I think the evidence for papal supremacy, infallibility and succession is not that great. There's something to be said for a certain kind of authority for the bishop of Rome, but the extravagant claims the papacy has made at times should be repudiated, and certainly there are no grounds for demanding that other churches assent to them when we eventually reunite with each other. I quite like what John Paul II said in Ut unum sint: "Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations." Of course this applies in many areas other than the papacy. That said, I'm not about to up and leave my church for another one, though I don't condemn people who do. Benedict and Francis both recommended that Protestants remain as such rather than being in any haste to "convert", since we need people in every church sympathetic to other churches and working for ecumenism.
Do you think Catholics could find a way to word the Papacy that would both honor Vatican 1 while simultaneously allow for Protestants and Orthodox to accept the doctrine? What is your current denomination?
@@taylorbarrett384 I'm a Catholic. I think Ratzinger's proposition that Orthodox and others should not be required to hold more than was already agreed in the first millennium of the Church is a good starting point.
I had an experience where as soon as I heard the catholic claim of apostolic succession I was convinced. Nothing else made as much sense of scripture....I took my time to still research the ECF and the catechism, but I was so strongly drawn to it. Over 1 year as a catholic with no regrets.
@Taylor Barrett I grew up charismatic and was apart of the international house of prayer (I did their 4 year ministry school) in Kansas city for a few years, then bounced around a few non denom churches during and after college.
@@1984SheepDog Oh ok. I spent some time in KC last year and a Catholic friend of mine I studied with at the Dominican school did the school of ministry at IHOP KC back around 2016 if I remember correctly. How have you incorporated the charismatic and pentecostal theology into your understanding of Catholicism?
@@1984SheepDog so how have you incorporated your experiences of the Spirit by faith apart from being Catholic, receiving Sacraments, etc, in the Pentecostal/charismatic context, into your understanding of Catholic theology?
I always enjoy your videos. I love that you describe your conversion as "I met Jesus"... I did too! I have also felt a "draw" to the Catholic church... but I'm not sure that it was a draw from God. The Catholic church looks kinda bad from the outside, but once I have experienced some regenerate Catholics and a beautiful service at a Monastery, that made me reconsider. Then, some of the apologetics I found were pretty convincing, especially for someone who grew up in the shallow waters of evangelicalism. But I kept digging and eventually found the work of Ortlund, Cooper, Nemes and others. And I went beyond the Catholic apologetics (bait) and learned more about the actual history and practice, which were a splash of cold water to my trajectory. Our family has been re-reading the New Testament to see how some of the claims I have been learning about (Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon) align with the DNA and emphasis of the earliest Christian writers. So far, that process of getting back to the apostolic deposit, is pretty forcefully pulling me away from the Catholic church... and to be honest, the common evangelical expression too. The Catholic analogy that is often used is the acorn to oak tree... but I am not seeing that at all. I do see God's working in history and even in members of the Catholic church...
There are strong responses against the Catholic position on 1st Clement. Paul says whoever they were or seemed to be (i.e Cephas) it makes no difference to me God doesn't show partiality...He makes a point to say he didn't go to Jerusalem at the first (and not Rome rather he goes to Arabia). He rebukes Peter to his face (of course Catholics say he wasn't acting in his official capacity and is a sinner nevertheless it seems to me a glaring double standard as it's not accepted as evidence against the papacy but best believe if Peter had rebuked Paul the Catholics would be using it as evidence for the papacy). Paul says he got his gospel directly from Christ (not from man i.e Peter) and nobody taught him i...along with the fact that none of the others corroborate the papacy and Peter says In Scripture when writing to a local church he appeals to them as a fellow elder (not as someone with universal jurisdiction and supremacy).
I think some of the scripture provided is perfectly harmonisable. The rebuke for example, can just be indicative of St. Paul saying Peter should act up, precisely because He is supposed to be an example. The fellow isn't un-Catholic. Besides that the pope is pope, he still is a fellow bishop if I'm not mistaken.
@@sotem3608 you have to make a positive case to PROVE the papacy supremacy and universal jurisdiction...the burden of the proof is on the one making the positive claim...its not enough to claim these things are "harmonizable" or that they don't persay disprove the papacy...if we are looking for positive evidence to be able to affirm the papacy in a courtroom we wouldn't say it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt...Paul by his statements and that the other elders also don't corroborate universal jurisdiction and supremacy is telling indeed.
@Sotem you say it doesn't disprove because He is ALSO a fellow bishop...but you need POSITIVE statements from Peter himself indicating he thinks he has universal jurisdiction and supremacy...so the fact that he doesn't make those kind of statements AND that he makes statement that he is a fellow elder is indeed indicating he didn't think of himself as having supremacy universal jurisdiction etc i.e the categories vatican 1 claims for the papacy.
@Sotem it's clear from Paul's statement s he doesn't think Peter has authority over him and that he went to Arabia not Jerusalem indeed indicates Paul knew his authority and revelation directly from God so he didn't need to check with anyone or some central authority to make sure first.
I think the evidence for papal supremacy, infallibility and succession is not that great. There's something to be said for a certain kind of authority for the bishop of Rome, but the extravagant claims the papacy has made at times should be repudiated, and certainly there are no grounds for demanding that other churches assent to them when we eventually reunite with each other. I quite like what John Paul II said in Ut unum sint: "Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations." Of course this applies in many areas other than the papacy.
That said, I'm not about to up and leave my church for another one, though I don't condemn people who do. Benedict and Francis both recommended that Protestants remain as such rather than being in any haste to "convert", since we need people in every church sympathetic to other churches and working for ecumenism.
Do you think Catholics could find a way to word the Papacy that would both honor Vatican 1 while simultaneously allow for Protestants and Orthodox to accept the doctrine?
What is your current denomination?
@@taylorbarrett384 no...universal jurisdiction and supremacy are untenable.
@@taylorbarrett384 I'm a Catholic. I think Ratzinger's proposition that Orthodox and others should not be required to hold more than was already agreed in the first millennium of the Church is a good starting point.
Thanks for the video, I can relate to a lot of things you said, though I didn't have a profound "mystical" experience.
*mystical 😁
@@taylorbarrett384 Haha thanks, I'll just try and blame this on English not being my native tongue. 😅
I had an experience where as soon as I heard the catholic claim of apostolic succession I was convinced. Nothing else made as much sense of scripture....I took my time to still research the ECF and the catechism, but I was so strongly drawn to it. Over 1 year as a catholic with no regrets.
What was your previous denomination, if any? Where did you attend church?
@Taylor Barrett I grew up charismatic and was apart of the international house of prayer (I did their 4 year ministry school) in Kansas city for a few years, then bounced around a few non denom churches during and after college.
@@1984SheepDog Oh ok. I spent some time in KC last year and a Catholic friend of mine I studied with at the Dominican school did the school of ministry at IHOP KC back around 2016 if I remember correctly. How have you incorporated the charismatic and pentecostal theology into your understanding of Catholicism?
@Taylor Barrett yea I was there from 2008-2012, so I doubt we knew eachother if he was there around 2016.
@@1984SheepDog so how have you incorporated your experiences of the Spirit by faith apart from being Catholic, receiving Sacraments, etc, in the Pentecostal/charismatic context, into your understanding of Catholic theology?
I always enjoy your videos. I love that you describe your conversion as "I met Jesus"... I did too!
I have also felt a "draw" to the Catholic church... but I'm not sure that it was a draw from God. The Catholic church looks kinda bad from the outside, but once I have experienced some regenerate Catholics and a beautiful service at a Monastery, that made me reconsider. Then, some of the apologetics I found were pretty convincing, especially for someone who grew up in the shallow waters of evangelicalism. But I kept digging and eventually found the work of Ortlund, Cooper, Nemes and others. And I went beyond the Catholic apologetics (bait) and learned more about the actual history and practice, which were a splash of cold water to my trajectory. Our family has been re-reading the New Testament to see how some of the claims I have been learning about (Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon) align with the DNA and emphasis of the earliest Christian writers. So far, that process of getting back to the apostolic deposit, is pretty forcefully pulling me away from the Catholic church... and to be honest, the common evangelical expression too. The Catholic analogy that is often used is the acorn to oak tree... but I am not seeing that at all. I do see God's working in history and even in members of the Catholic church...
Why don't you think the idea of development is applicable?
@@taylorbarrett384 I think it can be applicable but within fairly narrow limits...
There are strong responses against the Catholic position on 1st Clement. Paul says whoever they were or seemed to be (i.e Cephas) it makes no difference to me God doesn't show partiality...He makes a point to say he didn't go to Jerusalem at the first (and not Rome rather he goes to Arabia). He rebukes Peter to his face (of course Catholics say he wasn't acting in his official capacity and is a sinner nevertheless it seems to me a glaring double standard as it's not accepted as evidence against the papacy but best believe if Peter had rebuked Paul the Catholics would be using it as evidence for the papacy). Paul says he got his gospel directly from Christ (not from man i.e Peter) and nobody taught him i...along with the fact that none of the others corroborate the papacy and Peter says In Scripture when writing to a local church he appeals to them as a fellow elder (not as someone with universal jurisdiction and supremacy).
I think some of the scripture provided is perfectly harmonisable.
The rebuke for example, can just be indicative of St. Paul saying Peter should act up, precisely because He is supposed to be an example.
The fellow isn't un-Catholic.
Besides that the pope is pope, he still is a fellow bishop if I'm not mistaken.
@@sotem3608 you have to make a positive case to PROVE the papacy supremacy and universal jurisdiction...the burden of the proof is on the one making the positive claim...its not enough to claim these things are "harmonizable" or that they don't persay disprove the papacy...if we are looking for positive evidence to be able to affirm the papacy in a courtroom we wouldn't say it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt...Paul by his statements and that the other elders also don't corroborate universal jurisdiction and supremacy is telling indeed.
@Sotem you say it doesn't disprove because He is ALSO a fellow bishop...but you need POSITIVE statements from Peter himself indicating he thinks he has universal jurisdiction and supremacy...so the fact that he doesn't make those kind of statements AND that he makes statement that he is a fellow elder is indeed indicating he didn't think of himself as having supremacy universal jurisdiction etc i.e the categories vatican 1 claims for the papacy.
@Sotem it's clear from Paul's statement s he doesn't think Peter has authority over him and that he went to Arabia not Jerusalem indeed indicates Paul knew his authority and revelation directly from God so he didn't need to check with anyone or some central authority to make sure first.
@@sotem3608 and Scripture says Jerusalem is mother church not Rome and James is the bishop of Jerusalem