I often point out to my Protestant friends that God, being a good Father, would not let us figure out on our own what is true doctrine. Thank God for the gift of the Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)
See 2 Tim. 3:16. We are to judge all things by scripture. So if a Pope or group of bishops says I must venerate holy images as they did at Nicaea II then I am not bound to obey them and violate God's word. This is not private interpretation. It's acknowledging that 2 Tim. 3:16 has meaning and is true.
If we take Charles' mantra of, "I want to know what Jesus commands" and apply it to Papal infallibility, then I fail to see how the dilemma isn't also mirrored in Roman Catholicism. Because wanting to know Jesus’ commands would logically require knowing when the Pope has infallibly conveyed them. Otherwise, there is a likelihood that the Pope may be in error and what he says is not actually the command of Jesus. Not only this, but there is disagreement amongst Roman Catholics on when the Pope has spoken infallibly. So Charles has not escaped this dilemma, he only thinks he has which is just a placebo. Here are a few examples of Roman Catholics disagreeing about when the Pope has spoken infallibly. The following is taken from Roman Catholic scholar Dr John Joy's book, "Disputing Questions of Papal Infallibility". Here Joy surveys whether Pope John Paul 2 spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae. Look at how Roman Catholics (including Pope Benedict) disagree with each other on this question. These are 4 typical objections for thinking PJP2 did not speak infallibly: "Objection 1. It would seem that the pope does not speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae (1995). For Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said: “Pope John Paul II considered making an infallible declaration against abortion and euthanasia in his latest encyclical Evangelium Vitae, but the idea was dropped because the teachings were considered ‘so evident’ in Christian faith and tradition.”[35] But if the pope did not intend to speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae, then he did not speak infallibly. Objection 2. Furthermore, according to Bishop Anthony Bosco: “If the pope wanted to say something was infallible, he would have used the word.”[36] Objection 3. Furthermore, in order to speak infallibly, the pope must propose a doctrine of faith or morals as definitively to be held, as shown above. But this phrase is not used in the encyclical. Objection 4. Furthermore, encyclical letters are organs of the ordinary papal magisterium, which is not infallible, as shown above. But Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical letter." Now, ultimately Joy makes the case that EV was spoken infallibly, but the point is still the same: There is disagreement about this and Joy had to go about this by using his own fallible judgement, just like Protestants do. Heres another excerpt showing how Roman Catholics disagree on when the Pope speaks infallibly: "Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three? Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3] Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4] Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]"
If we take Charles' mantra of, "I want to know what Jesus commands" and apply it to Papal infallibility, then I fail to see how the dilemma isn't also mirrored in Roman Catholicism. Because wanting to know Jesus’ commands would logically require knowing when the Pope has infallibly conveyed them. Otherwise, there is a likelihood that the Pope may be in error and what he says is not actually the command of Jesus. Not only this, but there is disagreement amongst Roman Catholics on when the Pope has spoken infallibly. So Charles has not escaped this dilemma, he only thinks he has which is just a placebo. Here are a few examples of Roman Catholics disagreeing about when the Pope has spoken infallibly. The following is taken from Roman Catholic scholar Dr John Joy's book, "Disputing Questions of Papal Infallibility". Here Joy surveys whether Pope John Paul 2 spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae. Look at how Roman Catholics (including Pope Benedict) disagree with each other on this question. These are 4 typical objections for thinking PJP2 did not speak infallibly: "Objection 1. It would seem that the pope does not speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae (1995). For Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said: “Pope John Paul II considered making an infallible declaration against abortion and euthanasia in his latest encyclical Evangelium Vitae, but the idea was dropped because the teachings were considered ‘so evident’ in Christian faith and tradition.”[35] But if the pope did not intend to speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae, then he did not speak infallibly. Objection 2. Furthermore, according to Bishop Anthony Bosco: “If the pope wanted to say something was infallible, he would have used the word.”[36] Objection 3. Furthermore, in order to speak infallibly, the pope must propose a doctrine of faith or morals as definitively to be held, as shown above. But this phrase is not used in the encyclical. Objection 4. Furthermore, encyclical letters are organs of the ordinary papal magisterium, which is not infallible, as shown above. But Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical letter." Now, ultimately Joy makes the case that EV was spoken infallibly, but the point is still the same: There is disagreement about this and Joy had to go about this by using his own fallible judgement, just like Protestants do. Heres another excerpt showing how Roman Catholics disagree on when the Pope speaks infallibly: "Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three? Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3] Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4] Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]"
I occasionally went to the Methodist church with my paternal grandmother. After she passed, no church. My parents were nones. I met my husband and converted in ‘94. Thanks be to God
If a doctrine isn’t in the pages of the New Testament it is man made. You will not find the sinlessness of Mary, the Papacy, or prayers to saints in the NT. - it really is this simple.
I used to believe the same thing. But what the Church Fathers taught me is Scripture is far deeper than I realized, and the teachings on Our Lady, the papacy, etc. are not only there, but all over the place. I just had to learn how to read the Bible like Jesus and the Apostles. Once I actually listened to what the Catholic Church had to say, I realized it had far more biblical and deep answers than any protestant sect.
@@joshuatcharles I used to be Catholic so I understand the comfort of the magisterium. The richness tactile aspects of the Mass and the images. The smells and antiquity of the culture-Justification by faith alone and the word of God surpasses all of it.
@@jcalvin4796I hope you’re well and thanks for chiming in….im curious, did you happen to see the debates between James White and Trent Horn and/or James White and Jimmy Akin? If so, what did you think and as a Catholic to Protestant convert, what part of the P argument resonates for you? If you haven’t seen them, highly commend them to you. Jimmy and Trent were great and I thought it was one of James’ better performances.
Been following Joshua on FB for some years now. If it’s one thing he doesn’t do, it’s getting weighed down in the ideological tug-of-war match that’s going on within the Church. I can say with reasonable certainty that when this platform takes off, unlike some other Catholic influencers that shall remain nameless, Joshua will continue to not get distracted with the current ecclesiastical politics of the day.
Church history and the Bible show us that God, by the Spirit, has guided His Church and guided individuals. Unfortunately, church history and the Bible also show us that the Body of Christ and individuals can be involved in heresy and error.
Thank you for your work and witness. Revert here because of the converts like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray and many others and now you! May you be an instrument for the eventual unity. And yes… like William Buckley!
The issue of authority had also been one of my dilemmas as a protestant (Lutheran now Catholic, 2022). It wasn't my main contention by any means, but I did think it seemed strange seeing non-denom churches pop up out of no where with someone who "maybe" has a theology certificate. I know the Holy Spirit is able to do good things with these churches and people - I've seen at least exteriorly the fruits of some - however they are not getting to experience the Full Richness of the Christian faith. That is sad.
Such a good and clear talk - thank you. Marcus Grodi said the same thing, one of the observations that led him to the Catholic Church - As a Protestant minister leading Bible studies, there would be opposing opinions and conclusions. He realized that everyone cannot be right. There has to be an Authority to declare which is the correct conclusion. The Catholic Church was the only organization that offered the unequivocal authority.
You are very thought provoking, I could leave 20 comments. Much appreciated, I think we disagree on probably many things but probably just slightly. I think I'll listen to more, thanks for your heart and dedication to Jesus.
I came to the Church on a near-identical road as Mr. Charles, except that my "crisis" so-to-speak was whether or not I stuck with the progressive LGBTQ Protestantism I embraced and lived out, lost my faith almost entirely, or became Catholic. Here I am.
Thank you for your witness and work to develop yourself to the fullest potential for God. “Be who God ment you to be, and you will set the world on fire” -St. Catherine of Siena
That was my realization also. The question was “What is Truth?” All you have is your best guess my best OPINION. If I want to get to a destination I need an accurate map. So all a Protestant could say is well truth is nice but not really necessary because we just have to believe Jesus died and rose and voila. You’re in.
God created an infallible Catholic church to give us an infallible interpretation of Scripture. This is the only way we could know the truth, since every individual’s interpretation is just as good as another, how could we discern what is true?
To be honest, the first time I saw this in my TH-cam feed, I thought it was a from protestant channel. Then I found out it was Joshua Charles' channel. I do recommend keeping the background. It is kinda like Brian Holdsworth's background for his videos.
If you mean Pope Francis in particular, I would look into Sedevacantism as an answer because yes, he is a heretic. If you mean the papacy in general, feel free to ask me whatever you need to and I’ll answer it.
Another important point is that if you are discerning to be a Christian, and all you have is the Bible to know what is expected of you and the church into which you are thinking of entering, how are these teachings meant to be clear, when you are still an unbelieving sinner? It really doesn't make much sense and sounds completely impractical. In fact, it sounds like a 20th century approach, where paper Bibles are everywhere, rather than the preceding millennia (or two) when faith was preached, not self-taught... Our Lord left us a Church as He didn't want to leave us orphans, a mother to teach, nurture and lead us.
@@BensWorkshopIt's my understanding that the mainl reason, in the early 1800's, the 7 books were removed from the canon that had been in place so the 300's because the Bible societies (who were distributing free Bibles around the world ) would save a ton of money
@@goldie862 Sort of. Luther kept them in after the reformation and quoted them till 1522 when he lost an argument from them, he then said they were not inspired but still potentially useful. That would technically put them out of the cannon but still in the book.
@@BensWorkshop The situation is the very definition of circular reasoning, in that protestants defer to a Sola scriptura that had been canonized over 1000 years prior and changed (BY MEN OF COURSE). Sola scriptura would require that THE BIBLE ITSELF would have to have said that those books needed to be removed (from itself 🤦♂️) PS - thank you for the additional details that I forgot. GBY 🙏 ✝️ ❤️
Hey Joshua, I've started seeking out your talks and appearances on various channels and really enjoy your approach to these questions our lost little bros in Protestantism. Also, and it may be my ADHD, but I find the circles filling to the side slightly distracting. I was constantly looking at them and found it took away from the substantive talk you were giving. Again, it might just be me. Great stuff.
Thank you for the kind words! I’m sorry it’s distracting. It’s meant to help people follow along, and so far the vast majority have told me they found it helpful. So my apologies! But I really do appreciate you listening. Please pray for us.
Much more important than the biblical example of resolving disputes was their answer (which you omit) ... "We should not make it difficult for those who are turning to God."
A crucial question posed and I believe answered correctly! Thank you. Just wondering which Bible version the passages presented come from? God bless you Joshua.
Fantastic start, Joshua! So excited to see where you take this whole multi-faceted project. I’m several years behind you (tho much older 😊) and have had a different route but experiencing a similar process.
So how is one saved? From what is one saved? How would you answer those questions? I listened to this but I’m not finding your connection between the baptism and salvation. So glad I happened upon this from Liz Wheeler’s recommendation!
Also, I know a few Catholics who don’t agree with all the Catholic teachings. Are they not Catholic? How about the bishops who vocally differ on whether they should give certain politicians Eucharist because of their views on abortion, etc? There is definitely disagreement in the Catholic faith as well.
Among the various "Catholic" churches to which Paul wrote his Epistles and which Jesus addressed in the Book of Revelation, it could also be said that one might not recognize the Gospel or a unified teaching in their communities.
Hi Joshua. As a questioning non-Catholic, may I ask is that a rosary you are wearing? Do you wear it all the time? I only ask because a Catholic told me that it is not "right" to wear them, but I wouldn't know. Thanks for the informative video. I think I am slowly approaching the Catholic church with an open mind and an open heart.
Thank you very much. Yes, it’s a Rosary I’ve had since 2018. I got it from the company, Rugged Rosaries. Never heard from a single Catholic they shouldn’t be worn. I see them worn quite a bit. I wear it everywhere I go.
@@joshuatcharles That's really interesting, thank you. I already use an "Anglican rosary" and find them very meditative and it allows me to focus my mind on the Lord. Thank you for your prayers. I follow you on twitter and your website and articles have helped me immensely. Much like you yourself were in your journey, I feel a little afraid of what the truth may mean for me if I accept the position of the Catholic Church!
@@joshuatcharlesA certain generation (much older; say of your age during the 60’s) didn’t like outward signs of devotion and filled our heads with lots of don’ts. Don’t veil. Don’t worry about what you wear. Don’t worry about a scapular. Don’t wear a Rosary. Don’t kneel in Church. Don’t take Communion on the tongue. Don’t wear clericals. Don’t wear a habit. Praised be to the Lord, that we are witnessing a return to seeing outward signs that prompt us to be better.
@@joshuatcharles in St Louis De Montfort's book, Secret of the Rosary, he actually talks about the benefit of wearing the rosary. It is actually a protection against Satan/demons.
“The Holy Spirit told me” always felt squirmy. I didn’t like it, and I knew why, but I couldn’t make myself stand up and challenge someone in whom I had faith and trust. Bottom line, I kind of believed whomever I was hearing at the time. Yeah, squirmy.
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" the holy spirit is not schizophrenic. I love that comment. It reminds me of the phrase that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord. There is attainable Truth from God and his Church!
@@jcalvin4796- Show me in the catechism of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church where it says “belief in Mary’s aimlessness is essential for salvation.” Take your time….ill wait. No rush, really.
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 To be a communing member of the RCC you have to affirm the teachings of the RCC which includes veneration of images and the sinlessness of Mary. Neither of these ideas are present in the New Testament and are doctrinal developments.
I trust that the main things in scripture are the plain things…and believing and following these unify us spiritually as one body across the hundreds of different “denominations”(Catholic Orthodox Protestant etc). God knows whom are truly his own within and across the denominations. Also the dilemma is not entirely solved by just submitting that the Catholic authority is The Authority …for example why does the Catholic authority have more authority than say the Eastern Orthodox Church written doctrines. I think we just have to live with some uncertainty on some of the doctrines pointed out in the videos until we meet in heaven and know for sure…and some with get to say “I told you so” in a loving lighthearted manner 😊. Like on infant baptism…for me the believers baptism is so clearly the right doctrine. It’s one thing to dedicate a baby to the Lord and commit to raise them in the faith but it’s the believers baptism Jesus was telling his disciples to go out and do…not infant baptism. But I could be wrong on this and you can tell me I told you so in heaven…or vice versa. Thanks.
Hi Tony, I'm Catholic. Your good hearted attempt at ecumenism does not make sense when you take a dispassionate view of the whole situation, parts of which you've unintentionally left out. If you say "main things = plain things", then the Triune Godhead is not a "main thing" because it is not a "plain thing". How many thousands of people have fought and died over disgareements on the reality of the Godhead over the centuries? Why do you therefore, only limit your example to Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants? Arius, the figure from the mid 200s to early 300s AD, was someone who was closer in time to the Apostles, and the early Church, and one who could claim Apostolic Succession, having been a Bishop of Alexandria, one of the 5 Sees of Church, BEFORE the major schisms with the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. Arius could claim the Holy Spirit is guiding him just the same as the Holy Spirit is guiding you. He could exegete his view from Scripture that Jesus was *created by the Father,* although he would say, "before time". This is precisely what modern Arians-with-a-twist, like JWs do. Under your framework then, do you believe Jesus is going to exclude anyone at all? If you insist historical Arians and JWs will be excluded OR included, on what authority are you making that determination?
Different interpretations of various scriptures abound even among Catholic scholars and clerics. You can't just decide to go with "the Catholic interpretation" of a passage, because oftentimes there is no one clear Catholic interpretation of a passage, or of some sense of a passage.
The examples of Timothy and Titus are likely more decisive than Acts 15 Jerusalem council because they are truly authoritative successors of the apostles, showing the continuation of the apostles authority. Missed opportunity here: "Declare these things; exhort and *reprove/correct with all authority.* Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15
It's not just commandments of Christ in terms of rules to follow with do's and don'ts, it's the teachings of Christ. Christ taught for instance, that doing the will of the Father means believing in the Son. Our trust that Jesus is the King who will rule the world, the one God anointed who is worthy of our loyalty, love, obedience, honor, and trust ... this is how we obey. It is not that we love God, but that God loved us, and gave the Son for our sins. I John 4: 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
I think the most powerful example of salvation in the Bible is the theif on the cross. He was saved because he believed in his heart and confessed that belief with his mouth, in that he asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, demonstrating that belief. I think there is actually a dichotomy going unacknowledged: salvation vs christian living a.k.a. obedience to God. Salvation comes and then you wish to show you love God by living by Jesus' example.
In great love for you my brother, I ask you to consider the following. Did Jesus tell the Apostles to Baptise whole nations of thousands/millions of people or to hang them on a cross and beg Jesus for salvation? The use of exceptional one off cases, like the thief on the cross as the normal rule is one of the most illogical approaches to exegeting scripture. The extraordinary case of the thief on the cross is the basis for understanding how observable human behaviour like death bed conversions by deeply hardened sinners who are facing imminent death occurs. This is NOT the normal/ordinary means by which Salvation occurs.
Meh. Never heard of this guy before, but he looks familiar. Stellar job on the podcast. Going in with a structure makes you look like a nerd, but it's setting you up for long-term success. 😎👍🏻
Let's not read Jesus backwards. It's that if one loves him, we will hold to his teachings. It's not that if we keep his teachings, we will know that we love him. Love for God in the three persons is not something we conjure up through will power and following rules, as Saul the Apostle found out in his conversion. Love for God comes from the new birth, when God circumcises our hearts. Many people think that obedience in the flesh equates to love for God, while God is saying all along that in the flesh nobody can please God. But intellectually reading Jesus backwards is a mistake of the mind; it does not say anything about the love for God either way.
If Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach to others all that he commanded the Apostles, then that includes the command for others to go and do and teach the same things that the apostles did and taught. Apostles make more apostles, just as disciples of Jesus go and make more disciples. In the Catholic church there seems to be the idea that only the clergy can go and teach what the apostles did and taught, and even that in way inferior to the Apostles, unless one happens to be the Pope. In Jesus' teaching, however, all who follow Christ are under the same commission as the Apostles, to continue teaching others to do all that Jesus taught the Apostles. All disciples are therefore commanded to baptize and receive divine assistance, because that is one of the things that Jesus commanded the Apostles, and that is what the Apostles then teach other followers of Jesus to likewise go and do.
You take too many detours in making your points. I relate well to your approach to your faith, as you explain it. Are you conducting a university-style lecture, or are you communicating with the general population. I am very highly educated, but the structure of your presentations are more suited to a university lecture. I think that style will limit the number of Patrons that you attract. My wife would never have the patience to listen to you. I am a very busy person. I need to have people get to the point more quickly than you do. I now have listened to Episode #1 twice. You can be sure that I am intellectually satisfied. Just passing on my thoughts.
If we take Charles' mantra of, "I want to know what Jesus commands" and apply it to Papal infallibility, then I fail to see how the dilemma isn't also mirrored in Roman Catholicism. Because wanting to know Jesus’ commands would logically require *knowing* when the Pope has infallibly *conveyed* them. Otherwise, there is a likelihood that the Pope may be in error and what he says is not actually the command of Jesus. Not only this, but there is *disagreement* amongst Roman Catholics on when the Pope has spoken infallibly. So Charles has not escaped this dilemma, he only thinks he has which is just a placebo. Here are a few examples of Roman Catholics *disagreeing* about when the Pope has spoken infallibly. The following is taken from Roman Catholic scholar Dr John Joy's book, "Disputing Questions of Papal Infallibility". Here Joy surveys whether Pope John Paul 2 spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae. Look at how Roman Catholics (including Pope Benedict) disagree with each other on this question. These are 4 typical objections for thinking PJP2 did not speak infallibly: "Objection 1. It would seem that the pope does not speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae (1995). For Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said: “Pope John Paul II considered making an infallible declaration against abortion and euthanasia in his latest encyclical Evangelium Vitae, but the idea was dropped because the teachings were considered ‘so evident’ in Christian faith and tradition.”[35] But if the pope did not intend to speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae, then he did not speak infallibly. Objection 2. Furthermore, according to Bishop Anthony Bosco: “If the pope wanted to say something was infallible, he would have used the word.”[36] Objection 3. Furthermore, in order to speak infallibly, the pope must propose a doctrine of faith or morals as definitively to be held, as shown above. But this phrase is not used in the encyclical. Objection 4. Furthermore, encyclical letters are organs of the ordinary papal magisterium, which is not infallible, as shown above. But Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical letter." Now, ultimately Joy makes the case that EV was spoken infallibly, but the point is still the same: There is *disagreement* about this and Joy had to go about this by using his own *fallible* judgement, just like Protestants do. Heres another excerpt showing how Roman Catholics *disagree* on when the Pope speaks infallibly: "Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three? Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3] Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4] Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]"
Your dilemma is one of authority. If scripture is the final authority then we must appeal to scripture. The RC magisterium doesn’t give definitive interpretations on every line of scripture. It’s a system of progressive dogma over centuries. As much as you would like a rock solid interpretation of every verse of scripture the RCC doesn’t provide this.
I nowhere said or implied I needed or was looking for “a rock solid interpretation of every verse of Scripture.” If you misrepresent what is said, it’s pretty easy to tear it down. You have simply assumed your own worldview is true, and concluded according to your own premises. But your premises are the very thing in dispute. Millions of people claiming the same “authority” as you come up with entirely different things. That’s a problem. We see that nowhere in Scripture, and it contradicts the very notion for truth as an absolute thing. Christ either commanded something, or He didn’t.
@@joshuatcharles Yes I respectfully understand and am not trying to strawman you which is hard in the YT comments, but the reformation wasn’t attempting to start a new church. It’s congruous with the church Christ established. It was to correct errors which accumulated through centuries. For example, the infallibility of the pope or sinlessness of Mary is nowhere to be found in the new testament so to require it as essential would be an error. This wasn’t official RC doctrine until the time of the American Civil war at Vatican I. Not all things are equally clear in Scripture, but the essentials are which all Protestants agree upon. (Not all non-Catholics are Protestants -Mormons for example aren’t Protestants) There is also variance in beliefs of RC believers in many areas, but they agree on essential biblical doctrine and have unity. -the church of Christ is united in Christ and by faith in Him.
Thank you for the expression of respect, which I take at face value. I accept your intention is sincere. However, I’m not here to debate with you the entire “reformation.” And sincerity does not undo the fact that your statement has many errors, and unpacking all your presuppositions (which you assume, but don’t argue for) won’t be done via TH-cam comments. Truly, it does not seem like you even listened to what was in the video, which means engaging in a drawn out debate would be even more foolhardy on my part. For example, the idea that all protestants agree in “essentials” is not just absurd, but laughably so. I address that somewhat, and you haven’t responded to anything that was said. This episode was not about apologetics for the Catholic position. It was explaining how the protestant position is unsustainable, and how I experienced that in the lead up to my own conversion. You have provided no answer to any of it, and I think good faith people who read your comments will see that.
@@joshuatcharles yes the historical facts of the development of the papacy is there for anyone who wants to research it. I just wanted to at least assert that there is no unsolvable dilemma of Protestantism. Unless you are coming to scripture with the presuppositions that lead you there. I grew up in the RCC and my reading of scripture and church history couldn’t allow me to continue in it. I would love to talk to you or any RC at length, but the information of history and scripture is accessible for anyone who wants to see it without my YT comments. -also, I appreciate your standing for what you believe, we need more of this sort of conversation and not less.
Laura, I did not grow up Catholic. I had no Catholic presuppositions that led me to this. So again, your statement is false. You continue to state your conclusion, but provide no arguments for any of it. I am reading the documents of the ancient Church Fathers everyday. The evidence of the papacy is everywhere. Your comments have already shown that you don’t understand the very thing you reference. For example, papal infallibility was asserted and affirmed by ecumenical councils of the Church long before Vatican I. I hope you come back Home to the Church one day. Again, thank you for your final comments.
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | with Moowan ( Bacon Time Vs Talon )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CCEDhu6dPN8/mqdefault.jpg)
I often point out to my Protestant friends that God, being a good Father, would not let us figure out on our own what is true doctrine. Thank God for the gift of the Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)
See 2 Tim. 3:16. We are to judge all things by scripture. So if a Pope or group of bishops says I must venerate holy images as they did at Nicaea II then I am not bound to obey them and violate God's word. This is not private interpretation. It's acknowledging that 2 Tim. 3:16 has meaning and is true.
Great video! As a Protestant who has grown very interested in Catholicism these past few months, I'm excited for the next videos.
If we take Charles' mantra of, "I want to know what Jesus commands" and apply it to Papal infallibility, then I fail to see how the dilemma isn't also mirrored in Roman Catholicism. Because wanting to know Jesus’ commands would logically require knowing when the Pope has infallibly conveyed them. Otherwise, there is a likelihood that the Pope may be in error and what he says is not actually the command of Jesus. Not only this, but there is disagreement amongst Roman Catholics on when the Pope has spoken infallibly. So Charles has not escaped this dilemma, he only thinks he has which is just a placebo.
Here are a few examples of Roman Catholics disagreeing about when the Pope has spoken infallibly. The following is taken from Roman Catholic scholar Dr John Joy's book, "Disputing Questions of Papal Infallibility". Here Joy surveys whether Pope John Paul 2 spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae. Look at how Roman Catholics (including Pope Benedict) disagree with each other on this question. These are 4 typical objections for thinking PJP2 did not speak infallibly:
"Objection 1. It would seem that the pope does not speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae (1995). For Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said: “Pope John Paul II considered making an infallible declaration against abortion and euthanasia in his latest encyclical Evangelium Vitae, but the idea was dropped because the teachings were considered ‘so evident’ in Christian faith and tradition.”[35] But if the pope did not intend to speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae, then he did not speak infallibly.
Objection 2. Furthermore, according to Bishop Anthony Bosco: “If the pope wanted to say something was infallible, he would have used the word.”[36]
Objection 3. Furthermore, in order to speak infallibly, the pope must propose a doctrine of faith or morals as definitively to be held, as shown above. But this phrase is not used in the encyclical.
Objection 4. Furthermore, encyclical letters are organs of the ordinary papal magisterium, which is not infallible, as shown above. But Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical letter."
Now, ultimately Joy makes the case that EV was spoken infallibly, but the point is still the same: There is disagreement about this and Joy had to go about this by using his own fallible judgement, just like Protestants do.
Heres another excerpt showing how Roman Catholics disagree on when the Pope speaks infallibly:
"Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three?
Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3]
Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4]
Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]"
very nice. as a methodist looking to convert, this is helping the process.
Welcome. I grew up Methodist and have been a Catholic since 2008. You'll never regret it!
If we take Charles' mantra of, "I want to know what Jesus commands" and apply it to Papal infallibility, then I fail to see how the dilemma isn't also mirrored in Roman Catholicism. Because wanting to know Jesus’ commands would logically require knowing when the Pope has infallibly conveyed them. Otherwise, there is a likelihood that the Pope may be in error and what he says is not actually the command of Jesus. Not only this, but there is disagreement amongst Roman Catholics on when the Pope has spoken infallibly. So Charles has not escaped this dilemma, he only thinks he has which is just a placebo.
Here are a few examples of Roman Catholics disagreeing about when the Pope has spoken infallibly. The following is taken from Roman Catholic scholar Dr John Joy's book, "Disputing Questions of Papal Infallibility". Here Joy surveys whether Pope John Paul 2 spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae. Look at how Roman Catholics (including Pope Benedict) disagree with each other on this question. These are 4 typical objections for thinking PJP2 did not speak infallibly:
"Objection 1. It would seem that the pope does not speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae (1995). For Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said: “Pope John Paul II considered making an infallible declaration against abortion and euthanasia in his latest encyclical Evangelium Vitae, but the idea was dropped because the teachings were considered ‘so evident’ in Christian faith and tradition.”[35] But if the pope did not intend to speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae, then he did not speak infallibly.
Objection 2. Furthermore, according to Bishop Anthony Bosco: “If the pope wanted to say something was infallible, he would have used the word.”[36]
Objection 3. Furthermore, in order to speak infallibly, the pope must propose a doctrine of faith or morals as definitively to be held, as shown above. But this phrase is not used in the encyclical.
Objection 4. Furthermore, encyclical letters are organs of the ordinary papal magisterium, which is not infallible, as shown above. But Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical letter."
Now, ultimately Joy makes the case that EV was spoken infallibly, but the point is still the same: There is disagreement about this and Joy had to go about this by using his own fallible judgement, just like Protestants do.
Heres another excerpt showing how Roman Catholics disagree on when the Pope speaks infallibly:
"Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three?
Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3]
Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4]
Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]"
I occasionally went to the Methodist church with my paternal grandmother. After she passed, no church. My parents were nones. I met my husband and converted in ‘94. Thanks be to God
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 If it isn't clear that the Pope is speaking infallibly, then he is not speaking infallibly.
@@BensWorkshop Roman Catholics disagree as to when this is clear. So...
As a former Catholic now Protestant but looking deeper into my beliefs and trying to discern what is true, this dilemma is very real.
If a doctrine isn’t in the pages of the New Testament it is man made. You will not find the sinlessness of Mary, the Papacy, or prayers to saints in the NT. - it really is this simple.
I used to believe the same thing. But what the Church Fathers taught me is Scripture is far deeper than I realized, and the teachings on Our Lady, the papacy, etc. are not only there, but all over the place. I just had to learn how to read the Bible like Jesus and the Apostles.
Once I actually listened to what the Catholic Church had to say, I realized it had far more biblical and deep answers than any protestant sect.
@@joshuatcharles I used to be Catholic so I understand the comfort of the magisterium. The richness tactile aspects of the Mass and the images. The smells and antiquity of the culture-Justification by faith alone and the word of God surpasses all of it.
@@jcalvin4796I hope you’re well and thanks for chiming in….im curious, did you happen to see the debates between James White and Trent Horn and/or James White and Jimmy Akin? If so, what did you think and as a Catholic to Protestant convert, what part of the P argument resonates for you?
If you haven’t seen them, highly commend them to you. Jimmy and Trent were great and I thought it was one of James’ better performances.
@@jcalvin4796 - not very convincing calvin….
Excited for this. I’ve grown so weary with the vitriolic infighting with Catholicism. I’m happy to be on a channel that is not going down that route.
Well said. This is fresh breath of air.
Been following Joshua on FB for some years now. If it’s one thing he doesn’t do, it’s getting weighed down in the ideological tug-of-war match that’s going on within the Church.
I can say with reasonable certainty that when this platform takes off, unlike some other Catholic influencers that shall remain nameless, Joshua will continue to not get distracted with the current ecclesiastical politics of the day.
“It’s very strange to claim the Holy Spirit can’t guide the Catholic Church but it CAN guide individuals.”
Amen.
Real.
Church history and the Bible show us that God, by the Spirit, has guided His Church and guided individuals. Unfortunately, church history and the Bible also show us that the Body of Christ and individuals can be involved in heresy and error.
Dr. David Anders is a fountain of knowledge and truly a blessing. He has helped me on my journey more than I can count.
Thank you for your work and witness. Revert here because of the converts like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray and many others and now you! May you be an instrument for the eventual unity. And yes… like William Buckley!
The issue of authority had also been one of my dilemmas as a protestant (Lutheran now Catholic, 2022). It wasn't my main contention by any means, but I did think it seemed strange seeing non-denom churches pop up out of no where with someone who "maybe" has a theology certificate. I know the Holy Spirit is able to do good things with these churches and people - I've seen at least exteriorly the fruits of some - however they are not getting to experience the Full Richness of the Christian faith. That is sad.
Nice work, brother. You have great things in store with this.
Thanks for this channel, Joshua. Your content has been very helpful in my process of coming into the Church. I’ll be confirmed this Sunday.
Praise God! Welcome Home!
Congratulations
Such a good and clear talk - thank you.
Marcus Grodi said the same thing, one of the observations that led him to the Catholic Church - As a Protestant minister leading Bible studies, there would be opposing opinions and conclusions. He realized that everyone cannot be right. There has to be an Authority to declare which is the correct conclusion. The Catholic Church was the only organization that offered the unequivocal authority.
You are very thought provoking, I could leave 20 comments. Much appreciated, I think we disagree on probably many things but probably just slightly. I think I'll listen to more, thanks for your heart and dedication to Jesus.
I came to the Church on a near-identical road as Mr. Charles, except that my "crisis" so-to-speak was whether or not I stuck with the progressive LGBTQ Protestantism I embraced and lived out, lost my faith almost entirely, or became Catholic. Here I am.
Thank you for your witness and work to develop yourself to the fullest potential for God.
“Be who God ment you to be, and you will set the world on fire” -St. Catherine of Siena
That was my realization also. The question was “What is Truth?” All you have is your best guess my best OPINION. If I want to get to a destination I need an accurate map. So all a Protestant could say is well truth is nice but not really necessary because we just have to believe Jesus died and rose and voila. You’re in.
God created an infallible Catholic church to give us an infallible interpretation of Scripture. This is the only way we could know the truth, since every individual’s interpretation is just as good as another, how could we discern what is true?
To be honest, the first time I saw this in my TH-cam feed, I thought it was a from protestant channel. Then I found out it was Joshua Charles' channel. I do recommend keeping the background. It is kinda like Brian Holdsworth's background for his videos.
This was so good, Joshua! ❤️❤️❤️
Can’t wait for ep 2! Hope it’s coming soon
Really enjoyed the show looking forward to seeing the next one
The main issue: Love! Amen, brother!
Excellent premier episode. I look forward to see what else you produce. God Bless!
Fantastic content so far, I can't wait to see more to come!
Wonderful work so far, guys. I hope you make an episode about the Pope because that's the only thing stopping me from becoming a Catholic.
If you mean Pope Francis in particular, I would look into Sedevacantism as an answer because yes, he is a heretic. If you mean the papacy in general, feel free to ask me whatever you need to and I’ll answer it.
Another important point is that if you are discerning to be a Christian, and all you have is the Bible to know what is expected of you and the church into which you are thinking of entering, how are these teachings meant to be clear, when you are still an unbelieving sinner? It really doesn't make much sense and sounds completely impractical. In fact, it sounds like a 20th century approach, where paper Bibles are everywhere, rather than the preceding millennia (or two) when faith was preached, not self-taught... Our Lord left us a Church as He didn't want to leave us orphans, a mother to teach, nurture and lead us.
Yes. People being able to read in numbers is a new thing. Also being able to buy a book. Pre printing press and paper a Bible was very very expensive.
Great points, both of you! 🙏😊✝️
@@BensWorkshopIt's my understanding that the mainl reason, in the early 1800's, the 7 books were removed from the canon that had been in place so the 300's because the Bible societies (who were distributing free Bibles around the world ) would save a ton of money
@@goldie862 Sort of. Luther kept them in after the reformation and quoted them till 1522 when he lost an argument from them, he then said they were not inspired but still potentially useful. That would technically put them out of the cannon but still in the book.
@@BensWorkshop The situation is the very definition of circular reasoning, in that protestants defer to a Sola scriptura that had been canonized over 1000 years prior and changed (BY MEN OF COURSE). Sola scriptura would require that THE BIBLE ITSELF would have to have said that those books needed to be removed (from itself 🤦♂️)
PS - thank you for the additional details that I forgot. GBY 🙏 ✝️ ❤️
Looking forward to listening to this.
Hey Joshua,
I've started seeking out your talks and appearances on various channels and really enjoy your approach to these questions our lost little bros in Protestantism.
Also, and it may be my ADHD, but I find the circles filling to the side slightly distracting. I was constantly looking at them and found it took away from the substantive talk you were giving. Again, it might just be me.
Great stuff.
Thank you for the kind words! I’m sorry it’s distracting. It’s meant to help people follow along, and so far the vast majority have told me they found it helpful. So my apologies!
But I really do appreciate you listening. Please pray for us.
Great work, definitely subbing
Keep up the good work.
This is good!
Outstanding
Much more important than the biblical example of resolving disputes was their answer (which you omit) ... "We should not make it difficult for those who are turning to God."
This was great. I look forward to future videos
A crucial question posed and I believe answered correctly! Thank you.
Just wondering which Bible version the passages presented come from?
God bless you Joshua.
RSVCE.
Congrats , Great to see you on your own TH-cam now, Thank you .
This is such excellent content. Thank you.
Thank you Joshua. Very informative. Also you do pose some good ways of looking at things. In order to love Jesus we must know what he commanded.
Subscribed on TH-cam and following on X
Prayers for you 🙏🏻
Really excellent. Keep up this great work.
Fantastic start, Joshua! So excited to see where you take this whole multi-faceted project.
I’m several years behind you (tho much older 😊) and have had a different route but experiencing a similar process.
As a man going into the TH-cam comments saying “As an”, I put forward this comment for your review.
Excellent
Great video!
Thank you and your team for all your great work.
Superb closing verse and musical score and video
So how is one saved? From what is one saved? How would you answer those questions? I listened to this but I’m not finding your connection between the baptism and salvation.
So glad I happened upon this from Liz Wheeler’s recommendation!
Who gained the authority after the original, biblical Church’s authority all died?
This was so interesting!! Thank you for sharing!
Also, I know a few Catholics who don’t agree with all the Catholic teachings. Are they not Catholic? How about the bishops who vocally differ on whether they should give certain politicians Eucharist because of their views on abortion, etc? There is definitely disagreement in the Catholic faith as well.
Good stuff!
Among the various "Catholic" churches to which Paul wrote his Epistles and which Jesus addressed in the Book of Revelation, it could also be said that one might not recognize the Gospel or a unified teaching in their communities.
Thank you
Mr. Charles you are highly intellectual yet so plain spoken that even I can understand you. ❤️
Hi Joshua. As a questioning non-Catholic, may I ask is that a rosary you are wearing? Do you wear it all the time? I only ask because a Catholic told me that it is not "right" to wear them, but I wouldn't know. Thanks for the informative video. I think I am slowly approaching the Catholic church with an open mind and an open heart.
Thank you very much. Yes, it’s a Rosary I’ve had since 2018. I got it from the company, Rugged Rosaries.
Never heard from a single Catholic they shouldn’t be worn. I see them worn quite a bit. I wear it everywhere I go.
Also, I’ll be praying for you. I know being open minded about this can be very difficult. I commend you for it.
@@joshuatcharles That's really interesting, thank you. I already use an "Anglican rosary" and find them very meditative and it allows me to focus my mind on the Lord. Thank you for your prayers. I follow you on twitter and your website and articles have helped me immensely. Much like you yourself were in your journey, I feel a little afraid of what the truth may mean for me if I accept the position of the Catholic Church!
@@joshuatcharlesA certain generation (much older; say of your age during the 60’s) didn’t like outward signs of devotion and filled our heads with lots of don’ts.
Don’t veil.
Don’t worry about what you wear.
Don’t worry about a scapular.
Don’t wear a Rosary.
Don’t kneel in Church.
Don’t take Communion on the tongue.
Don’t wear clericals.
Don’t wear a habit.
Praised be to the Lord, that we are witnessing a return to seeing outward signs that prompt us to be better.
@@joshuatcharles in St Louis De Montfort's book, Secret of the Rosary, he actually talks about the benefit of wearing the rosary. It is actually a protection against Satan/demons.
❤ wonderful
“The Holy Spirit told me” always felt squirmy. I didn’t like it, and I knew why, but I couldn’t make myself stand up and challenge someone in whom I had faith and trust. Bottom line, I kind of believed whomever I was hearing at the time. Yeah, squirmy.
Is it better to say that we agree with non-biblical dogma of the Papacy? The Holy Spirit has given us the written word to test doctrine.
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" the holy spirit is not schizophrenic. I love that comment. It reminds me of the phrase that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord.
There is attainable Truth from God and his Church!
Is the sinlessness of Mary an “essential”? The RCC says it is and it’s absent from the New Testament
@@jcalvin4796- Show me in the catechism of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church where it says “belief in Mary’s aimlessness is essential for salvation.” Take your time….ill wait. No rush, really.
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 To be a communing member of the RCC you have to affirm the teachings of the RCC which includes veneration of images and the sinlessness of Mary. Neither of these ideas are present in the New Testament and are doctrinal developments.
@@jcalvin4796 - that was not the question. Show me in the catechism where it says veneration of Mary is a requirement for salvation…..take your time
@@jcalvin4796 you mean develop like this:
th-cam.com/video/maj01k3l6Ss/w-d-xo.htmlsi=CY47kmJrryIKBkYy
❤
I trust that the main things in scripture are the plain things…and believing and following these unify us spiritually as one body across the hundreds of different “denominations”(Catholic Orthodox Protestant etc). God knows whom are truly his own within and across the denominations. Also the dilemma is not entirely solved by just submitting that the Catholic authority is The Authority …for example why does the Catholic authority have more authority than say the Eastern Orthodox Church written doctrines. I think we just have to live with some uncertainty on some of the doctrines pointed out in the videos until we meet in heaven and know for sure…and some with get to say “I told you so” in a loving lighthearted manner 😊. Like on infant baptism…for me the believers baptism is so clearly the right doctrine. It’s one thing to dedicate a baby to the Lord and commit to raise them in the faith but it’s the believers baptism Jesus was telling his disciples to go out and do…not infant baptism. But I could be wrong on this and you can tell me I told you so in heaven…or vice versa. Thanks.
Hi Tony, I'm Catholic. Your good hearted attempt at ecumenism does not make sense when you take a dispassionate view of the whole situation, parts of which you've unintentionally left out.
If you say "main things = plain things", then the Triune Godhead is not a "main thing" because it is not a "plain thing". How many thousands of people have fought and died over disgareements on the reality of the Godhead over the centuries?
Why do you therefore, only limit your example to Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants?
Arius, the figure from the mid 200s to early 300s AD, was someone who was closer in time to the Apostles, and the early Church, and one who could claim Apostolic Succession, having been a Bishop of Alexandria, one of the 5 Sees of Church, BEFORE the major schisms with the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.
Arius could claim the Holy Spirit is guiding him just the same as the Holy Spirit is guiding you. He could exegete his view from Scripture that Jesus was *created by the Father,* although he would say, "before time". This is precisely what modern Arians-with-a-twist, like JWs do.
Under your framework then, do you believe Jesus is going to exclude anyone at all? If you insist historical Arians and JWs will be excluded OR included, on what authority are you making that determination?
Different interpretations of various scriptures abound even among Catholic scholars and clerics. You can't just decide to go with "the Catholic interpretation" of a passage, because oftentimes there is no one clear Catholic interpretation of a passage, or of some sense of a passage.
The examples of Timothy and Titus are likely more decisive than Acts 15 Jerusalem council because they are truly authoritative successors of the apostles, showing the continuation of the apostles authority. Missed opportunity here: "Declare these things; exhort and *reprove/correct with all authority.* Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15
This will have its own entire episode, so I left it in reserve. ;)
It's not just commandments of Christ in terms of rules to follow with do's and don'ts, it's the teachings of Christ. Christ taught for instance, that doing the will of the Father means believing in the Son. Our trust that Jesus is the King who will rule the world, the one God anointed who is worthy of our loyalty, love, obedience, honor, and trust ... this is how we obey. It is not that we love God, but that God loved us, and gave the Son for our sins. I John 4: 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
YES…. What are His commandments? Concretize those and this is a much easier thing.
I think the most powerful example of salvation in the Bible is the theif on the cross. He was saved because he believed in his heart and confessed that belief with his mouth, in that he asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, demonstrating that belief. I think there is actually a dichotomy going unacknowledged: salvation vs christian living a.k.a. obedience to God. Salvation comes and then you wish to show you love God by living by Jesus' example.
In great love for you my brother, I ask you to consider the following.
Did Jesus tell the Apostles to Baptise whole nations of thousands/millions of people or to hang them on a cross and beg Jesus for salvation?
The use of exceptional one off cases, like the thief on the cross as the normal rule is one of the most illogical approaches to exegeting scripture.
The extraordinary case of the thief on the cross is the basis for understanding how observable human behaviour like death bed conversions by deeply hardened sinners who are facing imminent death occurs. This is NOT the normal/ordinary means by which Salvation occurs.
Meh. Never heard of this guy before, but he looks familiar. Stellar job on the podcast. Going in with a structure makes you look like a nerd, but it's setting you up for long-term success. 😎👍🏻
I would like to see the topics of reparation and redemptive suffering covered. These seem to be more like personal revelation than a doctrine.
Let's not read Jesus backwards. It's that if one loves him, we will hold to his teachings. It's not that if we keep his teachings, we will know that we love him. Love for God in the three persons is not something we conjure up through will power and following rules, as Saul the Apostle found out in his conversion. Love for God comes from the new birth, when God circumcises our hearts. Many people think that obedience in the flesh equates to love for God, while God is saying all along that in the flesh nobody can please God. But intellectually reading Jesus backwards is a mistake of the mind; it does not say anything about the love for God either way.
Why no more videos ?
There will be more videos soon. We have been working behind the scenes on upcoming projects, so please be on the lookout for new updates!
If Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach to others all that he commanded the Apostles, then that includes the command for others to go and do and teach the same things that the apostles did and taught. Apostles make more apostles, just as disciples of Jesus go and make more disciples. In the Catholic church there seems to be the idea that only the clergy can go and teach what the apostles did and taught, and even that in way inferior to the Apostles, unless one happens to be the Pope. In Jesus' teaching, however, all who follow Christ are under the same commission as the Apostles, to continue teaching others to do all that Jesus taught the Apostles. All disciples are therefore commanded to baptize and receive divine assistance, because that is one of the things that Jesus commanded the Apostles, and that is what the Apostles then teach other followers of Jesus to likewise go and do.
7th and 10th commandments I think… 6th is the prohibition of murder.
Important question for you: do you embrace and uphold the anathemas declared by the governing bodies of the Roman Catholic Church?
You take too many detours in making your points. I relate well to your approach to your faith, as you explain it. Are you conducting a university-style lecture, or are you communicating with the general population. I am very highly educated, but the structure of your presentations are more suited to a university lecture. I think that style will limit the number of Patrons that you attract. My wife would never have the patience to listen to you. I am a very busy person. I need to have people get to the point more quickly than you do. I now have listened to Episode #1 twice. You can be sure that I am intellectually satisfied. Just passing on my thoughts.
If we take Charles' mantra of, "I want to know what Jesus commands" and apply it to Papal infallibility, then I fail to see how the dilemma isn't also mirrored in Roman Catholicism. Because wanting to know Jesus’ commands would logically require *knowing* when the Pope has infallibly *conveyed* them. Otherwise, there is a likelihood that the Pope may be in error and what he says is not actually the command of Jesus. Not only this, but there is *disagreement* amongst Roman Catholics on when the Pope has spoken infallibly. So Charles has not escaped this dilemma, he only thinks he has which is just a placebo.
Here are a few examples of Roman Catholics *disagreeing* about when the Pope has spoken infallibly. The following is taken from Roman Catholic scholar Dr John Joy's book, "Disputing Questions of Papal Infallibility". Here Joy surveys whether Pope John Paul 2 spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae. Look at how Roman Catholics (including Pope Benedict) disagree with each other on this question. These are 4 typical objections for thinking PJP2 did not speak infallibly:
"Objection 1. It would seem that the pope does not speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae (1995). For Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said: “Pope John Paul II considered making an infallible declaration against abortion and euthanasia in his latest encyclical Evangelium Vitae, but the idea was dropped because the teachings were considered ‘so evident’ in Christian faith and tradition.”[35] But if the pope did not intend to speak infallibly in Evangelium Vitae, then he did not speak infallibly.
Objection 2. Furthermore, according to Bishop Anthony Bosco: “If the pope wanted to say something was infallible, he would have used the word.”[36]
Objection 3. Furthermore, in order to speak infallibly, the pope must propose a doctrine of faith or morals as definitively to be held, as shown above. But this phrase is not used in the encyclical.
Objection 4. Furthermore, encyclical letters are organs of the ordinary papal magisterium, which is not infallible, as shown above. But Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical letter."
Now, ultimately Joy makes the case that EV was spoken infallibly, but the point is still the same: There is *disagreement* about this and Joy had to go about this by using his own *fallible* judgement, just like Protestants do.
Heres another excerpt showing how Roman Catholics *disagree* on when the Pope speaks infallibly:
"Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three?
Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3]
Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4]
Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]"
Does the Catholic church still ban the eating of blood and and strangled animals today?
Your dilemma is one of authority. If scripture is the final authority then we must appeal to scripture. The RC magisterium doesn’t give definitive interpretations on every line of scripture. It’s a system of progressive dogma over centuries. As much as you would like a rock solid interpretation of every verse of scripture the RCC doesn’t provide this.
I nowhere said or implied I needed or was looking for “a rock solid interpretation of every verse of Scripture.”
If you misrepresent what is said, it’s pretty easy to tear it down.
You have simply assumed your own worldview is true, and concluded according to your own premises. But your premises are the very thing in dispute. Millions of people claiming the same “authority” as you come up with entirely different things. That’s a problem. We see that nowhere in Scripture, and it contradicts the very notion for truth as an absolute thing. Christ either commanded something, or He didn’t.
@@joshuatcharles Yes I respectfully understand and am not trying to strawman you which is hard in the YT comments, but the reformation wasn’t attempting to start a new church. It’s congruous with the church Christ established. It was to correct errors which accumulated through centuries. For example, the infallibility of the pope or sinlessness of Mary is nowhere to be found in the new testament so to require it as essential would be an error. This wasn’t official RC doctrine until the time of the American Civil war at Vatican I. Not all things are equally clear in Scripture, but the essentials are which all Protestants agree upon. (Not all non-Catholics are Protestants -Mormons for example aren’t Protestants) There is also variance in beliefs of RC believers in many areas, but they agree on essential biblical doctrine and have unity. -the church of Christ is united in Christ and by faith in Him.
Thank you for the expression of respect, which I take at face value. I accept your intention is sincere.
However, I’m not here to debate with you the entire “reformation.” And sincerity does not undo the fact that your statement has many errors, and unpacking all your presuppositions (which you assume, but don’t argue for) won’t be done via TH-cam comments. Truly, it does not seem like you even listened to what was in the video, which means engaging in a drawn out debate would be even more foolhardy on my part. For example, the idea that all protestants agree in “essentials” is not just absurd, but laughably so. I address that somewhat, and you haven’t responded to anything that was said.
This episode was not about apologetics for the Catholic position. It was explaining how the protestant position is unsustainable, and how I experienced that in the lead up to my own conversion. You have provided no answer to any of it, and I think good faith people who read your comments will see that.
@@joshuatcharles yes the historical facts of the development of the papacy is there for anyone who wants to research it. I just wanted to at least assert that there is no unsolvable dilemma of Protestantism. Unless you are coming to scripture with the presuppositions that lead you there.
I grew up in the RCC and my reading of scripture and church history couldn’t allow me to continue in it. I would love to talk to you or any RC at length, but the information of history and scripture is accessible for anyone who wants to see it without my YT comments. -also, I appreciate your standing for what you believe, we need more of this sort of conversation and not less.
Laura, I did not grow up Catholic. I had no Catholic presuppositions that led me to this. So again, your statement is false. You continue to state your conclusion, but provide no arguments for any of it.
I am reading the documents of the ancient Church Fathers everyday. The evidence of the papacy is everywhere. Your comments have already shown that you don’t understand the very thing you reference. For example, papal infallibility was asserted and affirmed by ecumenical councils of the Church long before Vatican I.
I hope you come back Home to the Church one day.
Again, thank you for your final comments.
❤