I’ve been watching Jimmy longer than I have Wagner, but Jimmy harping on the fact that he’s a new convert when Jimmy was doing apologetics one year as a Catholic is pretty ironic.
Jimmy doesn’t have an issue with him doing apologetics. He has issue with him misrepresenting him and creating click-batey content disparaging him. I don’t think Jimmy was doing that in his first few years of apologetics.
@ Wagner didn’t misrepresent him, check out his latest video. He pulls clips out of context, and Jimmy here is certainly wrong on the status of this dogma
1:05:33 Jimmy, St. Alphonsus is talking about the debt of original sin here, not actual sin. The quote is just not relevant to this discussion. The debt of sin is not the same thing as actual sin, and a person can have the debt of original sin without having actual sin. It was a debate during his time on whether or not the immaculate conception meant St. Mary was free of the debt of original sin. That is a different debate entirely as to where or not she had actual sin, which no Catholic theologian in his day would have said that she actually sinned.
The Immaculate conception refers to being born without original sin. That’s not the same as actually sinning during her life. I think like all people she was tempted to sin and what makes her different is her choice to not sin. Perfect obedience to God.
@@catholicguy1073 I’m not sure you understood my comment. Here are some principles: The Immaculate Conception being conceived without original sin. Original sin is not synonymous with the debt of sin. The debt of sin is not synonymous with actual (personal) sin. St. Alphonsus’ discussion was on a debate over whether or not the Immaculate Conception meant St. Mary was free of the debt of sin. The debate was NOT over whether she had actual sin. Jimmy mistook this, applying it to a discussion of actual sin where it has no real relevance.
@@catholicguy1073 the debt of sin is the explanation for why St. Mary still needed to be saved by the grace won by Christ on the cross (retroactively applied to her conception), and why she did not have bodily immortality (amongst other preternatural gifts). She had this debt dispute being free of both original and actual sin. So Jimmy bringing the St. Alphonsus quote up was a red herring, probably an unintentional one.
Extremely disappointed that Jimmy would stoop down to making "drama content" with other TH-camrs. I had no idea who Christian Wagner was before watching the video but Jimmy's passive aggressive tone and cringey appeal to experience at the beginning makes it seem he's just punching down at a younger, passionate convert. I also don't think it was right for Jimmy to tell a Protestant that there is some sort of "escape hatch" when it comes to believing Mary was sinless. Even with the clarification of "you need a really good reason to think otherwise", presenting a tiny possibility of doubting the long-standing tradition of the church seems to be a poor pastoral decision.
Mate, he's standing up for himself after having his name dragged into the gutter by people who make life imitate online discourse instead of the other way around.
@@frankmcdonnell6931 I agree with you that the sort of “extremely online Catholic commentators” are problematic and often offer more heat than light, but I don’t think that excuses Jimmy’s attitude. A lot of comments say his was a kind response but I find it to be the definition of patronizing. Also, starting off the video by poisoning the well and waving his credentials around really put me off, because Jimmy usually criticizes people that act in that smug matter. I don’t have a dog in this fight, and I’m usually a big fan of Jimmy’s work - that’s what surprises me about this video.
It's all the worse when Wagner is able to come back a day or two later and show, with more charity and grace than Jimmy, that the council fathers of Trent took their canon as defining her sinlessness, even having a specific vote on that clause after it was objected to on the grounds that it would be such a definition.
I have much respect for Christian Wagner but I feel like I ought to step away from his content for a bit. The parasocially vibing with a bro who happens to know a lot about Scholasticism is not really where I need to be spiritually or intellectually right now. Still absolutely respect him and his apostolate. And Jimmy I apologize for my calumny against you regarding this. I humbly ask for your forgiveness. Edit: I wasn't expecting to find myself at 29:00. Embarrassing but I did it to myself.
Christian is great in many things, but he takes his view as more certain that they are. Remember we follow the Church not a youtuber, so always check what they say.
@@anthony-kellyhe's clearly well read and knows the content he presents extraordinarily well, and has given pretty solid, pretty no-nonsense advice for progressing in the intellectual and spiritual life. He can be a bit of a "bro" and sometimes dismissive, which I think turns some people away I just don't find his content as particularly helpful to me personally as I used to.
@@newglof9558 I tend to agree. I've stepped away as well. His content gave me some great points for rectifying my absent spirituality and improving my Catholic education. He convinced me of the need to go back to Latin, and to read. I also love supporting the Moriscos. At this point, my biggest take away is to speak less, obey and read more. I think all the lay Catholics would do well to do the same. Let the Bishops and theologians handle these matters.
Just focus on mental prayer and giving up mortal and venial sins lads. I speak to myself too 99% of catholic TH-cam content is at best a waste of time and vain curiosity and at worst leads to despair or confusion
Wagner is in fact not autistic. He has said he is not. He has joked about “autistic levels of research into St. Thomas” but clarified that it was a joke.
As a dumb layperson I happen to think Jimmy dodged the core criticism that Wagner made. Simply put: 1. Is the universal ordinary magisterium infallible?' 2. Can I Catholic in good standing dissent from something taught in the uom? 3. Is Mary's sinlessness taught in the uom? Did Jimmy explicitly address this crucial problem? Seems to me like he decided it was a better idea to mention false claims (Wagner DID NOT claim Jimmy supported female deacons), and talk in circles instead of addressing the very matter at question.
@@WolfschanzefulOkay I disagree with you. Also didn't read your points. I don't know you, too much to read here, and I don't need to read it to know I disagree. Did you mean to put it in my comment? Why?
@@WolfschanzefulOkay I disagree with you. Also didn't read your points too much to read, I don't know you, and I don't need to read it to know I disagree. Did you mean to put it in my comment? Why?
@Wolfschanzeful 1:08:20 is the start of his conclusion where he restates all he covered in a general matter. He addressed all your points. Except 3 because that wasn't the issue in question. It's whether Mary's sinlessness was taught definitively.
16:00 he did not commit slander on the legal level. Slander involves more then just saying something about one in public you believe is false if it is false. Other elements would be it had to be done with . IOW you have to show that he did so with the worst motives possible. It’s obvious he didn’t. You may feel that way but you’d have to show he had maliciousness in mind in making his claims. There is also fair commentary defenses to a slander accusation. He was saying all this in a commentary about your statements. But if you feel so confident in it then go ahead and speak to any lawyer who specializes in these cases and let us know who thinks you have a case at a lawsuit which you were clearly insinuating. 37:51 Pius IX not XI 1:08:32 Pius IX not XII You’re a very smug and arrogant individual. Set aside who is wrong or right. Let’s say you’re right. To talk down to him in a “Hey little boy listen to the grownups” type of manner is snide and pompous. Just because he has been a Catholic for only three years doesn’t mean he hasn’t studied the sources or material longer. The fact that you have someone like Fastiggi also say the contrary and he’s been doing apologetics longer than you tells me you just wanted to arrogantly belittle him. You mimic the way liberal theologians or biblical scholars talk down to conservative orthodox Catholics who defend the Faith. You mask your arrogance and pride in the form of wanting to be helpful. Just criticize his views and leave out the personal out of it. What did his being autistic have anything to do with this topic? It would have never occurred to me or anyone that that was anything important to notice. But you found a tweet or comment where he says he’s autistic and proceed to condescendingly tell him how to deal with it. I’m like what? I have my own problems with Wagner. He can be problematic too in social media but you really present yourself with your nose held high here. You can do better. We all can.
Great job ignoring the fact that Mr. Akin did not initiate this confrontation. If Mr. Wagner shouldn't be "talked down to," then maybe he needs to be far more careful about how he publicly criticizes his elders. Elder in both knowledge AND age, might I add. Mr. Wagner posted (at a minimum) 3 multi-hour length videos with Mr. Akin's face plastered negatively on the thumbnails. But when Mr. Akin provides a single response video (without Mr. Wagner's name or image in either the title OR thumbail), then somehow he is the problem? Sounds like you came into this discussion with your mind already made up and soundly closed. And yes, Mr. Akin is also factually correct, so he has that going for him as well.
@@thomasbailey921 How did I ignore that fact? Hmm? How? Of course I’m aware who initiated this. So what? My response didn’t impinge on that fact. I didn’t criticize Akin for responding to him but on the nature of the response. So if I read you correctly you’re saying Akin’s very snide and condescending tone is warranted. Ok, at least you admit Akin was all of that. His elder? You have an equally smug attitude that Akin has so it doesn’t surprise me you are reacting very emotionally to my criticism. His elder? What does his age have to do with it? As for knowledge perhaps he does but knowledge expressed arrogantly and snidely is a vice. You dismiss Wagner’s knowledge too easily. It seems that you’re the one who already has his mind made up of who you think is right. The length of Wagner’s video is not the problem and any criticism of the nature of Akin’s response has no bearing on it. It is condescending and arrogant independent of whatever Wagner said or how many times and how long his videos were. I also said, if you were able to calm yourself down, that I also said I have probably with Wagner and his personality on social media. I didn’t have my mind made up despite your mind reading skills. I have listened to both sides and Wagner’s response to Akin’s response and will listen to Akin again if he chooses to respond. Unlike you Im no fan boy of either one but gladly listen intently to each one calmly and rationally unlike yourself.
@ How did I ignore that fact? Hmm? How? Of course I’m aware who initiated this. So what? My response didn’t impinge on that fact. I didn’t criticize Akin for responding to him but on the nature of the response. So if I read you correctly you’re saying Akin’s very snide and condescending tone is warranted. Ok, at least you admit Akin was all of that. His elder? You have an equally smug attitude that Akin has so it doesn’t surprise me you are reacting very emotionally to my criticism. His elder? What does his age have to do with it? As for knowledge perhaps he does but knowledge expressed arrogantly and snidely is a vice. You dismiss Wagner’s knowledge too easily. It seems that you’re the one who already has his mind made up of who you think is right. The length of Wagner’s video is not the problem and any criticism of the nature of Akin’s response has no bearing on it. It is condescending and arrogant independent of whatever Wagner said or how many times and how long his videos were. I also said, if you were able to calm yourself down, that I also said I have probably with Wagner and his personality on social media. I didn’t have my mind made up despite your mind reading skills. I have listened to both sides and Wagner’s response to Akin’s response and will listen to Akin again if he chooses to respond. Unlike you Im no fan boy of either one but gladly listen intently to each one calmly and rationally unlike yourself.
@chicago618 you sound like the smug one lol. Respect your elders young man. The reason he is being smug to you is because you were smug in your initial comment and again in your response. Take your own advice and be fair when you critique someone. Ad hominem attacks don’t make your case more valid. I agree jimmy was slightly smug but he had the right to be after Christian’s videos. There are better and less smug ways to critique people especially someone like Akin who has done so much for the faith.
I've thought about this a lot today because as a supporter of Scholastic Answers, I momentarilly felt as if Christian really had committed calumny, and perhaps he has but not in the video that is being critiqued. 1. You had enough time to find comments in the comment section of other Wagner videos in order to cast doubt on his credibility because of his alledged autism, but not enough to edit the full context of those clips into the video in which you accuse him. 2. You misrepresented Wagner's critique. We all agree that one can withhold assent to the consensus of the theologians without binding of sin for grave reason, however, he is contesting that Mary's freedom from venial sin is a dogma taught by the Church which follows from the Consensus of the Theologians, the Concilliar Decrees regarding Justification, and the Dogmatic Declaration of Ineffabilis Deus. This is why in that clip of Hasan and Christian speaking on what can be dissented from for grave reason they agree. 3. Just because Christian is a young Catholic and you have written manuals does not mean that Christian does not have the ability to teach to the faithful and you do. You undersold Christians credentials, specifically highlighting his anglican roots, in what I would argue is an attempt to diminish his credibility to the Faithful (which by the Christian is going to be studying at the Angilicum as far as I am aware, and is even headed to North Africa next week to teach Morisco converts as they prepare to be entered into the Church). You also, multiple times, painted him as some kind of magesterial dissenter to diminish his credibility again. All in all, this was a poor response. You should speak to Christian privately next time, and he should have done the same for you.
Disagree, I think it was important for Christian to do this publicly. No correction would’ve been offered from Akin after being told about his mistake, if we’re being honest. Not sure why many are acting like this situation is some kind of shouting match full of cursing, with no substance. Theologians across time have had disagreements that were fruitful - even with much harsher words.
@maryjordan4129 Perhaps you should go watch Wagner's response to Jimmy's video. If it doesn't make it abundantly clear how much Wagner was ripped out of context and misrepresented I don't know what will.
@@no3339 , did you listen to this video? I think Mr. Akin established Mr. Wagner's trespasses quite well. That Mr. Akin forgives Mr. Wagner is also quite indisputable.
As someone who passed judgement on you because of Christian’s video without really looking into the context; you gained a subscriber. Thank you for making this
@@timothyrosson8408 Jimmy lied about Christian committing the sin of calumny, and he is also wrong about the sinlessness of Mary being a dogma. Consider watching more than two videos before flip-flopping on a topic that has an objective answer.
@@no3339 where are your receipts? By definition, and listening to the words of Mr. Wagner and the words of Mr Akin, presented side-by-side, the objective conclusion is that Mr. Wagner did indulge in un-Christian calumny. Now, it is great that you are helping with the algorithm that YT uses to invite others to watch this video, but I have other things to do, so this is all that I will say to you here. You are in my prayers -- it is the reason I read comment sections, so that I may open my mind and heart to some more of God's people, whom He loves and longs to raise up to Heaven.
@@no3339 The dogma only pertains to her lack of original sin. Her sinless nature as taught by the Church is NOT dogmatic. There are levels to the teachings of the Magisterium and not everything the Church holds true is dogma.
@@AnOpinionatedMan It is infallibly taught by the OUM. The reason for the explicit dogmatization of the immaculate conception is because that was the thing needed to be clarified (because the perpetual sinlessness was so obvious).
I would like very much for you two to sit down and have a catholic-to-catholic good faith discussion to work this out. The last thing we need is more divisions within the church.
15:36 christian NEVER said YOU said any of those things. He's saying people use the lack of infallible statements as a REASON to legitimoze those things by those who DO hold to those views. A lot of people have a lot of respect for you. And they trust you. You need to go back and listen to what he actually said. He's arguing against your reasoning on what is binding. Not that you hold those specific views.
@@bman5257 people who argue like Jimmy Akin are people who use the same underlying argument, not arrive at the same conclusions. If I say progressive Christians use the same arguments like Martin Luther in dismissing Pauline letters, I'm not saying Martin Luther dismissed Pauline Letters. I'm noting that Luther's arguments against the deuterocanon are the same arguments used against the Pauline letters. I don't know about you, but I'm confident Jimmy Akin is smart enough to know the difference.
So I am at 16:10, and Jimmy, I believe you are misrepresenting Wagner here. He wasn't accusing you of any of those sins, but rather accusing you of making a similar TYPE of error as the ones who makes those claims about the female priesthood, masturbation, etc.
You even try to respond this with the quote "You 'said' people like Jimmy Akin make these claims", but that still doesn't mean it rises to the level of accusation you claim, because "like" is an ambiguous word. In this case they are "like" you in making a similar type of error, not in making an identical error (if Wagner is right). Respectfully, Jimmy, when you accuse someone of calumny you need to be very careful that you also aren't misinterpreting them.
Lumping Jimmy in with people "like" him is basically saying that Jimmy is one of those people. Any common listener would interpret him as saying that Jimmy said those or similar things. Which is legally dangerous, especially if it's untrue.
@ShaloneCason This is simply false. I watched the video when it came out - you can actually see one of my questions in THIS video - and I did not understand Christian to be saying that Jimmy held those opinions. In fact, I think it is fairly clear that he was talking about people who held Jimmy's position vis-a-vis infallibility, that they used Jimmy's opinion to justify disagreeing with the Church on these other teachings. I don't recall anybody who listened to the stream thinking that Jimmy himself held those opinions. And Jimmy is simply wrong that the way it is worded alone means that he holds those opinions. He is assuming a lack of ambiguity in the word like that does not exist.
@@anthonymarchetta8796I believe Jimmy addresses this at the end of the vidéo. I understand you may not have watched until the end if you felt he was being unfair to Christan and left the vidéo. He mentions the charitable interpretation of Christian’s comments at 1:14:00 So I believe you will be eye to eye with christan here.
I did watch to the end of the video and I still think that Jimmy is wrong that it is merely one charitable interpretation of Christian's comments. The plain reading of the words does not imply that Jimmy denies the Church's teaching on subjects like female ordination and contraception; rather the plain reading of the words is that people use the same logic Jimmy does to deny that Mary's sinlessness is infallilby defined to deny that contraception and female ordination are infallibly defined. Jimmy said again that he believed Christian was being calumnious but that simply is not what Christian was saying. BTW, I am not saying Christian's point was correct either. Just that it was different than what Jimmy is claiming. You need to interpret it UNcharitably to get Jimmy's interpretation.
an issue i have with this video is that you claim that to have been a Catholic for 32 years and a professional apologist for 31 years but slight christian’s abilities to perform due to his youthful faith. just seems like a gotcha with no substance since you were in the same position once.
The reference Mr. Akin made to Mr. Wagner's being only in the Church for 3 years is a way to reduce the gravity of his errors in understanding and the rashness and uncharity he showed in his videos that he made before Mr. Akiin responded.
@@susand3668what charity? Akin attacked Wagner with a slew of insults for no reason. Regardless, Wagner demonstrated that his position is the correct one in his most recent video from yesterday.
This was the gentlest, most patient, justified and iron clad refutation I’ve seen towards a bad-faith set of accusation I’ve seen in a while online. Stay awesome Jimmy!
@zacharymiske6220 you would know he absolutely wasn't attacking autism if you actually watched to the end where he provided sincere advice about how to better communicate.
I've actually got Prof. Edward Feser from his Matt Fradd interview playing in the background. Feser is pointing out how the Church has many infallible teachings, but only a few that are "ex cathedra" from the extraordinary infallible form. He's also pointing out the ordinary infallible magisterium of the Church by the constant teaching of the Church. Making an argument to falsify a perennial teaching of the Church going all the way back to the early Church fathers is equivalent to trying to falsify Catholicism as a whole. So a person doubting allegedly having a good reason or not, cannot be a good Catholic denying or positively doubting the sinlessness of the BVM.
Did you read the title of this video, and what Mr. Akin said about his own beliefs? He did not "falsify a perennial teaching of the Church." I think you mis-heard him. He said that the Teaching of the Church is that Mary was and is without sin, and that he, Mr. Akin, agrees with this Teaching. But that in extraordinary circumstances, a theologian can remain Catholic while doubting (privately? I am not sure if Mr. Akin mentioned that part) a *Teaching* of the Church that is not *Infallible*. And he listed the ways that a Teaching can be recognized as Infallible. (Edward Feser can argue about his understanding of infallibility, but Mr. Akin is simply stating what the Church teaches about her own teachings.) The fact is that the Church (and Mr. Akin within the Church) still teaches that Mary is and was always without sin.
@@susand3668 Gerry's point is that the Church cannot teach error unanimously. This is why the universal and ordinary magisterium is considered infallible. It's because the Church cannot teach error unanimously for a long period. That's the source of the doctrine, not some paragraph from canon law. Jimmy is just wrong here.
Correct, Catholics cannot privately or publicly for “good reasons” reject perennial teachings of the Church as this belongs to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Church where the Holy Spirit has witnessed, taught, and blessed such a teaching for a centuries.
@@susand3668 No. You don't understand what I wrote or what Feser stated. It's not simply falisifying a perennial teaching of the Church (ie. having a good reason for doubting or denying ) but it's a falsification of Catholicism as a whole. Akin is making a strawman argument in answer to the question "Do you have to believe that Mary was without sin, never sinned... uuhmm... to be a Catholic?" Akin also described the impeccability of Mary as quoting JPII as a "tenet" of the Catholic Faith. So, he is saying "for a good reason" a person can deny a tenet of the Catholic faith and be a Catholic in good standing. Jimmy is ignoring and I would direct you to Fr. John Hardon's Catholic Catechism on the discussion of the infallibility of the University of the Faithful.
@@piface3016 Mr. Akin was not disputing the teaching. He is not disputing the Infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. His carefully nuanced explanation is that it is difficult to prove unequivocally the universality of any one particular Teaching as *having been taught "DEFINITIVELY"*. The sinlessness of Mary (which Mr. Akin believes in, as do I) is one of these Teachings. Personally, it is unimaginable to me that anyone can read the Bible and *not* see that Mary was sinless throughout her life. But there are others, who are honestly doubting, and who should not be halted in their journey into the Church by their intellectual inability to see what seems so obvious to me. Thing is, if we believe in "ex opere operato", we should be willing to let the Holy Spirit lead the doubter into a full understanding through the reception of the Sacraments. No?
The issue is that Jimmy and Wagner have fundamental disagreements about the ordinary and universal magisterium. Jimmy is putting forward that the magisterium has not bound Catholics to hold that Mary remained sinless until her death with divine and apostolic faith. Wagner is arguing that it has and denying this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how the magisterium works. Wagner is revealing a methodological issue present in many apologists who take a minimalist view of what must be held. This is a war that has been going on for a while.
Hey Jimmy! I had a comment/concern at 1:05:12. You quote St. Alphonsus as agreeing with your position, but in reading "Glories of Mary" I had thought that this section was referring to the debitum peccati question, not the question of incurring of any punishment from actual sin. I had thought this because it seemed from my reading of the rest of the chapter that he considers actual sinlessness being part of her special grace as certain, or at least presumes it as a basis of argumentation as to why the Son would bring about the immaculate conception: -"And thence [Saint Thomas] argues that 'the Blessed Virgin never committed any actual sin, not even a venial one. Otherwise,' he says, 'she would not have been a Mother worthy of Jesus Christ; for the ignominy of the Mother would also have been that of the Son, for He would have had a sinner for His Mother." And now if Mary, on account of a single venial sin, which does not deprive a soul of Divine grace, would not have been a Mother worthy of God, how much more unworthy would she have been, had she contracted the guilt of Original Sin, which would have made her an enemy of God and a slave of the devil? And this reflection it was that made Saint Augustine utter those memorable words, that, 'when speaking of Mary for the honour of our Lord,' whom she merited to have for her Son, he would not entertain even the question of sin in her; 'for we know,' he says, 'that through Him, Who it is evident was without sin, and Whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, she received grace to conquer all sin.' Therefore, as Saint Peter Damian observes, we must consider it as certain 'that the Incarnate Word chose Himself a becoming Mother, and one of whom He would not have to be ashamed.' Saint Proclus also says, 'that He dwelt in a womb which He had created free from all that might be to His dishonour.' It was no shame to Jesus Christ, when He heard Himself contemptuously called by the Jews the Son of Mary, meaning that He was the Son of a poor woman: "Is not His Mother called Mary?" [Matt. 8: 55] for He came into this world to give us an example of humility and patience. But, on the other hand, it would undoubtedly have been a disgrace, could He have heard the devil say, 'Was not His Mother a sinner?"- With the quote you produced being in a later section, introduced as a new topic, and speaking about being in Adam, it seemed to me that it was about the debitum, which wouldn't have a bearing on this issue and wouldn't really be fair to use for support. I'm open to a correction on the applicability of the quote, or some misunderstanding of the debt/sinlessness question I demonstrate above, including suggested reading. My family are big fans of Mysterious World! Hope you stay well and God Bless.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 It was brought to my attention that additionally in Discourse VIII in the same book (I had not read that discourse before and did so since my comment), St. Alphonsus calls Mary's sinlessness certain and defined by Trent. I do hope you are able to see this Jimmy. Your vid had many different appeals and arguments, I am not trying to "gotcha" on the whole topic as this was a small part, but it would be distressing if St. Alphonsus' position was misrepresented to grant your view the authority of a Doctor to so many viewers, and I hope there could be a clarification, either to justify his inclusion from a broader context of his work I am unaware of, or to correct the record and exclude him from your argument.
Dude. If Jimmy Akin was a wrestler, his stage name would be "The Baker", cause he just served the largest humble pie I've ever seen.😮 Stay awesome, Jimmy. 😎
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -1 John 1:8 "for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" -Romans 3:23 "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and doesn't sin." -Ecclesiastes 7:20 "Behold, I was born in iniquity. My mother conceived me in sin." -Psalm 51:5 "...There is no one who does good, no, not one." Psalm 14:3 From the mouth of Jesus himself: "...No one is good except one-God." -Mark 10:18 From the mouth of Yahweh himself: "...the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth..." -Genesis 8:21
@@triconcert yes you didn't reply Because you dont have proof ,you just writed LOL -(Laughing Out Loud) you just did nothing, explain yourself you pagan!
@@branomusuka9683…and so, where is the Church teaching on these citations related to this discussion? Does the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church given to Jesus’ followers by Christ Himself have any authority for what you believe regarding the sinlessness or the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God? If you cannot accent to Christ’s authority in His Body, the Church at this time, then perhaps you can approach the question of certain beliefs with and open mind as you may want your comment readers to do for you kind person. m
Hard to take you seriously when you start your defense with attacks on Christian’s age and how long he’s been Catholic. Very low class behavior. Im out.
18:04 wouldn't this mean that you can disagree with it only if there is a higher teaching of the Magisterium contradicting it? But this doesn't help your case on this topic.
@@dave_ecclectic I’m the source Jimmy cited says “only if there is some superior theological source” which nobody claims that a superior theological source has said that Mary sinned. Christian’s entire point is that Mary’s sinlessness is taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium and is therefore infallible
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 -It seems as though what is being argued is whether something is blue or is it cyan.- I see now' Not Mary's sinlessness, but her perpetual sinlessness is the difference of what is being discussed. This is like the *until* something has been said *up to this point but not **_after_*
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 That is correct, but Christian’s error is in saying Jimmy is placing this in category one teachings. Jimmy is placing it as a category three teaching. Wagner ends the video, which Akin discusses around 24:00, with category three teachings. It’s rather amazing that he didn’t contemplate this and coming to the conclusion that Akin is talking about that very topic. We can without assent to category three teachings. Christian shows a limited knowledge of this in this section. I say limited because Jimmy points out Donum Veritalis, which states that any withholding of assent needs to be private and we cannot turn the public against that teaching. Christian did not mention these requirements and now you can feel justified in publicly rejecting a category three teaching when Donum Veritalis states that you cannot. Congratulations, Christian is teaching a SSPX error.
Please cite the theologians besides John Henry Newman who use "obiter dicta" as a category. Your claim that can 23 of Trent is "obiter dicta" appears weak. The canon mentions explicitly that the Church holds the Blessed Virgin to have been preserved from venial sin throughout her entire life.
So you became a Catholic apologist with Catholic answers after only being Catholic for one year, yet you are a shaming Christian Wagner for being an apologist after being Catholic for 3 years?
@kais.1684 that's pretty ridiculous. I listen to Jimmy Akin more than Wagner, but arguing from authority is a terrible argument no matter who it is. (Except for a Pope speaking ex cathedra or a council 😆 ) I also don't see how Jimmy gets around saying we can believe that Mary sinned at some point in her life and still be a good Catholic. No amount of sophistry or explaining away gets around that. She didn't personally sin or inherit original sin.
@KEP1983 he didn't say you could deny Mary's sinlessness and still be a good Catholic. He said hypothetically, if it isn't infallible, and someone had very sound, extraordinary evidence and reason to deny it, technically you could. He doesn't believe this justification exists so he doesn't say you can deny it.
@kais.1684 sorry, but that's not truly what he said. The Protestant clearly heard it as saying that you can deny it and was happy to hear it. Saying something ambiguous like "if you have a very good reason to deny it you can technically deny it" is absurdly broad and, frankly, anyone who wants to deny something can find a "very good" reason to deny it. There are millions of people who have "very good reasons" to deny biological sex, and that's about as objective of a fact as you can find in nature. Leaving people making decisions for themselves based upon "very good reasons" about historical facts from 2,000 years ago is ridiculous.
Christian is very clearly referring to the type of argument made and how that's similar to the one Jimmy made. Similar to how Trent Horn does when protestants argue like atheists.
@@adeodata6364I think the point needs to be made that he has a lot of great content on Thomism and scholasticism in general and has translated a lot of out of print theology and philosophy manuals to English. That being said he’s got a real problem with causing drama and slandering others.
I'm fans of you and Wagner and I hope to see you two discuss these errors together, although I will be completely out of my element trying to keep up 😂
That was actually just the lighting of the cigar. I don't think I've ever seen a beatdown this extensive in Apologetics and it's only part 1. th-cam.com/video/E0ooEy2z4GE/w-d-xo.html
It is truly proper to call you Blessed, O' Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate and the Mother of our God. More honourable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, who a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you truly the Theotokos we magnify, amen.
@deutschermichel5807 Axion Estin. It is the usual prayer we pray after the consecration and the epiclesis in the Diving Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
You keep harping on him being a more recent convert. That's a bad look, Jimmy. Catholicism is not a "how many years" or "muh, I am a cradle you are a convert" contest.
That wasn’t what Jimmy was saying. It just shows you that Christian should have been slower to disagree and shame him due to him having much more experience and study over the nature of the magisterium.
@deutschermichel5807 trust me, as a Southern US catholic convert myself, Jimmy is very near to my heart. But his tone in the intro here, while genial and charitable, still leans too hard into "I have been around this block longer because of my x # of years in the Church". It rubs the wrong way. Lean harder into charitable theological argument. For what it's worth, Wagner's channel is good but can be harsh and uncharitable as well. The thumbnails are click bait and extreme, no doubt. I think both men are sound Christians with excellent foundation in the Faith. Both are good ambassadors of the Catholic Church.
This has got to be THE most polite and effective floor-wiping I've ever seen. I wish I had a fraction of Jimmy's charity, patience, and grace, not to mention his knowledge. I hope the young lad will take your lessons to heart. If not, he's going to learn the hard way as I have too many times. God bless, Jimmy! Thank you for cementing my feet firmly within Mother Church!
Accusing people of committing mortal sins, threatening to sue them, and calling them mentally ill, is in no way "polite and effective". Stop idolizing an old man praising him for slander
I've been avoiding Christian's videos in part because of these egregiously clickbaity thumbnails/titles. Cringe thumbnails/titles are endemic to TH-cam but it seems like he's a particular offender in this category
Unfortunately, this approach does suggest that this young fellow is aiming to build a quick following for his channel off the back of conflict clicks and Mr Akins established name , rather than engaging with Jimmy directly and in a real time podcast. Doing the latter might benefit both of them, and the audiences, a whole lot more in long run.
I can just imagine a 60ish year old Pharisee back in the day saying to Jesus that His ministry has only been around for a couple of years meanwhile he has been a Jew longer than Jesus has been alive… Hmmmmmm
@ No I’m just pointing out the absurdity of the whole “appeal to experience” seen here. Just because you have more experience in a subject doesn’t necessarily mean you’re correct. Believe it or not, people can still be entirely wrong about something they generally have an expertise in.
@@unoriginalclips9923 no one said it's absolute. Just like if you slap a stranger in the face it isn't guaranteed they will retaliate. You still shouldn't do it if you don't want to get hit back. Wagner was disrespectful and wrong in how he handled this regardless.
@@hap1678 Akin has always had the kind of "unknowingly sassy" aspect about him, saw it in some of his debate with James White and a few other online convos. I don't like that about him either, but it's definitely more prominent in Wagner based on how he goes about titleing and thumbnailing his videos. It's just a bad look.
Putting aside the level of infallibility brought to bear on Mary's impeccability, that's really a distraction because we have the controversy not on Mary's impeccability but whether one can be a good Catholic in standing while denying a tenet of the Catholic faith. Christian states that the tenet alone is sufficient basing it on the university of the faithful infallibility stance. Jimmy takes the stand that one can dissent from a tenet of the Catholic faith based on the negative stance that since it has not been infallibly defined officially, one can for unclear levels of "good reasoning" deny that tenet.
This was the weakest point from Akin in this video, there's nowhere in Donum Veritatis wich indicates it's just fine to "disagree" with a non-irreformable teaching as a catholic. It just says that if you can't sincerely assent to a teaching, you should study more throughly, pray to understand it and not to go against it in public.
@@ghostapostle7225 Good point. His "hypothetical" is actually an irrational construct. You can't have a hypothetical good reason to deny the whole of Catholicism and simultaneously be a good Catholic.
@@gerry30 who's denying the whole of Catholicism? It's difficult to qualify everything but your statement seems like a position that neither of them hold.
@@chrissiah999 I'm stating that Jimmy's "hypothetical" situation in which someone can be a Catholic and deny the Impeccability of Mary, leaves open virtually anything can have a "hypothetical" point to it that undermines the entirety of Catholicism. Take the scenario of St. Joseph. Never canonized a saint, no infallible declaration on his entry into Heaven. Can a person deny St. Joseph, head of the Holy Family, Patron of the Catholic Church, Terror of Demons, Patron saint of a holy death is a saint and be a Catholic in good standing? According to Jimmy's perspective while he personally doesn't doubt anything the Church teaches about St. Joseph, "It hasn't been defined infallibly." So someone who doesn't believe this, that or the other ancient tradition and constant teaching of the Church can be an equivalent Catholic to Jimmy who fancies to believe those colorful pious anecdotes about Mary and Joseph. Can you see how that undermines the overall credibility of the Church after having taught all of that firmly throughout her whole history? If Mary is a sinner despite her Immaculate Conception and Joseph went to Hell, how long till some nuance about Jesus comes into play and we have a Neo Arianism of some type? What if someone has a hypothetical "good reason" to deny some aspect of what infallibility entails? They might have a less permanent form of "infallibility" that is dependent on the age in which we live and so what is infallible in one age is no longer infallible in a later age because we have a supposed "deeper" understanding. Eventually the whole thing would crumble.
So from what I can grasp from this video is that if you struggle with a teaching that is not defined by a pope then you must do a careful and vigorous study on the topic and if you still disagree with it it's best to keep it to yourself because it's more than likely you're wrong in some capacity.
@deutschermichel5807 Rather than a debate it's them going "nuh uh" to the church being crystal clear on the issue. Weird hill to die on but what do I know.
@deutschermichel5807 yeah, some extreme Trads are very against NFP cause they believe people who use it aren’t using it any differently than normal contraception. Saw one pretty hateful Trad in a comment section who believed any Catholic who engaged in the act outside of the couple’s fertile period was no different than a pill popping, rubber covering one night stand couple 🤷♀️ Sometimes I’m not sure if radical Trads believe we should embrace God’s gift of giving human’s reasoning and control for the marital act that balances openness and practicalities of the couple’s life, but should instead follow base instincts by going at it like rabbits whether the time is right or not to bring a child into the world. There can be very valid reasons for child spacing, not that most extreme Trads will admit to it though. Came across one quite hateful extreme Trad who thought women who had to have their tubes removed, a hysterectomy, or other extreme health issues that required the permanent removal of a reproductive organ and thus could never be pregnant again, were made ‘garden utensils’ by their husbands and the couple were no better than hedonists if they later engaged in the marital act. The Trad commenter (who admitted being pregnant would pose a HUGE health risk to her) then went on to flex how she was a “proper Catholic woman” because she didn’t remove anything from her body despite the health risks and they ‘simply abstained’ during their cycle. Yeah, I am not kidding on that. And the OP for that comment thread legit needed surgery because the last child left terrible trauma in her system and another pregnancy would 99% likely kill her and the child. So you had an extreme Trad tell a fellow Catholic woman who discerned and discussed her issues with her husband and church people that they were a harlot and the husband’s “garden hoe” for accepting the surgical removal of her reproductive organs, despite the couple already having children and another pregnancy would kill her. There’s a reason I despise extreme Trads.
I'm really glad you're responding to this. I watched his video right after it dropped and he made some interesting arguments about why your position was wrong, and, honestly, at first rebuttal, he seemed correct that you were wrong on this point, not to say that he was right to handle it how he did, but he made interesting arguments that I wondered if you were aware of. As such, I was really hoping you would respond because I was curious how you would address his counter arguments. For context, I am a long time fan who has watched and read almost everything you have put out over the better part of the last decade, including Teaching with Authority. So I'm not unfamiliar with what you have to say in these sort of things.
What constitutes a "very strong reason?" I'm sure many Protestants and unknowledgeable people would consider themselves to have "very strong reasons" to not believe and so feel justified in not believing for what are in fact very bad reasons. You touched on a couple of examples, but didn't really give a good explanation of the thing itself.
Jimmy, I was someone who was misled about your views because of Wagner's video. Thank you so much for taking the time to defend yourself against this misrepresentation. I love Wagner's work, and I am virtually certain that he meant well in his original videos, but you are completely right, and he was wrong to make the claims he made about you and about the nature of magisterial teachings. Thank you for all that you do. (P.S. I think Christian's remarks about autism were probably a meme, so that might be a further example of the boomer-humor/zoomer-humor disconnect 😂)
Kudos to ya for going the extra mile to look into Jimmy’s position and not just accepting another’s views of Jimmy’s position. I have sometimes struggled with going outside my own bubbles to look into other people’s positions without someone else’s filter clouding my view. Sometimes that humble pie is pretty big to eat, so I have to take some time out to take care of things😅 Now if the original person I followed just misses a point once or twice, I normally give the benefit of the doubt. After all, we all make some mistakes about others based on limited info and so long as the person accepts their mistake and corrects themselves then it’s good with me. But if the person has repeated patterns of misrepresenting someone, aversion to issuing correction, or hostility to being told they were in the wrong, then I stop following them because they obviously are not a trusty person to rely on.
Mr Akin, considering your vast experience and knowledge. (Decades according to your video), Surely you could provide the Catholic world with a complete list of infallible teachings?
I found myself passionate sometimes about a subject and sometimes I disagree with someone but usually if I rewind, re-listen and rethink what the person was saying sometimes it wasn't an issue at all. But first and foremost the Bible teaches, and this is not an exact quote. It says go to your brother first with a problem. Try to work the matter out one on one, no one else needs to know about this. If you find this doesn't resolve things, and the matter is serious enough to need further attention then come back with a friend or two and try to work it out again. And then lastly and finally if it's serious enough you need to take further steps then do so wisely. There's great wisdom in handling matters in this way. You may find you were wrong initially or you may correct your brother and the matter be resolved in private. Step 2 if you talk about this amongst a couple of close friends you again may find out that you're wrong but if you're not your friend May listen to you when there's a couple more friends with you. And if absolutely necessary step 3 is there for you also. But always ask yourself what is motivating you to even talk about something publicly. I find when it comes to social media if someone has something to say about someone else. It's usually about personal gain and selfish reasons and not out of kindness and compassion. This is a very serious thing. Just like Jimmy said it's already came back around to him on capturing christianity. Are words can be like feathers in a windstorm once they're out there you can't always get them back and you've done damage that cannot be reversed so treat these matters seriously people please!!! Thank you Jimmy God bless
It’s sad to see Catholics online being uncharitable to each other. Gives ammo to orthobros, Prots and atheists online to use against Catholic Church. Hopefully they reconcile. I’m a fan of both channels
I listened for the first 16:00 minutes and have to call it quits. The way Jimmy maligned Christian there was completely bad faith and it makes me lose respect for Jimmy His point was _clearly_ that downplaying infallibility is a slippery slope that people use as a crutch to justify evils like masturbation because they aren't clearly defined. Superficially, it's a legitimate point that warrants more than a pretentious "I've been doing this since before you were born." The fact that Jimmy can't respond in good faith makes it seem like Jimmy is trying to hide is beliefs instead of honestly engaging criticism
Discomfort with cameras or looking people in the eye is a classic sign of being on the spectrum. I say this as one on the spectrum, with a child and grandchildren also residing there.
Besides the obvious passive/agressive attitude. It's funny that Jimmy is patting Christian on the head saying he's not been Catholic too long. While simultaneously Jimmy is saying that he's been a Catholic for 32 years and first started teaching Catholicism as a professional when he'd only been Catholic for a matter of months. And since I've been a Catholic for 57 years, I'm comfortable pointing that out.
The difference is that Jimmy didn't do something like, for example, claim Peter Kreeft was a modernist that needed to be stopped. The issue is not that Wagner is trying to do apologetics; but that he is making serious accusations against a much more experienced apologist despite being far from an expert on this subject himself.
@@chryphex I haven't heard Peter Kreeft state that someone could hypothetically deny a tenet of the Catholic faith and still be a good Catholic because there hasn't been a binding statement officially proclaiming Mary's Impeccability for all of the faithful. Jimmy doesn't believe it, but he allows for a hypothetical scenario that is not Catholic. That's wrong and needs public correction since it is a public act. Wagner points all of this out in his opening comments. Scott Hahn has been called to task any number of times when he drags his Protestantism into the Catholic Church like his "Scriptural Rosary" right after JPII screwed up the Rosary with his "luminous" mystery nonsense. He also tried to posit the Holy Ghost as female a while back. That came back at him fast and hard.
@@gerry30 Akin made the case in this video for what he specifically said, and it seems pretty air tight. Instead of just asserting that he’s wrong, might I suggest that you instead provide some evidence? Show me what I’m missing.
The only thing Wagner does in all his videos is call out other Catholics and slander them publicly to get followers. He is a rage baiter that tries to get outrage clicks just like the normal media. He did it to Kreeft. He did it the TheReligiousHippy and her husband. He is not a good role model and has a lot of learning to do.
@@JoeyT_91 I've written plenty in this comments sections pointing out that Jimmy can't validly state that one can be a good Catholic while denying a "tenet" of the Catholic faith. Even with what he ambiguously calls "good reasons" because there isn't an infallible definition that has been declared. He's avoiding or doesn't understand that the ordinary magisterium of the Church also includes the constant teaching of the Church and the belief of the faithful. See, Fr. John Hardon S.J.'s Catechism on Infallibility. I've simplified the issue by asking the simple question: Can you be a good Catholic and with what you believe to be a good reason, deny that St. Joseph is a saint? He's never been canonized, no council or Pope has made a declaration infallibly declaring he's a saint in Heaven. It fits all of Jimmy's criteria.
Thanks for sharing the faith, Mr. Akin. This is a good lesson for all of us on not misrepresenting others and actual teaching of the church. Mr. Wagner is definitely a smart person and he seem to be very confident that he was right but attacking you publicly really does not display any charity. Prayed for you both.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 I don't care about the drama. I watch Jimmy's content because I like learning and I like the way he teaches. I also like how he doesn't name and shame others (in this instance he was responding), that's all I care to know about this.
Perfect. Just perfect rebuttal. And informative at the same time. Thank you Jimmy. Recent convert really need to be careful about their confidence: "For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, so that he won’t become arrogant and fall into the Devil’s condemnation." - 1 Timothy 3:5-6
@@calebgasca Personally, I liked his treatment of the criterion for infallible teachings according to the Catholic Church and his demonstration that the teaching found in CCC 493 "By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long" is not, by those criterion mentioned, infallible. I also liked the part where Jimmy states his personal beliefs on these teachings as well, but argues nonetheless from the sources he provided those truths which appear (to me) to soundly follow in terms of the exact "doctrinal note" this teaching I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic church falls under. What was your favorite part beyond the 9:08 mark, Caleb? Do you think Jimmy Akin's arguments are sound? If not, why not?
@@schluuz_ from a methodological perspective I have no level of authority to decide between who is correct on the doctrine being debated. My critique is on Mr Akins attitude and approach to how he addressed Wagner.
@@calebgasca Thank you for your reply! I am a little bit confused by your response, so if you could clarify some things I would greatly appreciate that! If you really believe you have no authority to decide between who is correct on the doctrine being discussed on a methodological perspective, why even engage Jimmy's video response to begin with? It seems reasonable to me that your critique about Jimmy's attitude towards how he addressed Christian may or may not be warranted, but this would depend upon the meat of the content that was addressed, and the statements made about each other both from Christian's and Jimmy's perspectives. Otherwise, I can't seem to understand why you would watch a response video if not to make judgements about the doctrinal content of the response, but rather only to make statements about the mannerisms with which they respond. Does my thinking here make sense?
@ because jimmy is a giant figure compared to Wagner so I think he needs to be more reasonable when addressing someone small like Wagner. I also think Akins veiled legal threats and accusations of sin are both incorrect and inappropriate.
I've never watched anything by Christian Wagner, but less than 10 minutes in it's clear he suffers from something that so many in their 20s suffer from, and which I also suffered from at that age. It is a lack of humility, and a hubris about how much you actually know. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and tell my 20-something self to shut up and just listen once in a while.
I have not watched this video yet. I have watched a few of Mr Wagner's videos and have found a lot of them to be very uncharitable. The outright delight in what he perceives to be "shortcomings" in others is a red flag to me. It is unfortunate that this video had to be made but I am sure JImmy handled things greacefully as always. Eager to watch.
@@jaykwonzzz Which to absolutely no one's surprise he admitted to having autism on Twitter. Akin is almost 60 years old, so when someone says "because I am autistic" he is going to take the comment seriously because it will alter his response to said person. It is not really uncharitable.
@@winstonvontoast6163 Yep I felt like it was a fair remark. Either Christian actually struggles with autism or he doesn't. If he does, it was reasonable and kind of Akin to ackowledge it in a kind way and try to give Christian the benefit of the doubt on why he may be attacking a fellow Catholic publicly in a somewhat toxic or socially weird way. If he doesn't struggle with autism and is instead joking about a disability while also acting like a teacher of the Faith.... well then Jimmy's comment serves as a deserved jab for that.
Is there a clear list of all infallible Church teachings somewhere? It would be great to have a page dedicated to it and maybe even a link to upsell your book on the magisterium. So often Protestants Don't understand infallibility and it would be great to have a clear link to send
@@pdg14 Agreed. But I think it would be helpful to show a definitive list, mostly to dispense with the Protestant nonsense where they think every word uttered by any pope is infallable. It comes up a lot and it would be nice if we could just send a handy url to anybody. Most of the infallable teach Protestants would agree with! Trinity etc.
I've asked this same question a few times. I wish there was a clear, and easily accessible answer, but there isn't. Even ecumenical councils and past popes have said and done confusing and seemingly contradictory things over the centuries. See a recent video by Michael Lofton and the work of Erick Ybarra.
@@vinoneil Very frustrating. If these teachings are truly infallible, it should be easy to keep a list! Otherwise, what's the point of declaring them infallible if nobody can find them? It fosters disharmony in the Church to say teaching are infallible and then not be able to enumerate them. I'm Catholic, but this kind of stuff is really madding!
Here's another problematic claim that popped out at me. Around the 37 minute mark Jimmy says, "The only statement in Ineffabilis Deus that is taught under infallibility is the one where Pius XI defines the Immaculate Conception nothing else in the document is definitive and so nothing else is infallible, this is the standard understanding of all competent theologians." This is, to be charitable imprecise. What is really meant is that the only statement in Ineffabilis Deus that is taught using the EXTRAORDINARY infallibility of the Church is the definition of the Immaculate Conception. It does not mean that "nothing else is definitive and nothing else is infallible." To the contrary, there are numerous statements in the document that are contained in the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Take the first sentence: "God Ineffable - whose ways are mercy and truth, whose will is omnipotence itself, and whose wisdom “reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly” - having foreseen from all eternity the lamentable wretchedness of the entire human race which would result from the sin of Adam, decreed, by a plan hidden from the centuries, to complete the first work of his goodness by a mystery yet more wondrously sublime through the Incarnation of the Word. " While the document only utilizes the extraordinary Magisterium in the definition, the document is literally marinating in statements that are part of the ORDINARY INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM of the Church. They are from the Creed, the Scriptures, the Commandments as well as reiterations from binding statements of Popes and Councils. By claiming that nothing is infallible beyond the definition it becomes a figurative mine field of potential heretical propositions. You can't say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church isn't an infallible statement in the document because the extraordinary definition only concerns the Immaculate Conception.
I like your meekness Jimmy and yet you are such a learned person in matters of theology. I've learned so much from you and from your humble attitude. You are a reflection of Christ. The meek shall inherit the earth. May the Lord continue to bless you and give increase to your ministry.
He is wrong about Mary though. Mary wasn't absolutely sinless. She called God her saviour meaning that she needed a saviour because she was a sinful woman.
Of course, in the first place Mary was saved by Christ. God is not restricted by space and time. Jesus' sacrifice is eternal and transcends time and that's why he could save Mary before she was born. Are we just like Mary: full of grace, the Lord is with us, blessed are we among men/women, blessed the fruit of our womb Jesus, mother of God. When did we crush Satan's head and Satan struck our heel.
@@footspike55defending your name against defamation, especially when part of the work you do relies on your reputation, is good, not prideful. Did you watch the video?
@dr.tafazzi He was clearly being passive aggressive. Why did he hint at Wagner's autism? Why did he threaten to sue? Are Christians supposed to be litigious against each other?
According to Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: Mary's Immaculate Conception: de fide Her freedom from concupiscence: Sententia communis Her Freedom from actual sin Sententia fide proxima Those three are not the same level.
@@DysmasOfBabylonno what was dogmatic was her being born without original sin which then leaves open the possibility during her earthly life that she could sin or that she was tempted by sin but refused to sin. I take the latter approach. However I find it amusing how many people think the dogma of the Immaculate conception think this then means it was dogmatically stated that she didn’t sin her entire life. Where is this a dogma? It’s not one and that is not what the Immaculate conception is. The immaculate conception is Mary being born WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN. That’s it.
@catholicguy1073 it's literally in the same document, so you haven't read the document you are taking someone else's perspective for your opinion. Leading you to reject a Dogma. Making you a heretic.
@ it’s not in the dogma of the Immaculate conception that Mary was sinless her entire life. And while the Church teaches that Mary was sinless her entire life I have not seen any document that shows this an infallible teaching not that it is not taught. Perhaps learn about different levels of Church teaching before attacking someone 🤦 And stop being an ass. If you can’t communicate properly don’t respond.
For the customes of people are; For one cuts a tree out of the forest the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. They deck it with silver and gold , they fasten it with nail and with hammer ; that is move not. Jeremiah 10-1-4 🎄🪓🥢🔨and they also worship a dead man as their king and savior alongside with Halloween to remind them who is the king 👑.Ezekiël 37-24-25. Wait ? Son and mother of god die on a cross? Pfffff
Insufferable intro lol. I don't care how long you've been a Catholic, Jimmy. Better, I don't care how much longer you've been a Catholic than another Catholic you disagree with. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this appeal to experience is foisted upon us constantly in other areas. Just skip the BS and defend the position. By the same logic Wagner could hold this view you say is errant for 30 more years then use the "I've been a Catholic for 30 years" trope to browbeat someone else. I'm sure those people that refuted Galileo saying the earth revolved around the sun had believed that for a long time. Guess what? They were wrong for a long time.
“Listen to me your father, O children; and act accordingly, that you may be kept in safety.” I disagree with you. While experience does not guarantee one will always be correct, it does entitle one to a few things, namely, honor, respect, and audience, and pious Christians should be happy to grant such things to elders. This concept is all over the wisdom literature of the Bible (as I quote Sirach 3:1 above), but those sayings are merely expositions of the fourth commandment: honor thy father and mother. And how do we honor them, but by respectfully seeking their audience and hearing them out as tools of the Lord and mouthpieces of His goodness and wisdom. Jimmy wasn’t saying, “I’m old so I win,” but rather, “I’m your elder, a brother and a father, so talk TO me, son, not about me; I can and want to help.”
@@CatholicFreight I disagree with your read. Regardless, if he skips the part where he drones for 10 minutes about how he's better than a young Catholic because he has been a Catholic a long time and goes straight to the arguments that we all know he can make, it wouldn't be so annoying. Skip the ego check. Even if it was warranted.
I think Christian is very knowledgeable and a promising apologist. I do think he's quick to attack others in a frankly uncharitable way, and I think he is quick to say certain opinions are off-limits, when I've heard other knowledgeable apologists say they are permissible. I really hope this helps him correct some of that stuff because I think he has a promising future. Thank you for being gentle as always, Jimmy.
I don't get it. The first 10 minutes of this video seem far more uncharitable then anything Wagner did. If you just listen to the way Wagner talks about Jimmy he clearly has respect for the man and is just trying to explain why he thinks his position is wrong while Jimmy keeps trying to put down Wagner simply for being young or not Catholic for that long (so what?). As for the substance of the arguments you can check Wagner's response to this and judge yourself but also they should just talk about it not make these kinds of videos in my opinion.
@@magikarp2063 What Wagner has shown is that you have to dig so deep into a very niche and recherche historical analysis to understand that the more probable view is that hold=believe. I think Wagner is right on that note, sure. But the uncharity comes from Wagner explicitly saying that Akin HABITUALLY disregards the universal magisterium. It's clear that even if Akin, on one of a couple topics, lacks a degree of nuance that only a small percentage of experts have, he still has a pretty good grasp of the difference between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, and that he sincerely tries to conform to both.
Jimmy, i am so happy you made this episode. I couldn't deal with all the lies against you. We should always correct our brothers in Christ in charity but always truthful. Wonderful video and wonderful answer!
Jimmy often teaches us about the history and intricacies of the Catholic Church. In this video, he also teaches us how to react with grace and patience to someone who is attempting to harm us. I only wish I could react like this when I am slandered. Thank you, Jimmy.
Aw Jimmy! You put up with so much. My heart goes out to you. Your content showed me that faith and reason can harmonize and that gave me confidence to be a monk. I'm a big fan and so are my confreres. You touch so many lives and do so much good for the kingdom. Thanks so much for all you do. Godspeed!
Hey Jimmy, genuine question (from a relatively recent Anglican), why aren’t these teachings about Mary found more explicitly within Bible (it seems to me that much of Mariology is dependent upon Typology)? As for myself, I see myself as having a lower view of Mary than the Catholic-Orthodox and a higher view than the Protestant-Evangelicals. (For example, I see Simeon’s prophecy about a sword piercing her heart too, to tie her to the mystical event of Crucifixion but I am unsure of sinlessness and Immaculate Conception due the verse about “none being sinless” save Jesus). If you end up seeing this, thank you for your time and God bless you!
Because most of the teaching about Mary isn’t based on scripture, it’s based on church tradition. Why do you only believe something if it’s written down in scripture? Don’t you trust the historic witness and tradition of the church?
In a way, I'm kind of glad he went after Jimmy instead of another theologian. Jimmy is very careful in his language, it's difficult to catch him mis-speaking and to misconstrue was he said. Another theologian may have had to come out and apologize for imprecise language. Not Jimmy.
He directly criticized "Teaching with Authority" before any of this controversy came out (specifically taking issue with his application of desuetude to magisterial teachings). Not picking a side here, but proverbs 18:17 applies to anyone who has only followed one side or the other.
“guys did you know he’s only been Catholic for 3 years? yep! only 3 years! i’ve been Catholic much longer than him and i’m much smarter than him. guys did you know Christians only been Catholic for 3 years? guys listen to me i know more about it because he’s only been Catholic for 3 years”
@ i mean, jimmy said that it wasn’t an infallible teaching that Mary was free of personal sin. i think jimmy is a great Catholic and has done a lot for the faith, definitely more knowledgeable than me, i just agree with Wagner on this one, i don’t think Wagner committed calumny in this since his stream was just him reacting to akins video.
@@susand3668no he didn’t. 1) Wagner played the full video live on stream. 2) he accurately quoted Jimmy live after watching the full video. Jimmy then selectively edited Wagner to make it sound like he said something he didn’t.
"We must resist the temptation to bend the sources into saying what we want them to say." Very wise words. I do not know when, but I am sure that Mr. Wagner *will* be grateful for your correction, as wise men always are.
As someone who is just learning at the moment, I felt that the comparisons between age and experience, although having some merit, was overdone in the introduction. But I am interested in the exchange that hopefully will come from both sides.
This is an excellent example of how Jimmy's irenic approach is not just pleasant, it is often superior in establishing the truth of the matter being discussed. His insistence on being charitable and clear in his refutation strengthens the weight of his argument. This younger generation of more reactionary apologists would benefit from emulating Jimmy's method. It's not a matter of being "nice"; this approach makes him a better apologist.
Wagner and his friends maliciously went after Amber aka The Religious Hippy, and her husband, saying some extremely unchristian things about them using his platform over and over again. I am not at all surprised he did this to you. Pray for him and his friends to find their way rather than spread hate.
That's a nice distraction from the simplicity of the problem: A Protestant asked "Do I have to believe that Mary was sinless to be a Catholic?" Jimmy ultimately answered, "No." in an unnecessarily confusing and frankly incorrect manner. The answer should have been a clear, 'Yes." And if he wanted to talk more broadly about the liberties extended to "theologians" he could have, but instead he relied on "It hasn't been infallibly defined." It was a bad, imprudent answer to an essentially simple question.
@@gerry30 The hubris of you people. Jimmy Akin gave a carefully worded answer to the question, and all you can say is that he should have given a more generic answer because some people will not listen to what he actually said. It was only an "unecessarily confusing" answer to someone who doesn't bother to listen carefully.
@@jamesshives5679 You know what I think is hubris? Jimmy Akin claiming that the theologians at the Council of Trent were incompetent and he's actually the authority. The fact is Jimmy has been shown to be wrong about the theological note of the teaching and a person is not free to deny an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Wagner pointed this out and Jimmy didn't do his research to find out that Wagner was actually just repeating the scholastic Theologians from the actual Council of Trent on the very canon that Jimmy is disputing. Jimmy thinks the guy who wrote it, doesn't know what he wrote. This is because after bragging about how he is the big researcher it turns out that Jimmy didn't look far enough and stuck with one 20th century outlier opinion. Why do you think he was lazy and dismissed Wagner's arguments out of hand without doing due diligence? Was Akin being humble?
This was a bad faith dismissal of legitimate criticism to your past comments. You flip flopped from your comments made in the past dismissing the weight of past magisterial statements and the Ordinary Magisterium just to try to own Wagner after he caught you in error.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion on the Church’s teaching about Mary being free from both original and personal sin. This teaching raises some philosophical and theological questions in my mind that I’d appreciate clarification on: 1 If original sin is inherited at birth, as taught by St. Paul (“through one man’s sin, death entered the world”), wouldn’t Mary’s parents also need to be free from original sin for her to be born sinless? How does the Church explain this link in light of inherited sin? 2. St. Paul states in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Wouldn’t “all” naturally include Mary, unless this passage is interpreted differently within Catholic theology? How is this reconciled with the doctrine of her being sinless? 3. If Mary was entirely free from sin, both original and personal, does that imply a level of sinlessness akin to Christ? If so, could her sinlessness alone play a role in humanity’s salvation, or is Christ’s sacrifice still uniquely necessary despite her being free of sin? There are several issues with such teaching. I understand that these questions may stem from a lack of theological nuance on my part, but I’d appreciate any clarification you could provide. Thank you again for your work and thoughtful presentations.
I am not a theologian, so I ask you to be charitable about what I say in my attempt to answer your questions: 1. No, Original Sin is not "inherited at birth" in the way that we moderns understand inheritance. We think of DNA. St. Paul did not. In the context of the times in which St. Paul lived, we are included in the Death that came through Adam's sin because we are, so to speak, in the loins of Adam. God has done a new thing with Mary, the Woman (as Jesus named her) who fulfills God's prophecy back in Genesis 3:15. God was speaking to the Serpent, and saying that a Woman would come who would have a Son ("Seed") Who would crush the head of the devil. Just as Adam and Eve were human beings, yet had no sin (until they did!), so too, Mary is a "new creation" -- without sin -- saved from sin by her Son, Who is outside Time and Space, and can do such things. No? 2. St. Paul is speaking to adult Romans when he says "all have sinned." Does he intend to include every last person in his "all"? Does he include Jesus in his "all have sinned"? If St. Paul meant "all" in the limited meaning of "every last person", then he must include Jesus or make a list of people he does not include. So, yes, the strict interpretation of this verse is not the Catholic understanding. We will not say that Jesus sinned. Nor that the angels who serve God have sinned. Nor that unborn children have sinned. Doesn't that make sense? 3. Of course it is by Christ's Sacrifice that we are all saved, including Mary, whose sinlessness was an unearned gift from God, and made her dependence upon the Sacrifice of her Son greater than all of us who have spent time in the thrall of sin. I am sure that Mr. Akin could give you a better and clearer explanation! But I felt that I would try, out of my little understanding, to give you a sense of where to start in exploring these questions, since they have troubled and inspired the Church from the beginning.
Really sorry to hear this happened to you! You'll probably be dealing with more confused people like the example you share for a while to come. I'll be praying for you!
I watched your discussion with TJ which was interesting and a good discussion. I got the distinct impression that you must have an extremely good reason to take a different view that would be such a narrow slim exception that if you were a great theologian who could make a very compelling case to disagree. To cut a long story short, for 99.9% of people, no you can't disagree with non infallible teaching.
Hello, I had a question, and I think it is worth making a video, and this is the question, what does it mean when God says in his introduction, I am that I am?
God is eternal. The alfa and omega. Always was. Is now. And Always will be. The first cause for all other causes to come into being without a cause for god himself to come into existence.
Jimmy, as a fan of yours, and with all respect, I think you are not mentioning a key distinction here. There is a distinction made between withholding assent and disagreeing. Withholding assent, it seems, from what I can deduce, is to essentially remain non committal on the issue, whereas disagreeing is to say that you believe the Magisterium is wrong, and that you reject the teaching, whether publicly or privately. This distinction is found in the book (on the USCCB’s website) The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop. The relevant information is on pages 17 and 18, and the most relevant as far as acceptability of private dissent reads as follows: Quite distinct from the withholding of assent is the private, individual judgment that conclusively rejects the ordinary, nondefinitive teaching of the Church. Such a judgment constitutes private dissent and is not consistent with that religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium due to church teaching. Even though dissent of this kind remains private, nevertheless it is unacceptable. So it would seem that private non assent, in extreme cases, is what is permitted; not outright private rejection.
I commented on that video of his, in which a whole lot of people who love scandal, scandalosos as call them, were all up in arms. I simply asked where the church infallibly defined Mary's perpetual sinlessness. I got a couple answers, none of which actually gave a citation of an Ecumenical Council or Pope defining Mary's perpetual sinlessness. After pointing that out, my comment was deleted.
Also called them out for disobedience in the name of knowing better because a former theologian stated otherwise. I made the point that they aren't theologians, they have no formal training, and that is was therefore wrong to openly and loudly disagree with the pope or disobey his bishops. As far as I know, that comment was also deleted.
@St.DemetriostheMyrrhGusher As I stated in the comments section Wagners video, before my comments all disappeared, that cannon does not infallibly declare Mary's sinlessness. It infallibly states that one can not hold that a person can, without special grace and privilege of God, remain without sin their whole life. It does not anathemetize holding that Mary sinned. It anathemetizes only those who say we can live a sin free life without special grace and privilege, and it gives Mary as an example of someone who can be held to have recieved such special grace and privilege. That being said, I do hold, as the church has held openly since at latest 250, that Mary was perpetually sinless. But her sinlessness has never been infallible declared.
@josephmoya5098 1. Are you repenting of your calumny against those of us who support Wagner's content? 2. Are you telling me that there are only specific clauses in the anathema decree that that are actually anathema? Why say anything about Mary's sinlessness? Why not just put a footnote?
Do we have to go back in time and retroactively apply the 1983 code of canon law or John Paul 2’s opinions to every item of doctrine that has been traditionally considered infallible dogma to determine whether or not I am free to disagree with it? Or at least see if the source that dogma used the word “define” ?
Jimmy Akin in 2005: "John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn’t say it under the protection of inallibility. I don’t think that he was wrong. I think he was right and that it has been definitively (and thus infallibly) settled by the ordinary Magisterium, but the pope’s mention of this fact without engaging his infallibility-by definition-does not a mount to an infallible exercise of his Magisterium." Jimmy in 2024: No. You don't have to believe in the impeccability of Blessed Mother because it wasn't infallibly defined and you should have good reasons to reject that tenet of the Catholic faith. So...back then something could be settled infallibly and definitively by the "ordinary Magisterium" But now, the impeccability of the Blessed Mother repeated constantly by Popes, Fathers, doctors and the common awareness of the people (ie, the University of the Faithful) can be resisted because someone has "good reasons" and this is licit only because the extraordinary infallible mode of the Magisterium wasn't engaged. That is a contradictory position. Unless the ordination of women is still unsettled if people have "good reasons" to resist what JPII claimed was to be held by all the faithful. As a side note, I would also argue that JPII did engage the extraordinary infallible Magisterium since all criteria established by Vatican I are directly engaged. He announces it as being a part of the office of the Chair of Peter, matter of the faith concerning the unity of the Church, definitive, to be held by all the faithful. Doesn't matter if it was a reiteration, the mechanism of the extraordinary Magisterium was engaged by the form of the act.
Obviously the Church herself can define whether a reason is good enough or not. The starting point is that a Catholic is to believe in the impeccability of Our Lady, as this is the teaching of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. However, since this is not a doctrine that has been *infallibly defined*, de fide definita, at this point in time, there may exist circumstances where a theologian, for a good and grave reason, after careful study, may privately reject it without being guilty of heresy. However however, it is possible that no such objective or subjective good reason exists at all - that is up to the Church to decide, when and if she is asked to make that decision. As to womens' ordination, that has been infallibly defined (whether through the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium, is up for debate). I don't see the contradiction.
@@TurtleMarcus Watch the response video (part 1) by Wagner. Turns out his position is the dominant one in the Church and he was simply repeating what the writers of the actual infallible definitions wrote, intended and voted for and were accepted by the Church. They actually wrote that they meant for our Lady's Impeccability to be included in both Trent and in the declaration on the Immaculate Conception. In the case of Trent it was actually added as a specific point. So, Jimmy actually stated that Wagner's position was incompetent. When in reality he's saying that the people who actually wrote the definitions were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing.
@@gerry30 Ludwig Ott states in Fundamentals that the teaching "In consequence of a special privilege of grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life" has the theological note of "sententia fidei proxima" and not "de fide definita". He even references Trent on this. Maybe Ott is wrong, and Wagner is right. But I'll trust Ott on this one, for the time being.
@ yes, the one where he is ironically using Jimmy’s own laughable accusation of criminality as the thumbnail. His video is thorough and informative. You can’t adequately weigh each side in an argument if you hide from one
@@CatchCraftInc are you really that upset about a thumbnail that reframes Jimmy’s criminal accusation in an ironic light? Wild It really just sounds like you don’t want your preconceived notions challenged, and that you’re searching for any excuse you can
Im not impressed with Wagner’s defenders in this chat. They are not learning how to think as Catholics. Three year old Catholics should be silent regarding other Catholics. They are babies and should not be criticizing anyone in the Church. This shows a lack of character and wisdom.
@ Wagner isn’t St Augustine and Im talking about not respecting one’s elders. Also, Wagner is incorrect on where Akin placed this belief in the Profession of Faith. If he understood the Profession of Faith and Donum Veritalis, he would place Akin’s belief in category three non-definitive beliefs. Good question.
@@paulmualdeave5063 st. Augustine wasn't a saint back then, he had no special status and the same rules that apply to everyone applied to him. Now I ask again, should st. Augustine have followed that advice or not?
@ I don’t think St Augustine slandered anyone? If you want to play games we can go there. Did he ever disrespect his elder and then totally mischaracterize someone’s opinion publicly?
Jimmy is making a single error that has caused all this: just because the Church hasnt explicitly defined something infallibily in a Extraordinary manner does not mean that it doesnt teach it infallibly in an ordinary manner. Ecumencial Councils and Ex Cathedra teachings are extraordinary manners of which the Church teaches, in manners where disputes have risen. The Ordinary Manner which the Church Teaches is through the Ordinary Magisterium of Bishops in their Pastoral and Theological teachings, with their Universal Teaching being Infallible. Mary was historically taught by all Bishops to be Personally Sinless, therefore it is a Infallible Teaching of the Church De Fide.
Yes, Mr. Akin agrees that the Church has taught "with a high degree of authority" that Mary is sinless. However, is it an Infallible Teaching? Donum Veritatis allows that in very extraordinary situations, when a Catholic theologian has tried and failed to conform his or her private conscience to a full assent to a non-Infallible Teaching, that theologian can still be a faithful Catholic. Provided this doubt is never taught, and that the theologian diligently continues to try to achieve a full assent.
@@susand3668 this is undermining the argument. I literally clarified that it is a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, which can has a taught this infallibly, by Universal Consent of it being De Fide.
@@luxither7354, before I say anything else, I want to apologize for my imperfect proof-reading last night -- in describing the limitations that Donum Veritatis applies to the allowance for doubt, I typed "ever" when I meant "never"! I have corrected it now, and I hope that you weere able to figure out that it was a typo, since "ever" made my sentence into utter nonsense! As to Your point -- 1) we are agreed that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *can* teach Infallibly. 2) we are agreed that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *has* taught Mary's perpetual sinlessness. There is no logical, inevitable connection between these two statements, that would cause a person to conclude automatically that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *did* teach Mary's sinlessness as *Infallible*. Because statement #1 is incomplete -- the Universal Ordinary Magisterium can *also* teach non-infallible Teachings, and the Teaching that Mary was and is perpetually without sin can be a non-infallible Teaching. See? The way for the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to teach a Teaching *Infallibly* is defined in Canon 749 section 2, which Mr. Akin provides for us to read at 50:33. Here, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is described as the College of Bishops dispersed throughout the world, in communion with one another and in union with the Pope, teaching authentically in union with the Pope matters of faith and morals. And the act of teaching infallibly is explained as when "*they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.*" When did the Universal Ordinary Magisterium universally agree that Mary's perpetual sinlessness is to be held *definitively*? When was it taught *as infallible*? And please note, the degree of authority behind infallible Teachings and non-infallible Teachings is *only* important when a person is a theologian who has thought himself or herself into a cul-de-sac of doubt, or when a person is converting to the Catholic Church and needs to reconstruct an entire world-view and is still on the way to a perfect assent to all the Teachings of the Church. We are all required to assent to ALL the Teachings of the Church, infallible or non-infallible, because ALL the Teachings of the Catholic Church are True.
@susand3668 they agreed in the Acceptance of the Council of Trent that assumed Mary was Personally Sinless in one of its Canons on Grace and how one cannot be sinless without the Gratuitous Favour of God. Secondly, this presumes that the Ordinary Magisterium teaches all Infallible points but way of explicit assertion, which entirely makes it not an Ordinary Magisterial Teaching. Look up any division of Magisterial Teaching from any Theologian, and they will define that the Extraordinary Magisterium teaches *definitively*, while the Ordinary Magisterium, by way of it being Ordinary, does not teach in a manner where it must justify itself through definitive means. This is setting a standard that cannot be filled because the Ordinary Magisterium DOESN'T MAKE STATEMENTS ON FAITH AND MORALS IN A MANNER THAT IS DEFINITIVE LIKE AN EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT. Infallible teachings of the Church do not need to be definitive in order for them to be infallible. Prior to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary be recognised by an Ecumenical Council, an form of Extraordinary Magisterial Teaching, the Ordinary Magisterium, the consensus of Bishops, unanimously taught this view, and taught it to be of the faith such as Saint Basil and the Cappadocians, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, etc. Finally, the usual manner which the Ordinary Magisterium teaches is through liturgical texts, since this is manner which throughout Church History, Dogmas of the Faith were passed down and communicated, via *Doctrina Arcana*. This is why when the Christian Faith became Unanimous, you see in Ecclesiastical Writers and Theologians suddenly appealing to Liturgical Witness in the 6th-7th Centuries. This is typified in the Symbol of Faith, the Creedo. These are arguments Wagner made that Jimmy has blatantly misrepresented (and I have horribly paraphrased). Watch his streams on this before discussing this any further.
I’ve been watching Jimmy longer than I have Wagner, but Jimmy harping on the fact that he’s a new convert when Jimmy was doing apologetics one year as a Catholic is pretty ironic.
Jimmy doesn’t have an issue with him doing apologetics. He has issue with him misrepresenting him and creating click-batey content disparaging him. I don’t think Jimmy was doing that in his first few years of apologetics.
@ Wagner didn’t misrepresent him, check out his latest video. He pulls clips out of context, and Jimmy here is certainly wrong on the status of this dogma
1:05:33 Jimmy, St. Alphonsus is talking about the debt of original sin here, not actual sin. The quote is just not relevant to this discussion. The debt of sin is not the same thing as actual sin, and a person can have the debt of original sin without having actual sin. It was a debate during his time on whether or not the immaculate conception meant St. Mary was free of the debt of original sin. That is a different debate entirely as to where or not she had actual sin, which no Catholic theologian in his day would have said that she actually sinned.
The debt of sin is why St. Mary did not have the preternatural gift of bodily immortality and why she needed saving by Christ on the cross.
The Immaculate conception refers to being born without original sin. That’s not the same as actually sinning during her life. I think like all people she was tempted to sin and what makes her different is her choice to not sin. Perfect obedience to God.
@@catholicguy1073 I’m not sure you understood my comment. Here are some principles:
The Immaculate Conception being conceived without original sin.
Original sin is not synonymous with the debt of sin.
The debt of sin is not synonymous with actual (personal) sin.
St. Alphonsus’ discussion was on a debate over whether or not the Immaculate Conception meant St. Mary was free of the debt of sin. The debate was NOT over whether she had actual sin. Jimmy mistook this, applying it to a discussion of actual sin where it has no real relevance.
@@catholicguy1073 the debt of sin is the explanation for why St. Mary still needed to be saved by the grace won by Christ on the cross (retroactively applied to her conception), and why she did not have bodily immortality (amongst other preternatural gifts). She had this debt dispute being free of both original and actual sin.
So Jimmy bringing the St. Alphonsus quote up was a red herring, probably an unintentional one.
Extremely disappointed that Jimmy would stoop down to making "drama content" with other TH-camrs. I had no idea who Christian Wagner was before watching the video but Jimmy's passive aggressive tone and cringey appeal to experience at the beginning makes it seem he's just punching down at a younger, passionate convert. I also don't think it was right for Jimmy to tell a Protestant that there is some sort of "escape hatch" when it comes to believing Mary was sinless. Even with the clarification of "you need a really good reason to think otherwise", presenting a tiny possibility of doubting the long-standing tradition of the church seems to be a poor pastoral decision.
Mate, he's standing up for himself after having his name dragged into the gutter by people who make life imitate online discourse instead of the other way around.
@@frankmcdonnell6931 I agree with you that the sort of “extremely online Catholic commentators” are problematic and often offer more heat than light, but I don’t think that excuses Jimmy’s attitude. A lot of comments say his was a kind response but I find it to be the definition of patronizing. Also, starting off the video by poisoning the well and waving his credentials around really put me off, because Jimmy usually criticizes people that act in that smug matter. I don’t have a dog in this fight, and I’m usually a big fan of Jimmy’s work - that’s what surprises me about this video.
It's all the worse when Wagner is able to come back a day or two later and show, with more charity and grace than Jimmy, that the council fathers of Trent took their canon as defining her sinlessness, even having a specific vote on that clause after it was objected to on the grounds that it would be such a definition.
I have much respect for Christian Wagner but I feel like I ought to step away from his content for a bit. The parasocially vibing with a bro who happens to know a lot about Scholasticism is not really where I need to be spiritually or intellectually right now. Still absolutely respect him and his apostolate.
And Jimmy I apologize for my calumny against you regarding this. I humbly ask for your forgiveness.
Edit: I wasn't expecting to find myself at 29:00. Embarrassing but I did it to myself.
Christian is great in many things, but he takes his view as more certain that they are.
Remember we follow the Church not a youtuber, so always check what they say.
May I ask what the respect you have for Christian is based on?
@@anthony-kellyhe's clearly well read and knows the content he presents extraordinarily well, and has given pretty solid, pretty no-nonsense advice for progressing in the intellectual and spiritual life. He can be a bit of a "bro" and sometimes dismissive, which I think turns some people away
I just don't find his content as particularly helpful to me personally as I used to.
@@newglof9558 I tend to agree. I've stepped away as well. His content gave me some great points for rectifying my absent spirituality and improving my Catholic education. He convinced me of the need to go back to Latin, and to read. I also love supporting the Moriscos.
At this point, my biggest take away is to speak less, obey and read more. I think all the lay Catholics would do well to do the same. Let the Bishops and theologians handle these matters.
Just focus on mental prayer and giving up mortal and venial sins lads. I speak to myself too 99% of catholic TH-cam content is at best a waste of time and vain curiosity and at worst leads to despair or confusion
I really don’t think Christian is Autistic, he just says that sometimes as a joke
He's out of his depth.
Wagner is in fact not autistic. He has said he is not. He has joked about “autistic levels of research into St. Thomas” but clarified that it was a joke.
It's his Zoomer humor.
@@triconcert he’s really not
As a braindead Zoomer myself I can understand why Mr. Akin might struggle to understand our skibidi humour
Galatians 5:14-22 May the spirit of unity, kindness, and peace bring us all closer to Christ.
As a dumb layperson I happen to think Jimmy dodged the core criticism that Wagner made. Simply put:
1. Is the universal ordinary magisterium infallible?'
2. Can I Catholic in good standing dissent from something taught in the uom?
3. Is Mary's sinlessness taught in the uom?
Did Jimmy explicitly address this crucial problem? Seems to me like he decided it was a better idea to mention false claims (Wagner DID NOT claim Jimmy supported female deacons), and talk in circles instead of addressing the very matter at question.
@@WolfschanzefulOkay I disagree with you. Also didn't read your points. I don't know you, too much to read here, and I don't need to read it to know I disagree. Did you mean to put it in my comment? Why?
@@WolfschanzefulOkay I disagree with you. Also didn't read your points too much to read, I don't know you, and I don't need to read it to know I disagree. Did you mean to put it in my comment? Why?
@@halleylujah247why are you responding asking why he replied without reading his reply?
@Wolfschanzeful 1:08:20 is the start of his conclusion where he restates all he covered in a general matter. He addressed all your points. Except 3 because that wasn't the issue in question. It's whether Mary's sinlessness was taught definitively.
“Congratulations on being a Catholic for three years” you’re ridiculous.
16:00 he did not commit slander on the legal level. Slander involves more then just saying something about one in public you believe is false if it is false. Other elements would be it had to be done with . IOW you have to show that he did so with the worst motives possible. It’s obvious he didn’t. You may feel that way but you’d have to show he had maliciousness in mind in making his claims. There is also fair commentary defenses to a slander accusation. He was saying all this in a commentary about your statements. But if you feel so confident in it then go ahead and speak to any lawyer who specializes in these cases and let us know who thinks you have a case at a lawsuit which you were clearly insinuating.
37:51 Pius IX not XI
1:08:32 Pius IX not XII
You’re a very smug and arrogant individual. Set aside who is wrong or right. Let’s say you’re right. To talk down to him in a “Hey little boy listen to the grownups” type of manner is snide and pompous. Just because he has been a Catholic for only three years doesn’t mean he hasn’t studied the sources or material longer. The fact that you have someone like Fastiggi also say the contrary and he’s been doing apologetics longer than you tells me you just wanted to arrogantly belittle him.
You mimic the way liberal theologians or biblical scholars talk down to conservative orthodox Catholics who defend the Faith.
You mask your arrogance and pride in the form of wanting to be helpful. Just criticize his views and leave out the personal out of it. What did his being autistic have anything to do with this topic? It would have never occurred to me or anyone that that was anything important to notice. But you found a tweet or comment where he says he’s autistic and proceed to condescendingly tell him how to deal with it. I’m like what?
I have my own problems with Wagner. He can be problematic too in social media but you really present yourself with your nose held high here. You can do better. We all can.
Exactly
Great job ignoring the fact that Mr. Akin did not initiate this confrontation. If Mr. Wagner shouldn't be "talked down to," then maybe he needs to be far more careful about how he publicly criticizes his elders. Elder in both knowledge AND age, might I add.
Mr. Wagner posted (at a minimum) 3 multi-hour length videos with Mr. Akin's face plastered negatively on the thumbnails. But when Mr. Akin provides a single response video (without Mr. Wagner's name or image in either the title OR thumbail), then somehow he is the problem? Sounds like you came into this discussion with your mind already made up and soundly closed.
And yes, Mr. Akin is also factually correct, so he has that going for him as well.
@@thomasbailey921 How did I ignore that fact? Hmm? How? Of course I’m aware who initiated this. So what? My response didn’t impinge on that fact. I didn’t criticize Akin for responding to him but on the nature of the response. So if I read you correctly you’re saying Akin’s very snide and condescending tone is warranted. Ok, at least you admit Akin was all of that.
His elder? You have an equally smug attitude that Akin has so it doesn’t surprise me you are reacting very emotionally to my criticism. His elder? What does his age have to do with it? As for knowledge perhaps he does but knowledge expressed arrogantly and snidely is a vice. You dismiss Wagner’s knowledge too easily. It seems that you’re the one who already has his mind made up of who you think is right.
The length of Wagner’s video is not the problem and any criticism of the nature of Akin’s response has no bearing on it. It is condescending and arrogant independent of whatever Wagner said or how many times and how long his videos were.
I also said, if you were able to calm yourself down, that I also said I have probably with Wagner and his personality on social media. I didn’t have my mind made up despite your mind reading skills. I have listened to both sides and Wagner’s response to Akin’s response and will listen to Akin again if he chooses to respond. Unlike you Im no fan boy of either one but gladly listen intently to each one calmly and rationally unlike yourself.
@ How did I ignore that fact? Hmm? How? Of course I’m aware who initiated this. So what? My response didn’t impinge on that fact. I didn’t criticize Akin for responding to him but on the nature of the response. So if I read you correctly you’re saying Akin’s very snide and condescending tone is warranted. Ok, at least you admit Akin was all of that.
His elder? You have an equally smug attitude that Akin has so it doesn’t surprise me you are reacting very emotionally to my criticism. His elder? What does his age have to do with it? As for knowledge perhaps he does but knowledge expressed arrogantly and snidely is a vice. You dismiss Wagner’s knowledge too easily. It seems that you’re the one who already has his mind made up of who you think is right.
The length of Wagner’s video is not the problem and any criticism of the nature of Akin’s response has no bearing on it. It is condescending and arrogant independent of whatever Wagner said or how many times and how long his videos were.
I also said, if you were able to calm yourself down, that I also said I have probably with Wagner and his personality on social media. I didn’t have my mind made up despite your mind reading skills. I have listened to both sides and Wagner’s response to Akin’s response and will listen to Akin again if he chooses to respond. Unlike you Im no fan boy of either one but gladly listen intently to each one calmly and rationally unlike yourself.
@chicago618 you sound like the smug one lol. Respect your elders young man. The reason he is being smug to you is because you were smug in your initial comment and again in your response. Take your own advice and be fair when you critique someone. Ad hominem attacks don’t make your case more valid. I agree jimmy was slightly smug but he had the right to be after Christian’s videos. There are better and less smug ways to critique people especially someone like Akin who has done so much for the faith.
I've thought about this a lot today because as a supporter of Scholastic Answers, I momentarilly felt as if Christian really had committed calumny, and perhaps he has but not in the video that is being critiqued.
1. You had enough time to find comments in the comment section of other Wagner videos in order to cast doubt on his credibility because of his alledged autism, but not enough to edit the full context of those clips into the video in which you accuse him.
2. You misrepresented Wagner's critique. We all agree that one can withhold assent to the consensus of the theologians without binding of sin for grave reason, however, he is contesting that Mary's freedom from venial sin is a dogma taught by the Church which follows from the Consensus of the Theologians, the Concilliar Decrees regarding Justification, and the Dogmatic Declaration of Ineffabilis Deus. This is why in that clip of Hasan and Christian speaking on what can be dissented from for grave reason they agree.
3. Just because Christian is a young Catholic and you have written manuals does not mean that Christian does not have the ability to teach to the faithful and you do. You undersold Christians credentials, specifically highlighting his anglican roots, in what I would argue is an attempt to diminish his credibility to the Faithful (which by the Christian is going to be studying at the Angilicum as far as I am aware, and is even headed to North Africa next week to teach Morisco converts as they prepare to be entered into the Church). You also, multiple times, painted him as some kind of magesterial dissenter to diminish his credibility again.
All in all, this was a poor response. You should speak to Christian privately next time, and he should have done the same for you.
Disagree, I think it was important for Christian to do this publicly. No correction would’ve been offered from Akin after being told about his mistake, if we’re being honest.
Not sure why many are acting like this situation is some kind of shouting match full of cursing, with no substance. Theologians across time have had disagreements that were fruitful - even with much harsher words.
Wagner owes Jimmy an apology. Period.
@maryjordan4129 Perhaps you should go watch Wagner's response to Jimmy's video. If it doesn't make it abundantly clear how much Wagner was ripped out of context and misrepresented I don't know what will.
@@maryjordan4129 other way around
Slanderin’, Criticizin’, Calumniatin’ = ☹️
Likin’, Commentin’, Subscribin’ = 😃
This comment isn’t getting the attention it deserves 😂👏🏻
@@johnritter9947 there was no slander or calumny from Christian, don’t be ridiculous
@@no3339 , did you listen to this video? I think Mr. Akin established Mr. Wagner's trespasses quite well. That Mr. Akin forgives Mr. Wagner is also quite indisputable.
@@susand3668 I watched all three videos in there entirety, and I suggest you do the same
@@no3339let’s start with “beyond shameless”
As someone who passed judgement on you because of Christian’s video without really looking into the context; you gained a subscriber. Thank you for making this
@@timothyrosson8408 Jimmy lied about Christian committing the sin of calumny, and he is also wrong about the sinlessness of Mary being a dogma. Consider watching more than two videos before flip-flopping on a topic that has an objective answer.
@@no3339 where are your receipts? By definition, and listening to the words of Mr. Wagner and the words of Mr Akin, presented side-by-side, the objective conclusion is that Mr. Wagner did indulge in un-Christian calumny.
Now, it is great that you are helping with the algorithm that YT uses to invite others to watch this video, but I have other things to do, so this is all that I will say to you here. You are in my prayers -- it is the reason I read comment sections, so that I may open my mind and heart to some more of God's people, whom He loves and longs to raise up to Heaven.
@@no3339 yes bro they think that what he said IS true but theres a lot of wrong bro ,
@@no3339 The dogma only pertains to her lack of original sin. Her sinless nature as taught by the Church is NOT dogmatic. There are levels to the teachings of the Magisterium and not everything the Church holds true is dogma.
@@AnOpinionatedMan It is infallibly taught by the OUM. The reason for the explicit dogmatization of the immaculate conception is because that was the thing needed to be clarified (because the perpetual sinlessness was so obvious).
I would like very much for you two to sit down and have a catholic-to-catholic good faith discussion to work this out. The last thing we need is more divisions within the church.
15:36 christian NEVER said YOU said any of those things. He's saying people use the lack of infallible statements as a REASON to legitimoze those things by those who DO hold to those views.
A lot of people have a lot of respect for you. And they trust you. You need to go back and listen to what he actually said. He's arguing against your reasoning on what is binding. Not that you hold those specific views.
Jimmy literally mentions that in this video 🤦♂️
You’re clearly wrong. “You have people who arise like Jimmy Akin who say”
@@bman5257 people who argue like Jimmy Akin are people who use the same underlying argument, not arrive at the same conclusions.
If I say progressive Christians use the same arguments like Martin Luther in dismissing Pauline letters, I'm not saying Martin Luther dismissed Pauline Letters. I'm noting that Luther's arguments against the deuterocanon are the same arguments used against the Pauline letters.
I don't know about you, but I'm confident Jimmy Akin is smart enough to know the difference.
Common Wag W
@@bman5257 you are ignoring the word “like” in that sentence
Why don't you actually talk to each other on a stream?
Why didn’t Wagner reach out before spreading lies about Akin?
@@jeremias-serus Nobody spread lies about Akin. Obviously, he's not used to correction.
@@PhillipCummingsUSA I don’t know, did you actually watch this video?
Can you support your statement?
@@JustinColletti I’ve watched both videos. Wagner never lied about Akin. If you didn’t watch both then be silent before making accusations.
@@PhillipCummingsUSA
With great reason is the new without reason/willy nilly. Interesting thought process.
So I am at 16:10, and Jimmy, I believe you are misrepresenting Wagner here. He wasn't accusing you of any of those sins, but rather accusing you of making a similar TYPE of error as the ones who makes those claims about the female priesthood, masturbation, etc.
You even try to respond this with the quote "You 'said' people like Jimmy Akin make these claims", but that still doesn't mean it rises to the level of accusation you claim, because "like" is an ambiguous word. In this case they are "like" you in making a similar type of error, not in making an identical error (if Wagner is right).
Respectfully, Jimmy, when you accuse someone of calumny you need to be very careful that you also aren't misinterpreting them.
Lumping Jimmy in with people "like" him is basically saying that Jimmy is one of those people. Any common listener would interpret him as saying that Jimmy said those or similar things. Which is legally dangerous, especially if it's untrue.
@ShaloneCason This is simply false. I watched the video when it came out - you can actually see one of my questions in THIS video - and I did not understand Christian to be saying that Jimmy held those opinions. In fact, I think it is fairly clear that he was talking about people who held Jimmy's position vis-a-vis infallibility, that they used Jimmy's opinion to justify disagreeing with the Church on these other teachings. I don't recall anybody who listened to the stream thinking that Jimmy himself held those opinions.
And Jimmy is simply wrong that the way it is worded alone means that he holds those opinions. He is assuming a lack of ambiguity in the word like that does not exist.
@@anthonymarchetta8796I believe Jimmy addresses this at the end of the vidéo. I understand you may not have watched until the end if you felt he was being unfair to Christan and left the vidéo.
He mentions the charitable interpretation of Christian’s comments at 1:14:00
So I believe you will be eye to eye with christan here.
I did watch to the end of the video and I still think that Jimmy is wrong that it is merely one charitable interpretation of Christian's comments. The plain reading of the words does not imply that Jimmy denies the Church's teaching on subjects like female ordination and contraception; rather the plain reading of the words is that people use the same logic Jimmy does to deny that Mary's sinlessness is infallilby defined to deny that contraception and female ordination are infallibly defined. Jimmy said again that he believed Christian was being calumnious but that simply is not what Christian was saying.
BTW, I am not saying Christian's point was correct either. Just that it was different than what Jimmy is claiming. You need to interpret it UNcharitably to get Jimmy's interpretation.
As someone who watches both Jimmy and Christian… I actually didn’t expect this
What did you expect? Somebody is actually responding to Wagner. We knew this would happen eventually.
an issue i have with this video is that you claim that to have been a Catholic for 32 years and a professional apologist for 31 years but slight christian’s abilities to perform due to his youthful faith. just seems like a gotcha with no substance since you were in the same position once.
The reference Mr. Akin made to Mr. Wagner's being only in the Church for 3 years is a way to reduce the gravity of his errors in understanding and the rashness and uncharity he showed in his videos that he made before Mr. Akiin responded.
@@susand3668what charity? Akin attacked Wagner with a slew of insults for no reason.
Regardless, Wagner demonstrated that his position is the correct one in his most recent video from yesterday.
This was the gentlest, most patient, justified and iron clad refutation I’ve seen towards a bad-faith set of accusation I’ve seen in a while online. Stay awesome Jimmy!
Except Wagner isn't autistic and jimmy seems to revel in pointing out he thinks Wagner is...
@@zacharymiske6220 also the credentialing was extremely cringe
@zacharymiske6220 you would know he absolutely wasn't attacking autism if you actually watched to the end where he provided sincere advice about how to better communicate.
@@zacharymiske6220 He seems to? Are you assuming motives?
@mewster1818 what if you didn't need to lose weight, but I publicly gave you advice on how to lose weight? Just cus I'm such a special hyper nice guy.
I've actually got Prof. Edward Feser from his Matt Fradd interview playing in the background. Feser is pointing out how the Church has many infallible teachings, but only a few that are "ex cathedra" from the extraordinary infallible form. He's also pointing out the ordinary infallible magisterium of the Church by the constant teaching of the Church. Making an argument to falsify a perennial teaching of the Church going all the way back to the early Church fathers is equivalent to trying to falsify Catholicism as a whole. So a person doubting allegedly having a good reason or not, cannot be a good Catholic denying or positively doubting the sinlessness of the BVM.
Did you read the title of this video, and what Mr. Akin said about his own beliefs? He did not "falsify a perennial teaching of the Church." I think you mis-heard him. He said that the Teaching of the Church is that Mary was and is without sin, and that he, Mr. Akin, agrees with this Teaching.
But that in extraordinary circumstances, a theologian can remain Catholic while doubting (privately? I am not sure if Mr. Akin mentioned that part) a *Teaching* of the Church that is not *Infallible*. And he listed the ways that a Teaching can be recognized as Infallible. (Edward Feser can argue about his understanding of infallibility, but Mr. Akin is simply stating what the Church teaches about her own teachings.)
The fact is that the Church (and Mr. Akin within the Church) still teaches that Mary is and was always without sin.
@@susand3668 Gerry's point is that the Church cannot teach error unanimously. This is why the universal and ordinary magisterium is considered infallible. It's because the Church cannot teach error unanimously for a long period.
That's the source of the doctrine, not some paragraph from canon law. Jimmy is just wrong here.
Correct, Catholics cannot privately or publicly for “good reasons” reject perennial teachings of the Church as this belongs to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Church where the Holy Spirit has witnessed, taught, and blessed such a teaching for a centuries.
@@susand3668 No. You don't understand what I wrote or what Feser stated. It's not simply falisifying a perennial teaching of the Church (ie. having a good reason for doubting or denying ) but it's a falsification of Catholicism as a whole. Akin is making a strawman argument in answer to the question "Do you have to believe that Mary was without sin, never sinned... uuhmm... to be a Catholic?" Akin also described the impeccability of Mary as quoting JPII as a "tenet" of the Catholic Faith. So, he is saying "for a good reason" a person can deny a tenet of the Catholic faith and be a Catholic in good standing. Jimmy is ignoring and I would direct you to Fr. John Hardon's Catholic Catechism on the discussion of the infallibility of the University of the Faithful.
@@piface3016 Mr. Akin was not disputing the teaching. He is not disputing the Infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
His carefully nuanced explanation is that it is difficult to prove unequivocally the universality of any one particular Teaching as *having been taught "DEFINITIVELY"*. The sinlessness of Mary (which Mr. Akin believes in, as do I) is one of these Teachings.
Personally, it is unimaginable to me that anyone can read the Bible and *not* see that Mary was sinless throughout her life.
But there are others, who are honestly doubting, and who should not be halted in their journey into the Church by their intellectual inability to see what seems so obvious to me.
Thing is, if we believe in "ex opere operato", we should be willing to let the Holy Spirit lead the doubter into a full understanding through the reception of the Sacraments.
No?
The issue is that Jimmy and Wagner have fundamental disagreements about the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Jimmy is putting forward that the magisterium has not bound Catholics to hold that Mary remained sinless until her death with divine and apostolic faith. Wagner is arguing that it has and denying this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how the magisterium works. Wagner is revealing a methodological issue present in many apologists who take a minimalist view of what must be held.
This is a war that has been going on for a while.
Hey Jimmy!
I had a comment/concern at 1:05:12. You quote St. Alphonsus as agreeing with your position, but in reading "Glories of Mary" I had thought that this section was referring to the debitum peccati question, not the question of incurring of any punishment from actual sin. I had thought this because it seemed from my reading of the rest of the chapter that he considers actual sinlessness being part of her special grace as certain, or at least presumes it as a basis of argumentation as to why the Son would bring about the immaculate conception:
-"And thence [Saint Thomas] argues that 'the Blessed Virgin never committed any actual sin, not even a venial one. Otherwise,' he says, 'she would not have been a Mother worthy of Jesus Christ; for the ignominy of the Mother would also have been that of the Son, for He would have had a sinner for His Mother." And now if Mary, on account of a single venial sin, which does not deprive a soul of Divine grace, would not have been a Mother worthy of God, how much more unworthy would she have been, had she contracted the guilt of Original Sin, which would have made her an enemy of God and a slave of the devil? And this reflection it was that made Saint Augustine utter those memorable words, that, 'when speaking of Mary for the honour of our Lord,' whom she merited to have for her Son, he would not entertain even the question of sin in her; 'for we know,' he says, 'that through Him, Who it is evident was without sin, and Whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, she received grace to conquer all sin.'
Therefore, as Saint Peter Damian observes, we must consider it as certain 'that the Incarnate Word chose Himself a becoming Mother, and one of whom He would not have to be ashamed.' Saint Proclus also says, 'that He dwelt in a womb which He had created free from all that might be to His dishonour.' It was no shame to Jesus Christ, when He heard Himself contemptuously called by the Jews the Son of Mary, meaning that He was the Son of a poor woman: "Is not His Mother called Mary?" [Matt. 8: 55] for He came into this world to give us an example of humility and patience. But, on the other hand, it would undoubtedly have been a disgrace, could He have heard the devil say, 'Was not His Mother a sinner?"-
With the quote you produced being in a later section, introduced as a new topic, and speaking about being in Adam, it seemed to me that it was about the debitum, which wouldn't have a bearing on this issue and wouldn't really be fair to use for support.
I'm open to a correction on the applicability of the quote, or some misunderstanding of the debt/sinlessness question I demonstrate above, including suggested reading.
My family are big fans of Mysterious World! Hope you stay well and God Bless.
Yep, Jimmy misunderstood St. Alphonsus here.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 It was brought to my attention that additionally in Discourse VIII in the same book (I had not read that discourse before and did so since my comment), St. Alphonsus calls Mary's sinlessness certain and defined by Trent.
I do hope you are able to see this Jimmy. Your vid had many different appeals and arguments, I am not trying to "gotcha" on the whole topic as this was a small part, but it would be distressing if St. Alphonsus' position was misrepresented to grant your view the authority of a Doctor to so many viewers, and I hope there could be a clarification, either to justify his inclusion from a broader context of his work I am unaware of, or to correct the record and exclude him from your argument.
Christian made a response to this video. It's really good actually. He makes some really compelling arguments.
I love Jimmy, but I feel he’s being quite passive aggressive here.
He's human after all. Probably a little bit pissed about the whole thing.
Dude. If Jimmy Akin was a wrestler, his stage name would be "The Baker", cause he just served the largest humble pie I've ever seen.😮
Stay awesome, Jimmy. 😎
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -1 John 1:8
"for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God"
-Romans 3:23
"Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and doesn't sin." -Ecclesiastes 7:20
"Behold, I was born in iniquity. My mother conceived me in sin." -Psalm 51:5
"...There is no one who does good, no, not one."
Psalm 14:3
From the mouth of Jesus himself:
"...No one is good except one-God." -Mark 10:18
From the mouth of Yahweh himself:
"...the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth..." -Genesis 8:21
LOL!
@@triconcert yes you didn't reply Because you dont have proof ,you just writed LOL -(Laughing Out Loud) you just did nothing, explain yourself you pagan!
We need a t-shirt STATIM!
@@branomusuka9683…and so, where is the Church teaching on these citations related to this discussion? Does the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church given to Jesus’ followers by Christ Himself have any authority for what you believe regarding the sinlessness or the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God? If you cannot accent to Christ’s authority in His Body, the Church at this time, then perhaps you can approach the question of certain beliefs with and open mind as you may want your comment readers to do for you kind person. m
Hard to take you seriously when you start your defense with attacks on Christian’s age and how long he’s been Catholic. Very low class behavior. Im out.
18:04 wouldn't this mean that you can disagree with it only if there is a higher teaching of the Magisterium contradicting it? But this doesn't help your case on this topic.
Also the Magisterium and the Church has continuously taught the sinlessness of Mary, so it would be habitually wrong if you disagree with that.
This is the substantial issue that needs to be addressed!
@@dave_ecclectic I’m the source Jimmy cited says “only if there is some superior theological source” which nobody claims that a superior theological source has said that Mary sinned. Christian’s entire point is that Mary’s sinlessness is taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium and is therefore infallible
@@emiliobazzarelli4270
-It seems as though what is being argued is whether something is blue or is it cyan.-
I see now'
Not Mary's sinlessness, but her perpetual sinlessness is the difference of what is being discussed.
This is like the *until* something has been said *up to this point but not **_after_*
@@emiliobazzarelli4270
That is correct, but Christian’s error is in saying Jimmy is placing this in category one teachings. Jimmy is placing it as a category three teaching.
Wagner ends the video, which Akin discusses around 24:00, with category three teachings. It’s rather amazing that he didn’t contemplate this and coming to the conclusion that Akin is talking about that very topic. We can without assent to category three teachings. Christian shows a limited knowledge of this in this section. I say limited because Jimmy points out Donum Veritalis, which states that any withholding of assent needs to be private and we cannot turn the public against that teaching. Christian did not mention these requirements and now you can feel justified in publicly rejecting a category three teaching when Donum
Veritalis states that you cannot.
Congratulations, Christian is teaching a SSPX error.
Please cite the theologians besides John Henry Newman who use "obiter dicta" as a category. Your claim that can 23 of Trent is "obiter dicta" appears weak. The canon mentions explicitly that the Church holds the Blessed Virgin to have been preserved from venial sin throughout her entire life.
So you became a Catholic apologist with Catholic answers after only being Catholic for one year, yet you are a shaming Christian Wagner for being an apologist after being Catholic for 3 years?
No I think the problem was that Wagner criticized his elder in the faith
@kais.1684 that's pretty ridiculous. I listen to Jimmy Akin more than Wagner, but arguing from authority is a terrible argument no matter who it is. (Except for a Pope speaking ex cathedra or a council 😆 )
I also don't see how Jimmy gets around saying we can believe that Mary sinned at some point in her life and still be a good Catholic. No amount of sophistry or explaining away gets around that. She didn't personally sin or inherit original sin.
@KEP1983 it wasn't my argument I was trying to present his admonishment
@KEP1983 he didn't say you could deny Mary's sinlessness and still be a good Catholic. He said hypothetically, if it isn't infallible, and someone had very sound, extraordinary evidence and reason to deny it, technically you could. He doesn't believe this justification exists so he doesn't say you can deny it.
@kais.1684 sorry, but that's not truly what he said. The Protestant clearly heard it as saying that you can deny it and was happy to hear it. Saying something ambiguous like "if you have a very good reason to deny it you can technically deny it" is absurdly broad and, frankly, anyone who wants to deny something can find a "very good" reason to deny it. There are millions of people who have "very good reasons" to deny biological sex, and that's about as objective of a fact as you can find in nature. Leaving people making decisions for themselves based upon "very good reasons" about historical facts from 2,000 years ago is ridiculous.
Christian is very clearly referring to the type of argument made and how that's similar to the one Jimmy made. Similar to how Trent Horn does when protestants argue like atheists.
Yeah, Jimmy misunderstood what he was saying
Hoping to see dialogue between Jimmy and Christian. Both are great and I hope they can work through this disagreement.
@@adeodata6364I think the point needs to be made that he has a lot of great content on Thomism and scholasticism in general and has translated a lot of out of print theology and philosophy manuals to English. That being said he’s got a real problem with causing drama and slandering others.
@@adeodata6364 what charity? He made all sorts of personal attacks against Wagner
@@andrewclarke3044 I agree.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Considering the way Christian attacked him, he was pretty kind, let's say.
I'm fans of you and Wagner and I hope to see you two discuss these errors together, although I will be completely out of my element trying to keep up 😂
I think you actually got smoked
That was actually just the lighting of the cigar. I don't think I've ever seen a beatdown this extensive in Apologetics and it's only part 1. th-cam.com/video/E0ooEy2z4GE/w-d-xo.html
Mildly annoyed Jimmy Akin is the best Jimmy Akin.
He’s so peaceful with it
It is truly proper to call you Blessed, O' Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate and the Mother of our God. More honourable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, who a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you truly the Theotokos we magnify, amen.
How is this prayer called?
@deutschermichel5807 Axion Estin. It is the usual prayer we pray after the consecration and the epiclesis in the Diving Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
I don't see anything even close to wrong in this prayer
@@NederlandseKatholiek that's because there isn't anything wrong with it.
@@NederlandseKatholiek did anyone say there was something wrong with this prayer?
I love Jimmy, but man he has a lot of unhinged followers
😜😁I think I may be one of them!
You keep harping on him being a more recent convert. That's a bad look, Jimmy.
Catholicism is not a "how many years" or "muh, I am a cradle you are a convert" contest.
Jimmyʼs a convert, too
That wasn’t what Jimmy was saying. It just shows you that Christian should have been slower to disagree and shame him due to him having much more experience and study over the nature of the magisterium.
@deutschermichel5807 trust me, as a Southern US catholic convert myself, Jimmy is very near to my heart.
But his tone in the intro here, while genial and charitable, still leans too hard into "I have been around this block longer because of my x # of years in the Church".
It rubs the wrong way. Lean harder into charitable theological argument.
For what it's worth, Wagner's channel is good but can be harsh and uncharitable as well. The thumbnails are click bait and extreme, no doubt.
I think both men are sound Christians with excellent foundation in the Faith. Both are good ambassadors of the Catholic Church.
Thank you for the detailed response!
This has got to be THE most polite and effective floor-wiping I've ever seen. I wish I had a fraction of Jimmy's charity, patience, and grace, not to mention his knowledge.
I hope the young lad will take your lessons to heart. If not, he's going to learn the hard way as I have too many times.
God bless, Jimmy! Thank you for cementing my feet firmly within Mother Church!
Accusing people of committing mortal sins, threatening to sue them, and calling them mentally ill, is in no way "polite and effective". Stop idolizing an old man praising him for slander
I've been avoiding Christian's videos in part because of these egregiously clickbaity thumbnails/titles. Cringe thumbnails/titles are endemic to TH-cam but it seems like he's a particular offender in this category
Sadly, I have to agree.
You should go watch his most recent response. It’s very compelling
Unfortunately, this approach does suggest that this young fellow is aiming to build a quick following for his channel off the back of conflict clicks and Mr Akins established name , rather than engaging with Jimmy directly and in a real time podcast. Doing the latter might benefit both of them, and the audiences, a whole lot more in long run.
I can just imagine a 60ish year old Pharisee back in the day saying to Jesus that His ministry has only been around for a couple of years meanwhile he has been a Jew longer than Jesus has been alive… Hmmmmmm
Are you comparing Wagner to Jesus? Lol
@ No I’m just pointing out the absurdity of the whole “appeal to experience” seen here. Just because you have more experience in a subject doesn’t necessarily mean you’re correct. Believe it or not, people can still be entirely wrong about something they generally have an expertise in.
@@unoriginalclips9923 no one said it's absolute. Just like if you slap a stranger in the face it isn't guaranteed they will retaliate. You still shouldn't do it if you don't want to get hit back.
Wagner was disrespectful and wrong in how he handled this regardless.
@@yunusahmed2940Can you admit the same for Akin or are we just harping on one person?
@@hap1678
Akin has always had the kind of "unknowingly sassy" aspect about him, saw it in some of his debate with James White and a few other online convos. I don't like that about him either, but it's definitely more prominent in Wagner based on how he goes about titleing and thumbnailing his videos. It's just a bad look.
Putting aside the level of infallibility brought to bear on Mary's impeccability, that's really a distraction because we have the controversy not on Mary's impeccability but whether one can be a good Catholic in standing while denying a tenet of the Catholic faith. Christian states that the tenet alone is sufficient basing it on the university of the faithful infallibility stance. Jimmy takes the stand that one can dissent from a tenet of the Catholic faith based on the negative stance that since it has not been infallibly defined officially, one can for unclear levels of "good reasoning" deny that tenet.
This was the weakest point from Akin in this video, there's nowhere in Donum Veritatis wich indicates it's just fine to "disagree" with a non-irreformable teaching as a catholic. It just says that if you can't sincerely assent to a teaching, you should study more throughly, pray to understand it and not to go against it in public.
@@ghostapostle7225 Good point. His "hypothetical" is actually an irrational construct. You can't have a hypothetical good reason to deny the whole of Catholicism and simultaneously be a good Catholic.
@@gerry30 who's denying the whole of Catholicism? It's difficult to qualify everything but your statement seems like a position that neither of them hold.
@@chrissiah999 I'm stating that Jimmy's "hypothetical" situation in which someone can be a Catholic and deny the Impeccability of Mary, leaves open virtually anything can have a "hypothetical" point to it that undermines the entirety of Catholicism. Take the scenario of St. Joseph. Never canonized a saint, no infallible declaration on his entry into Heaven. Can a person deny St. Joseph, head of the Holy Family, Patron of the Catholic Church, Terror of Demons, Patron saint of a holy death is a saint and be a Catholic in good standing? According to Jimmy's perspective while he personally doesn't doubt anything the Church teaches about St. Joseph, "It hasn't been defined infallibly." So someone who doesn't believe this, that or the other ancient tradition and constant teaching of the Church can be an equivalent Catholic to Jimmy who fancies to believe those colorful pious anecdotes about Mary and Joseph. Can you see how that undermines the overall credibility of the Church after having taught all of that firmly throughout her whole history? If Mary is a sinner despite her Immaculate Conception and Joseph went to Hell, how long till some nuance about Jesus comes into play and we have a Neo Arianism of some type? What if someone has a hypothetical "good reason" to deny some aspect of what infallibility entails? They might have a less permanent form of "infallibility" that is dependent on the age in which we live and so what is infallible in one age is no longer infallible in a later age because we have a supposed "deeper" understanding. Eventually the whole thing would crumble.
@@chrissiah999I think you misunderstood his comment
So from what I can grasp from this video is that if you struggle with a teaching that is not defined by a pope then you must do a careful and vigorous study on the topic and if you still disagree with it it's best to keep it to yourself because it's more than likely you're wrong in some capacity.
That's actually a great tldr for this video.
Yes, it's called withholding assent. What's forbidden is public dissent, which is what many trads do on many topics like Natural Family Planning
@@dr.tafazzithere is a debate on NFP? Trads gonna argue about non-issues lmao
@deutschermichel5807 Rather than a debate it's them going "nuh uh" to the church being crystal clear on the issue. Weird hill to die on but what do I know.
@deutschermichel5807 yeah, some extreme Trads are very against NFP cause they believe people who use it aren’t using it any differently than normal contraception. Saw one pretty hateful Trad in a comment section who believed any Catholic who engaged in the act outside of the couple’s fertile period was no different than a pill popping, rubber covering one night stand couple 🤷♀️
Sometimes I’m not sure if radical Trads believe we should embrace God’s gift of giving human’s reasoning and control for the marital act that balances openness and practicalities of the couple’s life, but should instead follow base instincts by going at it like rabbits whether the time is right or not to bring a child into the world. There can be very valid reasons for child spacing, not that most extreme Trads will admit to it though.
Came across one quite hateful extreme Trad who thought women who had to have their tubes removed, a hysterectomy, or other extreme health issues that required the permanent removal of a reproductive organ and thus could never be pregnant again, were made ‘garden utensils’ by their husbands and the couple were no better than hedonists if they later engaged in the marital act. The Trad commenter (who admitted being pregnant would pose a HUGE health risk to her) then went on to flex how she was a “proper Catholic woman” because she didn’t remove anything from her body despite the health risks and they ‘simply abstained’ during their cycle. Yeah, I am not kidding on that. And the OP for that comment thread legit needed surgery because the last child left terrible trauma in her system and another pregnancy would 99% likely kill her and the child. So you had an extreme Trad tell a fellow Catholic woman who discerned and discussed her issues with her husband and church people that they were a harlot and the husband’s “garden hoe” for accepting the surgical removal of her reproductive organs, despite the couple already having children and another pregnancy would kill her.
There’s a reason I despise extreme Trads.
I'm really glad you're responding to this. I watched his video right after it dropped and he made some interesting arguments about why your position was wrong, and, honestly, at first rebuttal, he seemed correct that you were wrong on this point, not to say that he was right to handle it how he did, but he made interesting arguments that I wondered if you were aware of. As such, I was really hoping you would respond because I was curious how you would address his counter arguments.
For context, I am a long time fan who has watched and read almost everything you have put out over the better part of the last decade, including Teaching with Authority. So I'm not unfamiliar with what you have to say in these sort of things.
What constitutes a "very strong reason?" I'm sure many Protestants and unknowledgeable people would consider themselves to have "very strong reasons" to not believe and so feel justified in not believing for what are in fact very bad reasons. You touched on a couple of examples, but didn't really give a good explanation of the thing itself.
Obviously the Church herself would decide if a theologian has a good reason or not.
Jimmy, I was someone who was misled about your views because of Wagner's video. Thank you so much for taking the time to defend yourself against this misrepresentation. I love Wagner's work, and I am virtually certain that he meant well in his original videos, but you are completely right, and he was wrong to make the claims he made about you and about the nature of magisterial teachings. Thank you for all that you do.
(P.S. I think Christian's remarks about autism were probably a meme, so that might be a further example of the boomer-humor/zoomer-humor disconnect 😂)
Kudos to ya for going the extra mile to look into Jimmy’s position and not just accepting another’s views of Jimmy’s position. I have sometimes struggled with going outside my own bubbles to look into other people’s positions without someone else’s filter clouding my view. Sometimes that humble pie is pretty big to eat, so I have to take some time out to take care of things😅
Now if the original person I followed just misses a point once or twice, I normally give the benefit of the doubt. After all, we all make some mistakes about others based on limited info and so long as the person accepts their mistake and corrects themselves then it’s good with me. But if the person has repeated patterns of misrepresenting someone, aversion to issuing correction, or hostility to being told they were in the wrong, then I stop following them because they obviously are not a trusty person to rely on.
I believe Jimmy is GenX. Joking around about Autism is not cool. No humor disconnect, just poor taste.
@@RC-qf5rpactually joking about autism is incredibly funny, calm down joke police.
@@RC-qf5rpWomp womp
Mr Akin, considering your vast experience and knowledge. (Decades according to your video),
Surely you could provide the Catholic world with a complete list of infallible teachings?
I found myself passionate sometimes about a subject and sometimes I disagree with someone but usually if I rewind, re-listen and rethink what the person was saying sometimes it wasn't an issue at all. But first and foremost the Bible teaches, and this is not an exact quote. It says go to your brother first with a problem. Try to work the matter out one on one, no one else needs to know about this. If you find this doesn't resolve things, and the matter is serious enough to need further attention then come back with a friend or two and try to work it out again. And then lastly and finally if it's serious enough you need to take further steps then do so wisely. There's great wisdom in handling matters in this way. You may find you were wrong initially or you may correct your brother and the matter be resolved in private. Step 2 if you talk about this amongst a couple of close friends you again may find out that you're wrong but if you're not your friend May listen to you when there's a couple more friends with you. And if absolutely necessary step 3 is there for you also. But always ask yourself what is motivating you to even talk about something publicly. I find when it comes to social media if someone has something to say about someone else. It's usually about personal gain and selfish reasons and not out of kindness and compassion. This is a very serious thing. Just like Jimmy said it's already came back around to him on capturing christianity. Are words can be like feathers in a windstorm once they're out there you can't always get them back and you've done damage that cannot be reversed so treat these matters seriously people please!!!
Thank you Jimmy God bless
Likin’, commentin,’ already done subscribin’! ❤
It’s sad to see Catholics online being uncharitable to each other. Gives ammo to orthobros, Prots and atheists online to use against Catholic Church. Hopefully they reconcile. I’m a fan of both channels
Yes. Hopefully this controversy will be forgotten soon
all akin said was that he’s been Catholic for longer than Christian.
I listened for the first 16:00 minutes and have to call it quits. The way Jimmy maligned Christian there was completely bad faith and it makes me lose respect for Jimmy
His point was _clearly_ that downplaying infallibility is a slippery slope that people use as a crutch to justify evils like masturbation because they aren't clearly defined. Superficially, it's a legitimate point that warrants more than a pretentious "I've been doing this since before you were born."
The fact that Jimmy can't respond in good faith makes it seem like Jimmy is trying to hide is beliefs instead of honestly engaging criticism
The most charitable smackdown I have ever witnessed. I absolutely loved it and have so much to learn in order to espouse such charity.
Is the charity in the room with us?
"dealing with autism" I'm dying lmfaooo
I was at work and I completely lost it😅
Discomfort with cameras or looking people in the eye is a classic sign of being on the spectrum. I say this as one on the spectrum, with a child and grandchildren also residing there.
😂
Wagner was joking. He has said he is not autistic.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 i know, that’s why I’m laughing
Besides the obvious passive/agressive attitude. It's funny that Jimmy is patting Christian on the head saying he's not been Catholic too long. While simultaneously Jimmy is saying that he's been a Catholic for 32 years and first started teaching Catholicism as a professional when he'd only been Catholic for a matter of months. And since I've been a Catholic for 57 years, I'm comfortable pointing that out.
The difference is that Jimmy didn't do something like, for example, claim Peter Kreeft was a modernist that needed to be stopped. The issue is not that Wagner is trying to do apologetics; but that he is making serious accusations against a much more experienced apologist despite being far from an expert on this subject himself.
@@chryphex I haven't heard Peter Kreeft state that someone could hypothetically deny a tenet of the Catholic faith and still be a good Catholic because there hasn't been a binding statement officially proclaiming Mary's Impeccability for all of the faithful. Jimmy doesn't believe it, but he allows for a hypothetical scenario that is not Catholic. That's wrong and needs public correction since it is a public act. Wagner points all of this out in his opening comments. Scott Hahn has been called to task any number of times when he drags his Protestantism into the Catholic Church like his "Scriptural Rosary" right after JPII screwed up the Rosary with his "luminous" mystery nonsense. He also tried to posit the Holy Ghost as female a while back. That came back at him fast and hard.
@@gerry30 Akin made the case in this video for what he specifically said, and it seems pretty air tight. Instead of just asserting that he’s wrong, might I suggest that you instead provide some evidence?
Show me what I’m missing.
The only thing Wagner does in all his videos is call out other Catholics and slander them publicly to get followers. He is a rage baiter that tries to get outrage clicks just like the normal media. He did it to Kreeft. He did it the TheReligiousHippy and her husband. He is not a good role model and has a lot of learning to do.
@@JoeyT_91 I've written plenty in this comments sections pointing out that Jimmy can't validly state that one can be a good Catholic while denying a "tenet" of the Catholic faith. Even with what he ambiguously calls "good reasons" because there isn't an infallible definition that has been declared. He's avoiding or doesn't understand that the ordinary magisterium of the Church also includes the constant teaching of the Church and the belief of the faithful. See, Fr. John Hardon S.J.'s Catechism on Infallibility. I've simplified the issue by asking the simple question: Can you be a good Catholic and with what you believe to be a good reason, deny that St. Joseph is a saint? He's never been canonized, no council or Pope has made a declaration infallibly declaring he's a saint in Heaven. It fits all of Jimmy's criteria.
Keep up the good work Jimmy, God bless you
Thanks for sharing the faith, Mr. Akin. This is a good lesson for all of us on not misrepresenting others and actual teaching of the church. Mr. Wagner is definitely a smart person and he seem to be very confident that he was right but attacking you publicly really does not display any charity. Prayed for you both.
Thank you Jimmy Akin, for turning this personal attack against you into a teachable moment. I certainly learnt some things I didn't know before.
You should go watch Wagner’s rebuttal
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Why???
@@simeonwaia because it was very compelling and showed how Akin misrepresented him
@@carsonianthegreat4672 I don't care about the drama. I watch Jimmy's content because I like learning and I like the way he teaches. I also like how he doesn't name and shame others (in this instance he was responding), that's all I care to know about this.
Perfect. Just perfect rebuttal. And informative at the same time. Thank you Jimmy.
Recent convert really need to be careful about their confidence:
"For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, so that he won’t become arrogant and fall into the Devil’s condemnation." - 1 Timothy 3:5-6
I liked when he was misrepresenting Wagner and Loading the audiences expectations in the beginning. What was your favorite part?
@@calebgasca Personally, I liked his treatment of the criterion for infallible teachings according to the Catholic Church and his demonstration that the teaching found in CCC 493 "By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long" is not, by those criterion mentioned, infallible. I also liked the part where Jimmy states his personal beliefs on these teachings as well, but argues nonetheless from the sources he provided those truths which appear (to me) to soundly follow in terms of the exact "doctrinal note" this teaching I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic church falls under. What was your favorite part beyond the 9:08 mark, Caleb? Do you think Jimmy Akin's arguments are sound? If not, why not?
@@schluuz_ from a methodological perspective I have no level of authority to decide between who is correct on the doctrine being debated. My critique is on Mr Akins attitude and approach to how he addressed Wagner.
@@calebgasca Thank you for your reply! I am a little bit confused by your response, so if you could clarify some things I would greatly appreciate that! If you really believe you have no authority to decide between who is correct on the doctrine being discussed on a methodological perspective, why even engage Jimmy's video response to begin with? It seems reasonable to me that your critique about Jimmy's attitude towards how he addressed Christian may or may not be warranted, but this would depend upon the meat of the content that was addressed, and the statements made about each other both from Christian's and Jimmy's perspectives. Otherwise, I can't seem to understand why you would watch a response video if not to make judgements about the doctrinal content of the response, but rather only to make statements about the mannerisms with which they respond. Does my thinking here make sense?
@ because jimmy is a giant figure compared to Wagner so I think he needs to be more reasonable when addressing someone small like Wagner. I also think Akins veiled legal threats and accusations of sin are both incorrect and inappropriate.
I’m older and more smarter. believe me, not him
Or just listen to the arguments presented in the video
Waiting for Christian's apology now. Wonderful stuff again from Jimmy. Always calm and patient 👍
Imagine insulting someone for 15 minutes and then demanding an apology for something you made up.
Lol something tells me Christian won’t change a bit
I've never watched anything by Christian Wagner, but less than 10 minutes in it's clear he suffers from something that so many in their 20s suffer from, and which I also suffered from at that age. It is a lack of humility, and a hubris about how much you actually know. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and tell my 20-something self to shut up and just listen once in a while.
Based on what principles are you making this judgement of hubris and deficiency of humility?
@@Dan-mm7gc Hey, look, you suffer from the same deficiencies!
I have not watched this video yet. I have watched a few of Mr Wagner's videos and have found a lot of them to be very uncharitable. The outright delight in what he perceives to be "shortcomings" in others is a red flag to me. It is unfortunate that this video had to be made but I am sure JImmy handled things greacefully as always. Eager to watch.
Delight in others “shortcomings” is EXACTLY how I felt as I watched him, but I couldn’t find the words. You nailed it.
Uncharitable? Almost like discussing Wagner's autism, right?
@@jaykwonzzz Which to absolutely no one's surprise he admitted to having autism on Twitter. Akin is almost 60 years old, so when someone says "because I am autistic" he is going to take the comment seriously because it will alter his response to said person. It is not really uncharitable.
@@winstonvontoast6163 Yep I felt like it was a fair remark. Either Christian actually struggles with autism or he doesn't. If he does, it was reasonable and kind of Akin to ackowledge it in a kind way and try to give Christian the benefit of the doubt on why he may be attacking a fellow Catholic publicly in a somewhat toxic or socially weird way. If he doesn't struggle with autism and is instead joking about a disability while also acting like a teacher of the Faith.... well then Jimmy's comment serves as a deserved jab for that.
@@winstonvontoast6163Wagner is not autistic
Is there a clear list of all infallible Church teachings somewhere? It would be great to have a page dedicated to it and maybe even a link to upsell your book on the magisterium. So often Protestants Don't understand infallibility and it would be great to have a clear link to send
I would like to have that, as a Catholic, too. Would help with scrupulosity.
There is not to my knowledge, however we are not only bound to follow teachings that are "infallible"
@@pdg14 Agreed. But I think it would be helpful to show a definitive list, mostly to dispense with the Protestant nonsense where they think every word uttered by any pope is infallable. It comes up a lot and it would be nice if we could just send a handy url to anybody. Most of the infallable teach Protestants would agree with! Trinity etc.
I've asked this same question a few times. I wish there was a clear, and easily accessible answer, but there isn't. Even ecumenical councils and past popes have said and done confusing and seemingly contradictory things over the centuries. See a recent video by Michael Lofton and the work of Erick Ybarra.
@@vinoneil Very frustrating. If these teachings are truly infallible, it should be easy to keep a list! Otherwise, what's the point of declaring them infallible if nobody can find them? It fosters disharmony in the Church to say teaching are infallible and then not be able to enumerate them. I'm Catholic, but this kind of stuff is really madding!
Ahahahah I love Wagner too but I was cracking up when you called him autistic. That was hilarious.
Here's another problematic claim that popped out at me. Around the 37 minute mark Jimmy says, "The only statement in Ineffabilis Deus that is taught under infallibility is the one where Pius XI defines the Immaculate Conception nothing else in the document is definitive and so nothing else is infallible, this is the standard understanding of all competent theologians."
This is, to be charitable imprecise. What is really meant is that the only statement in Ineffabilis Deus that is taught using the EXTRAORDINARY infallibility of the Church is the definition of the Immaculate Conception.
It does not mean that "nothing else is definitive and nothing else is infallible." To the contrary, there are numerous statements in the document that are contained in the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Take the first sentence: "God Ineffable - whose ways are mercy and truth, whose will is omnipotence itself, and whose wisdom “reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly” - having foreseen from all eternity the lamentable wretchedness of the entire human race which would result from the sin of Adam, decreed, by a plan hidden from the centuries, to complete the first work of his goodness by a mystery yet more wondrously sublime through the Incarnation of the Word. " While the document only utilizes the extraordinary Magisterium in the definition, the document is literally marinating in statements that are part of the ORDINARY INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM of the Church. They are from the Creed, the Scriptures, the Commandments as well as reiterations from binding statements of Popes and Councils. By claiming that nothing is infallible beyond the definition it becomes a figurative mine field of potential heretical propositions. You can't say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church isn't an infallible statement in the document because the extraordinary definition only concerns the Immaculate Conception.
Jimmy is on fire 🤘🏼
I like your meekness Jimmy and yet you are such a learned person in matters of theology. I've learned so much from you and from your humble attitude. You are a reflection of Christ. The meek shall inherit the earth. May the Lord continue to bless you and give increase to your ministry.
He is wrong about Mary though. Mary wasn't absolutely sinless. She called God her saviour meaning that she needed a saviour because she was a sinful woman.
Of course, in the first place Mary was saved by Christ. God is not restricted by space and time. Jesus' sacrifice is eternal and transcends time and that's why he could save Mary before she was born. Are we just like Mary: full of grace, the Lord is with us, blessed are we among men/women, blessed the fruit of our womb Jesus, mother of God. When did we crush Satan's head and Satan struck our heel.
Akin is not very meek at all. He's incredibly prideful.
@@footspike55defending your name against defamation, especially when part of the work you do relies on your reputation, is good, not prideful.
Did you watch the video?
@dr.tafazzi He was clearly being passive aggressive. Why did he hint at Wagner's autism? Why did he threaten to sue? Are Christians supposed to be litigious against each other?
According to Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
Mary's Immaculate Conception: de fide
Her freedom from concupiscence: Sententia communis
Her Freedom from actual sin Sententia fide proxima
Those three are not the same level.
The freedom from Sin is Dogmatic
@@DysmasOfBabylonno what was dogmatic was her being born without original sin which then leaves open the possibility during her earthly life that she could sin or that she was tempted by sin but refused to sin. I take the latter approach.
However I find it amusing how many people think the dogma of the Immaculate conception think this then means it was dogmatically stated that she didn’t sin her entire life. Where is this a dogma? It’s not one and that is not what the Immaculate conception is. The immaculate conception is Mary being born WITHOUT ORIGINAL
SIN. That’s it.
@catholicguy1073 it's literally in the same document, so you haven't read the document you are taking someone else's perspective for your opinion. Leading you to reject a Dogma. Making you a heretic.
@catholicguy1073 it says it 10 times in the same document which is infallible ex Cathedra. Nice try protestant.
@ it’s not in the dogma of the Immaculate conception that Mary was sinless her entire life. And while the Church teaches that Mary was sinless her entire life I have not seen any document that shows this an infallible teaching not that it is not taught. Perhaps learn about different levels of Church teaching before attacking someone 🤦
And stop being an ass. If you can’t communicate properly don’t respond.
Jimmy’s middle name is ‘“The Church doesn’t teach what you think the Church teaches”
Marian dogmas:
1. The title of Mother of God (431ad)
2. Perpetual virginity(649ad)
3. Immaculate conception(1854)
4. Assumption to heaven(1950)
For the customes of people are; For one cuts a tree out of the forest the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. They deck it with silver and gold , they fasten it with nail and with hammer ; that is move not. Jeremiah 10-1-4 🎄🪓🥢🔨and they also worship a dead man as their king and savior alongside with Halloween to remind them who is the king 👑.Ezekiël 37-24-25. Wait ? Son and mother of god die on a cross? Pfffff
@@KingDavid1979 What are you on about? What you wrote makes no sense.
@@francescoaccomando7781 mother of god , son of god die on a cross? Make more sense pffffff 😂💀👻merry Halloween 🎃
@@francescoaccomando7781 (👻✝️🕳👈) christianism
@@KingDavid1979 Are you able to make a coherent argument?
Insufferable intro lol. I don't care how long you've been a Catholic, Jimmy. Better, I don't care how much longer you've been a Catholic than another Catholic you disagree with. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this appeal to experience is foisted upon us constantly in other areas. Just skip the BS and defend the position. By the same logic Wagner could hold this view you say is errant for 30 more years then use the "I've been a Catholic for 30 years" trope to browbeat someone else. I'm sure those people that refuted Galileo saying the earth revolved around the sun had believed that for a long time. Guess what? They were wrong for a long time.
“Listen to me your father, O children; and act accordingly, that you may be kept in safety.”
I disagree with you. While experience does not guarantee one will always be correct, it does entitle one to a few things, namely, honor, respect, and audience, and pious Christians should be happy to grant such things to elders.
This concept is all over the wisdom literature of the Bible (as I quote Sirach 3:1 above), but those sayings are merely expositions of the fourth commandment: honor thy father and mother. And how do we honor them, but by respectfully seeking their audience and hearing them out as tools of the Lord and mouthpieces of His goodness and wisdom.
Jimmy wasn’t saying, “I’m old so I win,” but rather, “I’m your elder, a brother and a father, so talk TO me, son, not about me; I can and want to help.”
@@CatholicFreight I disagree with your read.
Regardless, if he skips the part where he drones for 10 minutes about how he's better than a young Catholic because he has been a Catholic a long time and goes straight to the arguments that we all know he can make, it wouldn't be so annoying. Skip the ego check. Even if it was warranted.
Excellent explanation. Thank you Jimmy!
I think Christian is very knowledgeable and a promising apologist. I do think he's quick to attack others in a frankly uncharitable way, and I think he is quick to say certain opinions are off-limits, when I've heard other knowledgeable apologists say they are permissible. I really hope this helps him correct some of that stuff because I think he has a promising future. Thank you for being gentle as always, Jimmy.
He needs to learn some humility!
Yeah he's got great potential but lacks genuine humility and charity.
I don't get it. The first 10 minutes of this video seem far more uncharitable then anything Wagner did. If you just listen to the way Wagner talks about Jimmy he clearly has respect for the man and is just trying to explain why he thinks his position is wrong while Jimmy keeps trying to put down Wagner simply for being young or not Catholic for that long (so what?).
As for the substance of the arguments you can check Wagner's response to this and judge yourself but also they should just talk about it not make these kinds of videos in my opinion.
@@magikarp2063 What Wagner has shown is that you have to dig so deep into a very niche and recherche historical analysis to understand that the more probable view is that hold=believe. I think Wagner is right on that note, sure. But the uncharity comes from Wagner explicitly saying that Akin HABITUALLY disregards the universal magisterium. It's clear that even if Akin, on one of a couple topics, lacks a degree of nuance that only a small percentage of experts have, he still has a pretty good grasp of the difference between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, and that he sincerely tries to conform to both.
@@koffeeblack5717 Agree.
Jimmy is an amazing teacher 🙏🏻
Very insightful, educational, and charitable! Youve given me much to consider and dig into. We appreciate your time and thoroughness, Jimmy.
He is still young, so he still knows everything.
correction: “thinks he knows everything“
The two should reconcile
@@marksteo6178 Yes, that’s the joke 🙃
Ain't it the truth!
@@susand3668 Got kids, huh? 🙂
Jimmy, i am so happy you made this episode. I couldn't deal with all the lies against you. We should always correct our brothers in Christ in charity but always truthful. Wonderful video and wonderful answer!
Jimmy often teaches us about the history and intricacies of the Catholic Church. In this video, he also teaches us how to react with grace and patience to someone who is attempting to harm us. I only wish I could react like this when I am slandered. Thank you, Jimmy.
Aw Jimmy! You put up with so much. My heart goes out to you. Your content showed me that faith and reason can harmonize and that gave me confidence to be a monk. I'm a big fan and so are my confreres. You touch so many lives and do so much good for the kingdom. Thanks so much for all you do. Godspeed!
Hey Jimmy, genuine question (from a relatively recent Anglican), why aren’t these teachings about Mary found more explicitly within Bible (it seems to me that much of Mariology is dependent upon Typology)? As for myself, I see myself as having a lower view of Mary than the Catholic-Orthodox and a higher view than the Protestant-Evangelicals. (For example, I see Simeon’s prophecy about a sword piercing her heart too, to tie her to the mystical event of Crucifixion but I am unsure of sinlessness and Immaculate Conception due the verse about “none being sinless” save Jesus). If you end up seeing this, thank you for your time and God bless you!
Because most of the teaching about Mary isn’t based on scripture, it’s based on church tradition. Why do you only believe something if it’s written down in scripture? Don’t you trust the historic witness and tradition of the church?
In a way, I'm kind of glad he went after Jimmy instead of another theologian. Jimmy is very careful in his language, it's difficult to catch him mis-speaking and to misconstrue was he said. Another theologian may have had to come out and apologize for imprecise language. Not Jimmy.
This dude obviously didn’t read Jimmy’s book, ‘Teaching with Authority.’
These are hot takes and he hasn’t done his homework.
He directly criticized "Teaching with Authority" before any of this controversy came out (specifically taking issue with his application of desuetude to magisterial teachings). Not picking a side here, but proverbs 18:17 applies to anyone who has only followed one side or the other.
“guys did you know he’s only been Catholic for 3 years? yep! only 3 years! i’ve been Catholic much longer than him and i’m much smarter than him. guys did you know Christians only been Catholic for 3 years? guys listen to me i know more about it because he’s only been Catholic for 3 years”
I think the failure to appreciate what Akin was trying to get at is indicative of another problem.
@ i mean, jimmy said that it wasn’t an infallible teaching that Mary was free of personal sin. i think jimmy is a great Catholic and has done a lot for the faith, definitely more knowledgeable than me, i just agree with Wagner on this one, i don’t think Wagner committed calumny in this since his stream was just him reacting to akins video.
@@batemanwave, but he misstated what Mr. Akin was saying.
@ wagner literally watched the video on stream
@@susand3668no he didn’t. 1) Wagner played the full video live on stream. 2) he accurately quoted Jimmy live after watching the full video.
Jimmy then selectively edited Wagner to make it sound like he said something he didn’t.
Jimmy, is there any way to contact you?? I'd prefer to try to speak privately with you before making public comments. Thank you. Thank you
Sure! Just email me at jimmyakin01 at gmail.com
@JimmyAkin thanks!
"We must resist the temptation to bend the sources into saying what we want them to say."
Very wise words. I do not know when, but I am sure that Mr. Wagner *will* be grateful for your correction, as wise men always are.
Delusional. Wagner is not correct here on this.
@@catholicguy1073 ? Did I imply that he was correct? Didn't I express the hope that he will repent someday?
As someone who is just learning at the moment, I felt that the comparisons between age and experience, although having some merit, was overdone in the introduction.
But I am interested in the exchange that hopefully will come from both sides.
Wagner just dropped his response video
@@carsonianthegreat4672 saw it
This is an excellent example of how Jimmy's irenic approach is not just pleasant, it is often superior in establishing the truth of the matter being discussed. His insistence on being charitable and clear in his refutation strengthens the weight of his argument. This younger generation of more reactionary apologists would benefit from emulating Jimmy's method. It's not a matter of being "nice"; this approach makes him a better apologist.
But its lame and gay and doesn’t satisfy my passions
@@Jd-808 LOL!
Wagner and his friends maliciously went after Amber aka The Religious Hippy, and her husband, saying some extremely unchristian things about them using his platform over and over again. I am not at all surprised he did this to you.
Pray for him and his friends to find their way rather than spread hate.
The Religious Hippy posts glamour shot photos making abortion all about her instead of the victims
That's a nice distraction from the simplicity of the problem:
A Protestant asked "Do I have to believe that Mary was sinless to be a Catholic?"
Jimmy ultimately answered, "No." in an unnecessarily confusing and frankly incorrect manner.
The answer should have been a clear, 'Yes." And if he wanted to talk more broadly about the liberties extended to "theologians" he could have, but instead he relied on "It hasn't been infallibly defined."
It was a bad, imprudent answer to an essentially simple question.
@@gerry30 The hubris of you people. Jimmy Akin gave a carefully worded answer to the question, and all you can say is that he should have given a more generic answer because some people will not listen to what he actually said. It was only an "unecessarily confusing" answer to someone who doesn't bother to listen carefully.
@@jamesshives5679 You know what I think is hubris? Jimmy Akin claiming that the theologians at the Council of Trent were incompetent and he's actually the authority. The fact is Jimmy has been shown to be wrong about the theological note of the teaching and a person is not free to deny an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Wagner pointed this out and Jimmy didn't do his research to find out that Wagner was actually just repeating the scholastic Theologians from the actual Council of Trent on the very canon that Jimmy is disputing. Jimmy thinks the guy who wrote it, doesn't know what he wrote. This is because after bragging about how he is the big researcher it turns out that Jimmy didn't look far enough and stuck with one 20th century outlier opinion. Why do you think he was lazy and dismissed Wagner's arguments out of hand without doing due diligence? Was Akin being humble?
This was a bad faith dismissal of legitimate criticism to your past comments. You flip flopped from your comments made in the past dismissing the weight of past magisterial statements and the Ordinary Magisterium just to try to own Wagner after he caught you in error.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion on the Church’s teaching about Mary being free from both original and personal sin. This teaching raises some philosophical and theological questions in my mind that I’d appreciate clarification on:
1
If original sin is inherited at birth, as taught by St. Paul (“through one man’s sin, death entered the world”), wouldn’t Mary’s parents also need to be free from original sin for her to be born sinless? How does the Church explain this link in light of inherited sin?
2.
St. Paul states in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Wouldn’t “all” naturally include Mary, unless this passage is interpreted differently within Catholic theology? How is this reconciled with the doctrine of her being sinless?
3.
If Mary was entirely free from sin, both original and personal, does that imply a level of sinlessness akin to Christ? If so, could her sinlessness alone play a role in humanity’s salvation, or is Christ’s sacrifice still uniquely necessary despite her being free of sin?
There are several issues with such teaching. I understand that these questions may stem from a lack of theological nuance on my part, but I’d appreciate any clarification you could provide. Thank you again for your work and thoughtful presentations.
I am not a theologian, so I ask you to be charitable about what I say in my attempt to answer your questions:
1. No, Original Sin is not "inherited at birth" in the way that we moderns understand inheritance. We think of DNA. St. Paul did not.
In the context of the times in which St. Paul lived, we are included in the Death that came through Adam's sin because we are, so to speak, in the loins of Adam. God has done a new thing with Mary, the Woman (as Jesus named her) who fulfills God's prophecy back in Genesis 3:15. God was speaking to the Serpent, and saying that a Woman would come who would have a Son ("Seed") Who would crush the head of the devil.
Just as Adam and Eve were human beings, yet had no sin (until they did!), so too, Mary is a "new creation" -- without sin -- saved from sin by her Son, Who is outside Time and Space, and can do such things.
No?
2. St. Paul is speaking to adult Romans when he says "all have sinned." Does he intend to include every last person in his "all"? Does he include Jesus in his "all have sinned"? If St. Paul meant "all" in the limited meaning of "every last person", then he must include Jesus or make a list of people he does not include.
So, yes, the strict interpretation of this verse is not the Catholic understanding. We will not say that Jesus sinned. Nor that the angels who serve God have sinned. Nor that unborn children have sinned.
Doesn't that make sense?
3. Of course it is by Christ's Sacrifice that we are all saved, including Mary, whose sinlessness was an unearned gift from God, and made her dependence upon the Sacrifice of her Son greater than all of us who have spent time in the thrall of sin.
I am sure that Mr. Akin could give you a better and clearer explanation! But I felt that I would try, out of my little understanding, to give you a sense of where to start in exploring these questions, since they have troubled and inspired the Church from the beginning.
Really sorry to hear this happened to you! You'll probably be dealing with more confused people like the example you share for a while to come. I'll be praying for you!
I watched your discussion with TJ which was interesting and a good discussion. I got the distinct impression that you must have an extremely good reason to take a different view that would be such a narrow slim exception that if you were a great theologian who could make a very compelling case to disagree. To cut a long story short, for 99.9% of people, no you can't disagree with non infallible teaching.
Well said!!
Hello, I had a question, and I think it is worth making a video, and this is the question, what does it mean when God says in his introduction, I am that I am?
God is eternal. The alfa and omega. Always was. Is now. And Always will be. The first cause for all other causes to come into being without a cause for god himself to come into existence.
Jimmy, as a fan of yours, and with all respect, I think you are not mentioning a key distinction here. There is a distinction made between withholding assent and disagreeing. Withholding assent, it seems, from what I can deduce, is to essentially remain non committal on the issue, whereas disagreeing is to say that you believe the Magisterium is wrong, and that you reject the teaching, whether publicly or privately. This distinction is found in the book (on the USCCB’s website) The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop. The relevant information is on pages 17 and 18, and the most relevant as far as acceptability of private dissent reads as follows:
Quite distinct from the withholding of assent is the private, individual judgment that conclusively rejects the ordinary, nondefinitive teaching of the Church. Such a judgment constitutes private dissent and is not consistent with that religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium due to church teaching. Even though dissent of this kind remains private, nevertheless it is unacceptable.
So it would seem that private non assent, in extreme cases, is what is permitted; not outright private rejection.
I commented on that video of his, in which a whole lot of people who love scandal, scandalosos as call them, were all up in arms. I simply asked where the church infallibly defined Mary's perpetual sinlessness. I got a couple answers, none of which actually gave a citation of an Ecumenical Council or Pope defining Mary's perpetual sinlessness. After pointing that out, my comment was deleted.
Also called them out for disobedience in the name of knowing better because a former theologian stated otherwise. I made the point that they aren't theologians, they have no formal training, and that is was therefore wrong to openly and loudly disagree with the pope or disobey his bishops. As far as I know, that comment was also deleted.
None of us disagree with the Pope, in fact, Wagner on record has defended the Pope multiple times and even told people not to watch Taylor Marshall.
Session 6, Canon 23, Regarding Justification, FYI regarding Mary's avoidance of sin.
@St.DemetriostheMyrrhGusher As I stated in the comments section Wagners video, before my comments all disappeared, that cannon does not infallibly declare Mary's sinlessness. It infallibly states that one can not hold that a person can, without special grace and privilege of God, remain without sin their whole life. It does not anathemetize holding that Mary sinned. It anathemetizes only those who say we can live a sin free life without special grace and privilege, and it gives Mary as an example of someone who can be held to have recieved such special grace and privilege. That being said, I do hold, as the church has held openly since at latest 250, that Mary was perpetually sinless. But her sinlessness has never been infallible declared.
@josephmoya5098 1. Are you repenting of your calumny against those of us who support Wagner's content?
2. Are you telling me that there are only specific clauses in the anathema decree that that are actually anathema? Why say anything about Mary's sinlessness? Why not just put a footnote?
Do we have to go back in time and retroactively apply the 1983 code of canon law or John Paul 2’s opinions to every item of doctrine that has been traditionally considered infallible dogma to determine whether or not I am free to disagree with it? Or at least see if the source that dogma used the word “define” ?
Jimmy Akin in 2005: "John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn’t say it under the protection of inallibility. I don’t think that he was wrong. I think he was right and that it has been definitively (and thus infallibly) settled by the ordinary Magisterium, but the pope’s mention of this fact without engaging his infallibility-by definition-does not a mount to an infallible exercise of his Magisterium."
Jimmy in 2024: No. You don't have to believe in the impeccability of Blessed Mother because it wasn't infallibly defined and you should have good reasons to reject that tenet of the Catholic faith.
So...back then something could be settled infallibly and definitively by the "ordinary Magisterium" But now, the impeccability of the Blessed Mother repeated constantly by Popes, Fathers, doctors and the common awareness of the people (ie, the University of the Faithful) can be resisted because someone has "good reasons" and this is licit only because the extraordinary infallible mode of the Magisterium wasn't engaged.
That is a contradictory position. Unless the ordination of women is still unsettled if people have "good reasons" to resist what JPII claimed was to be held by all the faithful.
As a side note, I would also argue that JPII did engage the extraordinary infallible Magisterium since all criteria established by Vatican I are directly engaged. He announces it as being a part of the office of the Chair of Peter, matter of the faith concerning the unity of the Church, definitive, to be held by all the faithful. Doesn't matter if it was a reiteration, the mechanism of the extraordinary Magisterium was engaged by the form of the act.
Obviously the Church herself can define whether a reason is good enough or not. The starting point is that a Catholic is to believe in the impeccability of Our Lady, as this is the teaching of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. However, since this is not a doctrine that has been *infallibly defined*, de fide definita, at this point in time, there may exist circumstances where a theologian, for a good and grave reason, after careful study, may privately reject it without being guilty of heresy. However however, it is possible that no such objective or subjective good reason exists at all - that is up to the Church to decide, when and if she is asked to make that decision.
As to womens' ordination, that has been infallibly defined (whether through the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium, is up for debate). I don't see the contradiction.
@@TurtleMarcus Watch the response video (part 1) by Wagner. Turns out his position is the dominant one in the Church and he was simply repeating what the writers of the actual infallible definitions wrote, intended and voted for and were accepted by the Church. They actually wrote that they meant for our Lady's Impeccability to be included in both Trent and in the declaration on the Immaculate Conception. In the case of Trent it was actually added as a specific point. So, Jimmy actually stated that Wagner's position was incompetent. When in reality he's saying that the people who actually wrote the definitions were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing.
@@gerry30 Ludwig Ott states in Fundamentals that the teaching "In consequence of a special privilege of grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life" has the theological note of "sententia fidei proxima" and not "de fide definita". He even references Trent on this.
Maybe Ott is wrong, and Wagner is right. But I'll trust Ott on this one, for the time being.
At 1:06:00 you said St Alphonsus said "very probable" about the ongoing sinlessness of Mary. I'd like to see the reference for that.
I was pretty miffed at this fella coming after you Jimmy, but I’m glad we got this video out of it. Very informative
You should go watch Wagner’s newest response. It was very compelling
@@carsonianthegreat4672the one with “THIS IS A CRIME” as the thumbnail? I’m good lol
@ yes, the one where he is ironically using Jimmy’s own laughable accusation of criminality as the thumbnail.
His video is thorough and informative. You can’t adequately weigh each side in an argument if you hide from one
@ if that’s seriously what one side is putting front and center of their argument I don’t want to listen to what that side has to say
@@CatchCraftInc are you really that upset about a thumbnail that reframes Jimmy’s criminal accusation in an ironic light? Wild
It really just sounds like you don’t want your preconceived notions challenged, and that you’re searching for any excuse you can
Im not impressed with Wagner’s defenders in this chat. They are not learning how to think as Catholics. Three year old Catholics should be silent regarding other Catholics. They are babies and should not be criticizing anyone in the Church. This shows a lack of character and wisdom.
Do you have a masters in theology? Otherwise maybe you should be silent and listen to Wanger?
See how stupid that sounds?
Should that have been applied to st. Augustine who was very active in this kind of thing right after his reversion?
@
Wagner isn’t St Augustine and Im talking about not respecting one’s elders. Also, Wagner is incorrect on where Akin placed this belief in the Profession of Faith. If he understood the Profession of Faith and Donum Veritalis, he would place Akin’s belief in category three non-definitive beliefs. Good question.
@@paulmualdeave5063 st. Augustine wasn't a saint back then, he had no special status and the same rules that apply to everyone applied to him.
Now I ask again, should st. Augustine have followed that advice or not?
@
I don’t think St Augustine slandered anyone? If you want to play games we can go there. Did he ever disrespect his elder and then totally mischaracterize someone’s opinion publicly?
Jimmy is making a single error that has caused all this: just because the Church hasnt explicitly defined something infallibily in a Extraordinary manner does not mean that it doesnt teach it infallibly in an ordinary manner.
Ecumencial Councils and Ex Cathedra teachings are extraordinary manners of which the Church teaches, in manners where disputes have risen. The Ordinary Manner which the Church Teaches is through the Ordinary Magisterium of Bishops in their Pastoral and Theological teachings, with their Universal Teaching being Infallible. Mary was historically taught by all Bishops to be Personally Sinless, therefore it is a Infallible Teaching of the Church De Fide.
Yes, Mr. Akin agrees that the Church has taught "with a high degree of authority" that Mary is sinless.
However, is it an Infallible Teaching?
Donum Veritatis allows that in very extraordinary situations, when a Catholic theologian has tried and failed to conform his or her private conscience to a full assent to a non-Infallible Teaching, that theologian can still be a faithful Catholic. Provided this doubt is never taught, and that the theologian diligently continues to try to achieve a full assent.
@@susand3668 this is undermining the argument. I literally clarified that it is a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, which can has a taught this infallibly, by Universal Consent of it being De Fide.
@@luxither7354, before I say anything else, I want to apologize for my imperfect proof-reading last night -- in describing the limitations that Donum Veritatis applies to the allowance for doubt, I typed "ever" when I meant "never"! I have corrected it now, and I hope that you weere able to figure out that it was a typo, since "ever" made my sentence into utter nonsense!
As to Your point -- 1) we are agreed that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *can* teach Infallibly.
2) we are agreed that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *has* taught Mary's perpetual
sinlessness.
There is no logical, inevitable connection between these two statements, that would cause a person to conclude automatically that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *did* teach Mary's sinlessness as *Infallible*. Because statement #1 is incomplete -- the Universal Ordinary Magisterium can *also* teach non-infallible Teachings, and the Teaching that Mary was and is perpetually without sin can be a non-infallible Teaching. See?
The way for the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to teach a Teaching *Infallibly* is defined in Canon 749 section 2, which Mr. Akin provides for us to read at 50:33. Here, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is described as the College of Bishops dispersed throughout the world, in communion with one another and in union with the Pope, teaching authentically in union with the Pope matters of faith and morals. And the act of teaching infallibly is explained as when "*they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.*"
When did the Universal Ordinary Magisterium universally agree that Mary's perpetual sinlessness is to be held *definitively*? When was it taught *as infallible*?
And please note, the degree of authority behind infallible Teachings and non-infallible Teachings is *only* important when a person is a theologian who has thought himself or herself into a cul-de-sac of doubt, or when a person is converting to the Catholic Church and needs to reconstruct an entire world-view and is still on the way to a perfect assent to all the Teachings of the Church. We are all required to assent to ALL the Teachings of the Church, infallible or non-infallible, because ALL the Teachings of the Catholic Church are True.
@susand3668 they agreed in the Acceptance of the Council of Trent that assumed Mary was Personally Sinless in one of its Canons on Grace and how one cannot be sinless without the Gratuitous Favour of God.
Secondly, this presumes that the Ordinary Magisterium teaches all Infallible points but way of explicit assertion, which entirely makes it not an Ordinary Magisterial Teaching. Look up any division of Magisterial Teaching from any Theologian, and they will define that the Extraordinary Magisterium teaches *definitively*, while the Ordinary Magisterium, by way of it being Ordinary, does not teach in a manner where it must justify itself through definitive means. This is setting a standard that cannot be filled because the Ordinary Magisterium DOESN'T MAKE STATEMENTS ON FAITH AND MORALS IN A MANNER THAT IS DEFINITIVE LIKE AN EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT. Infallible teachings of the Church do not need to be definitive in order for them to be infallible. Prior to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary be recognised by an Ecumenical Council, an form of Extraordinary Magisterial Teaching, the Ordinary Magisterium, the consensus of Bishops, unanimously taught this view, and taught it to be of the faith such as Saint Basil and the Cappadocians, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, etc.
Finally, the usual manner which the Ordinary Magisterium teaches is through liturgical texts, since this is manner which throughout Church History, Dogmas of the Faith were passed down and communicated, via *Doctrina Arcana*. This is why when the Christian Faith became Unanimous, you see in Ecclesiastical Writers and Theologians suddenly appealing to Liturgical Witness in the 6th-7th Centuries. This is typified in the Symbol of Faith, the Creedo.
These are arguments Wagner made that Jimmy has blatantly misrepresented (and I have horribly paraphrased). Watch his streams on this before discussing this any further.