Everyone who is validly baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church, whether they realize it or not. This is because there is only one Church; there's no other church to be baptized into. However, those who reject the Church's authority and turn from her to other teachers immediately fall away into mortal sin. They are therefore Christian in just the same way as a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin is Christian: they have been justified through baptism, but their subsequent personal sins remain, and for as long as they persist in their sin and refuse to repent, they remain separated from God.
In short, three conditions are *mandatory* for sin to be mortal. This is basic Catholicism that people never mention when throwing the word “mortal” around. There is also *invincible ignorance* and *perfect contrition* that can play a part. A person does not cease being a Christian when they sin. An indelible mark is made on the soul at a proper baptism that cannot be removed. The person may not inherit the kingdom- but not all Christians necessarily go to Heaven.
As a Former Seventh Day Adventist, becoming Catholic. I can see where Gordon is coming from. A lot of popular SDA Pastor’s are either Arian or Semi Arian and the church hasn’t officially condemned them yet so denying it is still allowed, unfortunately. So some hold to the trinity, some deny it, and some have a warped view of the trinity. There’s also blasphemous ideas like Jesus being born with Original Sin but never committing any sins through his actions.
@@DouglasBeaumont There’s almost a willingness to not address the Trinity situation at all because advertising themselves as Trinitarian looks better for their image.
As a Catholic marrying an SDA, I have found this frustrating and for me to experience that a lot of SDAs in my area are functional Baptists or other Protestants, but don't really get the trinity as a concept, is just demoralizing. The SDA church documentation may say the same words that a Catholic would accept, but how that's carried out and what it means in the end has suspect. We've spent a heavy amount of time in tribunal court for our marriage to go ahead. We have these looming questions if Jesus Christ as meant by SDA or God the Father meant by SDA really do entail a captial G God, or a small g god. Every Bible study her family is pushing us into really just continues to bear out that there isn't a clear understanding in the SDA church on the Trinity, at least functionally.
PLEASE READ THIS! After a few hundred comments, some trends are emerging. So to avoid redundancy please note the following 1. Unitatis Redintegratio - the Church's Decree on Ecumenism - teaches that "all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." If you wish to attack Protestants for not accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, don't reject the Church's authority by rejecting Vatican 2 -an ecumenical council! (Related to this: statements from past historical contexts must be understood in light of this decree - not offered as reasons why it is false.) 2. "Christian" and "Saved" are not equivalent terms in the Catholic faith (any more than "Catholic" is). Thus, Protestants (and Catholics) can be Christians while also being unsaved, heretical (on matters not pertaining to a valid baptism), or even mean. Thus, none of the latter properties refute the judgment of the Church that [validly baptized] Protestants are Christians. Thanks!
Those who reject Vatican II hold that it contradicts previous Catholic teaching and therefore cannot have come from the authority of the Catholic Church.
@@littlerock5256 Yes, but since Vatican 2 is an ecumenical council and therefore infallible, it cannot have done that. Those who reject V2 need to understand that doctrine develops and historical contexts change. Thus, previous statements need to be understood in terms of the more recent, not used as evidence that they are false.
@@DouglasBeaumont Those who reject Vatican II agree with your assessment of an ecumenical council. Development of doctrine is one thing, contradiction is quite another. Some statements in VCII cannot be reconciled with past teaching. This can be found online, done handily by others, often in easy to read chart form.
@@littlerock5256 But we cannot judge ecumenical councils based on our understanding of theology - this is exactly what Luther did! We judge them on objective historical basis. Unless it is logically impossible to reconcile two infallible statements, that process is illegitimate.
@@DouglasBeaumont "Unless it is logically impossible to reconcile two infallible statements," This is what is maintained, that the Church teaching prior to Vatican II cannot be reconciled with those of VCII.
As a former Protestant, I believe most Protestant faiths are Christian as well. They are incomplete, but the holy Spirit moves in the church so to me, that's the best evidence. God can use anything for his glory. But, be that as it may, I believe the Catholic church is the true church and am very happy in it, and RCIA.
Great video, helped me. However, a lot of Protestants don’t consider us Christian at all. More so than Catholics do of Protestants, and they do so because of our sacraments. Also, Christ himself did say multiple times that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you and cannot raise you on the last day. So, I’d argue that the Eucharist is as important as baptism. Baptism is the spiritual birth, the rest are the requisites for entering heaven. The apostles also tell us to reject people who profess any other doctrine than the one they have taught and preached. Protestants are like those people that were casting out demons in Jesus name but didn’t follow him in Mark 9:38-41. Where Jesus tells John not to stop them because they can’t speak evil of him and do mighty works. Truly, I wished that Protestants respected Catholics as Christians more than they do as opposed to calling us idolaters. I understand Gordon’s arguments are a bit weak, but I appreciate posing the question back at them. Also, even if an ecumenical council has settled it, it’s good for us to question it, if it leads to a deeper understanding.
The Catholic Church does consider Protestants to be Christians, at least, most of them. The problem is that they are not experiencing the "Fullness of Truth". They are not getting the Sacraments Jesus left us, like the Eucharist, and Confession for example. Many Protestants are led down the wrong path with the false teachings of things like Faith Alone and Once Saved Always Saved.
They are not getting the Sacraments Jesus left us, like the Eucharist, and Confession for example. Please explain exactly what happens in the eucharist completely not a quick response. Please show us anywhere in 73 books of the bible that we are to confess our sins to someone other than God?
Thank you for this concise, level-headed, well thought out and educated response to this too-common and unfortunate cannibalism of Catholics going on especially amongst too many of the Rad Trads.
Just came across your channel and subscribed as someone as myself that’s just entering the faith the Catholic faith from protestant circles. This is a good video. I’m a fan of Timothy Gordon as well. Thank you for this video. God bless.
It's good to hear both opinions on videos, Timothy and Douglas both Catholics on this very issue. Well your insights Tim and Doug are inspiring. It's food for thought and prayers will help each of us listening to these views of yours and those commenting as well. Thank you both gents.
OMG. American Catholic Church used to lead the English speaking world. And now we have nuts like Timothy Gordon contradicting the Magisterium. And getting 670 likes at the time of this comment. If there was a button for multiple likes, I would have hit it many times.
This is an important discussion. I remember for years EWTN said we had to be Catholic to be saved. There is some support for this that Protestants like Truth Unites have pointed out. He points out in a recent video that a pope said Protestants are damned and he believes the pope was speaking ex Cathedra. I remember all of this as being taught and only in the last few years has EWTN taken a different view. I remember when they were saying the opposite. Discuss this respectfully because these issues do need addressed by Catholics and Protestants.
"Christian" and "saved" are not equivalent for Catholics (anymore than "Catholic" is), so it it logically possible that it's all true. However after many generations of Protestants, the Church clarified in the same document I cited that at this point there are Protestants outside the Church through ignorance and they may be in a different state.
@@DouglasBeaumont as long as you listen to the roman church and ignore the scriptures you will side upon the teachings of man found in the roman church. Clarification teachings of man are the ones you do not find in contextual scripture. CCC 2679 as an example!
As much as I respect guys like Gordon's fervour I have to admit it sometimes dips into the arrogance arena. How about they just accept what the church teaches and move on.
@@takmaps It's pride, isn't it. We can get that we have more insight than the Church. We have to humble ourselves sometimes, and say, well, the Church knows best.
Pope Pius XII: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957). [Protestants and Orthodox deny the papacy.] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.” Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: #18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
St. Peter Canisius, who was instrumental in fighting Protestantism in Germany, wrote the first catechism in 1555, known as the “Catechism of St. Peter Canisius.” This question regarding who may be called a Christian is answered as follows: “Whoever has been initiated by the Sacrament of Baptism of Jesus Christ, true God and man, and confesses the salutary doctrine in His Church, and not those who adhere to any sects or beliefs foreign to the Catholic Church.”
In 1555 Protestants were basically all culpable formal heretical schismatics. That is not the case 500 years later, hence why the Church made its decree concerning non-culpable Protestants.
@@DouglasBeaumont If to be a Christian one must hold to all the teachings of the Catholic Church, then only Catholics qualify. If holding to only some dogmas of the Catholic Faith and also adhering to some error makes one Christian, then a protestant qualifies.
@@DouglasBeaumont "In 1555 Protestants were basically all culpable formal heretical schismatics. That is not the case 500 years later" The teachings of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII come well after 1555, in 1864, 1896 and 1957: Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: #18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896, “So the Christian is a Catholic..." Pope Pius XII: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).
I converted from Anglicanism but actually we did have two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. The latter does indeed contain the Real Presence. We also had recourse to Reconciliation if we wanted. It wasn't mandatory as in the RCC but all we had to do was ask our Vicar. I've always had an aversion to these kinds of 'mud slinging' videos and was especially saddened to see one being done, inaccurately, by a Catholic.
The Anglican "eucharist" is more than a mere memorial which is good, but the intentional ambiguity of the phrase "real presence" makes it fall doctrinally short of John 6 and the loss of the priesthood makes it practically unreal. However, this does not excuse placing oneself above the Church as a judge like Timothy seems to have done here. I don't think the cause of Christ is served by falsehood!
Just had a conversation with my Southern Baptist mother in law about Mary being the Mother of God. It was quite odd. She totally agreed with the nature of the Trinity that I described necessitating the title of "Mother of God" for Mary, but still would not admit that she is the "Mother of God". 🤷
Great video on clarifying what most (including myself) were wrong on when referring to non Catholics. Thank you for humbling my perspective. Keep the videos. Theyre a revelation for the RIGHT way to defend the Truth.
Good response to Tim Gordon. A few points: 1. Seven Sacraments are the marks of a church, not a Christian, governed by a bishop whose authority has been handed down through apostolic succession by ordination with the Sacrament of Holy Orders, whether it is Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East. 2. Regarding their lack of valid sacraments, there exists the possibility of Protestants receiving some aspect of God's grace through sacramental desire that the Catholic Church already acknowledges in the baptism of desire. A. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman held the opinion that God did not withhold His grace from Anglicans who sincerely desired to receive Christ at their communion services. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton's conversion to Catholicism was prepped by her frequently receiving communion in Episcopal Churches in New York City, even more than once on Sundays so great was her desire. B. Similarly, how could God withhold His grace, although not its fullness, from any Protestant who sincerely confessed their sins to a minister, since through their lack of knowledge they were unaware of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? 3. Regarding Nestorius: A. Although his formulations were problematic I think he was given a bad rap by the polemical St. Cyril of Alexandria. After being condemned for heresy and removed from the See of Constantinople, his behavior was exemplary, never breaking communion and dying in the church's good graces in an Upper Egypt monastery in 451 AD. B. From Wikipedia: "The discovery, translation and publication of his (Nestorius') Bazaar of Heracleides at the beginning of the 20th century have led to a reassessment of his theology in western scholarship. It is now generally agreed that his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial." 4. I posted the following on Tim Gordon's original video that goes into significant detail about how Protestants are Christians according to the Catholic Church: Question: Are Protestants Christians? Reply: Yes, according to the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, solemnly promulgated by his holiness Pope Paul VI, on November 21, 1964. LG No. 15: The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26.) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. (Cf. Jn. 16:13.) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities ... They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (Rev. 22:17) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth. [Omitted from the above is the following sentence pertaining specifically to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East: Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(Cf. Eph. 1:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:4 Gal. 5:22.)]
Good work. It is unfortunately quite common for sincere apologists to unwittingly contradict the teachings of their own churches. This often involves turning a strict scrutiny toward others, yet never turning that same critical eye toward one's own positions. Anyway, it is transparently absurd to argue that those who are legitimately baptized and attempting to live out the teaching of Jesus Christ are not Christians. Christ is obviously present in many communities that are not in communion with Rome.
St. Peter Canisius, who was instrumental in fighting Protestantism in Germany, wrote the first catechism in 1555, known as the “Catechism of St. Peter Canisius.” This question regarding who may be called a Christian is answered as follows: “Whoever has been initiated by the Sacrament of Baptism of Jesus Christ, true God and man, and confesses the salutary doctrine in His Church, and not those who adhere to any sects or beliefs foreign to the Catholic Church.”
@@littlerock5256, interesting. I'm not sure why anyone should care what Peter Canisius wrote in 1555, but it seems important to you. I assume that you are attempting to argue that only those in communion with the Church of Rome are rightly called Christian... apparently because PC says so. Let us examine that more closely, especially the comment about "beliefs foreign to the Catholic Church." If we look to the first centuries of Christianity, we discover that there are many teachings found in the current Church of Rome that are NOT found in those first centuries: the necessity of private confession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc. If the requirement to be Christian entails holding to what is taught by the Catholic Church, when we look to history, we see that the (Roman) "Catholic" Church is just as guilty of this failing as anyone. Are you sure you still want to go down that road?
@@philoalethia I assume that you are attempting to argue..." I am sharing the teaching of the Catholic Church; nothing is of me. There is no "Church of Rome." There is the Catholic Church whose headquarters, if you will, is located in Rome. The Church is universal with many Eastern Rites. "many teachings ...NOT found in those first centuries: the necessity of private confession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc". These were all found in the early Church. As time went on they were better understood and better defined, but they were always present.
@@littlerock5256, wrote: "... the necessity of private confession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc ... were all found in the early Church. As time went on they were better understood and better defined, but they were always present." Okay. Where in Scripture or the first two centuries of Christianity do we find ANY clear teaching that "Papal Supremacy," "Papal Infallibility," or the necessity of private confession were "always present" and understood by the early Church as normative? (Having already studied this extensively, I know you won't be able to find such evidence. I am not trying to trick you, but it was your claim that "these were all found in the early Church.... they were always present," so I want to give you a chance to provide evidence justifying your claim.)
@@littlerock5256 wrote, "I am sharing the teaching of the Catholic Church; nothing is of me." Well, that is obviously false, as the Church of Rome recognizes many other churches as true/authentic--none of which came from or were started by Rome. It also asserts that Protestant/Evangelical Christians are rightly called Christians. So is it that you just don't know what the Church of Rome teaches, or that you do know, but disagree with it? Or do you just have your own special secret church here that has yet to be revealed? Asking for a friend. :)
@15:00 all protestants just say no to our blessed mother. The vast majority. Catholic tradition has ensured we know she is the mother of God regardless of the intricacies you bring up while protestant flat out and by default reject that phrase
And as I explained, rejecting a phrase without understanding its full implications is not the same thing as rejecting the teachings behind it. The same Protestants who reject Mary's title affirm Chalcedonian Christology. It's an inconsistency based on ignorance in most cases. Sorry if you do not like intricacies, but that's theology for you.
Thank you! Maybe he wanted to ask the question because American Evangelicals often say that Catholics are not Christian. Though this assertion rather seems to be an uniquely American phenomenon. I'm European and I've never heard of a Protestant here who was calling into the question the Christianity of Catholics.
Thay may have been why he made the video but his response was still wrong. As to the Protestant attack on Catholics in the USA, it is often more from Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but it is rampant among them.
Been having a few 'debates' for want of a better term with a few non-caths on other Catholic channels. I can sense Tim Gordon's frustration, especially in the face of what Francis (Pope Francis), the liberal-minded Cardinals he has surrounded himself with, and now the German Bishops are doing to the Church. It is becoming harder and harder to tell the differnce between most 'Catholics' and Protestants in general. Then you have this latest trend where a lot of Protestants (or at least the popular channels) are beginning to question whether Catholics can even be called Christian (most likely for clickbait and increased revenue)????? I saw the Title of Tim's video but didn't watch it yet. With the 'debates' I was experiencing, I'll admit I was starting to lean in that direction too. I like your approach and glad it kinda brought me back to a more even keel. Doing what I can to spread the message about your channel. Keep the Faith.
Yes, true balance has to be grounded in truth and we have to be careful when one side or the other starts going too far. I share many of those frustrations, believe me - and when we're frustrated, it's easier to go too far. :) Thank you for your words and support for the channel!
Tim made a stronger argument than Mr. Beaumont I think. One could go on a bit I suppose but I'll stop at one: If protestants don't consider marriage a sacrament, then how can a protestant marriage be a sacrament?
The perceived strength of the arguments does not matter when the Church has already spoken on the matter. But I can see why you thought his arguments were stronger if you think yours is a strong example. Baptisms are valid even if the person doing the baptism is an atheist. I'll let you work the rest out on your own.
I haven't seen Timothy's video and I don't plan to. But for me, I think the entire issue needs to be addressed again by the Magisterium. Back in 1965 when the Church said Protestants are Christian, there was still largely a "Conservative" approach to Christianity among the main Denominations. Even in Europe where most of the Catholic bishops are, Protestantism largely meant conservative Lutheranism, which is the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism. The reality is, a lot has changed especially in the past 40ish years, with many Protestant denominations going completely off the rails Liberal, including messing with the baptismal formula, messing with Trinitarian theology like making God into gender neutural names to get away from Father/Son, etc. Furthermore, the surge of "non-denominational" Evangelicals have often taken a very harsh anti-sacramental approach to Baptism, which historically Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, etc, did not do. If a Protestant Evangelical pastor is going to come down very explicitly that Baptism is merely an outward sign that does absolutely nothing to you, then this to me is cause for concern. At what point is a person rejecting a doctrine when they are so wrong about it and so against Catholicism that they willfully deny Baptism does anything to you? I cannot simply sit here and be comfortable allowing their soul to be in jeopardy from what could reasonably be an invalid sacrament. Many Evangelicals don't mind putting off baptism for a long time into adulthood. And groups like Salvation Army and Quakers don't Baptize, which Catholic Answers has put out articles on this of Jimmy Akin saying explicitly they aren't Christian. Many people I know have come from Liberal Protestant denominations whereby their baptism was done willy nilly no regard for proper formula or basic Trinity affirmation. Other denominations like Oneness Pentecostal are turning to be the largest thriving all over the world, and they deny the Trinity. Lastly, the Seventy Day Adventists have indeed had a dubious history with basic Trinitarianism, and the Eastern Orthodox explicitly affirmed "transubstantiation" at Jerusalem 1672 Council, even if they don't like to admit it today. All this is to say, given the major shake up in Christendom the past 40 years, both with American Evangelicals in the 80s-90s, and the outright Liberal takeover of mainlines, it is not safe to merely go with the Vatican 2 statement. Even Pope Leo had to eventually declare Anglican Ordere null and void, after circumstances changed by the 1800s. Furthermore, the Church used to routinely Conditionally Baptize everyone, since it was warranted due to Protestant aberrations even then, and I think as a matter of decency we should be Conditionally Baptizing most converts these days who were baptized since 2000 when lgbt/liberalism strongly took root in most mainline denominations. Timothy might be wrony and gave insufficient evidence, but the opposite extreme of merely granting a blanket acceptance (based on what we know the state of Protestantism these days) is also not a safe approach. Even if we are to say Protestants are Christian, this is terribly misleading to the mainstream listener who can interpret this as Protestantism being a safe option, despite denying several important tenants of historical Christianity. Just as the average Protestant doesn't know what hypostatic union means, they also likewise interpret "Protestants are Christian" to mean just as good as Catholicism with no conversion needed because they get all the same benefits
This is full of good points! Yes, even the 1965 Church specified that baptism must be salvific which would require many of the things the above groups lack, and so they would not be rolled into the "Protestants [for whom the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life] are Christians" principle simply because they are members of a Protestant(ish) group.
I agree with this completely. Talking to my protestant friends, or others who come from these groups, I think there needs to a be a new term to describe many in the Protestant churches who have little to no connection to their theological roots as Protestants, ie Luther, Calvin, Swinglei and actually operate completely differently.
I can agree with you in several respects. My old Charismatic Church said that it was a symbol yet used the correct formula. The way my priest put it is that a baptism is effective when the Trinity is invoked. I do believe that Church is lacking when dealing with Pentecostal Charismatics. Frankly their growth comes from a fairly coherent understanding of the Bible alone except regarding the sacraments. I'm trying to figure out how to draw those lines myself coming from that background.
The Baltimore Catechism 1891: Q. 1170. Name the different classes of unbelievers and tell what they are. A. The different classes of unbelievers are: 5. Heretics, who have been baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith.
@@DouglasBeaumont A Catholic Dictionary edited by Donald Attwater: Heresy: "consists in the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith." Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. I think a bit stumbling block in this discussion is the lack of definition of the term "Christian." I plan to put that forth as a separate comment. That might be the place to start. I am presently looking up information. Stay tuned!
I think Mr. Gordon is making a good argument that Protestants aren’t Catholic. But, sadly, many Catholics don’t conform to Church teaching on many issues, including the sacraments of the Eucharist (according to recent polling), marriage, reconciliation and who qualifies for Holy Orders. Still, it is remarkable that people can claim to be followers of Jesus, yet reject the authority of His Church and reject any teaching they don’t like, instead applying whatever meaning they want to His teachings and proclaiming it valid. That is practicing Christianity imperfectly to say the least!
It honestly depends on which definition we’re operating from. If you mean “Christian” as in those who have received trinitarian baptism then yes Protestants are Christian. But if you mean “Christian” as in those who adhere to Jesus Christ’s true teachings (as taught in the Catholic Church) then no Protestants are not Christian.
PAPAL TEACHING: Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957). [Protestant and Orthodox deny the papacy.] Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.” Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: #18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
It is up to the Church to summarize its teachings, such as in a valid council such as Vatican II. One of the things it observed was that there is one Baptism, and that Baptism ushers the person into the one Church. Whether this is complicated by formal or material heresy and/or schism is another matter. A Christian is a more general description, a Catholic is one who is in harmony with the fullness of Church teachings. There is a way to reconcile the teaching of Vatican II with these quotes, because all baptized belong to the Catholic Church, whether they explicitly affirm it or not. The second is about schism, and by making a distinction between formal and material schism, you can see that many Protestants (though not all) do not intentionally cut themselves off from the true Church with knowledge that it is the true Church. The third is not proposed by the Catholic Church anywhere, certainly not in Vatican II, because it recognizes that there are grievous errors in Protestantism, but that those errors do not invalidate the Sacrament that initiates validly all Christians, and that is Baptism. I was baptized as a Baptist, and would over a decade later be confirmed as a Catholic. I may not be able to judge the heart of every single person, but I can judge my own. In the years between those two events, I was a Christian. I did not become a Christian when I was confirmed Catholic, but I did gain the fulness of faith, and with it came many graces. But there were graces in my life prior to my entry into the Catholic Church. Tell me, did the graces I experience before my confirmation, were they graces offered to me a pagan, a heretic and an unbeliever? Does Christ then bless paganism, heresy and unbelief? Or did I just imagine those graces? If I imagined those graces, why should I be trusted to tell you I have experienced any graces as a Catholic?
@@halleylujah247 "Catholic teachings doesn't stop in time. It is a living institution so it grows and develops." Catholic teaching can and does develop in its understanding, but it cannot contradict itself.
@@DavidSupina "all baptized belong to the Catholic Church" If a baptized person becomes a heretic, apostate or schismatic they are no longer in the Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
@@nadreb13 “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7, 1863)
If you are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and you believe in the words of the Creed, saying universal in stead of Catholic, the you are a christian according to the law ow the Catholic church. For the baby is a christian as soon as it is baptized.
Thanks for bringing up an important distinction! Sorry if it sounded like I was equating "person" and "being" (the way "human being" and "human person" is often used in moral discussions - e.g., "If an embryo is a human being then it is also a person."). I meant by "human being" a nature (human) that exists (being) such that a person (divine or human) possessing a human nature could be called a human being by virtue of possessing that nature without implying that person is also a human person. However, if "being" is understood as equivalent to "person" (or if "human person" is considered to be in the definition of "human being" like in the example above), then yes it would be incorrect to say Jesus is a human being.
Prot Pastor on a long journey. If all people validly baptized are Christians . . . What makes a valid baptism according to the RCC? Wouldn't a valid baptism, only be done by a valid priest, in a valid church, that is validly aligned to the Bishop of Rome? I hate to say it, but if anything along that chain of "validity" would that break the . . . Effectiveness of a baptism? Not even to mention that many Prot traditions don't hold that Baptism isn't a power-grace-filled effectual baptism but "just a symbol."
A valid baptism requires proper form (the trinitarian formula of Mt. 28:19 - "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”), matter (water - immersion or pouring), and intent (to perform a Christian baptism). That's it for validity. Now, it would be illicit (unlawful) for a Catholic to baptize outside the Church in non-emergency circumstances, but that would not affect validity.
I’m confused Dr. but there has to be a limit to protestant invincible ignorance. How many times do you or Catholic Christians who respond to a protestants errors in their posted comments about the Catholic faith or Catholic Christians before they loose that “ii”protection? I say if we correct their error even once and they willfully disregard our correction then they disobeyed Jesus. As our Lord said in Lk 10:16, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.." I’m thinking about what our Lord said to twelve Apostles in Mat 10:14 and then Seventy-two he sent out in Lk 10:11 -12 "if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave." But Jesus words it very strongly in Mat10:15 Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor′rah than for that town.” or that person. When doe’s invincible ignorance change to something that will affect a persons salvation.
@@DouglasBeaumont Thank you. I know it’s up to God to decide but isn’t this more or less what the Council of Trent was all about. That the Protestant heresy could lead to the loss of souls? Maybe I’m being to harsh but if a Protestant commenter keeps putting himself out there speaking errors, gets corrected and keeps spouting errors he’s got some problems. In this case silence is golden.
Sure, but Trent was a response to a particular situation that many Protestants are not in anymore. If they ARE in that particular situation , then yes the anathemas apply. However, the Church does not teach that a heretic is no longer a Christian (which is something made true by baptism - even prior to belief) - saved or unsaved. It may sound like splitting hairs but theology is like that - and Tim got it wrong.
@@DouglasBeaumont Gotcha. Thanks for the information. I hope you will consider doing a video about when invincible ignorance ends and a person becomes responsible for failing to accept the truth. God bless you.
Dr. Beaumont, what is the definition of "Christian"? Without an agreed upon meaning it is hard to come to any conclusion or consensus. There is Catholic teaching that stipulates that, in its strictest sense, a Christian is a Catholic. In general parlance, it seems to apply to anyone who holds to some tenets of the True Faith, such as the Trinity. (A word, ironically, not in Scripture.) But even that is not rock solid, as some non Trinitarians are referred to as Christians. The Catholic Encyclopedia online says: the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical. Attwater's Catholic Dictionary: Christian: A name first given to the followers of our Lord at Antioch (Acts 6:26). Since the rise of protestantism the name has been used in so many different senses as to have become almost meaningless. It may indicate a Catholic or Unitarian, or even be applied to an infidel who displays some virtue which is associated with Christ. It may reasonably be applied to the members of all the ancient churches, whether in communion with the Holy See or not, and to those Protestants who profess, explicitly or implicitly the Nicean creed in its traditional interpretation; but hardly to others. To use the word in an ethical, subjective sense is particularly to be deplored. The Church puts no definite official meaning on the word, as she does on Catholic. If the definition of Christian is one who holds to the totality of the True Faith as taught by the Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ, then only Catholics are Christians. If holding to some tenets of the True Faith qualifies, then non Catholics can be given the title, but then where is the line drawn as to what the minimum to be held is?
First, thank you for taking the time to interact respectfully and ask this important question. I think first we must avoid falling prey to what has been called the fallacy of the beard. We may not be able to tell the exact moment that mere whiskers become a beard, but that does not mean we cannot tell s beard from a clean-shaven face. :) Since the Church had decreed that a legitimate baptism marks the difference between a non-Christian and a Christian then that is where the line is. So I would say only those things that make a tacit baptism illegitimate would blur the line. So for example a Mormon is not a Christian because they reject the Trinity and even the basic nature of a monotheistic God. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arian in their Christology, so they are not simply heretical - but heretical on an issue that invalidates their baptism. Oneness Pentecostals are modalists and are likewise heretical on an issue that invalidates their baptism. So the line is there as far as I can tell. I think the reason the line is not (no longer?) simply at being Catholic is that the reasons WHY most Protestants today are not Catholic have to do with the level of ignorance they are working from. Luther was a Catholic priest for example, and Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were on the front line of rejection of the Church. This sort of knowledgeable, willful rejection is not the case with most Protestants today. Because sin requires knowledge and free will, their guilt is mitigated in ways that were less likely centuries ago when Catholicism was the ubiquitous standard.
@@DouglasBeaumont "First, thank you for taking the time to interact respectfully" The same to you. "Since the Church had decreed that a legitimate baptism marks the difference between a non-Christian and a Christian then that is where the line is." Will you point me to this teaching so I may read it? As I understand it, a valid baptism leaves a permanent mark on the soul and brings one into the True Church, the Catholic Church, and makes one a Christian. To remain in the Church one must maintain the entirety of the faith. The Church teaches that heresy, apostasy and schism removes one from the Church, even with the mark of baptism on the soul. At this point, outside of the Church, one is no longer a Christian. Please let me know if you think any of that is incorrect.
@@DouglasBeaumont Update: I think I have answered my own question by re-watching the early part of your video: Unitatis Redintegratio, "all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian." Footnote 21 appears to make reference to the Council of Florence in 1439. At that time, prior to the protestant revolt, I don't know that there would have been any non Catholic "Christians" in the equation. The question then is, can a baptized Christian become a non-Cbristian via heresy, apostasy or schism? Based on the teaching of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII, I say yes. If you say no, please share with me what Church teaching you are using to come to that conclusion.
@@littlerock5256 First some definitions: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (Canon Law, 751) As far as I can tell, these incur excommunication - but that is not a judgment of removal from the class of Christian. The problem with saying that they make someone a non-Christian is that one can be forgiven for heresy, apostasy or schism - but they cannot be re-baptized. The doctrine of indelibility means that the mark one is given in certain sacraments cannot be repeated nor can it be lost. Thus, once baptized, confirmed, or ordained, it cannot be redone or undone. And per UR, since a valid baptism makes one a Christian, a Christian cannot become a (formal) non-Christian. That last sentence can be read the same way that we say a baptized Catholic is always Catholic - even if they "become" Protestant.
@@DouglasBeaumont "The problem with saying that they make someone a non-Christian is that one can be forgiven for heresy, apostasy or schism - but they cannot be re-baptized." This is not a problem. When one repents of their heresy, apostasy or schism they are readmitted to the Church, at which time they once again become Catholic and Christian, but without the need to be rebaptized. "a baptized Catholic is always Catholic." I don't think this is correct. Pope Pius XII: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23)
You are brilliant. I truly appreciate you, your knowledge and your style. I’d love to get in touch with you to learn more about and from you and to discuss some collaboration/mission work, but I am not sure how to do direct message on here. I’ll try to find you on Facebook or another platform.
I have a problem of calling Protestants as Christians.. I mean honestly, the most important sacraments are Baptism, reconciliation and the Eucharist. Protestants do not believe baptism as an instrumental cause of justification... Protestant do not believe that when they commit mortal sin they should go to a priests for reconciliation. I mean this is huge. If Christ instituted a church and gave power the apostles to forgive sins .. we must take his words seriously. If we call Protestants Christians then it will be very unfair to the Catholics. Because Catholics are living with the life of an ongoing justification. Where by you need to cooperate with God grace for salvation. If Protestants are Christians then it means that they is no need to convert them to the the Catholic church church since they already Christians. Which is absurd.
You make excellent points. Protestants also don't accept the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they don't accept all the Scriptures, they don't accept the papacy. I am sure there is more, but this is just off the top of my head.
if they've been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and they confess Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour I don't see how not to call them Christians... how do you call them? Heretics?
@@mjramirez6008 Protestantism is a heresy: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.” Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: #18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
@@mjramirez6008 You can call them heretics if they don't accept what the Catholic church teaches. Jehovah witness do accept Christ as their lord and saviour but they don't believe that Christ is equal to the father. Most protestants will not call Jehovah wittiness as Christians because of trinity . One of the most important doctrine in Christianity..
About 20:27, as far as I know, I don't think eastern Orthodox deny the transubstantiation, they just don't hold by that name, preferring to call it "metousiosis", "metastoicheiosis" or "metabole". Maybe some Orthodox also don't like how transubstantiation is explained because of the heavy influence of Hylomorphism, but that does not change the fact that Catholics and Orthodox agree with the end result of consecration is that bread becomes the body of Christ even though it still looks like bread.
Transubstantiation just is that though. Denying its philosophical roots is a denial of it. That doesn't mean one cannot hold to the true outcome though. (Even the Cathoilc Church had to wait for Aquinas to get it all worked out!)
I see now. However, I understand "denying" as claiming something to be false. And still, as far as I know, they don't claim transubstantiation is false, they just don't think it's the best way to approach this mystery, and thus, it's also not an appropriate name. And yes, they have a different philosophical tradition, but I don't think that they claim Hylomorphism to be false, they just don't agree it's the best way to express reality. If they truly claimed that transubstantiation is false, even if we both got to the same conclusion, wouldn't there be a great barrier between us in the acceptance of the validity of each other sacrament? Wouldn't be as if they were saying that our understanding of the sacrament is completely wrong? If that was the case, wouldn't that undermine the partial unity that Catholic and Orthodox churches share?
@@Patrick_Bard I'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I am about the exact position of the EO (if there is one). As far as validity, I don't think a particular explanation is required so long as one has proper form, matter, and ordination (which is what makes their sacraments valid). It has to be possible to affirm the necessary truths about the Eucharist without invoking transubstantiation per se because that explanation did not exist for several centuries. I think between these two factors the EO communion remains legitimate.
GOOD for TG, after the 100s of years of having to hear Protestants accuse Catholics not being Christians. The Church Jesus gave to St Peter. Upon this rock, I will build my church, not 40,000 plus churches that don't even agree on the same doctrines.
Sure. Affirming objective, formal heresy is a completely different matter than holding to a mistaken material heretical position that can only be reached by applying theological "algebra" as Tim put it.
ARGUMENT FOUR: Pope Gregory XVI. (The Catholic Church, you know) Possible answer: he was thinking of things like Liberal Theologians which already in his time were dominating European Protestantism. By 1846, when he died, he could hardly even have heard of the Millerites, and he was decades before Asuza Street and more than a century before Wurmbrandt. Puseyites were a clear minority. He may however have felt that even conservative Calvinists were non-Christians through denying Real Presence and affirming Predestination to Damnation and to the sins by which they are damned (at least in certain forms).
Why are catholics and protestants going as far to denounce the validity of belief in Christ Jesus according to Romans 10:9? I have countless arguments with protestant "brothers" saying catholics cant be saved because they add works. When asked where the bible says that, they (in all honesty) quote me Galatians 5:2, eventhough that is talking about Judaizers...
What is the substanial difference between calling a protestant church a Church and calling it an ecclesial community? Sounds like we're saying they aren't a church, but a church community.
I think the use of "ecclesial community" is the attempt to keep a distinction between The Church (of which there is only one in the deepest theological sense) and "group of Christians doing ministry" which is what it has come to mean in so many English-speaking parts of the world.
@Douglas Beaumont right, I just think it's a really poor choice of words to make that distinction. Almost like saying "I'm not a bartender, I'm a mixologist" when they are the same thing. I think it would be better to call them Christian communities. I bring this up because St Ignatius of Antioch's writings were instrumental in me converting, so now if protestant congregations are now ecclessial (church) communities, that seems to deny the principle of without a bishop with apostolic succession you don't have a church and it comes across as another "post V2 reversal" to outsiders, and imo we don't need that.
Thank you, Doug. This is important for people to understand. Sincere Protestants are doing the best they know how to live in the will & grace of God. I know I was one, too. I pray they keep on until they find the fullness of the truth in our Mother, the Catholic Church.🙏❤️
Couple of things i dont agree with Doug. Adventists are not Trinitarian, even though they claim to be. Their idea of the trinity is heretical and unorthodox so on that part Gordon is right. 0
I love your content, however this is a very hard topic and many questions arise, for example if the early church excluded all those who denied the real presence and many other early doctrines from calling themselves Christians? Or those like Eugene IV who was the third Pope to declare EENS a dogma after well over a thousand years of this apostolic teaching saying that all those “ not only pagans, but also jews, heretics and schismatics will not participate in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” how do we reconcile this? Do we just accept the new Catholic Church has adjusted and softened this apostolic teaching and run with it?? If this teaching which was declared a dogma in three separate occasions, even though is hard to take but if true wouldn’t that condemned us too for excusing our efforts to express the absolute necessity to convert every soul into the true faith? If Protestants are heretics which they are, how are they Christians and going to heaven when the teaching of the church has been that not even “Catholics” can be certain they’ll be saved? etc etc
It certainly is! A few things here. First, a Pope saying something does not automatically constitute dogma, so that would need to be settled on additional grounds beyond a quotation. Second, being a Christian as defined in the decree of the ecumenical council is synonymous with receiving a valid baptism - not with being orthodox or being saved. So there is no contradiction there.
Faith is not a matter of opinion but a gift from God and believing that Jesus is present in the Eucharist body blood soul and divinity is essential for a Christian for the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life.
Regarding mortal sin, the Church teaches that Catholics can be forgiven without a sacramental confession (if they don’t have access to the sacrament of penance) if they have perfect contrition (sorrow for having offended God rather than simply out of fear of punishment). If that's true for Catholics, it would be true for Protestants, wouldn't it? Of course, a Catholic should still go to confession as soon as he can, but if he's not in a position to be able to receive the sacrament for an extended time or even until death, that wouldn't mean he would be condemned just because of the circumstances he was in just as a catechumen wouldn't be automatically condemned if he died before he could receive baptism.
Very good - I don't see why it would not apply to Protestants, but it does introduce another level of difficulty for them (having no easy access to confession).
@kerrykoehler2601 I am aware of that -- I was an evangelical Protrstant for 20 years before becoming Catholic. It is a misunderstanding that Protestants have that Catholics don't confess our sons "directly" to God. We confess our sins regularly at home in daily prayer, at Mass, etc. Also, when we confess with a priest, we're not confessing our sins to the priest, but to God who acts through the priest as an instrument to give us absolution and the sanctifying and healing grace of the sacrament of reconciliation-- Jesus is the one acting through the priest.
@@firekoovin3347 Ignatius of Antioch did it, but John XXIII seemed to move us in another direction. I understand, when someone calls you "heretic" up-front you probably won't be too ready to listen
@@firekoovin3347 Luther and his ilk were heretics. They denied the truth of the Catholic church and started their own religion. People born into Protestantism are not heretics, just ignorant.
@@isoldam idk with that logic that dismisses murders being murders, sure some did it in self defense or a weird vigilantism but thats still pretty bad.
@@glennlanham6309 they wouldn't listen anyway, there are ppl who call caths idol worshipers and that breaks the faith of so many of them. I'm a bit on the side of anti islam apologietics and it works, calling them stone kissers and pagans makes them listen.
I’m assuming you are talking about Oneness Pentecostals. The answer is no, they are not Christians. The reason is because, they have an invalid formula for Baptism. For your baptism to be valid, you need to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). However, Oneness Pentecostals baptize in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus.
Being "Christian" and being "saved" are nit equivalent given the definition if "Christian" in use here. Protestants are, by virtue of a valid baptism, imperfectly in communion with the Church so salvation is possible for them. It is also possible to be Catholic in full communion with the Church and not be saved.
Timothy Gordon is very confused in many areas and worse yet, he causes much confusion among his followers. His comments about Pope Francis are deleterious and should be taken with a grain of salt.
This is so irresponsible. He sounds like the most outrageous evangelical version of a Catholic apologist: strawmanning Protestant position and concluding they are not Christians. It undermines the seriousness of Catholic apologetics.
Protestants are not evangelicals. The first ones are divided in Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans are European denominations. The second ones are from the 19th century, born in the United States. These sects deny sacraments and catechisms and confessions. For example, pentecostalism is not protestant. Methodism is not protestant either. Even the label "protestant" is irrelevant now. Most historical protestants like Lutherans and Presbyterians are liberal in theology and social issues. Protestants are actually a myth.
From King Charles III's recent coronation oath: The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them? The King replies All this I promise to do.
John 3:36 is where Jesus says you are my friend for being obedient to my commands, eternity in hell for those who are disobedient. I would urge you to consider what the prot religions teach. If they teach anti catholic ideas, definitely not Christian.
I was a Protestant for 20 years and taught theology at the graduate level - so yeah, I get it! I know it can be confusing (especially when "Christian" and "Salvation" are illicitly equated), but I urge you to consider what the Catholic Church teaches: "The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 3)
How can Timothy Gordon hold this position as a catholic? The whole point of the church structure is to submit to its rulings especially councils. He honestly sounds like a fundamentalist Baptist than a catholic. I’m a Calvinist but seriously studying Catholicism.
Douglas is very complicated and not very clear in his Christological explanations.... I expected much better from him... the question of the personal identity of the man Jesus is not explained by the idiomatum communication, communion of attributes, because this communion logically presupposes the hypostatic union, that is, the basic truth that that man Jesus was and is the eternal Son of God
We as Catholics should be unified. We can disagree and that’s Ok, it creates discussion. We should remember though the that we cannot want unity and be divisive at the same time. Timothy Gordon is Catholic. He has defended Vatican 2. Show you are Catholic by not being divisive and making comments that are not becoming of a Catholic.
@@DouglasBeaumont I'll try to be respectful here. Bishops told us that we cannot say people like President Biden are not Catholic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've watched your video on your conversion and Evangelicals Essential Problem and it looks to me that you were saying some things close to what Tim Gordon was saying about the Eucharist. There is a video on Catholic Answers from eight years ago from Jimmy Akin "Is There Salvation Outside the Church" is basically saying Protestants are not Christian though he doesn't outright say it. One though could take from it that Jimmy Akin is saying Protestants would not be going to heaven. The context of "Rad Trad's" problem with Vatican II's change on this is that it to them conflicts with church history/tradition. I see your point in making a joke about people calling Protestants not Catholic, yet reject an ecumenical council, but doesn't it stir the pot? This spills over to Timothy Gordon, who has actually defended Vatican 2 in one video I've seen. I believe differing views on Vatican 2 is what created the Gordon/Marshall split a few years ago. Yet I see comments to the effect that Gordon is not Catholic because he is critical of Vatican 2. People could easily look up videos such as a couple on Pints with Aquinas of Gordon defending Vatican 2. People can criticize something and not reject it at the same time. Overall the comments are great. A few though caught my eye and made me say are not becoming of a Catholic. Comments in this thread: - A lady wonders how many naysayers think Pope Francis is the Holy Father/pope. Judgmental/sin? - A guy says "I would argue, is Gordon, Marshall, etc. Are they even Catholic?" Basically, if we cannot call those that support abortion non-Catholic, we should not be doing so in this regard either. Abortion is a sin. It is dogma. If they can engage in scandal and still be Catholic, then people can criticize Vatican 2 and still be Catholic. Nanci Pelosi is on video saying she studied church history and could not find anything to make her against abortion. I assume she never read the Didache. Her own Bishop has forbidden her from having the Eucharist. Yet, she can go to Rome and have the Eucharist. If the church wants its authority in councils respected, should it not be respectful of the decisions its own bishops make? Should the church not set an example? I look at our church and all I see really is division. I see our Holy Father as a very divisive figure. I do not see him as a good leader. The church is hurting.
Protestants will never obtain the beatific vision because they don't eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, partake of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar.
To say this is a form of judgement. Despite Catholic teachings, we can not and should not speak on behalf of Jesus when referring to this. Further, the CCC teaches about respecting other religions. So why should you condemn them?
Communion, as in the degree of assent to the heirarchy of truths. If someone is Baptized in the name of the Trinity, holding the faith in a Triune God, with the Second Person Incarnate, that person already has the minimum assent to Orthodox Christianity (the central dogma). One is, at least, in partial communion with the Church. If we argue that the term Christianity should only be applied to those having full assent to the Catholic doctrines, then that would exclude even the Eastern Orthodox from the equation.
Vatican II is heretical. To be Christian is to be in the Church of Christ. Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa (#25), 1873: "Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudobishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ. 'Whoever he is,' he says, 'and whatever sort he is, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ.'" Thus to say that Protestants are Christians is to say that they are in the Church of Christ. To say that those who reject Catholic teaching are in the Church of Christ is blatantly heretical. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” Therefore Protestants are not Christians. This is an irrefutable argument. Repent.
@Ave Crux Spes Unica That is a fallible catechism (called Catechismo Della Dottrina Cristiana). It was only approved for use in Italy (and thus is not infallible). Doesn't matter what it says. It says that there is salvation "outside the Church" and thus is blatantly heretical and it contradicts itself. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”
As a protestant, I see that the Roman Catholic church has contradicted itself on this question. Not only among theologians, but the magusterium itself has changed its views from the Unam Sanctum and Cantate Domino to the Vatican II adjacent documents.
A development based in changing historical circumstances does not constitute a contradiction (e.g., as Protestants agree on development from the OT to the NT.)
@@DouglasBeaumont I think the changes that we're talking about there are different in kind. Within the OT itself there is a change from the covenantal promise to Abraham in Genesis 15, predicated on God's mercy and Abraham's faith, to the law being added after the Exodus because the Israelites' sinful inability to remain faithful made the rigid, visible structure of the law necessary in order for God to preserve a people for Himself, set apart for the coming incarnation of Christ - God's plan from the beginning to unite mankind in perfect union to Himself. As per Galatians 3:19, "Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of the transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Also: "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh....so that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the flesh but according to the spirit" Romans 8:3-4. The apostle Paul is adamant that the change from OT to NT really is no change at all, but rather Christ's coming is the fulfillment of the law, and that it is in line with God's original covenental promise to Abraham which preceeded the law. The promise was not made to all of Abraham's physical descendents ("For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" Romans 9:6-7). Rather, "it is the chikdren of the promose who are regarded as Abraham's children" (Romans 9:8). The children of the promise are the people of Israel who were faithful to God in recognizing the Lordship of Christ (who knew their shephard's voice), as well as the ingrafted gentiles. Today, this is Christ's church. Thus, the change from OT to NT was not a change of God's mind, but rather a change in approach, as the law was necessary for a time to preserve a people to himself, in order to acheive God's true end, which was acheived through Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. I would need to hear a convincing argument to place the change from preconciliar to conciliar Roman Catholic teaching on salvation for shismatics in the same category as the movement of God's plan throughout the Old and New Testaments.
I understand the theological explanation, but it does generate difficulties when simply proof texting. Atheists make a lot out of these and then when the theological explanation is given they won't buy it because it sounds too complicated or like a rationalization. I think the same thing happens when people pit magisterial statements against each other.
This is a very underrated channel. It deserves much more attention. We need to pump up the subs and likes.💥
Thank you, and please feel free to do so!
Everyone who is validly baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church, whether they realize it or not. This is because there is only one Church; there's no other church to be baptized into. However, those who reject the Church's authority and turn from her to other teachers immediately fall away into mortal sin. They are therefore Christian in just the same way as a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin is Christian: they have been justified through baptism, but their subsequent personal sins remain, and for as long as they persist in their sin and refuse to repent, they remain separated from God.
To "reject the Church's authority" makes one a heretic (and if previously Catholic, an apostate). A heretic is outside the Catholic Church.
This guy gets it!
In short, three conditions are *mandatory* for sin to be mortal. This is basic Catholicism that people never mention when throwing the word “mortal” around.
There is also *invincible ignorance* and *perfect contrition* that can play a part.
A person does not cease being a Christian when they sin. An indelible mark is made on the soul at a proper baptism that cannot be removed. The person may not inherit the kingdom- but not all Christians necessarily go to Heaven.
@@littlerock5256 Like rejecting Vatican 2? Hmmmmm
@@G-MIP Perfectly stated!
As a Former Seventh Day Adventist, becoming Catholic.
I can see where Gordon is coming from.
A lot of popular SDA Pastor’s are either Arian or Semi Arian and the church hasn’t officially condemned them yet so denying it is still allowed, unfortunately. So some hold to the trinity, some deny it, and some have a warped view of the trinity.
There’s also blasphemous ideas like Jesus being born with Original Sin but never committing any sins through his actions.
That's unfortunate that they allow that garbage even though their own doctrinal statement contradicts those ideas. :/
@@DouglasBeaumont There’s almost a willingness to not address the Trinity situation at all because advertising themselves as Trinitarian looks better for their image.
As a Catholic marrying an SDA, I have found this frustrating and for me to experience that a lot of SDAs in my area are functional Baptists or other Protestants, but don't really get the trinity as a concept, is just demoralizing. The SDA church documentation may say the same words that a Catholic would accept, but how that's carried out and what it means in the end has suspect. We've spent a heavy amount of time in tribunal court for our marriage to go ahead. We have these looming questions if Jesus Christ as meant by SDA or God the Father meant by SDA really do entail a captial G God, or a small g god. Every Bible study her family is pushing us into really just continues to bear out that there isn't a clear understanding in the SDA church on the Trinity, at least functionally.
@@TragicKF Can confirm I've experienced this while courting my fiancé.
@@TheWorldBroadcast That's very sad. :(
PLEASE READ THIS! After a few hundred comments, some trends are emerging. So to avoid redundancy please note the following
1. Unitatis Redintegratio - the Church's Decree on Ecumenism - teaches that "all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." If you wish to attack Protestants for not accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, don't reject the Church's authority by rejecting Vatican 2 -an ecumenical council! (Related to this: statements from past historical contexts must be understood in light of this decree - not offered as reasons why it is false.)
2. "Christian" and "Saved" are not equivalent terms in the Catholic faith (any more than "Catholic" is). Thus, Protestants (and Catholics) can be Christians while also being unsaved, heretical (on matters not pertaining to a valid baptism), or even mean. Thus, none of the latter properties refute the judgment of the Church that [validly baptized] Protestants are Christians.
Thanks!
Those who reject Vatican II hold that it contradicts previous Catholic teaching and therefore cannot have come from the authority of the Catholic Church.
@@littlerock5256 Yes, but since Vatican 2 is an ecumenical council and therefore infallible, it cannot have done that. Those who reject V2 need to understand that doctrine develops and historical contexts change. Thus, previous statements need to be understood in terms of the more recent, not used as evidence that they are false.
@@DouglasBeaumont Those who reject Vatican II agree with your assessment of an ecumenical council. Development of doctrine is one thing, contradiction is quite another. Some statements in VCII cannot be reconciled with past teaching. This can be found online, done handily by others, often in easy to read chart form.
@@littlerock5256 But we cannot judge ecumenical councils based on our understanding of theology - this is exactly what Luther did! We judge them on objective historical basis. Unless it is logically impossible to reconcile two infallible statements, that process is illegitimate.
@@DouglasBeaumont "Unless it is logically impossible to reconcile two infallible statements," This is what is maintained, that the Church teaching prior to Vatican II cannot be reconciled with those of VCII.
You deserve more views/followers. Thank you for this video.
Feel free to spread the word! :)
Fr. John, we also deserve more of your wisdom, joy and witness. Happy when I see you in the comments on any channel.
Amen
@@DouglasBeaumont Subbed, great content!
Pray everyday that the Protestants come into the Holy Catholic Church.
" Where the Gospel is preached and believed, there is the true faith"
As a former Protestant, I believe most Protestant faiths are Christian as well. They are incomplete, but the holy Spirit moves in the church so to me, that's the best evidence. God can use anything for his glory. But, be that as it may, I believe the Catholic church is the true church and am very happy in it, and RCIA.
Thank you Doug! I wonder how many of the Naysayers think Pope Francis is the Holy Father?
Yeah I expected a bunch of rad trads to have a field day with this. :)
Rad trad here. Yes he is until he is not.
I have an issue with calling the Pope, "Holy" Father. He is just like us, a member of the flock. Mary is Holy, the Pope is not, IMHO.
Great video, helped me. However, a lot of Protestants don’t consider us Christian at all. More so than Catholics do of Protestants, and they do so because of our sacraments. Also, Christ himself did say multiple times that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you and cannot raise you on the last day. So, I’d argue that the Eucharist is as important as baptism. Baptism is the spiritual birth, the rest are the requisites for entering heaven. The apostles also tell us to reject people who profess any other doctrine than the one they have taught and preached. Protestants are like those people that were casting out demons in Jesus name but didn’t follow him in Mark 9:38-41. Where Jesus tells John not to stop them because they can’t speak evil of him and do mighty works. Truly, I wished that Protestants respected Catholics as Christians more than they do as opposed to calling us idolaters. I understand Gordon’s arguments are a bit weak, but I appreciate posing the question back at them. Also, even if an ecumenical council has settled it, it’s good for us to question it, if it leads to a deeper understanding.
There's a difference between questioning a council to go deeper and simply ignoring or denying one though.
The Catholic Church does consider Protestants to be Christians, at least, most of them. The problem is that they are not experiencing the "Fullness of Truth". They are not getting the Sacraments Jesus left us, like the Eucharist, and Confession for example. Many Protestants are led down the wrong path with the false teachings of things like Faith Alone and Once Saved Always Saved.
Correct.
Same with catholics and orthodox.
They are not getting the Sacraments Jesus left us, like the Eucharist, and Confession for example.
Please explain exactly what happens in the eucharist completely not a quick response.
Please show us anywhere in 73 books of the bible that we are to confess our sins to someone other than God?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072
John 20:21-23.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 w
Where do you get the idea that for something to be true, it must be “in the Bible”? Are you even Catholic? I think not.
Thank you for this concise, level-headed, well thought out and educated response to this too-common and unfortunate cannibalism of Catholics going on especially amongst too many of the Rad Trads.
Just came across your channel and subscribed as someone as myself that’s just entering the faith the Catholic faith from protestant circles. This is a good video. I’m a fan of Timothy Gordon as well. Thank you for this video. God bless.
Welcome brother!
Wow! This was solid. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
You are very welcome.
It's good to hear both opinions on videos, Timothy and Douglas both Catholics on this very issue. Well your insights Tim and Doug are inspiring. It's food for thought and prayers will help each of us listening to these views of yours and those commenting as well. Thank you both gents.
Technically one is an opinion and the other is what the Church teaches. ;)
Thank you for this response!
You're welcome!
This video earns this new convert's subscription!!! ✌️❤️🔥✝️
OMG. American Catholic Church used to lead the English speaking world. And now we have nuts like Timothy Gordon contradicting the Magisterium. And getting 670 likes at the time of this comment.
If there was a button for multiple likes, I would have hit it many times.
"There is more hope for a bad Catholic than there is a good protestant." - St. Anthony Mary Claret
This is an important discussion. I remember for years EWTN said we had to be Catholic to be saved. There is some support for this that Protestants like Truth Unites have pointed out. He points out in a recent video that a pope said Protestants are damned and he believes the pope was speaking ex Cathedra. I remember all of this as being taught and only in the last few years has EWTN taken a different view. I remember when they were saying the opposite. Discuss this respectfully because these issues do need addressed by Catholics and Protestants.
"Christian" and "saved" are not equivalent for Catholics (anymore than "Catholic" is), so it it logically possible that it's all true. However after many generations of Protestants, the Church clarified in the same document I cited that at this point there are Protestants outside the Church through ignorance and they may be in a different state.
@@DouglasBeaumont as long as you listen to the roman church and ignore the scriptures you will side upon the teachings of man found in the roman church.
Clarification teachings of man are the ones you do not find in contextual scripture.
CCC 2679 as an example!
Thank you very much for this logical & very reasonable discussions. Praise God for your contribution in clarifying the Catholic Faith. God bless.
Thank you v. much for this video with gentle correction and clarification regarding Catholic position on different views about separated brethren.. ❤
The Church has, (as you said in the video) said that they are, so it's over. I would argue, is Gordon, Marshall, etc. Are they even Catholic?!
As much as I respect guys like Gordon's fervour I have to admit it sometimes dips into the arrogance arena. How about they just accept what the church teaches and move on.
@@takmaps It's pride, isn't it. We can get that we have more insight than the Church. We have to humble ourselves sometimes, and say, well, the Church knows best.
@@michaellawlor5625 quite right
Pope Pius XII: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957). [Protestants and Orthodox deny the papacy.]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”
Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: #18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
Prior to Vatican II the Church taught that only Catholics are Christians.
St. Peter Canisius, who was instrumental in fighting Protestantism in Germany, wrote the first catechism in 1555, known as the “Catechism of St. Peter Canisius.” This question regarding who may be called a Christian is answered as follows: “Whoever has been initiated by the Sacrament of Baptism of Jesus Christ, true God and man, and confesses the salutary doctrine in His Church, and not those who adhere to any sects or beliefs foreign to the Catholic Church.”
This should be pinned. The Catholic Church was infiltrated and many doctrines slowly modified to fit man-made religions.
In 1555 Protestants were basically all culpable formal heretical schismatics. That is not the case 500 years later, hence why the Church made its decree concerning non-culpable Protestants.
Does that include the belief - taught by the Church in an ecumenical council - that Protestants are Christians???
@@DouglasBeaumont If to be a Christian one must hold to all the teachings of the Catholic Church, then only Catholics qualify.
If holding to only some dogmas of the Catholic Faith and also adhering to some error makes one Christian, then a protestant qualifies.
@@DouglasBeaumont "In 1555 Protestants were basically all culpable formal heretical schismatics. That is not the case 500 years later"
The teachings of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII come well after 1555, in 1864, 1896 and 1957:
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: #18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896, “So the Christian is a Catholic..."
Pope Pius XII: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).
I converted from Anglicanism but actually we did have two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. The latter does indeed contain the Real Presence. We also had recourse to Reconciliation if we wanted. It wasn't mandatory as in the RCC but all we had to do was ask our Vicar. I've always had an aversion to these kinds of 'mud slinging' videos and was especially saddened to see one being done, inaccurately, by a Catholic.
The Anglican "eucharist" is more than a mere memorial which is good, but the intentional ambiguity of the phrase "real presence" makes it fall doctrinally short of John 6 and the loss of the priesthood makes it practically unreal. However, this does not excuse placing oneself above the Church as a judge like Timothy seems to have done here. I don't think the cause of Christ is served by falsehood!
Just had a conversation with my Southern Baptist mother in law about Mary being the Mother of God. It was quite odd. She totally agreed with the nature of the Trinity that I described necessitating the title of "Mother of God" for Mary, but still would not admit that she is the "Mother of God". 🤷
The ABC ("Anything But Catholic") rule strikes again. :)
Great video on clarifying what most (including myself) were wrong on when referring to non Catholics. Thank you for humbling my perspective. Keep the videos. Theyre a revelation for the RIGHT way to defend the Truth.
Good response to Tim Gordon. A few points:
1. Seven Sacraments are the marks of a church, not a Christian, governed by a bishop whose authority has been handed down through apostolic succession by ordination with the Sacrament of Holy Orders, whether it is Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East.
2. Regarding their lack of valid sacraments, there exists the possibility of Protestants receiving some aspect of God's grace through sacramental desire that the Catholic Church already acknowledges in the baptism of desire.
A. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman held the opinion that God did not withhold His grace from Anglicans who sincerely desired to receive Christ at their communion services. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton's conversion to Catholicism was prepped by her frequently receiving communion in Episcopal Churches in New York City, even more than once on Sundays so great was her desire.
B. Similarly, how could God withhold His grace, although not its fullness, from any Protestant who sincerely confessed their sins to a minister, since through their lack of knowledge they were unaware of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
3. Regarding Nestorius:
A. Although his formulations were problematic I think he was given a bad rap by the polemical St. Cyril of Alexandria. After being condemned for heresy and removed from the See of Constantinople, his behavior was exemplary, never breaking communion and dying in the church's good graces in an Upper Egypt monastery in 451 AD.
B. From Wikipedia: "The discovery, translation and publication of his (Nestorius') Bazaar of Heracleides at the beginning of the 20th century have led to a reassessment of his theology in western scholarship. It is now generally agreed that his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial."
4. I posted the following on Tim Gordon's original video that goes into significant detail about how Protestants are Christians according to the Catholic Church:
Question: Are Protestants Christians?
Reply: Yes, according to the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, solemnly promulgated by his holiness Pope Paul VI, on November 21, 1964.
LG No. 15:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26.) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. (Cf. Jn. 16:13.) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities ...
They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (Rev. 22:17) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
[Omitted from the above is the following sentence pertaining specifically to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East: Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(Cf. Eph. 1:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:4 Gal. 5:22.)]
Good work. It is unfortunately quite common for sincere apologists to unwittingly contradict the teachings of their own churches. This often involves turning a strict scrutiny toward others, yet never turning that same critical eye toward one's own positions.
Anyway, it is transparently absurd to argue that those who are legitimately baptized and attempting to live out the teaching of Jesus Christ are not Christians. Christ is obviously present in many communities that are not in communion with Rome.
St. Peter Canisius, who was instrumental in fighting Protestantism in Germany, wrote the first catechism in 1555, known as the “Catechism of St. Peter Canisius.” This question regarding who may be called a Christian is answered as follows: “Whoever has been initiated by the Sacrament of Baptism of Jesus Christ, true God and man, and confesses the salutary doctrine in His Church, and not those who adhere to any sects or beliefs foreign to the Catholic Church.”
@@littlerock5256, interesting. I'm not sure why anyone should care what Peter Canisius wrote in 1555, but it seems important to you. I assume that you are attempting to argue that only those in communion with the Church of Rome are rightly called Christian... apparently because PC says so. Let us examine that more closely, especially the comment about "beliefs foreign to the Catholic Church."
If we look to the first centuries of Christianity, we discover that there are many teachings found in the current Church of Rome that are NOT found in those first centuries: the necessity of private confession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc. If the requirement to be Christian entails holding to what is taught by the Catholic Church, when we look to history, we see that the (Roman) "Catholic" Church is just as guilty of this failing as anyone.
Are you sure you still want to go down that road?
@@philoalethia I assume that you are attempting to argue..." I am sharing the teaching of the Catholic Church; nothing is of me.
There is no "Church of Rome." There is the Catholic Church whose headquarters, if you will, is located in Rome. The Church is universal with many Eastern Rites.
"many teachings ...NOT found in those first centuries: the necessity of private confession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc". These were all found in the early Church. As time went on they were better understood and better defined, but they were always present.
@@littlerock5256, wrote: "... the necessity of private confession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc ... were all found in the early Church. As time went on they were better understood and better defined, but they were always present."
Okay. Where in Scripture or the first two centuries of Christianity do we find ANY clear teaching that "Papal Supremacy," "Papal Infallibility," or the necessity of private confession were "always present" and understood by the early Church as normative?
(Having already studied this extensively, I know you won't be able to find such evidence. I am not trying to trick you, but it was your claim that "these were all found in the early Church.... they were always present," so I want to give you a chance to provide evidence justifying your claim.)
@@littlerock5256 wrote, "I am sharing the teaching of the Catholic Church; nothing is of me."
Well, that is obviously false, as the Church of Rome recognizes many other churches as true/authentic--none of which came from or were started by Rome. It also asserts that Protestant/Evangelical Christians are rightly called Christians. So is it that you just don't know what the Church of Rome teaches, or that you do know, but disagree with it? Or do you just have your own special secret church here that has yet to be revealed?
Asking for a friend. :)
@15:00 all protestants just say no to our blessed mother. The vast majority.
Catholic tradition has ensured we know she is the mother of God regardless of the intricacies you bring up while protestant flat out and by default reject that phrase
And as I explained, rejecting a phrase without understanding its full implications is not the same thing as rejecting the teachings behind it. The same Protestants who reject Mary's title affirm Chalcedonian Christology. It's an inconsistency based on ignorance in most cases. Sorry if you do not like intricacies, but that's theology for you.
Timothy Gordon has no need to think about it. The Church has been very clear on this issue for a long time.
Great video!! Thanks for making this.
Thank you!
Thank you! Maybe he wanted to ask the question because American Evangelicals often say that Catholics are not Christian. Though this assertion rather seems to be an uniquely American phenomenon. I'm European and I've never heard of a Protestant here who was calling into the question the Christianity of Catholics.
Thay may have been why he made the video but his response was still wrong. As to the Protestant attack on Catholics in the USA, it is often more from Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but it is rampant among them.
Great video Doug.
Thank you Anthony!
a lot of new Catholics are Falling into this error hating their past being Protestant. Great video
Been having a few 'debates' for want of a better term with a few non-caths on other Catholic channels. I can sense Tim Gordon's frustration, especially in the face of what Francis (Pope Francis), the liberal-minded Cardinals he has surrounded himself with, and now the German Bishops are doing to the Church. It is becoming harder and harder to tell the differnce between most 'Catholics' and Protestants in general. Then you have this latest trend where a lot of Protestants (or at least the popular channels) are beginning to question whether Catholics can even be called Christian (most likely for clickbait and increased revenue)?????
I saw the Title of Tim's video but didn't watch it yet. With the 'debates' I was experiencing, I'll admit I was starting to lean in that direction too. I like your approach and glad it kinda brought me back to a more even keel. Doing what I can to spread the message about your channel.
Keep the Faith.
Yes, true balance has to be grounded in truth and we have to be careful when one side or the other starts going too far. I share many of those frustrations, believe me - and when we're frustrated, it's easier to go too far. :) Thank you for your words and support for the channel!
Sensible goodness once again. Keep these coming my friend!
Thanks buddy!
Tim made a stronger argument than Mr. Beaumont I think. One could go on a bit I suppose but I'll stop at one: If protestants don't consider marriage a sacrament, then how can a protestant marriage be a sacrament?
The perceived strength of the arguments does not matter when the Church has already spoken on the matter. But I can see why you thought his arguments were stronger if you think yours is a strong example. Baptisms are valid even if the person doing the baptism is an atheist. I'll let you work the rest out on your own.
@@DouglasBeaumont So, you believe that two men or women getting married in a protestant ceremony is sacramental? You a popesplainer?
I haven't seen Timothy's video and I don't plan to. But for me, I think the entire issue needs to be addressed again by the Magisterium. Back in 1965 when the Church said Protestants are Christian, there was still largely a "Conservative" approach to Christianity among the main Denominations. Even in Europe where most of the Catholic bishops are, Protestantism largely meant conservative Lutheranism, which is the closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism. The reality is, a lot has changed especially in the past 40ish years, with many Protestant denominations going completely off the rails Liberal, including messing with the baptismal formula, messing with Trinitarian theology like making God into gender neutural names to get away from Father/Son, etc. Furthermore, the surge of "non-denominational" Evangelicals have often taken a very harsh anti-sacramental approach to Baptism, which historically Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, etc, did not do. If a Protestant Evangelical pastor is going to come down very explicitly that Baptism is merely an outward sign that does absolutely nothing to you, then this to me is cause for concern. At what point is a person rejecting a doctrine when they are so wrong about it and so against Catholicism that they willfully deny Baptism does anything to you? I cannot simply sit here and be comfortable allowing their soul to be in jeopardy from what could reasonably be an invalid sacrament. Many Evangelicals don't mind putting off baptism for a long time into adulthood. And groups like Salvation Army and Quakers don't Baptize, which Catholic Answers has put out articles on this of Jimmy Akin saying explicitly they aren't Christian. Many people I know have come from Liberal Protestant denominations whereby their baptism was done willy nilly no regard for proper formula or basic Trinity affirmation. Other denominations like Oneness Pentecostal are turning to be the largest thriving all over the world, and they deny the Trinity. Lastly, the Seventy Day Adventists have indeed had a dubious history with basic Trinitarianism, and the Eastern Orthodox explicitly affirmed "transubstantiation" at Jerusalem 1672 Council, even if they don't like to admit it today. All this is to say, given the major shake up in Christendom the past 40 years, both with American Evangelicals in the 80s-90s, and the outright Liberal takeover of mainlines, it is not safe to merely go with the Vatican 2 statement. Even Pope Leo had to eventually declare Anglican Ordere null and void, after circumstances changed by the 1800s. Furthermore, the Church used to routinely Conditionally Baptize everyone, since it was warranted due to Protestant aberrations even then, and I think as a matter of decency we should be Conditionally Baptizing most converts these days who were baptized since 2000 when lgbt/liberalism strongly took root in most mainline denominations. Timothy might be wrony and gave insufficient evidence, but the opposite extreme of merely granting a blanket acceptance (based on what we know the state of Protestantism these days) is also not a safe approach. Even if we are to say Protestants are Christian, this is terribly misleading to the mainstream listener who can interpret this as Protestantism being a safe option, despite denying several important tenants of historical Christianity. Just as the average Protestant doesn't know what hypostatic union means, they also likewise interpret "Protestants are Christian" to mean just as good as Catholicism with no conversion needed because they get all the same benefits
This is full of good points! Yes, even the 1965 Church specified that baptism must be salvific which would require many of the things the above groups lack, and so they would not be rolled into the "Protestants [for whom the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life] are Christians" principle simply because they are members of a Protestant(ish) group.
I agree with this completely. Talking to my protestant friends, or others who come from these groups, I think there needs to a be a new term to describe many in the Protestant churches who have little to no connection to their theological roots as Protestants, ie Luther, Calvin, Swinglei and actually operate completely differently.
I can agree with you in several respects. My old Charismatic Church said that it was a symbol yet used the correct formula. The way my priest put it is that a baptism is effective when the Trinity is invoked.
I do believe that Church is lacking when dealing with Pentecostal Charismatics. Frankly their growth comes from a fairly coherent understanding of the Bible alone except regarding the sacraments. I'm trying to figure out how to draw those lines myself coming from that background.
They're not in the fullness of faith
He never said they were.
Correct and in line with Church teaching. If only Tim had said that!
The Baltimore Catechism 1891:
Q. 1170. Name the different classes of unbelievers and tell what they are.
A. The different classes of unbelievers are: 5. Heretics, who have been baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith.
Yep, you can be a heretical Christian.
@@DouglasBeaumont A Catholic Dictionary edited by Donald Attwater:
Heresy: "consists in the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith."
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23:
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
I think a bit stumbling block in this discussion is the lack of definition of the term "Christian." I plan to put that forth as a separate comment. That might be the place to start. I am presently looking up information. Stay tuned!
I think Mr. Gordon is making a good argument that Protestants aren’t Catholic. But, sadly, many Catholics don’t conform to Church teaching on many issues, including the sacraments of the Eucharist (according to recent polling), marriage, reconciliation and who qualifies for Holy Orders. Still, it is remarkable that people can claim to be followers of Jesus, yet reject the authority of His Church and reject any teaching they don’t like, instead applying whatever meaning they want to His teachings and proclaiming it valid. That is practicing Christianity imperfectly to say the least!
This is the best comment so far, thank you!
@@DouglasBeaumont thanks much. I love your channel.
It honestly depends on which definition we’re operating from. If you mean “Christian” as in those who have received trinitarian baptism then yes Protestants are Christian. But if you mean “Christian” as in those who adhere to Jesus Christ’s true teachings (as taught in the Catholic Church) then no Protestants are not Christian.
Well yes, if "Christian" is not defined the way the Church defines it, then the result will be different.
@@DouglasBeaumont Here we go, just what I have been thinking! What is the definition of Christian?
PAPAL TEACHING:
Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957). [Protestant and Orthodox deny the papacy.]
Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”
Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION:
#18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
Catholic teachings doesn't stop in time. It is a living institution so it grows and develops . You should consider doing the same.
It is up to the Church to summarize its teachings, such as in a valid council such as Vatican II. One of the things it observed was that there is one Baptism, and that Baptism ushers the person into the one Church. Whether this is complicated by formal or material heresy and/or schism is another matter. A Christian is a more general description, a Catholic is one who is in harmony with the fullness of Church teachings. There is a way to reconcile the teaching of Vatican II with these quotes, because all baptized belong to the Catholic Church, whether they explicitly affirm it or not. The second is about schism, and by making a distinction between formal and material schism, you can see that many Protestants (though not all) do not intentionally cut themselves off from the true Church with knowledge that it is the true Church. The third is not proposed by the Catholic Church anywhere, certainly not in Vatican II, because it recognizes that there are grievous errors in Protestantism, but that those errors do not invalidate the Sacrament that initiates validly all Christians, and that is Baptism.
I was baptized as a Baptist, and would over a decade later be confirmed as a Catholic. I may not be able to judge the heart of every single person, but I can judge my own. In the years between those two events, I was a Christian. I did not become a Christian when I was confirmed Catholic, but I did gain the fulness of faith, and with it came many graces. But there were graces in my life prior to my entry into the Catholic Church. Tell me, did the graces I experience before my confirmation, were they graces offered to me a pagan, a heretic and an unbeliever? Does Christ then bless paganism, heresy and unbelief? Or did I just imagine those graces? If I imagined those graces, why should I be trusted to tell you I have experienced any graces as a Catholic?
@@halleylujah247 "Catholic teachings doesn't stop in time. It is a living institution so it grows and develops." Catholic teaching can and does develop in its understanding, but it cannot contradict itself.
@@DavidSupina "all baptized belong to the Catholic Church"
If a baptized person becomes a heretic, apostate or schismatic they are no longer in the Catholic Church:
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23:
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
@@nadreb13 “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7, 1863)
If you are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and you believe in the words of the Creed, saying universal in stead of Catholic, the you are a christian according to the law ow the Catholic church. For the baby is a christian as soon as it is baptized.
Given that a baby can be a Christian, anything beyond the valid baptism is extraneous.
Did I hear you right? Mary gave birth to a human being? That is incorrect. She gave birth to a divine person who had a human and divine nature.
Thanks for bringing up an important distinction! Sorry if it sounded like I was equating "person" and "being" (the way "human being" and "human person" is often used in moral discussions - e.g., "If an embryo is a human being then it is also a person."). I meant by "human being" a nature (human) that exists (being) such that a person (divine or human) possessing a human nature could be called a human being by virtue of possessing that nature without implying that person is also a human person. However, if "being" is understood as equivalent to "person" (or if "human person" is considered to be in the definition of "human being" like in the example above), then yes it would be incorrect to say Jesus is a human being.
Prot Pastor on a long journey.
If all people validly baptized are Christians . . .
What makes a valid baptism according to the RCC? Wouldn't a valid baptism, only be done by a valid priest, in a valid church, that is validly aligned to the Bishop of Rome?
I hate to say it, but if anything along that chain of "validity" would that break the . . . Effectiveness of a baptism? Not even to mention that many Prot traditions don't hold that Baptism isn't a power-grace-filled effectual baptism but "just a symbol."
A valid baptism requires proper form (the trinitarian formula of Mt. 28:19 - "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”), matter (water - immersion or pouring), and intent (to perform a Christian baptism). That's it for validity. Now, it would be illicit (unlawful) for a Catholic to baptize outside the Church in non-emergency circumstances, but that would not affect validity.
Tim Gordon is such a hot head. And he has no A game.
I’m confused Dr. but there has to be a limit to protestant invincible ignorance. How many times do you or Catholic Christians who respond to a protestants errors in their posted comments about the Catholic faith or Catholic Christians before they loose that “ii”protection? I say if we correct their error even once and they willfully disregard our correction then they disobeyed Jesus. As our Lord said in Lk 10:16, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.." I’m thinking about what our Lord said to twelve Apostles in Mat 10:14 and then Seventy-two he sent out in Lk 10:11 -12 "if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave." But Jesus words it very strongly in Mat10:15 Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor′rah than for that town.” or that person. When doe’s invincible ignorance change to something that will affect a persons salvation.
That's a great question....to ask God! ;) I think there will be a lot of surprises as to who God saves and doesn't - and all based on His mercy.
@@DouglasBeaumont Thank you. I know it’s up to God to decide but isn’t this more or less what the Council of Trent was all about. That the Protestant heresy could lead to the loss of souls? Maybe I’m being to harsh but if a Protestant commenter keeps putting himself out there speaking errors, gets corrected and keeps spouting errors he’s got some problems. In this case silence is golden.
Sure, but Trent was a response to a particular situation that many Protestants are not in anymore. If they ARE in that particular situation , then yes the anathemas apply. However, the Church does not teach that a heretic is no longer a Christian (which is something made true by baptism - even prior to belief) - saved or unsaved. It may sound like splitting hairs but theology is like that - and Tim got it wrong.
@@DouglasBeaumont Gotcha. Thanks for the information. I hope you will consider doing a video about when invincible ignorance ends and a person becomes responsible for failing to accept the truth. God bless you.
Dr. Beaumont, what is the definition of "Christian"? Without an agreed upon meaning it is hard to come to any conclusion or consensus.
There is Catholic teaching that stipulates that, in its strictest sense, a Christian is a Catholic.
In general parlance, it seems to apply to anyone who holds to some tenets of the True Faith, such as the Trinity. (A word, ironically, not in Scripture.)
But even that is not rock solid, as some non Trinitarians are referred to as Christians.
The Catholic Encyclopedia online says: the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical.
Attwater's Catholic Dictionary: Christian: A name first given to the followers of our Lord at Antioch (Acts 6:26). Since the rise of protestantism the name has been used in so many different senses as to have become almost meaningless. It may indicate a Catholic or Unitarian, or even be applied to an infidel who displays some virtue which is associated with Christ. It may reasonably be applied to the members of all the ancient churches, whether in communion with the Holy See or not, and to those Protestants who profess, explicitly or implicitly the Nicean creed in its traditional interpretation; but hardly to others. To use the word in an ethical, subjective sense is particularly to be deplored. The Church puts no definite official meaning on the word, as she does on Catholic.
If the definition of Christian is one who holds to the totality of the True Faith as taught by the Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ, then only Catholics are Christians.
If holding to some tenets of the True Faith qualifies, then non Catholics can be given the title, but then where is the line drawn as to what the minimum to be held is?
First, thank you for taking the time to interact respectfully and ask this important question.
I think first we must avoid falling prey to what has been called the fallacy of the beard. We may not be able to tell the exact moment that mere whiskers become a beard, but that does not mean we cannot tell s beard from a clean-shaven face. :)
Since the Church had decreed that a legitimate baptism marks the difference between a non-Christian and a Christian then that is where the line is. So I would say only those things that make a tacit baptism illegitimate would blur the line.
So for example a Mormon is not a Christian because they reject the Trinity and even the basic nature of a monotheistic God. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arian in their Christology, so they are not simply heretical - but heretical on an issue that invalidates their baptism. Oneness Pentecostals are modalists and are likewise heretical on an issue that invalidates their baptism.
So the line is there as far as I can tell. I think the reason the line is not (no longer?) simply at being Catholic is that the reasons WHY most Protestants today are not Catholic have to do with the level of ignorance they are working from. Luther was a Catholic priest for example, and Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were on the front line of rejection of the Church. This sort of knowledgeable, willful rejection is not the case with most Protestants today. Because sin requires knowledge and free will, their guilt is mitigated in ways that were less likely centuries ago when Catholicism was the ubiquitous standard.
@@DouglasBeaumont "First, thank you for taking the time to interact respectfully" The same to you.
"Since the Church had decreed that a legitimate baptism marks the difference between a non-Christian and a Christian then that is where the line is." Will you point me to this teaching so I may read it?
As I understand it, a valid baptism leaves a permanent mark on the soul and brings one into the True Church, the Catholic Church, and makes one a Christian. To remain in the Church one must maintain the entirety of the faith. The Church teaches that heresy, apostasy and schism removes one from the Church, even with the mark of baptism on the soul. At this point, outside of the Church, one is no longer a Christian.
Please let me know if you think any of that is incorrect.
@@DouglasBeaumont Update:
I think I have answered my own question by re-watching the early part of your video: Unitatis Redintegratio, "all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian." Footnote 21 appears to make reference to the Council of Florence in 1439. At that time, prior to the protestant revolt, I don't know that there would have been any non Catholic "Christians" in the equation.
The question then is, can a baptized Christian become a non-Cbristian via heresy, apostasy or schism?
Based on the teaching of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII, I say yes.
If you say no, please share with me what Church teaching you are using to come to that conclusion.
@@littlerock5256 First some definitions: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (Canon Law, 751)
As far as I can tell, these incur excommunication - but that is not a judgment of removal from the class of Christian. The problem with saying that they make someone a non-Christian is that one can be forgiven for heresy, apostasy or schism - but they cannot be re-baptized. The doctrine of indelibility means that the mark one is given in certain sacraments cannot be repeated nor can it be lost. Thus, once baptized, confirmed, or ordained, it cannot be redone or undone. And per UR, since a valid baptism makes one a Christian, a Christian cannot become a (formal) non-Christian.
That last sentence can be read the same way that we say a baptized Catholic is always Catholic - even if they "become" Protestant.
@@DouglasBeaumont "The problem with saying that they make someone a non-Christian is that one can be forgiven for heresy, apostasy or schism - but they cannot be re-baptized." This is not a problem. When one repents of their heresy, apostasy or schism they are readmitted to the Church, at which time they once again become Catholic and Christian, but without the need to be rebaptized.
"a baptized Catholic is always Catholic." I don't think this is correct. Pope Pius XII: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23)
You are brilliant. I truly appreciate you, your knowledge and your style. I’d love to get in touch with you to learn more about and from you and to discuss some collaboration/mission work, but I am not sure how to do direct message on here. I’ll try to find you on Facebook or another platform.
Thank you very much! I got your email. I'll be in touch.
I have a problem of calling Protestants as Christians.. I mean honestly, the most important sacraments are Baptism, reconciliation and the Eucharist.
Protestants do not believe baptism as an instrumental cause of justification...
Protestant do not believe that when they commit mortal sin they should go to a priests for reconciliation. I mean this is huge. If Christ instituted a church and gave power the apostles to forgive sins .. we must take his words seriously.
If we call Protestants Christians then it will be very unfair to the Catholics.
Because Catholics are living with the life of an ongoing justification. Where by you need to cooperate with God grace for salvation.
If Protestants are Christians then it means that they is no need to convert them to the the Catholic church church since they already Christians. Which is absurd.
You make excellent points.
Protestants also don't accept the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they don't accept all the Scriptures, they don't accept the papacy. I am sure there is more, but this is just off the top of my head.
if they've been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and they confess Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour I don't see how not to call them Christians... how do you call them? Heretics?
@MJ Ramirez he just explained how they are heretics. They are.
@@mjramirez6008 Protestantism is a heresy:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”
Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864) CONDEMNED PROPOSITION:
#18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. - Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
@@mjramirez6008
You can call them heretics if they don't accept what the Catholic church teaches.
Jehovah witness do accept Christ as their lord and saviour but they don't believe that Christ is equal to the father. Most protestants will not call Jehovah wittiness as Christians because of trinity . One of the most important doctrine in Christianity..
Excellent analysis and video Doug!
Thank you kindly!
About 20:27, as far as I know, I don't think eastern Orthodox deny the transubstantiation, they just don't hold by that name, preferring to call it "metousiosis", "metastoicheiosis" or "metabole". Maybe some Orthodox also don't like how transubstantiation is explained because of the heavy influence of Hylomorphism, but that does not change the fact that Catholics and Orthodox agree with the end result of consecration is that bread becomes the body of Christ even though it still looks like bread.
Transubstantiation just is that though. Denying its philosophical roots is a denial of it. That doesn't mean one cannot hold to the true outcome though. (Even the Cathoilc Church had to wait for Aquinas to get it all worked out!)
I see now. However, I understand "denying" as claiming something to be false. And still, as far as I know, they don't claim transubstantiation is false, they just don't think it's the best way to approach this mystery, and thus, it's also not an appropriate name. And yes, they have a different philosophical tradition, but I don't think that they claim Hylomorphism to be false, they just don't agree it's the best way to express reality.
If they truly claimed that transubstantiation is false, even if we both got to the same conclusion, wouldn't there be a great barrier between us in the acceptance of the validity of each other sacrament? Wouldn't be as if they were saying that our understanding of the sacrament is completely wrong? If that was the case, wouldn't that undermine the partial unity that Catholic and Orthodox churches share?
@@Patrick_Bard I'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I am about the exact position of the EO (if there is one). As far as validity, I don't think a particular explanation is required so long as one has proper form, matter, and ordination (which is what makes their sacraments valid). It has to be possible to affirm the necessary truths about the Eucharist without invoking transubstantiation per se because that explanation did not exist for several centuries. I think between these two factors the EO communion remains legitimate.
GOOD for TG, after the 100s of years of having to hear Protestants accuse Catholics not being Christians. The Church Jesus gave to St Peter. Upon this rock, I will build my church, not 40,000 plus churches that don't even agree on the same doctrines.
Exchanging one falsehood for another does not fight falsehood.
Interesting how Orthodoxy never comes up in these squabbles.
Awesome video Douglas 💯
Thank you!
More scrutiny needs to be given to liberal churches and certain movements like pentecostals though.
Sure. Affirming objective, formal heresy is a completely different matter than holding to a mistaken material heretical position that can only be reached by applying theological "algebra" as Tim put it.
ARGUMENT FOUR: Pope Gregory XVI. (The Catholic Church, you know)
Possible answer: he was thinking of things like Liberal Theologians which already in his time were dominating European Protestantism.
By 1846, when he died, he could hardly even have heard of the Millerites, and he was decades before Asuza Street and more than a century before Wurmbrandt.
Puseyites were a clear minority.
He may however have felt that even conservative Calvinists were non-Christians through denying Real Presence and affirming Predestination to Damnation and to the sins by which they are damned (at least in certain forms).
Why are catholics and protestants going as far to denounce the validity of belief in Christ Jesus
according to Romans 10:9? I have countless arguments with protestant "brothers" saying catholics cant be saved
because they add works.
When asked where the bible says that, they (in all honesty) quote me Galatians 5:2, eventhough that is talking about
Judaizers...
What is the substanial difference between calling a protestant church a Church and calling it an ecclesial community? Sounds like we're saying they aren't a church, but a church community.
I think the use of "ecclesial community" is the attempt to keep a distinction between The Church (of which there is only one in the deepest theological sense) and "group of Christians doing ministry" which is what it has come to mean in so many English-speaking parts of the world.
@Douglas Beaumont right, I just think it's a really poor choice of words to make that distinction. Almost like saying "I'm not a bartender, I'm a mixologist" when they are the same thing. I think it would be better to call them Christian communities. I bring this up because St Ignatius of Antioch's writings were instrumental in me converting, so now if protestant congregations are now ecclessial (church) communities, that seems to deny the principle of without a bishop with apostolic succession you don't have a church and it comes across as another "post V2 reversal" to outsiders, and imo we don't need that.
Thank you, Doug. This is important for people to understand. Sincere Protestants are doing the best they know how to live in the will & grace of God. I know I was one, too. I pray they keep on until they find the fullness of the truth in our Mother, the Catholic Church.🙏❤️
Amen!
Couple of things i dont agree with Doug. Adventists are not Trinitarian, even though they claim to be. Their idea of the trinity is heretical and unorthodox so on that part Gordon is right. 0
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Do you have support for it? I don't like accusing peope or groups of heresy unless it is clearly evident.
I love your content, however this is a very hard topic and many questions arise, for example if the early church excluded all those who denied the real presence and many other early doctrines from calling themselves Christians? Or those like Eugene IV who was the third Pope to declare EENS a dogma after well over a thousand years of this apostolic teaching saying that all those “ not only pagans, but also jews, heretics and schismatics will not participate in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” how do we reconcile this? Do we just accept the new Catholic Church has adjusted and softened this apostolic teaching and run with it?? If this teaching which was declared a dogma in three separate occasions, even though is hard to take but if true wouldn’t that condemned us too for excusing our efforts to express the absolute necessity to convert every soul into the true faith? If Protestants are heretics which they are, how are they Christians and going to heaven when the teaching of the church has been that not even “Catholics” can be certain they’ll be saved? etc etc
It certainly is!
A few things here. First, a Pope saying something does not automatically constitute dogma, so that would need to be settled on additional grounds beyond a quotation.
Second, being a Christian as defined in the decree of the ecumenical council is synonymous with receiving a valid baptism - not with being orthodox or being saved. So there is no contradiction there.
Faith is not a matter of opinion but a gift from God and believing that Jesus is present in the Eucharist body blood soul and divinity is essential for a Christian for the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life.
Regarding mortal sin, the Church teaches that Catholics can be forgiven without a sacramental confession (if they don’t have access to the sacrament of penance) if they have perfect contrition (sorrow for having offended God rather than simply out of fear of punishment). If that's true for Catholics, it would be true for Protestants, wouldn't it? Of course, a Catholic should still go to confession as soon as he can, but if he's not in a position to be able to receive the sacrament for an extended time or even until death, that wouldn't mean he would be condemned just because of the circumstances he was in just as a catechumen wouldn't be automatically condemned if he died before he could receive baptism.
Very good - I don't see why it would not apply to Protestants, but it does introduce another level of difficulty for them (having no easy access to confession).
Protestants pray and confess directly to the Lord. We repeat and ask for forgiveness. We do not need a priest or confessional
@kerrykoehler2601 I am aware of that -- I was an evangelical Protrstant for 20 years before becoming Catholic. It is a misunderstanding that Protestants have that Catholics don't confess our sons "directly" to God. We confess our sins regularly at home in daily prayer, at Mass, etc. Also, when we confess with a priest, we're not confessing our sins to the priest, but to God who acts through the priest as an instrument to give us absolution and the sanctifying and healing grace of the sacrament of reconciliation-- Jesus is the one acting through the priest.
nothing is more annoying to me than Protestants assuming I am not a Christian, we shouldn't return the favor
yeah instead we should call them heretics, or...heretical Christians for niceness
@@firekoovin3347 Ignatius of Antioch did it, but John XXIII seemed to move us in another direction. I understand, when someone calls you "heretic" up-front you probably won't be too ready to listen
@@firekoovin3347 Luther and his ilk were heretics. They denied the truth of the Catholic church and started their own religion. People born into Protestantism are not heretics, just ignorant.
@@isoldam idk with that logic that dismisses murders being murders, sure some did it in self defense or a weird vigilantism but thats still pretty bad.
@@glennlanham6309 they wouldn't listen anyway, there are ppl who call caths idol worshipers and that breaks the faith of so many of them. I'm a bit on the side of anti islam apologietics and it works, calling them stone kissers and pagans makes them listen.
Are Penacostals Christians if they don't have correct Trinitarian theology?
no, there IS a heretical, non-Trinitarian sect
I’m assuming you are talking about Oneness Pentecostals. The answer is no, they are not Christians. The reason is because, they have an invalid formula for Baptism. For your baptism to be valid, you need to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). However, Oneness Pentecostals baptize in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus.
@@jamesjacob4002 well put
*nailed it*
James Jacob nailed it. ;)
How does Vatican 2's ecumenism jive with the Church's dogma no salvation outside the church?
Being "Christian" and being "saved" are nit equivalent given the definition if "Christian" in use here. Protestants are, by virtue of a valid baptism, imperfectly in communion with the Church so salvation is possible for them. It is also possible to be Catholic in full communion with the Church and not be saved.
Timothy Gordon is very confused in many areas and worse yet, he causes much confusion among his followers. His comments about Pope Francis are deleterious and should be taken with a grain of salt.
UA-camrs should all be taken with a grain of salt! ;)
This is so irresponsible.
He sounds like the most outrageous evangelical version of a Catholic apologist: strawmanning Protestant position and concluding they are not Christians.
It undermines the seriousness of Catholic apologetics.
At least he didn't produce a Chick Tract.... :)
@@DouglasBeaumont lol
I think Taylor Marshall is distributing Chik traks these days 😂
@@bluecollarcatholic8173 But only the ones made before 1969. :)
Protestants are not evangelicals. The first ones are divided in Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans are European denominations. The second ones are from the 19th century, born in the United States. These sects deny sacraments and catechisms and confessions. For example, pentecostalism is not protestant. Methodism is not protestant either. Even the label "protestant" is irrelevant now. Most historical protestants like Lutherans and Presbyterians are liberal in theology and social issues. Protestants are actually a myth.
From King Charles III's recent coronation oath:
The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The King replies
All this I promise to do.
Overstated conclusion from a few technically correct but overly particular historical facts.
Baptists are also not Protestant.
The Catholic Church IS the Church that Christ built - the fulfilment of the Davidic Kingdom - which is ruled by a King, a Pope, a Queen Mother.
The church predates the canon of scripture
Thank you for the interaction.
Great stuff
you are not truly baptized when you don't believe in baptism
Did 7-day-old children believe in circumcision?
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
John 3:36 is where Jesus says you are my friend for being obedient to my commands, eternity in hell for those who are disobedient. I would urge you to consider what the prot religions teach. If they teach anti catholic ideas, definitely not Christian.
I was a Protestant for 20 years and taught theology at the graduate level - so yeah, I get it! I know it can be confusing (especially when "Christian" and "Salvation" are illicitly equated), but I urge you to consider what the Catholic Church teaches: "The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 3)
How can Timothy Gordon hold this position as a catholic? The whole point of the church structure is to submit to its rulings especially councils. He honestly sounds like a fundamentalist Baptist than a catholic. I’m a Calvinist but seriously studying Catholicism.
Yes, the Vatican 2 haters / dismissers often sound like 20th Century Protestants.
Doug likes to turn off the comments when his arguments are critiqued.
I've never turned off comments.
@@DouglasBeaumont I replied to your earlier comment. It WAS there. Now it's gone.
Douglas is very complicated and not very clear in his Christological explanations.... I expected much better from him... the question of the personal identity of the man Jesus is not explained by the idiomatum communication, communion of attributes, because this communion logically presupposes the hypostatic union, that is, the basic truth that that man Jesus was and is the eternal Son of God
Thanks for your clear response lol
Define Christian, what are the requirements?
Baptism and belief in the teachings of the Church.
As a former Presbyterian now Catholic, I can say Presbyterians are Christians, just not perfect Christians.
Same with Catholics!
“You can’t have part of the sacraments!!!” Says the guy that only partakes from the bread, not the wine.
The bread and wine are not two different sacraments. ;)
We as Catholics should be unified. We can disagree and that’s Ok, it creates discussion. We should remember though the that we cannot want unity and be divisive at the same time. Timothy Gordon is Catholic. He has defended Vatican 2. Show you are Catholic by not being divisive and making comments that are not becoming of a Catholic.
Which comments would you say were not becoming of a Catholic?
@@DouglasBeaumont I'll try to be respectful here. Bishops told us that we cannot say people like President Biden are not Catholic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've watched your video on your conversion and Evangelicals Essential Problem and it looks to me that you were saying some things close to what Tim Gordon was saying about the Eucharist. There is a video on Catholic Answers from eight years ago from Jimmy Akin "Is There Salvation Outside the Church" is basically saying Protestants are not Christian though he doesn't outright say it. One though could take from it that Jimmy Akin is saying Protestants would not be going to heaven. The context of "Rad Trad's" problem with Vatican II's change on this is that it to them conflicts with church history/tradition. I see your point in making a joke about people calling Protestants not Catholic, yet reject an ecumenical council, but doesn't it stir the pot? This spills over to Timothy Gordon, who has actually defended Vatican 2 in one video I've seen. I believe differing views on Vatican 2 is what created the Gordon/Marshall split a few years ago. Yet I see comments to the effect that Gordon is not Catholic because he is critical of Vatican 2. People could easily look up videos such as a couple on Pints with Aquinas of Gordon defending Vatican 2. People can criticize something and not reject it at the same time.
Overall the comments are great. A few though caught my eye and made me say are not becoming of a Catholic.
Comments in this thread:
- A lady wonders how many naysayers think Pope Francis is the Holy Father/pope. Judgmental/sin?
- A guy says "I would argue, is Gordon, Marshall, etc. Are they even Catholic?"
Basically, if we cannot call those that support abortion non-Catholic, we should not be doing so in this regard either. Abortion is a sin. It is dogma. If they can engage in scandal and still be Catholic, then people can criticize Vatican 2 and still be Catholic. Nanci Pelosi is on video saying she studied church history and could not find anything to make her against abortion. I assume she never read the Didache. Her own Bishop has forbidden her from having the Eucharist. Yet, she can go to Rome and have the Eucharist. If the church wants its authority in councils respected, should it not be respectful of the decisions its own bishops make? Should the church not set an example?
I look at our church and all I see really is division. I see our Holy Father as a very divisive figure. I do not see him as a good leader.
The church is hurting.
Protestants will never obtain the beatific vision because they don't eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, partake of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar.
That is contrary to what the Church teaches.
@@DouglasBeaumont No it is not. Church has never made a declaration of who goes to which levels in heaven.
@@operationdarktolight4321 Yes it is
To say this is a form of judgement. Despite Catholic teachings, we can not and should not speak on behalf of Jesus when referring to this. Further, the CCC teaches about respecting other religions. So why should you condemn them?
Douglas, knowing the construction of the word communion, how can you accept that there can be partial communion?
Communion, as in the degree of assent to the heirarchy of truths. If someone is Baptized in the name of the Trinity, holding the faith in a Triune God, with the Second Person Incarnate, that person already has the minimum assent to Orthodox Christianity (the central dogma). One is, at least, in partial communion with the Church.
If we argue that the term Christianity should only be applied to those having full assent to the Catholic doctrines, then that would exclude even the Eastern Orthodox from the equation.
And most Catholics. ;)
I am not arguing from word construction since that is not what gives words their definitions. I am arguing from usage - Church usage, to be exact.
@@DouglasBeaumont Usage since Vatican II
Ecumenism is a sin John 17. One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.
How does Jesus' prayer for unity makes the effort to achieve unity a sin?
Please read about Martin Luther, he was a horrible man!
Oh, I have.
@@DouglasBeaumont So have I.
A horrible man!
Vatican II is heretical. To be Christian is to be in the Church of Christ.
Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa (#25), 1873: "Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudobishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ. 'Whoever he is,' he says, 'and whatever sort he is, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ.'"
Thus to say that Protestants are Christians is to say that they are in the Church of Christ. To say that those who reject Catholic teaching are in the Church of Christ is blatantly heretical.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Therefore Protestants are not Christians. This is an irrefutable argument. Repent.
@Ave Crux Spes Unica That is a fallible catechism (called Catechismo Della Dottrina Cristiana). It was only approved for use in Italy (and thus is not infallible). Doesn't matter what it says. It says that there is salvation "outside the Church" and thus is blatantly heretical and it contradicts itself.
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”
It's not even approaching irrefutability (although I can see how it might seem to be . . . to someone with a Protestant mindset).
As a protestant, I see that the Roman Catholic church has contradicted itself on this question. Not only among theologians, but the magusterium itself has changed its views from the Unam Sanctum and Cantate Domino to the Vatican II adjacent documents.
A development based in changing historical circumstances does not constitute a contradiction (e.g., as Protestants agree on development from the OT to the NT.)
@@DouglasBeaumont I think the changes that we're talking about there are different in kind.
Within the OT itself there is a change from the covenantal promise to Abraham in Genesis 15, predicated on God's mercy and Abraham's faith, to the law being added after the Exodus because the Israelites' sinful inability to remain faithful made the rigid, visible structure of the law necessary in order for God to preserve a people for Himself, set apart for the coming incarnation of Christ - God's plan from the beginning to unite mankind in perfect union to Himself. As per Galatians 3:19, "Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of the transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come."
Also: "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh....so that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the flesh but according to the spirit" Romans 8:3-4.
The apostle Paul is adamant that the change from OT to NT really is no change at all, but rather Christ's coming is the fulfillment of the law, and that it is in line with God's original covenental promise to Abraham which preceeded the law. The promise was not made to all of Abraham's physical descendents ("For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" Romans 9:6-7). Rather, "it is the chikdren of the promose who are regarded as Abraham's children" (Romans 9:8). The children of the promise are the people of Israel who were faithful to God in recognizing the Lordship of Christ (who knew their shephard's voice), as well as the ingrafted gentiles. Today, this is Christ's church.
Thus, the change from OT to NT was not a change of God's mind, but rather a change in approach, as the law was necessary for a time to preserve a people to himself, in order to acheive God's true end, which was acheived through Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection.
I would need to hear a convincing argument to place the change from preconciliar to conciliar Roman Catholic teaching on salvation for shismatics in the same category as the movement of God's plan throughout the Old and New Testaments.
I understand the theological explanation, but it does generate difficulties when simply proof texting. Atheists make a lot out of these and then when the theological explanation is given they won't buy it because it sounds too complicated or like a rationalization. I think the same thing happens when people pit magisterial statements against each other.
Interesting.
No.
Yes.
Tim who? Hopefully, he is amenable to reason.
Yea you’re not Christian
Who are you saying this to?
What about the The Salvation Army which has no sacrament at all, not even baptism?
By the same definition that makes validly baptized Protestants Christians, the Salvation Army is not Christian.
Salvation Army went woke.