Wow! This was an absolutely wonderful listen. Edifying to hear such smart people talk through the insecurity of uncertainty and you both lead the conversation so well, with excellent metaphors and questions to open up ideas. Thank you for sharing this conversation.
Austin, this video may not receive the attention of others but this guest and your conversation is as rich and fulfilling as any I’ve seen. Truly great discussion.
This is one of the most interesting conversations I've heard about Catholicism vs. Protestant claims I have no theological training, but I have recently felt the need to 'defend' my Protestant views I grew up in a Pentecostal church and still very much enjoy the genuine fellowship (koinonia). I'm not sure if I will find evidence to dissuade me from sola scriptura or, as Gavin Ortlund describes it, Prima Scriptura. In the New Testament, Christian life was bequeathed with Pastoral care and submitting to the leadership of the local koinonia. I'm afraid my articulation of these concepts are not as clear as I would like them to be. In my Pentecostal upbringing, I was never exposed to the idea of transubstantiation or consubtantiation of the Eucharist. It wasn't until I lived in a Catholic residence, St. Michaels College, that I first understood what it was. There were nuns who lived in the residence with students attending the University of Toronto. My friend there explained in John 6 that the latin word in verse 54 means "to chew." In Greek, it's τρώγων - trogon.(Strongs 5176). Naturally, I thought if those were indeed the words of Christ that I didn't have a good understanding of the passage or its impact on soteriology. This led me to evaluate the claims from all the Christian traditions. My understanding of justification from the Roman Catholic point of view does not correlate to what I read in the Bible. This is fundamentally why I feel I could not be Roman Catholic because I am not convinced of the RC Soteriology. I know in RC vs P we each profess that we are saved because of Jesus. But there really do seem to be a lot of differences in the way RC vs. Protestants arrive at their separate conclusions. I do have a lot of RC friends and coworkers, and I do consider them to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Now I can understand more about their historical point of view, but the daily life and practices of faith between us are quite a bit different. Ultimately my personal experience is that it's God's kindness that leads to repentance. His holiness compels us to be more like Him. For some people the fear of His wrath can motivate change, that was perhaps also part of my faith experience. Personally I was always drawn to the amazing display of His great love for us. How great is His love! How amazing is His faithfulness to us. Praise be to God for His work at the cross
Fantastic interview with yet another faithful person that can respect another’s tradition. Please keep up this important work of Christ in trying to bring people together!
I really enjoyed tuning into this whole interview. I'm Orthodox but the triumphalism had to go. this guy has real humility. Internet theology pundits tend to bluff that they have hard certainty.
Fantastic post. We Catholics need to stop doing this as well (triumphalism). I plead guilty, and I need to be better. We all need to be honest enough with ourselves to admit that at some point we all made a decision to submit to the Church and her authority and follow her teachings as lay people.
This was a fantastic interview. So insightful and extremely helpful while I’m on my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism. Please interview this guest again. 🙏😊
Austin, I appreciate your fervent desire to guide your choices through deep and careful thought. What ultimately changed my mind and heart ended up being a divine encounter - something that my intellect could never replicate and no amount of human "convincing" could do. What I'm trying to say is - you may convert someday purely through an act of the Holy Spirit. You are doing a good thing having these conversations. God bless you!
sometimes, I am just amazed with the less internet-visible but brilliant people whom Austin interviews. How is he able to convince them to sit with him in a discussion - much more now that he seems to be doing it face to face instead through "zoom" like he used to before.
Passing on the tradition is perhaps what more people should do. I'm a scientist and I think it might help improve how scientists see themselves. It may seem as if scientists discover one truth after another, but that's simply not the case. Mostly, we're just able to get a little closer to it, while at the same time, we're supposed to produce results. That can give a lot of pressure to suggest big resilults while the actual results are pretty small.
I think that the biggest issue with ecumenalism is the level of trust in the dialogue. I think that such dialogue requires vulnerability, which cannot exist without a safe and trusting environment. It's also about who you send to the dialogue table. Do you send a strong negotiator, a doctrinal expert or someone else entirely??
Please pray for me. I am trying to find my place in Christianity. I don't attend services anymore because of the too many confusing Protestant viewpoints. I am without a spiritual home and just want to find some peace.
Will tune in. If you want another fascinating conversion story of a theologian, you might try to get Dr. Lawrence Feingold, a first rate Thomist who has a very strong devotional/evangelical side, an artist (sculpture) and all around Mensch!! I won't give the backstory - but it is quite the story.
That was a subtle and powerful move with the Matthew passage at the end. Played like a chess grandmaster. At first I thought Dr Aspray was missing the point by going in a scriptural direction with the infallibility question. But no - that was only the setup! This entire conversation was highly edifying and productive. True ecumenical dialogue. The only idea that I would have added to the early discussion on Christian unity is that it will most likely follow the model of the various Rites in communion with the Catholic Church. It will not be a question for Lutherans/Anglicans/Reformed/Evangelicals of simply "becoming Catholic" but of arriving at sufficient mutual agreement (foremost on the Eucharist) whereby the Catholic Church can receive the respective traditions (with all necessary mutual corrections/clarifications, à la JDDJ) as Rites within the Universal Church. In rereading Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale I am today even more impressed at the broad variety of traditions he draws upon for his arguments. Luther, Barth, Freechurch, etc. All of these thinkers/traditions have valuable insights that further our understanding when read critically. Following this lead, it seems our project must be one of integration.
I'm wondering whether it would help to agree that the splitted nature of Christianity is a sin, but one shared by all Christian denominations, not the fault of some and not of the others.
The question of the role of the Holy Spirit guiding the church was a highlight of the video considering the importance of this question to so many who analyze the Catholic Church and other churches.
Interesting question on the assumption of Mary... How do you live that doctrine? The only time it really impacts one's daily living is if you're an archeologist searching for her remains right?
You live it by believing it. It impacts one’s daily life by believing/not believing in the one true church Jesus established and following the church that promulgates such doctrines.
I don't think you got my point... The assumption is not a dogma that fundamentally changes the way one approaches your day to day relationship with God. I am Catholic and do believe in the bodily assumption of Mary, but that fitting historical reality doesn't have a day to day impact on the way I live or the decisions I make. Mary as the new ark of the Covenant (and all the things that tie into that) has a far bigger impact on my understanding of God and Scripture
@@josephgoemans6948 if you are Catholic then you know not believing in the assumption of Mary can lead one to other misbeliefs. While on the surface in the doctrine you may be correct in our daily lives, the belief, or the disbelief, can lead to disunity in the church and many other teachings. An unraveling of beliefs beginning at authority.
@@srich7503 Again I think you missed the point of my original comment... My point is that accepting or denying this dogma has no practical application - it's not going to make you live your life differently. As a consequence of that it should not be a barrier to Catholicism because it shouldn't pose any practical or lived issues to just submit to the authority of the Church. It's not a critical point like for example the divinity of Christ which you would need to accept in order to recognise and submit to the Church.
@@josephgoemans6948 OR i do get your point and it is you who miss my point. Heb 12:1, referring to those in the previous chapter, never knowing of the divinity of Christ, or not in their lifetime, still kept the faith and followed it without understating it fully.
Surprised there aren't more likes for this video. Too balanced? I thought it was a very thoughtful conversation - more of these should be had. This is good medicine. But the social media "consumers" like a little more frisson. I say resist and do more of these. Not saying they all have to be like this.
Thanks, Todd. I must say, this is one of my favorite interviews I've done. Unfortunately, something more along the lines of "Based Catholic DEMOLISHES soy Protestant" would probably get 10x the views. Alas, we fight the good fight!
This was extremely interesting conversation. It does seem the movement towards unity has hit some road blocks, and these road blocks have more to do with what someone is use to or what they believe and become so rigid they close themselves off from truth for the sake of not being able to accept the possibility of being wrong. I can relate to Dr Aspray's understanding of the three communities, Orthodox have a great deal to offer, but many seem to rigid in some respects, and their inability to have a real and true unity, along with the pettiness between the different churches and the monks of Mt Athos is perplexing. Their is a great tradition of vibrant theological debate, and discussion in the Catholic church. Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Bonaventure had lively debates, in the 60's we see the Communio and Concilium theologians going at it, each was free to express an idea or views that once sifted the Church drew from, all while retaining unity. I see this as the main reasons for the Papacy. I may not fully understand Protestantism, but it is so fractured, and each group is so rigid, it is almost impossible to have a civil discussion. My take on the ascension of Mary is this; if Mary died and was buried there is no doubt that the apostles would have recorded it, and made her place of burial known, and if Elijah ascended it is most possible Mary did as well. I accept that possibility could be true. Someone once expressed to me that the Church is like bumper cars, she gives us the freedom to travel and experience the open road, but she will give us a nudge when we go to far left or right.
I enjoy this kind of content. But why, oh why did you break into the interview with the plug at the most interesting part for me, Austin? This question of private judgment, to me, dovetails with the question of private revelation, which is a subject in Christianity that I wish somebody would dive into deeply. We know there is a rich tradition of private revelation in Christianity from the earliest days. But this is something that seems very controversial in many congregations and denominations today, since they teach that the authority of the Bible, tradition, pastors, bishops, etc. is more legitimate than one's subjective experiences of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and so on.
Glad you found that part interesting! It's a tricky thing inserting ads. If you put them in at less interesting points people are more likely to click off the video entirely. If you put them in at interesting points, people are more likely to stick around
8:43 "should scripture alone be the way that we figure out what's true?" I assume that as an ecumenical theologian at a major institution he understands protestant theology well... but is that what sola scripture really is??
Yep same strawman as ever. This is more a product of modern protestants loosing history And isolation. And he hasn't figured out that the magisterium isn't flawless either this is such a dumb take. He still has to personally determine someone else is right. And what happens when they turn out wrong. Suddenly u can't deem things your self
@@barneyaspray lol hip-hop aphorism expressing the desire for a friend to be released from prison for doing nothing essentially wrong. Usually used to express enthusiastic support.
Really enjoyed the conversation overall, but I think his evaluation of unity (or lack thereof) in Orthodoxy is somewhat unnuanced. The critiques he is giving are really more geared toward Orthodoxy's lack of a firm universal hierarchy and the independence of each Local Church, which is really a strength in many regards though there are certainly drawbacks. Liturgically and spiritually, Orthodoxy is more unified than Catholicism in my opinion.
Thank you for this comment, and I am sorry if I came across as unduly dismissive of Orthodoxy, a tradition I have enormous respect and appreciation for. I would never say anything negative about Orthodoxy for any reason except to give my honest answer to the question: "Why did you choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy?" The point you make raises important questions about what kind of unity we are looking for, and whether diversity (liturgical, spiritual) is sometimes also a good thing. I don't think we are aiming for homogeneity or uniformity on all aspects of spirituality and ligurgy. My longing for the Church would be to see it wonderfully diverse in many ways yet united on the essentials. Does that make sense to you?
Brother, I think there is a philosophical equivocation in the premise about what Christian unity really means and what should it look like under that meaning. I sense there is this temptation in conflating unity and uniformity inside Eastern Orthodoxy. The reasons can be many, sure. But the so-called “nous” (or mind of the faithful) has been put up as almost an autonomous theological ‘topos’ for a definition - and a quest - for its identity. That really give me concerns. When we go to the Scriptural texts, all that concerns to the mind of the Church is to acquire the mind of Christ, in the Pauline concrete sense. I personally get to see a real (and serious) theological problem that affects the perception of unity in EO’ ecclesiology as an unavoidable consequence of it. The one mind of the faithful does not mean to establish homogeneous customs as an identitarian safeport for the People of God (in many cases against the universal Church in communion with the ministry of the Roman bishop, or the Latins, or the so-called Uniates, or the Protestants, etc), what maybe only the “imperialization of the faith” could have achieved for us, but to make ourselves reflexive of the very character of Christ. As Jesus is the icon of the Father, we should be an image of Christ in His humility and obedience (Philippians 2:5-8), in His compassion (Matthew 9:36), and so forth. That’s the true meaning of the “nous” of the Church, not a thing resembling an identitarian password to discern “we” over “they” who are perceived to be in schism, or heresy, or both. That’s not how uniformity of mind plays its role, the way I understand it. And I think it solves nothing about what unity in the body - never a disembodied unity - means in the ecclesiological puzzle one needs to face, sure, in order to discern the true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church we profess to actually believe in. In the Lord’s prayer for unity (not for homogeneity/ uniformity of customs) (John 17, 11; John 17, 21), Christ Jesus wishes the concrete union among us to be so perfect that the Most Holy Trinity is the pattern after which it should be moulded, precisely what unites the Father and the Son. That means a perfect unity (of essence) in the diversity (of persons): therefore, not merely an accidental but a substantial/ essential bound of love - which God himself IS. Yet what does it really mean? That we should seek not a mere union in mentality but the TRUE oneness of baptism (Eph 4, 5) as the sacrament of the explicit faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But that must also mean a true unity in SPIRIT (“pneuma”; πνεῦμα) (Eph4, 3) and not just a union in mind (‘nous’; νοῦς). That means a true perception of the ineffable action of the Holy Spirit in us all, even where imperfect degrees of unity are manifest. Also, not an incorporeal and bodiless unity, otherwise the Incarnation doesn’t make any sense: we must seek the true oneness of the faithful in BODY (Eph 4, 4). Those are just some itens Eastern Orthodoxy will fail to provide, in the true biblical sense of the terms, at the same time it will offer a strong sense of identity through homogeneity as synonymous with unity. Either in the Greek or the Slavic world, the Byzantinization of the liturgy was, among other topics, the norm. Yet the Catholic Church is called out - with good reasons - for past attempts of Latinization of rites and liturgies. That’s almost schizophrenic, I guess. It would be a ridiculously hard task to figure it all out and to understand what unity means, due to the harsh reality of divisions, if Our Lord Jesus hadn’t told us how He (and not us) would build his Church: _“As a young man marries a young woman,_ _so will your BUILDER marry you;_ _as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,_ _so will your God rejoice over you”_ (Isaiah 62, 5). Remember, brother: Jesus Christ is the one who builds his Church, not us. He is the bridegroom and we are the bride. He is the one who builds. But how does He build the very Church to which he gets mystically married? There is enough said in the Gospels about it: _”Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who _*_built his HOUSE on the ROCK._*_ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet _*_it did NOT FALL, because it had its foundation on the ROCK._*_ But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and _*_it fell with a great crash”_* (Matthew 7, 24-27). No one sufficiently equipped in theology would think it’s a coincidence the later passage in Saint Matthew concerning the topic of building upon a rock: _”And I tell you that you are Peter, and _*_on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH,_*_ and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18)? What does it mean? Well, of course people will answer this differently. I’m a Catholic, so my answer is already known. But Jesus Christ builds HIS Church on one (“Simon”) calling him KEPHA (or, as transliterated, Cephas - v. John 1, 42) or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). And He teaches that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK” so that it can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who builds his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed on due time (Matthew 7, 24-29). It is not the case that one house or the other won’t have to deal with extreme conditions or harsh tribulations, but, as said, one of them will stand and the other type of construction will eventually fall. All again, there is no coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon. And it’s not a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), while the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means the union of the Greek radicals *“OIKO”* (“house” or “home”) and *“DOMUS”* (“to build”). The Church is defined as God’s own “house”, which appears indeed in the text of the New Testament: _“(...) if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in _*_GOD’S HOUSEHOLD,_*_ which is the _*_CHURCH_*_ of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth”_ (1 Timothy 3, 15). What you do with those data is your decision and your responsibility. Even a soteriological one. But the critiques were charitable and very reasonable, in my estimation.
Big difference is that Protestants tend to make strong effort to remove all Hebrew understandings in how we know god and do worship as if to say all that before Christ among humans is junk and bad. Protestants tend to have very limited understanding of who God is and what god’s love is. Love is an active essence meaning creation, engagement, works.
"Protestants tend to make strong effort to remove all Hebrew understandings in how we know god and do worship...." Not exactly. It's not a removal of Hebrew understanding; it's a difference in applying those understandings. It is not a declaration that anything is junk and bad; it's a declaration that some things have been done away with under the New Covenant. It's a difference of opinion regarding whether it is the Temple worship or the synagogue worship that provides the more applicable model. "When comparing the worship of the early church with that of the synagogue, we labour under this disadvantage, that, if the primitive church had any liturgy, it has not been handed down to us; still, as far as we can ascertain anything of its modes of worship, we find many traces of similitude between it and that of the synagogue…." Campegius Vitringa, (1659 - 1722), The Synagogue and the Church (trans., Joshua L. Bernard) (London, 1842). “As the early church simply adapted the synagogue worship (in which Jesus himself was reared and, when he taught his disciples to pray according to the form of the Lord’s Prayer, seems to have endorsed) to Christian use. Jesus was raised with a service book, full of prayers and the Psalms, as were many of the first Christians. The basic elements of the services thus described are actually patterned on the earliest forms of Christian worship available.” -Horton, “Pardon & Praise: Worship Calmly Considered” in Modern Reformation, Jan./Feb. 1996 Vol. 5 No. 1 Page number(s): 25, 28-29
How had a never heard of, or come across Dr Aspray until now? What a fascinating and engaging conversation with such a knowledgeable person.
Wow! This was an absolutely wonderful listen.
Edifying to hear such smart people talk through the insecurity of uncertainty and you both lead the conversation so well, with excellent metaphors and questions to open up ideas.
Thank you for sharing this conversation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Austin, this video may not receive the attention of others but this guest and your conversation is as rich and fulfilling as any I’ve seen. Truly great discussion.
Thank you so much! I really enjoyed it, and I'm glad you did too.
@@GospelSimplicity Yep, very interesting. As always.
It might require more attention than a make-up video tutorial.. Bu it's worth it.
This is one of the most interesting conversations I've heard about Catholicism vs. Protestant claims
I have no theological training, but I have recently felt the need to 'defend' my Protestant views
I grew up in a Pentecostal church and still very much enjoy the genuine fellowship (koinonia). I'm not sure if I will find evidence to dissuade me from sola scriptura or, as Gavin Ortlund describes it, Prima Scriptura. In the New Testament, Christian life was bequeathed with Pastoral care and submitting to the leadership of the local koinonia.
I'm afraid my articulation of these concepts are not as clear as I would like them to be.
In my Pentecostal upbringing, I was never exposed to the idea of transubstantiation or consubtantiation of the Eucharist. It wasn't until I lived in a Catholic residence, St. Michaels College, that I first understood what it was. There were nuns who lived in the residence with students attending the University of Toronto. My friend there explained in John 6 that the latin word in verse 54 means "to chew." In Greek, it's τρώγων - trogon.(Strongs 5176). Naturally, I thought if those were indeed the words of Christ that I didn't have a good understanding of the passage or its impact on soteriology. This led me to evaluate the claims from all the Christian traditions.
My understanding of justification from the Roman Catholic point of view does not correlate to what I read in the Bible. This is fundamentally why I feel I could not be Roman Catholic because I am not convinced of the RC Soteriology. I know in RC vs P we each profess that we are saved because of Jesus. But there really do seem to be a lot of differences in the way RC vs. Protestants arrive at their separate conclusions. I do have a lot of RC friends and coworkers, and I do consider them to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Now I can understand more about their historical point of view, but the daily life and practices of faith between us are quite a bit different. Ultimately my personal experience is that it's God's kindness that leads to repentance. His holiness compels us to be more like Him. For some people the fear of His wrath can motivate change, that was perhaps also part of my faith experience. Personally I was always drawn to the amazing display of His great love for us. How great is His love! How amazing is His faithfulness to us. Praise be to God for His work at the cross
Well done.
I'm so glad I can subscribe to Gospel Simplicity! Some of the most edifying content on the Interwebs ...
Fantastic interview with yet another faithful person that can respect another’s tradition. Please keep up this important work of Christ in trying to bring people together!
Thanks for the kind words!
This was phenomenal.
Glad you enjoyed it! I had a great time with this one
The Holy Spirit is who guides us. There are saved people in many theologies. The issue is what theology does the best job of leading people to Christ.
I really enjoyed tuning into this whole interview. I'm Orthodox but the triumphalism had to go. this guy has real humility. Internet theology pundits tend to bluff that they have hard certainty.
Very well said, and I fully agree that triumphalism and bluffing are counterproductive
Fantastic post. We Catholics need to stop doing this as well (triumphalism). I plead guilty, and I need to be better. We all need to be honest enough with ourselves to admit that at some point we all made a decision to submit to the Church and her authority and follow her teachings as lay people.
This was a fantastic interview. So insightful and extremely helpful while I’m on my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism.
Please interview this guest again. 🙏😊
Might be my favorite interview you’ve done so far!
It's in my top 5 personally!
Austin, I appreciate your fervent desire to guide your choices through deep and careful thought. What ultimately changed my mind and heart ended up being a divine encounter - something that my intellect could never replicate and no amount of human "convincing" could do. What I'm trying to say is - you may convert someday purely through an act of the Holy Spirit. You are doing a good thing having these conversations. God bless you!
This was really powerful. Thanks for such an edifying conversation.
sometimes, I am just amazed with the less internet-visible but brilliant people whom Austin interviews. How is he able to convince them to sit with him in a discussion - much more now that he seems to be doing it face to face instead through "zoom" like he used to before.
Thank you for the kind words!
Thank you gentlemen your considered respectful positions regarding ecumenism was heartening.
Another great interview from GS!
Passing on the tradition is perhaps what more people should do.
I'm a scientist and I think it might help improve how scientists see themselves.
It may seem as if scientists discover one truth after another, but that's simply not the case. Mostly, we're just able to get a little closer to it, while at the same time, we're supposed to produce results. That can give a lot of pressure to suggest big resilults while the actual results are pretty small.
Wow, I really learn quite a few things for this discussion. It was so profound what Dr. Aspray said. Great video.
I think that the biggest issue with ecumenalism is the level of trust in the dialogue. I think that such dialogue requires vulnerability, which cannot exist without a safe and trusting environment.
It's also about who you send to the dialogue table. Do you send a strong negotiator, a doctrinal expert or someone else entirely??
Right off the top, this discussion proved my complaint that the gospel is not simple. Yet we see tons of headlines from folks saying it is.
That was a top 10 video you have done! Hopefully you do a part 2 and 3 with him.
Please pray for me. I am trying to find my place in Christianity. I don't attend services anymore because of the too many confusing Protestant viewpoints. I am without a spiritual home and just want to find some peace.
I loooove this conversation.
Will tune in. If you want another fascinating conversion story of a theologian, you might try to get Dr. Lawrence Feingold, a first rate Thomist who has a very strong devotional/evangelical side, an artist (sculpture) and all around Mensch!! I won't give the backstory - but it is quite the story.
Sounds fascinating!
Let's just flip a coin.
That was a subtle and powerful move with the Matthew passage at the end. Played like a chess grandmaster. At first I thought Dr Aspray was missing the point by going in a scriptural direction with the infallibility question. But no - that was only the setup! This entire conversation was highly edifying and productive. True ecumenical dialogue. The only idea that I would have added to the early discussion on Christian unity is that it will most likely follow the model of the various Rites in communion with the Catholic Church. It will not be a question for Lutherans/Anglicans/Reformed/Evangelicals of simply "becoming Catholic" but of arriving at sufficient mutual agreement (foremost on the Eucharist) whereby the Catholic Church can receive the respective traditions (with all necessary mutual corrections/clarifications, à la JDDJ) as Rites within the Universal Church. In rereading Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale I am today even more impressed at the broad variety of traditions he draws upon for his arguments. Luther, Barth, Freechurch, etc. All of these thinkers/traditions have valuable insights that further our understanding when read critically. Following this lead, it seems our project must be one of integration.
You know, in many ways this conversation felt like a chess match (in the best sense). Interesting thoughts with the rites!
I'm wondering whether it would help to agree that the splitted nature of Christianity is a sin, but one shared by all Christian denominations, not the fault of some and not of the others.
This ended too soon! More discussion please.
The question of the role of the Holy Spirit guiding the church was a highlight of the video considering the importance of this question to so many who analyze the Catholic Church and other churches.
“....You will know them by their fruits....."
Interesting question on the assumption of Mary... How do you live that doctrine?
The only time it really impacts one's daily living is if you're an archeologist searching for her remains right?
You live it by believing it. It impacts one’s daily life by believing/not believing in the one true church Jesus established and following the church that promulgates such doctrines.
I don't think you got my point... The assumption is not a dogma that fundamentally changes the way one approaches your day to day relationship with God.
I am Catholic and do believe in the bodily assumption of Mary, but that fitting historical reality doesn't have a day to day impact on the way I live or the decisions I make. Mary as the new ark of the Covenant (and all the things that tie into that) has a far bigger impact on my understanding of God and Scripture
@@josephgoemans6948 if you are Catholic then you know not believing in the assumption of Mary can lead one to other misbeliefs. While on the surface in the doctrine you may be correct in our daily lives, the belief, or the disbelief, can lead to disunity in the church and many other teachings. An unraveling of beliefs beginning at authority.
@@srich7503 Again I think you missed the point of my original comment... My point is that accepting or denying this dogma has no practical application - it's not going to make you live your life differently. As a consequence of that it should not be a barrier to Catholicism because it shouldn't pose any practical or lived issues to just submit to the authority of the Church. It's not a critical point like for example the divinity of Christ which you would need to accept in order to recognise and submit to the Church.
@@josephgoemans6948 OR i do get your point and it is you who miss my point. Heb 12:1, referring to those in the previous chapter, never knowing of the divinity of Christ, or not in their lifetime, still kept the faith and followed it without understating it fully.
I am astonished that you have neither heard nor read anything by George Macdonald.
Surprised there aren't more likes for this video. Too balanced? I thought it was a very thoughtful conversation - more of these should be had. This is good medicine. But the social media "consumers" like a little more frisson. I say resist and do more of these. Not saying they all have to be like this.
Thanks, Todd. I must say, this is one of my favorite interviews I've done. Unfortunately, something more along the lines of "Based Catholic DEMOLISHES soy Protestant" would probably get 10x the views. Alas, we fight the good fight!
@@GospelSimplicityhang in there ! You are one of the bright lights
This was extremely interesting conversation. It does seem the movement towards unity has hit some road blocks, and these road blocks have more to do with what someone is use to or what they believe and become so rigid they close themselves off from truth for the sake of not being able to accept the possibility of being wrong. I can relate to Dr Aspray's understanding of the three communities, Orthodox have a great deal to offer, but many seem to rigid in some respects, and their inability to have a real and true unity, along with the pettiness between the different churches and the monks of Mt Athos is perplexing. Their is a great tradition of vibrant theological debate, and discussion in the Catholic church. Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Bonaventure had lively debates, in the 60's we see the Communio and Concilium theologians going at it, each was free to express an idea or views that once sifted the Church drew from, all while retaining unity. I see this as the main reasons for the Papacy. I may not fully understand Protestantism, but it is so fractured, and each group is so rigid, it is almost impossible to have a civil discussion. My take on the ascension of Mary is this; if Mary died and was buried there is no doubt that the apostles would have recorded it, and made her place of burial known, and if Elijah ascended it is most possible Mary did as well. I accept that possibility could be true. Someone once expressed to me that the Church is like bumper cars, she gives us the freedom to travel and experience the open road, but she will give us a nudge when we go to far left or right.
I enjoy this kind of content. But why, oh why did you break into the interview with the plug at the most interesting part for me, Austin? This question of private judgment, to me, dovetails with the question of private revelation, which is a subject in Christianity that I wish somebody would dive into deeply. We know there is a rich tradition of private revelation in Christianity from the earliest days. But this is something that seems very controversial in many congregations and denominations today, since they teach that the authority of the Bible, tradition, pastors, bishops, etc. is more legitimate than one's subjective experiences of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and so on.
Glad you found that part interesting! It's a tricky thing inserting ads. If you put them in at less interesting points people are more likely to click off the video entirely. If you put them in at interesting points, people are more likely to stick around
Free Constantinople
You kind of match in appearance, did you realize that? Same shade of blue.
Sartorial Ecumenicism!
Premieres in 22 day?! 💀
I have two other interviews I have to get out first
@@GospelSimplicityTy for the content!!!
8:43 "should scripture alone be the way that we figure out what's true?" I assume that as an ecumenical theologian at a major institution he understands protestant theology well... but is that what sola scripture really is??
11:09 also "authority is just the bible" ... it seems like he is critiquing 'solo scriptura'
Yep same strawman as ever.
This is more a product of modern protestants loosing history
And isolation.
And he hasn't figured out that the magisterium isn't flawless either this is such a dumb take.
He still has to personally determine someone else is right. And what happens when they turn out wrong. Suddenly u can't deem things your self
Free my dog Barney
are you asking me to free your dog, or are you saying your dog is named Barney and asking anyone to free him?
@@barneyaspray lol hip-hop aphorism expressing the desire for a friend to be released from prison for doing nothing essentially wrong. Usually used to express enthusiastic support.
I definitely wasn't cool enough to get this the first time around
Really enjoyed the conversation overall, but I think his evaluation of unity (or lack thereof) in Orthodoxy is somewhat unnuanced. The critiques he is giving are really more geared toward Orthodoxy's lack of a firm universal hierarchy and the independence of each Local Church, which is really a strength in many regards though there are certainly drawbacks. Liturgically and spiritually, Orthodoxy is more unified than Catholicism in my opinion.
Glad you enjoyed the conversation! I think that's a fair point in that there are layers of unity, and hierarchical unity is but one form.
Thank you for this comment, and I am sorry if I came across as unduly dismissive of Orthodoxy, a tradition I have enormous respect and appreciation for. I would never say anything negative about Orthodoxy for any reason except to give my honest answer to the question: "Why did you choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy?" The point you make raises important questions about what kind of unity we are looking for, and whether diversity (liturgical, spiritual) is sometimes also a good thing. I don't think we are aiming for homogeneity or uniformity on all aspects of spirituality and ligurgy. My longing for the Church would be to see it wonderfully diverse in many ways yet united on the essentials. Does that make sense to you?
Brother, I think there is a philosophical equivocation in the premise about what Christian unity really means and what should it look like under that meaning. I sense there is this temptation in conflating unity and uniformity inside Eastern Orthodoxy. The reasons can be many, sure. But the so-called “nous” (or mind of the faithful) has been put up as almost an autonomous theological ‘topos’ for a definition - and a quest - for its identity. That really give me concerns. When we go to the Scriptural texts, all that concerns to the mind of the Church is to acquire the mind of Christ, in the Pauline concrete sense. I personally get to see a real (and serious) theological problem that affects the perception of unity in EO’ ecclesiology as an unavoidable consequence of it.
The one mind of the faithful does not mean to establish homogeneous customs as an identitarian safeport for the People of God (in many cases against the universal Church in communion with the ministry of the Roman bishop, or the Latins, or the so-called Uniates, or the Protestants, etc), what maybe only the “imperialization of the faith” could have achieved for us, but to make ourselves reflexive of the very character of Christ. As Jesus is the icon of the Father, we should be an image of Christ in His humility and obedience (Philippians 2:5-8), in His compassion (Matthew 9:36), and so forth. That’s the true meaning of the “nous” of the Church, not a thing resembling an identitarian password to discern “we” over “they” who are perceived to be in schism, or heresy, or both. That’s not how uniformity of mind plays its role, the way I understand it. And I think it solves nothing about what unity in the body - never a disembodied unity - means in the ecclesiological puzzle one needs to face, sure, in order to discern the true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church we profess to actually believe in.
In the Lord’s prayer for unity (not for homogeneity/ uniformity of customs) (John 17, 11; John 17, 21), Christ Jesus wishes the concrete union among us to be so perfect that the Most Holy Trinity is the pattern after which it should be moulded, precisely what unites the Father and the Son. That means a perfect unity (of essence) in the diversity (of persons): therefore, not merely an accidental but a substantial/ essential bound of love - which God himself IS.
Yet what does it really mean? That we should seek not a mere union in mentality but the TRUE oneness of baptism (Eph 4, 5) as the sacrament of the explicit faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But that must also mean a true unity in SPIRIT (“pneuma”; πνεῦμα) (Eph4, 3) and not just a union in mind (‘nous’; νοῦς). That means a true perception of the ineffable action of the Holy Spirit in us all, even where imperfect degrees of unity are manifest. Also, not an incorporeal and bodiless unity, otherwise the Incarnation doesn’t make any sense: we must seek the true oneness of the faithful in BODY (Eph 4, 4). Those are just some itens Eastern Orthodoxy will fail to provide, in the true biblical sense of the terms, at the same time it will offer a strong sense of identity through homogeneity as synonymous with unity. Either in the Greek or the Slavic world, the Byzantinization of the liturgy was, among other topics, the norm. Yet the Catholic Church is called out - with good reasons - for past attempts of Latinization of rites and liturgies. That’s almost schizophrenic, I guess.
It would be a ridiculously hard task to figure it all out and to understand what unity means, due to the harsh reality of divisions, if Our Lord Jesus hadn’t told us how He (and not us) would build his Church:
_“As a young man marries a young woman,_ _so will your BUILDER marry you;_ _as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,_ _so will your God rejoice over you”_ (Isaiah 62, 5).
Remember, brother: Jesus Christ is the one who builds his Church, not us. He is the bridegroom and we are the bride. He is the one who builds. But how does He build the very Church to which he gets mystically married? There is enough said in the Gospels about it:
_”Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who _*_built his HOUSE on the ROCK._*_ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet _*_it did NOT FALL, because it had its foundation on the ROCK._*_ But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and _*_it fell with a great crash”_* (Matthew 7, 24-27).
No one sufficiently equipped in theology would think it’s a coincidence the later passage in Saint Matthew concerning the topic of building upon a rock: _”And I tell you that you are Peter, and _*_on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH,_*_ and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18)?
What does it mean? Well, of course people will answer this differently. I’m a Catholic, so my answer is already known. But Jesus Christ builds HIS Church on one (“Simon”) calling him KEPHA (or, as transliterated, Cephas - v. John 1, 42) or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). And He teaches that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK” so that it can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who builds his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed on due time (Matthew 7, 24-29). It is not the case that one house or the other won’t have to deal with extreme conditions or harsh tribulations, but, as said, one of them will stand and the other type of construction will eventually fall.
All again, there is no coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon. And it’s not a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), while the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means the union of the Greek radicals *“OIKO”* (“house” or “home”) and *“DOMUS”* (“to build”).
The Church is defined as God’s own “house”, which appears indeed in the text of the New Testament:
_“(...) if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in _*_GOD’S HOUSEHOLD,_*_ which is the _*_CHURCH_*_ of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth”_ (1 Timothy 3, 15).
What you do with those data is your decision and your responsibility. Even a soteriological one. But the critiques were charitable and very reasonable, in my estimation.
@@masterchief8179 Thanks for these deep and valuable insights!
@@barneyaspray Thank you for your inspiring talk with Austin, sir! It was very thought provoking. God bless you! From Brazil!
Big difference is that Protestants tend to make strong effort to remove all Hebrew understandings in how we know god and do worship as if to say all that before Christ among humans is junk and bad. Protestants tend to have very limited understanding of who God is and what god’s love is. Love is an active essence meaning creation, engagement, works.
"Protestants tend to make strong effort to remove all Hebrew understandings in how we know god and do worship...."
Not exactly. It's not a removal of Hebrew understanding; it's a difference in applying those understandings. It is not a declaration that anything is junk and bad; it's a declaration that some things have been done away with under the New Covenant. It's a difference of opinion regarding whether it is the Temple worship or the synagogue worship that provides the more applicable model.
"When comparing the worship of the early church with that of the synagogue, we labour under this disadvantage, that, if the primitive church had any liturgy, it has not been handed down to us; still, as far as we can ascertain anything of its modes of worship, we find many traces of similitude between it and that of the synagogue…." Campegius Vitringa, (1659 - 1722), The Synagogue and the Church (trans., Joshua L. Bernard) (London, 1842).
“As the early church simply adapted the synagogue worship (in which Jesus himself was reared and, when he taught his disciples to pray according to the form of the Lord’s Prayer, seems to have endorsed) to Christian use. Jesus was raised with a service book, full of prayers and the Psalms, as were many of the first Christians. The basic elements of the services thus described are actually patterned on the earliest forms of Christian worship available.”
-Horton, “Pardon & Praise: Worship Calmly Considered” in Modern Reformation, Jan./Feb. 1996 Vol. 5 No. 1 Page number(s): 25, 28-29