Bible texts. I look them up about Marry perpetual virginity’s. By definition the word betrothed mean engage to married. Mary was a Virgin yes at the angel anunciation since she was engaged to be married. Joseph respected that and if you continue reading; it said Joseph knew not Mary until after the baby (Jesus) was born. In other words Joseph did not had marital intercourse with until Jesus was born. Also the Catholic Church did not declare tha bodily assumption of Mary to heaven until 1950. I do believe her spirit to be in heaven but not her body like Jesus. There many dogma required to be practice by the Catholic Church which are not necessary for salvation. My mother was Catholic and I did my first communion. I love and enjoy many of the historical tradition. But my conscious can not accept as fact: Mary been born with out sin, her perpetual virginity and bodily assumption. Also purgatory. I also feel sorry that it seem like a mandate that a Priest can not have a wife if he want to serve God in the Catholic Church. The with women having to be nums and not able to get married to serve God. Also praying for the Spirit of a death person. I think we should pray for the person while he/she still alive. But I know that many are save in the Catholic Church because what they practice is to honor God. Also the same happen in the heart of many other Christian from other denomination who practice certain tradition to serve God; they to will be saved. Thank you my brother in Christ!
Does Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 actually line up from the Catholic perspective? It should be noted that Orthodoxy has a different reading for Isaiah 22:22: "I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him." Note, there is no mention of keys, and no mention of "what he opens no one can shut, and what he closes no one can open". This Catholic translation relies on the Masoretic text (compiled from 7th to 10th century AD), the Orthodox Study Bible uses the Greek Septuagint (compiled from 3rd to 2nd century, BC). In other words, if Catholics were to apply Isaiah 22:22 from the Septuagint in the OSB to Matthew 16:19 to justify the monarchical supreme papacy, they wouldn’t have much to stand on...and this is just one point amongst many against such an intepretation of Isaiah from the Catholic perspective - an additional major point is that this "scriptural proof" has been argued for only a very short time, only after claims of Infallibility were made.
@@George-ur8ow no,no your over thinking it. It’s the entire chapter. Keep reading. Don’t just hunt and peck what you see fit, it doesn’t work that way. Brant Pitre’s breakdown on the papacy is what you should find on CZcams. Type ‘pitre papacy’ he and Scott Hahn are our worlds greatest Bible scholars. Stick with the best my friend. Good luck on your journey
@@cotaryan3740 I am the one overthinking it? The irony. The latter portion of Isaiah 22 is a prophecy specifically about Eliakim, a finance minister, and his later fall as well. Your interpretation so out of the bounds of historical interpretation - this reading of the text only emerged in the 20th century. It appears to me that Catholics are entering into Protestant methods - self interpreting the texts so they fit their own narrative, rather than how the texts have been interpreted for the prior 1900 years.
Frankly, this whole discourses on some so-called magisterium was a bunch of pseudo-theological hooey!! From my perspective, the real magisterium is the Holy Scriptures, and the head therein is the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit AMEN!!! 😁😁😁
For deep dives no one does it quite like Reason & Theology. Michael Lofton, Erick Ybarra and Elijah Yasi are excellent. Thank you so much for having them on. I'm loving all these crossover episodes haha!
They really are great for deep dives
@@GospelSimplicity you should invite suan sonna on if you haven’t already
I saw Michael Lofton on Pints w Aquinas channel. I learned a lot, got good clarification, but this is EXACTLY what is needed. This is clarity! I cannot thank both gentlemen enough. I will be directing others to this video. . What a most relevant and desperately needed service you have both provided. God bless you both.
As a Catholic who struggles with the faith, I have found this really edifying. I would love to hear the conversation on development of doctrine. I struggle with the development that seems to be organic from scripture and what seems to be later (ie Marian, purgatory, etc).
I continue to be so edified by your content. Not just the Catholic information and guests, but also learning about other branches of the Christian faith.
We discuss the Marian developments alot on R&T
@@ReasonandTheology I'll definitely check it out!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@nicolentwiga7049 Hi ! Please refer to the following link which contains the writings of the Early Church Fathers showing what the early Church believed in. Please check it out. Marian beliefs and Purgatory are in there. They are not later inventions
staycatholic.com/early-church-fathers/
Nicole read the Bible. I understand your struggles with the Marian doctrine. Such the pepetua virginity of Mary and her been born sinless. I know the Bible and I use a Catholic one do not answer those questions. But think of it this way weather she stay a Virgin or not the rest of her life after Jesus was born. It does not matter. She was chosen by God as a vessel for him to be born in this earth. Her spirit is present with his son in heaven along with the appostles and those saints (people who live a life in faith and obidience to Christ). Mary and the saint interced in prayers for you and me. When you read the book of hebrew in the Bible talks about the cloud of witness in heave. This cloud of withness referr to Mary and the saints I mention above. In the book of revelation you read how the take our prayers to God and the saint of heaven present them to him. About purgatory you will not find in the New testament any place specifically call purgatory. In the old testament it was understood that the place of darkness in some instant was purgatory. Jesus and the disciple talk more of heaven and hell. I would advice to focus on loving Jesus, the Saints to help you live a faithful and moral life that is pleasing to God. Always growing in grace with the power of the Holy Spirit. Do not be afraid not of all will ever be perfect human completely sinless. At any time we can felt but when we confess our sins and turn back to Jesus, he is there to forgive us and continue to guide us. If you walk into another religion you will find sin and fallen people in the same way you find in the Catholic church. Do not abandon the faith. Believe other religion traditions sometimes can not be directly be find. Many people will give you a gospel with out holy traditions. They present you a gospel full of worldly traditions in many instant. Pray a ask our Savior Jesus to help you understand the gospel and what it is his mothers role and the saints in helping us in our prayers and walk with God. I will be praying for you my sisters in Christ. God Bless You!
I think Humanae Vitae is a good example of the Papacy "defining" doctrine that is implicit in scripture but required clarification based on modern medicine. Many Catholics were expecting that the birth control pill was going to be an allowable form of contraception. Pope Paul VI used the extraordinary magisterium to show that the Catholic teaching of the unitive and procreation nature of sexual intimacy was founded firmly in scripture.
Thanks for sharing!
Modernist!
Beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1930 and concluding with the wholesale embrace of the pill in the decade that followed its release, most Protestants moved away from agreement with the Catholic Church on this moral issue and never looked back - Protestants, acceptance of contraception has created unintended consequences-cohabitation and a growing acceptance of same-sex marriage - and also led to the acceptance of abortion. Most Protestant churches discourage divorce except as a last resort, but do not actually prohibit it through church doctrine. Pope Paul VI was right.
Pretty sure Humanae Vitae is ordinary magisterium but as far as I’m concerned everything in it is correct
@@jebbush2527 yes its ordinary. In fact it's the pope explaining something in the ordinary and universal magisterium, aka making explicit something taught by all bishops in communion throughout the ages
You have excellent listening and interviewing skills. Your questions help clarify and simplify the often complex topics your guests are presenting. Thanks for sharing and I pray you will keep on doing videos in the future. God bless you!
Wow, thank you so much!
I’m glad you guys talked I love theses kinds of conversations.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just finally got through the entire video and I am SO glad I watched the whole thing! Austin (and Michael), this was such an educational and edifying interview that I cannot thank you enough for it. After watching Fr. Josiah Trenham give his Orthodox perspective on Catholicism I thought it was critical that I get a counterpoint argument from a Catholic with a similar depth of education (Fr. Trenham has a doctorate and is an astute church historian).
I was intending to join the Orthodox church, but their Divine Liturgy is inaccessible for me. The endless chanting and a Capella singing (with only the homily being spoken) for someone like me, with no musical talent nor inclination, makes for a long and dull worship service. I always leave feeling frustrated, with my soul undernourished.
Went to my first Catholic mass the Monday before Christmas last year, and immediately fell in love. I thought I was going to have to accept "heresy" like the filioque, so that I could attend the Mass (which makes me feel incredible grace, blessing, and closeness to our Lord). But Michael made such a nice case for the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal infallibility that now I know I can be confirmed in the Latin church with no reservations! God has blessed me tremendously and, again, thank you Austin for your ministry. This isn't the first time you've made an incredibly positive impact on my spiritual journey. God bless you!
I've listened to Fr. Josiah as well when coming back to the Church from protestantism. I enjoyed the Orthodox perspective. He mentioned only two reasons why he couldn't go Roman Catholic. #1 Filoquoy, #2 Papal Authority.
I think the reality is Papal Authority is "the" #1 issue for Protestants and Orthodox. My opinion...
I too love the Catholic faith!
@@m4641 My brother!
This is an interesting topic which is seldom explored properly in CZcams videos. It shows Austin putting in considerable thoughts in choosing the topics. Great choice!
Thanks! I think you’ll really enjoy it
@@GospelSimplicity i hope one day perhaps you can consider doing a topic "The history of the bible". Will be great if can invite both a Catholic/Protestant scholar eg Ryan Reeves
@@jeremiahong248
The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables,
recounted orally
for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age,
until writing was invented,
and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down..
''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years.
Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these.
This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna.
The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil,
but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.''
..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet.
That was the old Testament!
@@briendoyle4680 To the fools, the Bible is just a fairy tale.
@@briendoyle4680, science has been around since before humans discovered how to create fire.
According to the Oxford dictionary science is: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Just because humans hadn't developed a written language is irrelevant. Things happened before there were paintings on the walls of caves.
Regarding God, by saying, "that humans invented him", are you denying the existence of God? If you are, I posit that it is not possible to make a definitive statement regarding the existence of a transcendent being.
Excellent interview! Enjoy the explanation of Michael and the questions posted by Austin. Well done!! I am a catholic and has fully enjoyed the talk. Appreciate Austin’s honesty and respect toward Catholicism and our theology.
Thank you!
This reminds me of when Edward snowden was on Joe rogan's Podcast where the host is completely silent almost the entire time and the guest keeps talking and talking but everybody keeps listening because what they're saying is so intriguing. 😆
Haha, sometimes the job of an interviewer is to just get out of the way!
Great arguments for Apostolic Succession and a Magisterium!
Glad you enjoyed it!
34 minutes in and this is my favorite interview so far!
Wow! Thank you!
I tried to digest everything before I realised there was too much on the plate. Like always, your effort has taught me about my own faith. Thanks and Godbless!
It’s certainly a lot. I had to listen multiple times. My pleasure!
Great video! As a catholic I learned a lot!
Glad it was helpful!
@@GospelSimplicity I think you know more about the Catholic faith than some Catholics do! Thank you for your openness and for doing these kinds of videos.
Excited! I just subscribed to his chanel Reasons and Theology days ago. Wow.
I think you’ll love it!
i appreciate people who say
"I've said it before, but I'm gonna say it again"
even those w/o PhD
It’s helpful
this was greeeeeeaaaat!!! Please have him on few more times!!
Glad you enjoyed it! I'd be open to that!
Wow! So much information! I’m definitely going to have to watch this a few more times! Thank you Austin for bringing these people to the for front to learn from! God bless your work!
This should be super interesting! I have really loved your content Austin and it has caused me to think much more critically about my beliefs. - from a possible future Moody student next year
I'm so glad you're enjoying my content! If you're at Moody next year, be sure to come say hi!
@@GospelSimplicity will do! Keep up the great work!
Michael laid out the argument for the Magisterium quite well, especially the Papal Magisterium. He was surprisingly harsh on Eastern Orthodoxy at the end, however, and I was taken aback by his statement that if a Christian didn't accept the Papacy, that "this thinking ultimately leads to atheism." As an Orthodox Christian myself, I would love to see Austin interview someone such as Dr. Clark Carlton who has studied the Orthodox position on the Magisterium and can articulate the Orthodox position on it.
Thanks for the recommendation!
Thanks for the recommendation!
Great session lm loving this👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 Personally lm learning a lot from here. Will have to watch and listen to this again. THANK YOU!! bro Michael & Austin🙏🙏🏼🙏🏼
Awesome, thank you!
Can’t wait! I watching reason and theology! This’ll be good
Hope you enjoy it!
Another great video, please accept this like! And as always, praying for you Austin!
Thanks!
The lighting at the beginning really makes your Gospel Simplicity light a lot clearer than normal!
True!
Austin,
Thank you for another excellent video; I greatly enjoy your work and it is a blessing to many.
I know your primary goal is to pursue ministry. As a secondary option, have you ever entertained becoming an educator? You seem to have a true love to pursue knowledge, research, study and learn. Likewise, you naturally share the information you have learned or are currently learning about. You are at ease speaking, well spoken, and convey your thoughts extremely well. I can easily envision you as a future college professor within a Christian environment.
Thanks for the kind words! I certainly have. I love teaching
Great interview, thorough clear answers. Good job, both of you!
Thanks!
Super excited for this😁
Hope you enjoy it!
Austin you do such a great job interview your guest of different religion tradition. You show a humble and Christ like spirit! Great Job! Many Blessing my brother in Christ!
Thanks!
Great interview! Well done Michael.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Kinda sad this premiers at 1:15am here 😂. Looking forward to watching it tomorrow!
Hope you enjoy it!
Michael is a good brother! Excited for this!
He knocked this one out of the park. Really bright guy
Had never heard of the argument for the papacy based on Popes Agatho and Hormisdas and the ecumenical councils until came across Lofton's channel. Good stuff!
I really enjoyed listening to this today. Very nicely explained. A lot of food for thought here. So thank you again for another great discussion.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wow Reason and Theology is great. How did you find out about it? Are there any other channels you would recommend?
I think the CZcams algorithm just made me stumble upon them. If you go on my homepage, I have some of my influences listed
WOW! Lots of great information, thanks, Austin! I'll definitely check out Michael's channel. This reminded me of a CZcams video by Dr. Brant Pitre on the Jewish roots of the Papacy. In it, Dr. Pitre mentions Isaiah 22:15-25 and how it relates to the keys and the authority of Peter.
Another item of interest was the letter of Pope Agatho. I Googled, "Pope Agatho letter" and the letter can be read at the Catholic Encyclopedia website. I'll just say that introductions of letters written in the 7th century are lengthy to say the least. It is quite an interesting letter, particularly the part where he reaffirms the Trinitarian doctrine. Thanks again!
I love the spooky lighting on Austin... He looks like he's in a monastic cell.
We’ll just pretend like I was going for that😂
This whole channel is somewhat of a "cyber-monastic cell"... The best thing is: Austin styles himself as a "neophyte", in the same boat with the rest of us, not as a didactic/teacher, but a fellow student. That is what makes this channel different and very VERY special.
Excellent talk gentlemen and well done.
Thanks!
the magisterium is the experience of the holy spirit moving through the living church throughout time.
That’s a nice definition
Actually, it is the authority given to the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, through Christ's Vicar on Earth, Saint Peter. Pax Christi!
I'm going to comment, but only in a qualified way.
Haha, I love Michael’s appreciation for nuance
Super complex topic , very interesting
Glad you liked it!
That was very helpful. I loved his passion and his thoroughness. I want to add though that in Acts 15:12 after endless debates from the Apostles and the disciples Peter spoke "and the whole assembly fell silent."
Glad you enjoyed it!
Catholicism is beautiful and 100% Biblical when we put the time to understand it.
Thanks
100% biblical. You sure about that?
@@thomashess6211
Yup
@@thomashess6211
As a matter of fact, the canon of scripture was put together by Catholics
@@RGTomoenage11 The old testament was already there. The letters of the new testament had been gathered together by the time the Roman state run religion showed up 400 yrs later. The CC takes responsibility for the bible, which is just another one of their many claims. Thats all the CC has , is claims.It claims only catholics get to heaven. It claims missing a mass church service is a mortal sin. Those two right there ought to be enough to tell you its just a scam.
Hey Austin I am Catholic but another knowledgeable person who is Orthodox to hear their side is Craig Truglia of Orthodox Christianity Theology. He has been on Reason and Theology quite a few times.
Thanks! I’d be open to that
I just wanted to mention a few more Catholics that are just as knowledgeable as Michael Lofton. Those people are Erick Ybarra and William Albrecth. They are both on Reason and Theology a lot.
It would be cool to have them on your channel as well.
Interviewing William tomorrow!
Awesome
Michael Lofton's spirit animal? An American Pitbull Terrier (while Austin's waving a bone).
😂
For me - in brief - the belief in the Eucharist as being the real presence (not simply symbolic) was the primary reason I rejected Protestantism - since it is clear that those early apostolic fathers who knew the apostles hold to the doctrine of the real presence - and the papacy was the primary reason I chose Catholicism over orthodoxy
What a great show. I very much enjoyed it. Keep up the good work!
Honestly: life-changing. Thank you for this gem.
Does anyone have any idea whether Mr. Lofton's dissertation will be made available in any way for public use?
Wow great video 👌!
Thanks so much!
The only thing about his explanation that probably needs to be clarified and raised up for discussion is when he stated that Scripture is even higher than Tradition/Church's teaching authority. (Please find Fr. Mitch Pacwa's explanation on the topic on YT)
I am leaning towards Fr. Mitch's explanation when it comes to Scripture and Tradition, in which he explained that Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand, and that one cannot stand without the other. The reason is that the Lord Jesus Christ, during His earthly time and public ministry, did not exactly commission His apostles to write books or be authors. Instead, the Lord instituted a Church. The Lord taught His disciples His ways and commanded them to teach others- to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Tradition was already in place when the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, decided to put Christ's teaching into writing. The Church was able to recognize, select, and canonize the Scriptures by contrasting it to the Church's beliefs and living tradition received from Christ through apostolic succession.
Therefore we can't really say that Scripture comes first (talking about the New Testament). Ultimately, it was the Church that came first, as instituted by Christ, and through it God gave the Scripture, through Apostolic Tradition.
I agreed they can't be repeated and go hand in hand. But oral tradition is not God breathed. Scripture is. Oral tradition is harder to identify. Scripture isn't. Characters like these make scripture the first place to consult when we ask if something is part of the deposit of faith. Then oral tradition.
@@ReasonandTheology
Hi ! Sacred Traditions from AD 33 to AD 400 are part of divine revelation. They are on par with scriptures. Oral teachings is part of the Sacred Traditions and is GOD BREATHED as well. Why ?
John 21 :25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
2 Thessolonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you,whether by word of mouth or by letter
1 Cor 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
Not all traditions are Sacred and on par with scriptures. Anything after AD 400 the time of the Early Church Fathers is excluded. The Apostolic Fathers were taught the Apostles and their disciples like Timothy and Mark. They knew what Christ taught which were not written down. The letters that epistles were written to address certain issues in various local churches and not meant to be a set of instruction manual. So there are teachings by Jesus not written down and hence form part of the oral teachings.
What are the oral teachings then ? The set of beliefs of the early Church fathers
staycatholic.com/early-church-fathers/
This is why Catholics aren't Sola and SoLO scriptural
czcams.com/video/mTBud-9Vlzo/video.html
czcams.com/video/elINGUpOcTo/video.html
@Brian Farley I am distinguishing between oral tradition that was codified aka scripture and oral tradition that remains oral. The latter is not god breathed but is revealed by the apostles and guided and infallible.
@Brian Farley bc scripture itself records instances in which god revealed things to prophets and spoke by them yet we would not contend they were god breathed otherwise we would have them in the canon.
@M R you clearly don't understand my position as you are contesting something I don't maintain.
great interview!
Thanks!
The lighting may be weird, but you sign has never looked better!
Haha, I love the glass half-full mentality!
How did Paul get his authority if not by the apostles selected directly from Christ? Honest question. I know some people who are skeptical of Paul’s epistles due to him not being selected in the same way that the 12 were. Would he be the 13th apostle and the only one who claims his apostleship through private revelation?
Great questions.. And such vivid answers
Glad you thought so!
Thanks Austin!
My pleasure!
Is this going to be on the Patreon early?
Exporting it now!
You’re really doing the Lord’s work here Austin
Thanks!
I talked to your interviewee a few years ago during the period he described as having received bad formation and dabbling in Orthodoxy. A frustrating experience. That said, I'm glad to see he's moved out of that phase. And this interview was really good.
I want to highlight one thing he said about the stakes involved about whether the magesterium is true. He noted that Theism, or perhaps a form of Protestantism would be the next most viable option.
I think Protestantism would be the next most viable option, but as he alludes to, it would be a different sort of Protestantism than we enjoy today. It wouldn't be a form of Protestantism which could treat any issue as settled, or even have a settled canon of Scripture. It would probably treat the Gospels as sacred, but after that it would have to greet the other writings with varying confidence levels.
It wouldn't have to be a full-on Progressive Christianity, but it would be a Christianity which says, "Jesus rose from the dead, the Apostles wrote these biographies of Him, we think Paul wrote these letters about Him, we're not sure what the correct way to put it all together is, but we're doing the best we can with what we have." (ActsApologist)
That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!
FYI, sola scripture is explicitly refuted by scripture itself. Namely, 2 Thess. 2:15, and another verse in 1 Cor. (I forgot the chapter and verse number.)
On a related note, St. Paul refers to an "earlier epistle" to the Corinthians in the epistle 1 Cor. Which means that 1 Cor. is at least the second letter to the church in Corinth, and 2 Cor. is the 3rd epistle, and unfortunately the actual 1st epistle is believed by scholars to have been lost.
Jack Nicholson said it the best in the Departed. Being Catholic is only a way of saying we have eachother" just being a part of. I think attracts people to any religion.
I'm proud to be a Catholic, even though I don't understand all the doctrine of the church. But I believe in its teaching and that's faith. So many have disputed and opposed the Catholic church but I never doubted their authority to interpret and teach the Bible. But...yes but... supposed I am not a Catholic, then I will be one of the Protestant who disagree with the teaching of the church. But again that will not be the only problem, because if I'm a Protestant Lutheran, I will still be disagreeing with the over 34,000 different Protestant denominations all over the world, so what does that makes me??? That's why the sola scriptura is right, there must be someone to teach the true meaning of the gospel, sola scriptura becomes wrong because it becomes a free for all, to read and interpret according to anyone and everyone's personal understanding... ❤️❤️❤️ So I stand my ground, to remain under the teaching of the one and only Catholic church....
@gospel simplicity I've been trying to find some clarification on an issue from a Catholic perspective. I find that the Isaiah 22/Matthew 16 parallel is a pretty strong scriptural argument for the papacy - especially when operating within the patristic "shadows & typologies" framework. However, the strength of the argument comes from the usage of the word "key(s)" in both passages. The Septuagint doesn't use the word "key(s)"; instead, it says the "glory of the house of David". You won't find "key" until the Masoretic text much later. Do you know anything about this or maybe would you ask one of your guests?
Interesting! I’m not familiar but I can look into it and perhaps ask in a future interview
@@GospelSimplicity Awesome! Thanks, Austin!
@@GospelSimplicity UPDATE: the dead sea scrolls apparently do have the "key(s)" language. So it's in there and the Masoretic Text, but not the Septuagint. Odd. However, I feel better now haha.
Well, this one will be interesting.
Hope you enjoy it!
@@GospelSimplicity Lofton is one of the better Roman apologists, insofar as arguments are concerned. I've already told you my problems with him, which are not academic problems but character ones.
His books are so beautiful and ordered it looks like a fake background 😍
No. They are real books.
Wow!!!!
It is a beautiful background (and collection!)
@@ReasonandTheology Can you recommend any books that are helpful in understanding the magisterium?
@@JAWesquire373 I like magisterium by Sullivan and dulles has one by the same name.
Alright fellas. This is how it works.
Step 1. Get notification of new gospel simplicity video.
Step 2. Ignore family and responsibilities.
Are 3. Open video and immediately click like because Austin is a disgustingly nice person (I hate people like that 😡)
Step 4. Enjoy 😉
This actually made me laugh out loud. I love it!😂
Acts 12:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
This is true
Really interesting. I have been trying to figure some of this terminology out lately. Thanks!
הייתי שמח לשמוע קצת על הסיפור של מייקל (מיכאל?). אני מניח שגדלת כיהודי, גם אם חילוני?
My pleasure!
@3:50 the fiction is the trilogy of Philip Pullman based in an alternate Earth set about late 19 century steampunk type world with magic beginning with "His Dark Materials" the title of which refers to Satan's creations in Paradise Lost by Milton. Pulmans writingvhas been consideredvon par with Tolkien so no wonder magesterium comes up in searches.
Thanks!
I love Michael's take... Also if you are interested in the roots of the papacy from an Old Testament perspective and the jewish context of Jesus' time, I would reccomend you to have Suan Sonna on the show. He has a fb account and he is running the you tube channel "Intelectual Conservatism". He has done an extensive study, building his case by using protestant scholars as well
Thanks!
Good video
Thanks!
Michael is a boss.
Really enjoyed having him on
@@GospelSimplicityBy the way: It is great that you take the time to reply to our comments. It makes the video's seem very conversational.
@@stephenchelius7461 it’s my pleasure!
Just a few thoughts. I could have started sooner but i'll just dive in here where he talks about the magesterium from scripture. Citing Luke 10:16 is a favorite of catholics that want to prove that either the apostles or 'the church' is to be listened to or else. But what does the context here actually say?
Luke 10:1
10 Now after *this the Lord appointed seventy others,* and sent them two and two ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. NASB
Luke 10:16-17
16 "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
17 *And the seventy returned* with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name. NASB
Seventy went out, not 12. Seventy returned, not 12. There is nothing here about any magesterium or church, which hasn't been born or established yet.
Matt 28 does say that they were to make disciples, baptize and teach all that Jesus had commanded. But does this mean that they alone had the authority to teach to the exclusion of all others? Of course not.
2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. NASB
This isn't apostolic succession since it doesn't exist, not in a human form anyway. Teaching is passed on, not a pedigree of people.
2 Tim 2:24
24 And *the Lord's bond-servant* must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, *able to teach,* patient when wronged, NASB
We all should at some point be able to teach. If its biblical it can be considered apostolic. If its not then its not. Too many teachings of the rcc are simply not found anywhere within the pages of scripture. Therefore it cannot be considered an apostolic church.
There is no Petrine primacy in the n.t. Its all complete conjecture to say 'strengthen your brethren' means Peter is being singled out. I can make a better case for Paul being pope than Peter. Just one verse among many is in Acts 9 where God Himself says Paul is MY chosen instrument.
Acts 9:15
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; NASB
Just think if this had been said about Peter! We'd never hear the end of it.
I'll finish the rest of the video later and comment more then. So far there is nothing to suggest there is any teaching/infallible magesterium in scripture anyway.
Fair critiques!
My Friends, can you help me out, please. On the one hand the guy is saying that if we don't know whether the teaching is ordinary or extraordinary we contact the pope and he settles the matter. A few minutes later he is saying that we need tools to establish which is which. So which is it? Wouldn't it be better if Magisterium stated beforehand if the teaching was going to be ordinary or extraordinary? Are they purposefully obfuscate their activity? Kind regards.
That would seem preferable
@@GospelSimplicity Dear friend, thanks for your answer. So then my question is: Why this is not the case? God and anybody who is in the teaching business should be concerned with clarity. If you are teaching and people don't understand it then clearly you are in the wrong business. I have additional question, please. Let's say christian theologians representing diverse denominations are sitting around the table, say 100 scholars, and they argue whose understanding of the Scripture is correct. Who would act as the arbiter in this argument and wouldn't it be more honest, on the part of the arguing theologians, to simply summon God to resolve the dispute? How come none of them, in the heat of the discussion, ever turns to God to clarify the whole issue for them, aren't they concerned about the truth of their teachings? Kind regards.
@@walterseliga9676 I'm no scholar at all, but from my understanding, the magisterium now DOES establish beforehand if the teaching is ordinary or extraordinary. I believe his point about going to the pope for clarification is when having to look back on previous teachings before such clarification was established.
The teaching on papal infallibility was only established at the 1st Vatican council in 1869-70. It is still required that papal teaching prior to this clarification be sifted through to determine which ones are deemed to come from the extraordinary magisterium. However, now, when the Pope is speaking from extraordinary magisterium, it is definitely explicit.
This, somewhat, raised another question though. When the pope declares that it is extraordinary, I assume that declaration is not extraordinary. Therefore, does that mean a future pope can decide otherwise later?
@@billyg898 Dear Billy. I am no scholar either. I simply reacted to what was being said. My understading was that dr. Lofton, who is supposed to know, was not so sure which is which and hence my question. A few hours ago I watched for a while a 3 days old video of his "Identifying the ordinary and universal magisterium with dr. Welch." To me the whole concept of "teaching about the mind of God" is empty, making no sense whatsoever. I wonder how you would approach my question directed to Gospel Simplicity in my second post above, the one with 100 theologians representing different denominations, sitting around the table and arguing fiercely about who is right. Your last observation about the teachings of the future popes is exacly the same as mine. I can demonstrate that it is another empty concept that makes no sense. I am off to bed, different time zone. I'll see you tomorrow. Kind regards.
From you questions, my friend, first I’d say that hard explanations never come effortlessly. To that point I would try the best I can (I will try to respond in parts), starting with the conceptual core on the very nature of the _magisterium._ For a fact, it means - technically - the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church He constituted and gathered around the Twelve Apostles, as heirs of the twelve tribes of Israel, to all eternity, being Peter their leader (in God’s providential ways) and the only one who assertively can (but not every time he will in fact and necessarily) speak on behalf of the whole apostolic collegiate. Catholics believe the Church received a command (insofar it received a charismatical divine protection by Jesus, the builder and the Head of the Church) to maintain the integrity and integrality of the “depositum fidei”, which means a perpetual assistance from the Holy Spirit to not refrain the Church from truth and unity in its solid collectiveness, gathered around the bishops and the successor of Peter. That teaching authority can be of two different kinds. Moreover, under some specific circunstances it will (or will not) have the charismatic ecclesial protection we call infallibility.
The 2 (two) kinds or types of magisterium are:
*1)* *ordinary magisterium,* exercised continuously by the bishops and the popes (ex: through encyclicals and other general types of documents and means), by which the Church is assisted and guided but not necessarily and "a priori" prevented from formal error by the charismatic guarantee of infallibility. But even so, the ordinary teaching must be revered by the faithful in terms of will and reason because it still has the generical assistance of the Holy Spirit that comes from the spiritual dimension of the apostolic embodiment that by faith we understand to be the continuation and historical extension of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space. Nevertheless, the fact that they are not immune from error does not mean that they are equivocal, since antiquity and uninterrupted continuity should be recognizable, being them some criteria to differ from a mere theological opinion given by the hierarchy. At last, the ordinary magisterium becomes infallible - and then the faithful needs to give the supernatural assent of faith, not mereley the reverent assent of will and reason - whenever the pope and all the episcopal collegiate dispersed throughout the world (meaning universally, never only regionally) agree to issue a definitive and authoritative sentence on the matters of faith and morals that is applicable to the whole Church.
*2)* *extraordinary magisterium,* implemented by solemn and formal judgments and not through the simple disperse collegiality and continuity, under specific situations - ex: heresies, disbelief, ecclesiastical crisis or practical necessities, theological controversies, doctrinal uncertainties and so forth -, meaning the supreme teaching authority exercised by the Pope or the entire episcopal collegiate gathered in an Ecumenical (universal) Council, in full communion with the Pope, to specifically handle the situations and circumstances that made it be. It is infallible when it comes to judgments concerning faith and morals (so-called dogmatic judgments), being its teachings immutable and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These dogmatic judgments - which may not contain new revelations but maybe novel formulas to express what was already inside the deposit of faith, both implicitly or explicitly, insofar as the Church understands to achieve the propitious discernment - are expressed either in a positive proclamation, as in some sort of command of integral assent of faith, or in a (doctrinal) "anathema", meaning the express condemnation as wrong teaching, having maybe the format of decrees, papal bulls, dogmatic constitutions and others.
Part 2
If no new revelation is given post apostolic age then why has rome done exactly that? Karl Keating founder of catholic answers in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism says on pp 275 that Marys assumption isn't in the bible;
"Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none."
Then he goes on to say on the same page;
"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true."
If that isn't circular reasoning i don't know what is. And its not just Mary's assumption but her immaculate conception, theotokos, papal infallibility....the list goes on.
I'd like to know where in the n.t. there is a 'seed form' of venerating icons. Which apostle taught that? Was it a thing that occurred post apostolic age? Sure. Was it condoned? No. Not by everyone thats for sure. Polycarp was dead set against relics. And Epiphaneus was against icons. In Jeromes letter 51 chapter 9 (the letter was actually written by Epiphaneus but translated into latin by Jerome) Epiphaneus is walking through a small town, sees a little house with a lamp burning in the window. He inquires what kind of place this was and was told it was a church. He goes in to pray and sees a curtain with a icon he says of Jesus or one of the saints. He rips it to shreds on the spot. Tells the people to give the clothe to the poor and he will replace the curtain. He said it was against scripture. And this is in the late 4th century.
Here is an excerpt.
*Letter 51 - From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem*
*I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder*
*(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 6, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)*
Well, i could have commented on a lot more but i'll leave it at this. I didn't find any of those arguments for a magesterium convincing. Especially from a scriptural perspective.
Michael Lofton says the magisterium cannot teach new revelation, if I heard that right. But isn’t the assumption of Mary revelation?
The assumption of Mary is not a revelation from the Magisterium. The basis of the assumption is Scripture (using typology in Revelations 12 and other passages), and the Apostolic Tradition (there is early testimony of this doctrine).
The pronuntiation of the Magisterium didn't gave new doctrine, but gave an official postulation on how Scripture and Tradition should be interpreted.
"If what I am saying is not true, then the answer is not Orthodoxy, but maybe Protestanism"
As an Orthodox Christian, hearing this from a Catholic was somewhat surprising.
Most of this interview was a puff piece for the Papacy; perhaps that was the intention.
@Theodorthere is a difference between defense and one-sided psuedo propaganda. This is just my opinion of course. Not looking to start an argument
Yes. Why focus on the issues that are less controversial ? Papacy is the one with the most burden of proof.
And yes I find EO utterly inconsistent even beyond Protestantism in some ways.
@@ReasonandTheology It appears that you'd rather have someone believe in Papal Supremacy over and above someone believing in the real prescence in the Eucharist
@@George-ur8ow yes the Orthodox have the Eucharist and in many ways are closer to RC. But the point is it is utterly inconsistent to point me to the first 7 councils and the fathers of the first millenium as an EO and then not affirm what they taught about primacy and worse consider it heresy. The protestant are more consistent here.
Lastly, just bc a particular community or person believes in the real presence does not mean they receive it's grace. Orthodox have a valid eucharist but EO arent necessarily receiving its grace due to schism. If an EO is invincibly ignorant and only a material schismatic then maybe they receive the grace (only God knows) but the matter of schism is automatically a general impediment for receiving the graces of the sacraments. So simply saying someone believes in the Eucharist doesn't really mean a whole lot when they are in schism. Hence my position.
@@ReasonandTheology "Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, but are not receiving it's grace due to the schism" in other words, the Eucharist is only effective if one adheres to and is subject to Papal Supremacy, thus the Orthodox are partaking of the Eucharist in vain (unless they do so ignorantly)? If so, it appears you are essentially saying "Why bother with the Liturgy, it is only worth it if you recognize and assent to Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ and his infallibility Ex Cathedra"
I missed part of the interview yesterday. Did you address Pope Honorius or the Donation of Constantine?
God bless the Catholic Church.
A couple of questions. If the majesterium can clarify all these disputes why hasn't it? If the bishops are the successors or the apostles why aren't there only 12 of them or are there?
The apostles appointed bishops through the laying on of hands. Those bishops appointed others by the laying on of hands. Those other bishops appointed others by the laying of hands and so on and so forth. Fast forward to 2021 we still continue to appoint new bishops by the laying on of hands. This is what’s called apostolic succession. You can trace a bishops laying on of hands all the way back to the original apostles.
@@footballtraininganddevelop1522 I get that is why there are so many. But if the arguments the the pope is Peter's successor succe they should also demonstrate that the other apostles have successors who should fulfill similar roles to the pope but not be in charge.
@@williamkeller5541 they do. The other apostles would’ve been considered bishops or overseers of the church. That’s the role of bishops. The difference with Peter and his successors is that Peter was named leader of the apostles (the church). That’s why the pope is called the successor of Peter, because he is the the overall leader/overseer of the church. Hope that makes sense
@@footballtraininganddevelop1522 It kind of makes sense but why aren't there specific offices for the other 11 apostles like there are for Peter?
For the same reason Jesus and the apostles didn't. God has chosen to allow things to develop in time rather than immediately and at once. I prefer the latter but God sees the wisdom in the former, so I yield to his wisdom.
Because 12 bishops would have a very hard time shepherding 1.3 billion Catholics. It would be impossible.
Why would the intent of the magisterium matter in a conciliar meeting? If it speaks truth, it speaks truth regardless of whether it intended to or not.
Is there a particular point you're referencing?
This is great But ads every 2 minutes? Good grief! Hard to follow the discussion.
Ah, sorry about that. I let youtube set it automatically. It's fixed now!
@@GospelSimplicity Not your fault. Great interview and subject. Sometimes hard to connect thoughts.
@@GospelSimplicity thank you for fixing that. I’m all for earning some income but I’ve ditched many a channel for over doing it with the ads. 👍🏼😃
Please install uBlock Origin extension in your browser and never be bothered by ads ever again.
@@lefooo Or not, and help support content creators like me :)
I’m sure the video is going to be great but I find the title of the video problematic, because asking “is it biblical?” Seems to presuppose Sola Scriptura and if that’s the case it begs the question against the Catholic case. I’m sure you didn’t mean to and the guy you’re talking to will give a Scripture based case for the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors but I just wanted to point that out
Hey JC, I'm not sure that asking if something is biblical necessarily presupposes a sola scriptura foundation, but I know exactly what you mean because some may look at it that way. I guess it's complicated, too complicated for a CZcams comment feed lol! God bless you!
@@DesignEcologies
not necessarily. I've been reading the church fathers for a while in full context, and while my views have been changed to accepting belief in baptismal regeneration, literal presence of the Lords supper, and worship on Sunday, im not convinced by the papacy. I've seen some so called quotes as a defense being turned upside down by the context. I can admit the idea of apostolic succession as having some legitimacy, however at best the eastern orthodox church seems to be more in harmony with Peter's role, as first among equals. Im currently Lutheran as a result of my findings. The Roman papacy as understood from the dark ages and today seems to be a rather large stretch. The papacy seems to be more of a development over time. I can certainly see Peter having a primacy, and confessional Lutheranism does not necessarily see that as a problem, but Peter's authority in comparison to modern Rome seemed to be quite a bit more limited. I have more to read of course in the church fathers, but i feel in my research catholic apologists are not always 100 percent honest. I will not accept isolated quotes from the Fathers by catholic apologists anymore, without the full context, and more preferably the whole document from which it is quoted from. Im sure i will get bombarded with plenty of reasons why im wrong. But believe me when I say there isn't a single argument that anyone can make that i haven't already heard. Looking at history as a whole, the good, the bad, and ugly, im not convinced.
@@leeenk6932 - You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However I hope you will continue to keep an open mind. IMHO, Lutheranism has the same or worse problem in that there are no verses that directly and explicitly teach Sola Scriptura. There are far more verses that teach the primacy of St. Peter as head of the apostles. From a Catholic perspective it’s not a huge leap to think that the biblical model is one that would be passed on to future generations of Christians. 😇🙏🏽
"Is it Biblical" is a question which presupposes the existence and authority of the Scripture. I have yet to meet a protestant who can tell me which books are in the Bible without citing anything but the Bible. The very idea of Scripture assumes magisterial authority.
❤
We don't even "have" Scripture without the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church comes first. The church defined the Canon of
Scripture after hundreds of years of reflection and discernment.
If the Roman church wasn't around the Orthodox Catholic Church would be still who gave us Scripture.
@@LadyMaria Actually the Roman Church exists since St Peter became the first bishop of Roman (Pope). But the Catholic Church is the Church founded and promised by Jesus, not just the roman one.
Catholics believe in order to understand! Saint Anselm
Fides quaerens intellectum
As an Orthodox Christian, I'd say we can affirm pretty much everything Micheal speaks about, up until the point where he argues that all of this amounts to Papal supremacy and infallibility. That's where we'd get off the train.
That's interesting to hear that perspective
@@GospelSimplicity Thanks Austin! To explain further the Orthodox perspective, I think it really comes down to the nature of Bishops. In our view, and we would assert the early Church canons support this view, is that Bishops are all fundamentally equal. So yes, we have Archbishops and Patriarchs, but these are simply adminstrative offices. They remain a Bishop like all other Bishops. There is no further ordination or grace imparted on those higher adminstrative ranks. To be a Bishop, means to be the leader of all the Priests, Deacons, and laity, of your particular diocese. No Bishop, not even a Patriarch, can meddle in the affairs of another Bishop's diocese. St Ignatius of Antioch says "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.". This means that wherever the faithful are gathered around their Bishops, there is the fullness of the Church. This is why one Bishop cannot correct another Bishop. Additionally, individual Bishops have never been understood to be preserved from error in any context. The human aspect of the Church can always be wrong, the divine aspect of the Church is infallible. We believe that divine aspect is expressed through councils and scripture, not one person by themselves. So we would agree that Peter had a special place amongst the apostles, and we would affirm that the Pope is the first amongst equals, but we would reject Papal infallibility and supremacy as defined in Vatican 1, as it aims to change what is fundamentally means to be a Bishop.
Love your videos by the way! God bless.
Your guest suggested that Tradition is the glasses we wear to understand scripture properly. This is where I think much of Western Christianity goes wrong. The lens through which Jesus interpreted scripture is Christ, the Logos that was in the beginning, Jesus’ divine nature. Jesus’ first followers began to see not only Jewish scripture and tradition in Christ (which is both a worldview and ontological reality), but everything else precisely because they began to see Christ everywhere. Please get someone on to talk about the Universal Christ. Truly it is Christ who gives us eyes to see.
So you have all the answers I see
What does that look like practically? Couldn't we all say we're interpreting Scripture through Christ?
The apostle Paul calls it the Christ mystery. What does it look like? An emphasize on trust rather than certainty, a move beyond rules into wisdom, being able to rely on experience instead of doctrinal statements, whether in traditional or scriptural form. It’s not a rejection of tradition or scripture, though it may seem like it. It’s radical inclusion. It’s embodied love. It’s Jesus Christ, and it’s Christ in you.
@@trupela that Jesus was Risen was a certainty worthy of doubt were it not for evidence to the contrary
Consider this image of the universal Christ. We are like aeolian harps. After tuning, the harp is put outside to be played by the wind. This is an image that Owen Barfield used to describe the way in which we participate in God. Our tuning, which we also participate in, is an image of becoming oriented properly in and to reality. Becoming properly tuned is what this life is primarily about. I think this is where our structures and hierarchies and sacraments and liturgies are vital. But we don’t play ‘ourselves’. God plays us. The wind is a fitting image of Gods spirit. One might call that spirit love. We are played, as it were, not as individuals, or as detached humanity, but as an entire symphony, as God’s good creation, heaven and earth. If we have ears to hear, perhaps we may discern a few notes today.
some of the local bishops are teaching heresies
R&T!!!!
Great channel
@TheJason909 "No, it's my way of accepting that all leaders are ordained by God (Rom 13:1)."
Every leader got in legitimately and not by fraud and is good for the people.
👍
The case for the Magisterium is this: Matthew 28 : 16-20; either Christ's authority to teach is actually true and therefore is still in effect, or it is not. Tah-rah! simple gospelicity .. with admittedly rather difficult consequences for 'how' the Church (Jesus Christ, Himself, in Person, at One with His Bride, no other) works in practice. Modernist Catholicism, along with imperial Orthodoxy and most forms of Protest against Rome, has long since ditched this notion of divinely-originated infallible teaching authority at work among themselves .. chiefly because they are, more or less, correct it is not (because they do not want it).
To see this shift in action, look at how the reigning Sovereign Pontiff presents a witness to gospel truth (which he does on rare occasions) and how even Paul VI tried to do this (in the teeth of undisguised rejection). Or, if more accessible (and easier to understand), how Bishop Robert Barron chooses to witness to the Faith (the living faith, the saving faith) and how Archbishop Fulton J Sheen did it etc:
czcams.com/video/JxU0tXGewbw/video.html
The Magisterium does not rest on personalities but is wrought in witness. And that, btw, is why we need to know the Faith, living and saving, not just what is said about it. Not all who speak in Christ's Name do so on His Authority ..
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
May St Joseph stand by you, and please Lord, may you draw strength from his godly witness ..
God bless. ;o)
Judging from the accent I guess this guy grew up in southern Israel.
Israel. New York. Texas and Louisiana.
i'm just 1 year old non denominational christian (convert )soo i'm sory if i make mistake but isn't sola scriptura debunk sola scriptura itself(Bible teach about how bible not contain everything, also bible teach about church's authority on teaching). Not just that but even claiming sola scriptura kind of bad when you realise bible is not eternal and christianity is not started with bible therefore it is a bit disrespectful toward pre biblical christians to say only bible have authority. I feels like we should give credit where we get our bible in the first place.
Sola scriptura is debunked by scripture itself! 2 Thes. 2:15 Paul instructs the church to hold fast to what he taught them, by either word or epistle. Also, there is a verse in 1 Cor. where Paul refutes sola scriptura, but I don't remember chapter/verse. Sorry. Just read the whole epistle :)
@@GrislyAtoms12 exactly that was my point :D i don't have denomination but at least i know i'm not gonna go with protestant one XD Because it not fit well with bible
@@EnderElohim I am going with Roman Catholic!
@@GrislyAtoms12 well pray for me too than ^^ not sure about catholic or orthodox right now and almost feels like same
@@EnderElohim How many services have you been to, either Catholic or Orthodox? To me, they are vastly different in style. I could not relate well to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, with its endless chanting and a Capella singing. However, with Catholic mass I was instantly smitten. Going to mass should be joyful, but the idea of spending the rest of my life sitting through Divine Liturgies which confused me more than anything else, made my choice easy.
If you do go to Catholic mass, it is important that you NOT take the Eucharist bread and wine. Instead, cross your arms across your chest and receive a verbal blessing instead. Also, try to get a copy of the book "Didache". The Catholic mass is the original church service taught by the Apostles themselves. Protestantism is a very recent change to Christianity, comparatively speaking.
Nice conversation. Lofton couldn't quite answer what was extraordinary magisterium. What he explained was nice in theory but awful in practice.
I felt he explained it well, but I also felt the Catholic Church should be able to do a lot better job not making it so complicated
@@GospelSimplicity That’s a very fair comment. I indeed had to study deeply to come to the conclusion it isn’t really “that” complicated, so you got my point, hehe. But I think it is the best the Church can feed our intellects with. And she indeed gives that best, in my opinion, in all formal definitions and documents we actually have, for better or worse. The real job to catalogue all of this, what in fact we want (so to make things the clearest), must be the work of theologians and professors of theology but not necessarily another official doctrinal “production” of the Church: a catalogue of content or something like that.
Elias, let me try to explain it. The _magisterium_ means - technically - the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church He constituted and gathered around the Twelve Apostles, as heirs of the twelve tribes of Israel, to all eternity, being Peter their leader (in God’s providential ways) and the only one who assertively can (but not every time he will in fact and necessarily) speak on behalf of the whole apostolic collegiate. Catholics believe the Church received a command (insofar it received a charismatical divine protection by Jesus, the builder and the Head of the Church) to maintain the integrity and integrality of the “depositum fidei”, which means a perpetual assistance from the Holy Spirit to not refrain the Church from truth and unity in its solid collectiveness, gathered around the successors of the apostles (bishops) in communion with the successor of Peter (the pope, a bishop that has some specific order of duties and responsabilities concerning the universal church). That teaching authority can be of two different kinds. Moreover, under some specific circunstances it will (or will not) have the charismatic ecclesial protection we call infallibility.
The 2 (two) kinds or types of magisterium are:
*1)* *ordinary magisterium,* exercised continuously by the bishops and the popes (ex: through encyclicals and other general types of documents and means), by which the Church is assisted and guided but not necessarily and "a priori" prevented from formal error by the charismatic guarantee of infallibility. But even so, the ordinary teaching must be revered by the faithful in terms of will and reason because it still has the generical assistance of the Holy Spirit that comes from the spiritual dimension of the apostolic embodiment that by faith we understand to be the continuation and historical extension of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space. Nevertheless, the fact that they are not immune from error does not mean that they are equivocal, since antiquity and uninterrupted continuity should be recognizable, being them some criteria to differ from a mere theological opinion given by the hierarchy. At last, the ordinary magisterium becomes infallible - and then the faithful needs to give the supernatural assent of faith, not mereley the reverent assent of will and reason - whenever the pope and all the episcopal collegiate dispersed throughout the world (meaning universally, never only regionally) agree to issue a definitive and authoritative sentence on the matters of faith and morals that is applicable to the whole Church.
*2)* *extraordinary magisterium,* implemented by solemn and formal judgments and not through the simple disperse collegiality and continuity, under specific situations - ex: heresies, disbelief, ecclesiastical crisis or practical necessities, theological controversies, doctrinal uncertainties, pastoral demands and so forth -, meaning the supreme teaching authority exercised by the Pope or the entire episcopal collegiate gathered in an Ecumenical (universal) Council, in full communion with the Pope, to specifically handle the situations and circumstances that made it be. It is infallible when it comes to judgments concerning faith and morals (so-called dogmatic judgments), being its teachings immutable and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These dogmatic judgments - which may not contain new revelations but maybe novel formulas to express what was already inside the deposit of faith, both implicitly or explicitly, insofar as the Church understands to achieve the propitious discernment - are expressed either in a positive proclamation, as in some sort of command of integral assent of faith, or in a (doctrinal) "anathema", meaning the express condemnation as wrong teaching (heresy), having maybe the format of decrees, papal bulls, dogmatic constitutions and others.
Notice that we CANNOT and should not draw a direct relation between infallibility (the highest level of theological certainty meaning not only the generical ecclesial guidance but the specific charismatic protection from error) and what we know as the “extraordinary magisterium”. They are not ambivalent concepts. This confusion is very common though. Infallibility is a whole other topic but it necessarily has to do - concomitantly - with doctrine of faith and morals and with universality (and we add to that some more specific details that wouldn’t matter much here by now). That means we can have non-infallible or infallible ordinary teachings; and we can have non-infallible or infallible extraordinary teachings.
We could exemplify some cases:
*(a.1)* As a non-infallible *‘ordinary magisterium’* teaching, we can point the disciplinary mandatory celibacy for presbyters (priests) in the West. The earliest formal definition came in the regional Council of Elvira in 304 AD, being the custom even more ancient (according to some historiographical registers) and it is held to be historically observed uninterruptedly. It is not a doctrinal issue nor it is universal, consequently it does not hold any sort of conceptual infallibility, but it demands the reverent assent of reason and will.
*(a.2)* As infallible *‘ordinary magisterium’* teachings - that has the need to be universally held by the bishops and the popes altogether and historically considered -, we can say the immorality of directly taking an innocent human life and all other non-dogmatic moral issues on sexuality (like the condemnation of contraception, abortion or ‘in vitro’ fertilization taken to be intrinsically immoral, for example). Both Pope St. John XXIII’s 1961 encyclical “Mater et Magistra” or Pope’s St. Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” are (in those concerning parts) good examples of sentences that were made definitive, expressing the understandings of the universal collegiate of bishops, thus regognized as infallible (requiring the supernatural assent of faith), inside what is understood to be the ordinary and universal magisterium.
*(b.1.[1])* As a non-infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teaching by a Pope, we can say the “Apostolicae Curae” papal bull issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, in which he analyzed the specific situation of the Anglicans and solemned declared, since it was understood and formally defined they are outside of legitimate apostolic succession, all of their ordinations to be null and void. It is for sure an universal recognition of the Catholic Church in its totality by the hand of the Petrine authority, but it does not concern to doctrines of faith and morals, therefore it does not hold to the predicative conditions of infallibility. That should only require the assent of reason and will.
*(b.1.[2])* As non-infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by Ecumenical Councils in full communion with the pope, we can say the solemn definition of canonical privileges for churches or the assignment of any honorific titles given to churches after Rome, like in some canons of Nicea (325 AD) or Chalcedon (451 AD), as in regard of specific ecclesiastical necessities of the time. Therefore that only requires the assent of reason and will whenever it is demanded. Apart from that, we should not even classify as non-infallible “teachings” (but simply as ecclesiastical governance decision concerning to territorial organization, no teaching at all) any of those canons of Ecumenical Councils that merely defined metropolitan/ archepiscopal status of jurisdiction for larger and more important cities over the smaller dioceses, since it does not entail any sort of magisterial matter.
*(b.2.[1])* As infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by the pope (rare cases), what we generically call “ex cathedra”, we can say the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX or the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. It is not a prerequisite but in both cases the popes have consulted the universal collegiate of bishops on these matters and constituted theological commissions to study and analyze the doctrines. It requires not the typical assent of reason and will but the supernatural assent of faith, being infallible solemn dogmas.
*(b.2.[2])* At last, as infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by Ecumenical Councils in full communion with the popes, we can say the dogmatic definition of the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the consubstantiality with the Father (in Nicea, 325 AD), the divine nature of the Holy Spirit (in First Constantinople, 381 AD) or the dogmatic definition of the Christological union of two natures, both perfectly human and perfectly divine, in one person (in First Ephesus, 431 AD, and Chalcedon, 451 AD), every single one of them issued under grave controversies and serious spreading of heresies on those times. Those solemn judgments demand the supernatural assent of faith since we are dealing with infallible matter.
I hoped that helped you, my friend!
@@brunot2481 Thanks for the detailed examples, and so great to know how much you know about your church!
What I meant was to say was that Lofton didn't quite have an answer to how one really determines what defines a teaching as Magesterial, and which are approved as fallible/infallible. He essentially said it's a gray area debated by many theologians, which is fine, but it helps to make the point that some of us Orthodox make saying that even with a Pope as the ultimate source of authority in the West, you end up with a very similar situation of ending up in gray areas on what is ultimately dogmatic or not if it's not specifically written in the canons of an ecumenical council.
This is a situation Catholics criticize the Orthodox for being under but it seems to me like the Catholic church ends up in a similar scenario but with a couple of extra steps. IDK if that made sense or not.
So Papal magisterium is question begging, the exact thing it tries to avoid
Faith... If one don't faith on catholic teaching then.. May holly spirit will do the work on them.. No need to explain or argue..
thanks
"The Roman Church, in fact, employs Scripture in her efforts to persuade men of her authority and that of Scripture. By so doing she denies in fact what she maintains in theory."
Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture, p
101
Thats absurd. Scriptures is a source of truths of faith. Why should the Catholic Church that compiled and canonized the Bible gets rid of its book to persuade of its authority. Really the absurd thing is to use a liturgy book of an apostolic Church trying to persuade people that this book is a manual of an alien and a thousand year later church
@@Fasolislithuan You've missed the point of the assertion. That being, Rome seeks to establish it's teaching authority from the Scriptures, which puts Rome in the awkward position of appealing to the authority of God's Word to assert its supremacy.
This, quite obviously, places Scripture as the sole Rule and Norm for Doctrine and Life. Again, unwittingly admitted by Rome herself in her appeal to the Scripture for its so-thought assertion of supremacy. "By so doing she denies in fact what she maintains in theory."
@@marcuswilliams7448 First, Rome is a City not the Catholic Church. Second, the authority of the Catholic Church is from Jesus not from the Scriptures. Christ established his only Church upon Peter, the Rock. Christ not even mentioned any Word of the necessity of writing his teachings, rather He established an authority to teach his commandments and It was an apostolic Church not a book. Third, the only people that argue his authority is scriptural are protestants, who denied the authority from apostolic sucession. Its understandable because they came a thousand year later than the Catholic Church defined the biblical canon.
In other words, what you are saying is: if the Catholic Church does not believe “sola scriptura”, then she should not be allowed to use Sacred Scriptures to show that her authority comes from Jesus. And that means either you are a Protestant or your are not allowed to use the Bible. There is a really bad argument made there.
Hi so wonderful to listen and learn . I'm Catholic and really appreciate that you want to learn more about the faith.God bless you. Some other wonderful teachers and tbere are many is Dr Scott Hahn at Steubennville University.Father Donald Calloway also at Stubenville. Father Chris Alair divine mercy. org I think. Father Chad Ripperger. They are wonderful teachers of the faith.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the recommendations
Brian Farley thank you for the Bible texts. I look them up about Marry perpetual virginity’s. By definition the word betrothed mean engage to married. Mary was a Virgin yes at the angel anunciation since she was engaged to be married. Joseph respected that and if you continue reading; it said Joseph knew not Mary until after the baby (Jesus) was born. In other words Joseph did not had marital intercourse with until Jesus was born. Also the Catholic Church did not declare tha bodily assumption of Mary to heaven until 1950. I do believe her spirit to be in heaven but not her body like Jesus. There many dogma required to be practice by the Catholic Church which are not necessary for salvation. My mother was Catholic and I did my first communion. I love and enjoy many of the historical tradition. But my conscious can not accept as fact: Mary been born with out sin, her perpetual virginity and bodily assumption. Also purgatory. I also feel sorry that it seem like a mandate that a Priest can not have a wife if he want to serve God in the Catholic Church. The with women having to be nums and not able to get married to serve God. Also praying for the Spirit of a death person. I think we should pray for the person while he/she still alive. But I know that many are save in the Catholic Church because what they practice is to honor God. Also the same happen in the heart of many other Christian from other denomination who practice certain tradition to serve God; they to will be saved. Thank you my brother in Christ!
Austin I like all this Catholic stuff, but we need more Lutheran videos. You have many Catholic who are future Lutherans.
In due time. I’ve already done two Lutheran videos and I’d like to represent some other Protestant denominations
@@GospelSimplicity Thank God! No more Catholic videos! Lol.
So isn't the Magisterium just a kinda modern Sanhedrin? And they'er making rules to go with other rules ect.
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes. Isaiah 22 mirrors the Papacy. Fact.
Does Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 actually line up from the Catholic perspective? It should be noted that Orthodoxy has a different reading for Isaiah 22:22:
"I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him."
Note, there is no mention of keys, and no mention of "what he opens no one can shut, and what he closes no one can open".
This Catholic translation relies on the Masoretic text (compiled from 7th to 10th century AD), the Orthodox Study Bible uses the Greek Septuagint (compiled from 3rd to 2nd century, BC). In other words, if Catholics were to apply Isaiah 22:22 from the Septuagint in the OSB to Matthew 16:19 to justify the monarchical supreme papacy, they wouldn’t have much to stand on...and this is just one point amongst many against such an intepretation of Isaiah from the Catholic perspective - an additional major point is that this "scriptural proof" has been argued for only a very short time, only after claims of Infallibility were made.
@@George-ur8ow no,no your over thinking it. It’s the entire chapter. Keep reading. Don’t just hunt and peck what you see fit, it doesn’t work that way. Brant Pitre’s breakdown on the papacy is what you should find on CZcams. Type ‘pitre papacy’ he and Scott Hahn are our worlds greatest Bible scholars. Stick with the best my friend. Good luck on your journey
@@cotaryan3740 I am the one overthinking it? The irony. The latter portion of Isaiah 22 is a prophecy specifically about Eliakim, a finance minister, and his later fall as well. Your interpretation so out of the bounds of historical interpretation - this reading of the text only emerged in the 20th century.
It appears to me that Catholics are entering into Protestant methods - self interpreting the texts so they fit their own narrative, rather than how the texts have been interpreted for the prior 1900 years.
@@George-ur8ow did you watch the video yet George? Ironically you failed
Frankly, this whole discourses on some so-called magisterium was a bunch of pseudo-theological hooey!! From my perspective, the real magisterium is the Holy Scriptures, and the head therein is the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit AMEN!!! 😁😁😁
Thanks