The crux: “When I submit only when I agree, the one I submit to is me.” The submission mentioned in Hebrews clearly isn't just about following your conscience. Paul, Clement, and Ignatius taught that submission means following real leaders-flesh-and-blood men with historical, sacramental continuity. RZ will claim He submits to authority, but when you dig deeper, that "authority" is often just an empty label. Ask which creeds or confessions are truly authoritative, and the answer usually comes down to, “whatever fits how I see it, or how I interpret the Bible.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Faith is dogmatic-you believe because God has revealed it, and for that, we need legates with true charisms and authority (accompanied by external signs), sent by Christ either immediately (i.e., the Apostles) or mediately (i.e., those sent by the Apostles or their successors). The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way: 'Faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment, it rests with the reader.' The charge that Catholics also use private judgment conflates the issue and ignores the matter of submission. A Catholic discovers and submits to an objective reality: the Church, which asserts its claims, demands a decision, and confronts individuals with choices, much like its founder, Jesus, did 😉(Mystical body of Christ) The distinction or a point that you can also bring up is that magisterium’s job is not only to preach with authority, but also to preach authentically, and to ensure they communicate God’s truth without error, there must be a special charism. Without this, "authority" becomes empty, and anyone can claim it. It doesn't fit the "they are over you in the Lord.....whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" prerogative. In the New Testament, the Church’s power of excommunication isn't just about earthly discipline, so this authority is clearly tied to salvation itself. Protestant view of authority just often seem more earthly and empty
@@thecatechumen Yes, Doronzo and De Sales mention the mission. :) I have some more stuff for you if you want to dive deeper into this subject. I will share a particularly insightful quote from Aquinas that expands on the dogmatic faith aspect, it is from the Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 5 (Those who have faith): Q: Whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles? "The reason for this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently, whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, does not have the habit of faith, but holds what is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved does not have scientific knowledge but merely an opinion about it. It is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if he holds what he chooses to hold and rejects what he chooses to reject from the things taught by the Church, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as an infallible rule but to his own will. Hence, it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things. If he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore, it is clear that such a heretic, with regard to one article, has no faith in the other articles but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will." so Aquinas argues here that the formal object of faith is the First Truth, which is manifested in Scripture and in the teaching of the Church. So someone who does not adhere to the Church's teaching, considered as an INFALLIBLE and DIVINE rule, holds merely what he calls "a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will." This is because faith is a theological virtue, and every virtue is an operative habit-a stable disposition to act in a good way present in one of our faculties, in this case, our intellect. Each habit is specified by its formal object. The formal object of faith is the First Truth as present in Scripture and the teaching of the Church (the very authority of the Church is a revealed truth!). Since the First Truth is formally one (God Himself) but materially multiple (all propositions related directly or indirectly to God), these materially multiple truths are interconnected and one cannot believe with the same habit in one truth and not in another. It necessitates assent to the whole of what is revealed, even if only virtually, as many do not know all Catholic dogmas. Given that it is not possible for most people to know all the dogmas, their assent to the authority of the Church is necessary for them to possess the theological virtue of faith. This is because the channels of Revelation include the teaching of the Church, which, in an epistemic hierarchical order, must be conceded even before considering Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The Magisterium has authority is a revealed truth (Matthew 28:16-20) (and the propositions it declares can be believed by the faithful with varying degrees of assent depending on their character, mode, etc.) Everything revealed by God is objectively infallible and subjectively attained through the light of faith, which aligns the intellect to receive and assent to such truth. Of course, there must be both an assent from the intellect and a consent from the will, which can only be achieved with the aid of the light of faith. Here, faith must be dogmatic = believing on account of God who reveals it, not on the basis of my own intrinsic investigations because faith is ordering us outward towards God not inward. This is where Protestants depart, and RZ’s main objection against Luigi in the SS debate about why private judgment isn't problematic for Protestants is that everyone uses it. He just overlooks the fact that some uses of our faculties are different from others. For instance, submitting to an interpretation of a text involves submission to something that exists only in your mind (mental), while submitting to a living, concrete entity that is in causal relations (succession- extra-mental) involves acknowledging a living thing endowed with markers of credibility. These are two entirely different things. Not only you can actually prove the magisterium a priori by examining the mission given and deducing criteria or which means would be necessary to morally achieve that end, but you also have extrinsic markers such as unity, stability, miracles, prophecies, fruitfulness etc.. which are not arbitrary btw, because they are objectively provable as well; as Fenton notes, "the founding of the Catholic Church is historically a miraculous phenomenon because the natural created causes that were brought into play were in no way proportionate to the effect achieved." also RZ made an interesting comment when asked about icons of Jesus. he said in a stream yesterday: Wagner: "Would you extend this to, like, imagination-like internal imagination of images of Christ? For example, when you read the Gospels, you don't imagine how Christ would look right?" RZ: "Right, I just imagine Him as a figure, but I don't try to imagine the specifics yet because anything I make would just be me projecting my own ideals onto Jesus." This is while he has no problem following his own opinions and judgments about what Jesus teaches and applying his ideals to Him in that way, riddle me that :)
I think I accidentally deleted the funniest comment on this video It went something like: "I'm gonna go evangelize the pagans!" *breaks into their house, steals their stuff, kills their cows, builds half of a church, leaves* I promise I didn't do it on purpose.
Ah yes, the Protestants at the council would totally argue with the 12 apostles, who we agree were given divine authority from Christ to set the doctrines of the church
Such a treat! Love and follow both of your channels! You are both very intellectual and articulate. I am on a journey to learn more about Catholicism, I appreciate your work and enjoy your delivery. God bless you richly😊
I appreciate the work RZ does overall, but I don’t think he knows as much about Theology as he thinks he does, and as a result it makes him come across as a little smug. I’m glad to see someone address his videos in spirit, charity, and kindness.
House churches definitely had alters and icons, but it's interesting how his forebears had many of the same theological views as him but acted like house churches and the early Church were very different. But as the evidence has become undeniable, does he change his view and recognize house churches and therefore the ancient Church was very different from his first view? No, of course not. It's simply taken that house churches and the early necessarily couldn't have icons because in his mind they were protestant or proto-protestant
The reformed definitely don't hold to any of the councils, and the onus is on them to show how the council definitions are the same as theirs not to just read their current definitions, which vary from even their own immediate forebears, into the councils
Via Amazon I just recently bought encyclical by John xxiii pacem en Terres and that mystical body thing from Pius xii. Loved both popes. True! I’m an old fart at this senior center.
The crux: “When I submit only when I agree, the one I submit to is me.”
The submission mentioned in Hebrews clearly isn't just about following your conscience. Paul, Clement, and Ignatius taught that submission means following real leaders-flesh-and-blood men with historical, sacramental continuity. RZ will claim He submits to authority, but when you dig deeper, that "authority" is often just an empty label. Ask which creeds or confessions are truly authoritative, and the answer usually comes down to, “whatever fits how I see it, or how I interpret the Bible.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Faith is dogmatic-you believe because God has revealed it, and for that, we need legates with true charisms and authority (accompanied by external signs), sent by Christ either immediately (i.e., the Apostles) or mediately (i.e., those sent by the Apostles or their successors).
The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way: 'Faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment, it rests with the reader.' The charge that Catholics also use private judgment conflates the issue and ignores the matter of submission. A Catholic discovers and submits to an objective reality: the Church, which asserts its claims, demands a decision, and confronts individuals with choices, much like its founder, Jesus, did 😉(Mystical body of Christ)
The distinction or a point that you can also bring up is that magisterium’s job is not only to preach with authority, but also to preach authentically, and to ensure they communicate God’s truth without error, there must be a special charism. Without this, "authority" becomes empty, and anyone can claim it. It doesn't fit the "they are over you in the Lord.....whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" prerogative. In the New Testament, the Church’s power of excommunication isn't just about earthly discipline, so this authority is clearly tied to salvation itself. Protestant view of authority just often seem more earthly and empty
Very well put 🙏🙏 Reminds me of St. Francis De Sales on how Protestants lack “mission”
@@thecatechumen
Yes, Doronzo and De Sales mention the mission. :) I have some more stuff for you if you want to dive deeper into this subject.
I will share a particularly insightful quote from Aquinas that expands on the dogmatic faith aspect, it is from the Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 5 (Those who have faith): Q: Whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles?
"The reason for this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently, whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, does not have the habit of faith, but holds what is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved does not have scientific knowledge but merely an opinion about it. It is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if he holds what he chooses to hold and rejects what he chooses to reject from the things taught by the Church, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as an infallible rule but to his own will. Hence, it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things. If he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore, it is clear that such a heretic, with regard to one article, has no faith in the other articles but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will."
so Aquinas argues here that the formal object of faith is the First Truth, which is manifested in Scripture and in the teaching of the Church. So someone who does not adhere to the Church's teaching, considered as an INFALLIBLE and DIVINE rule, holds merely what he calls "a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will." This is because faith is a theological virtue, and every virtue is an operative habit-a stable disposition to act in a good way present in one of our faculties, in this case, our intellect. Each habit is specified by its formal object. The formal object of faith is the First Truth as present in Scripture and the teaching of the Church (the very authority of the Church is a revealed truth!). Since the First Truth is formally one (God Himself) but materially multiple (all propositions related directly or indirectly to God), these materially multiple truths are interconnected and one cannot believe with the same habit in one truth and not in another. It necessitates assent to the whole of what is revealed, even if only virtually, as many do not know all Catholic dogmas. Given that it is not possible for most people to know all the dogmas, their assent to the authority of the Church is necessary for them to possess the theological virtue of faith. This is because the channels of Revelation include the teaching of the Church, which, in an epistemic hierarchical order, must be conceded even before considering Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
The Magisterium has authority is a revealed truth (Matthew 28:16-20) (and the propositions it declares can be believed by the faithful with varying degrees of assent depending on their character, mode, etc.)
Everything revealed by God is objectively infallible and subjectively attained through the light of faith, which aligns the intellect to receive and assent to such truth. Of course, there must be both an assent from the intellect and a consent from the will, which can only be achieved with the aid of the light of faith. Here, faith must be dogmatic = believing on account of God who reveals it, not on the basis of my own intrinsic investigations because faith is ordering us outward towards God not inward. This is where Protestants depart, and RZ’s main objection against Luigi in the SS debate about why private judgment isn't problematic for Protestants is that everyone uses it. He just overlooks the fact that some uses of our faculties are different from others. For instance, submitting to an interpretation of a text involves submission to something that exists only in your mind (mental), while submitting to a living, concrete entity that is in causal relations (succession- extra-mental) involves acknowledging a living thing endowed with markers of credibility. These are two entirely different things.
Not only you can actually prove the magisterium a priori by examining the mission given and deducing criteria or which means would be necessary to morally achieve that end, but you also have extrinsic markers such as unity, stability, miracles, prophecies, fruitfulness etc.. which are not arbitrary btw, because they are objectively provable as well; as Fenton notes, "the founding of the Catholic Church is historically a miraculous phenomenon because the natural created causes that were brought into play were in no way proportionate to the effect achieved."
also RZ made an interesting comment when asked about icons of Jesus. he said in a stream yesterday:
Wagner: "Would you extend this to, like, imagination-like internal imagination of images of Christ? For example, when you read the Gospels, you don't imagine how Christ would look right?"
RZ: "Right, I just imagine Him as a figure, but I don't try to imagine the specifics yet because anything I make would just be me projecting my own ideals onto Jesus."
This is while he has no problem following his own opinions and judgments about what Jesus teaches and applying his ideals to Him in that way, riddle me that :)
SSPX do the same thing 😮
I think I accidentally deleted the funniest comment on this video It went something like:
"I'm gonna go evangelize the pagans!" *breaks into their house, steals their stuff, kills their cows, builds half of a church, leaves*
I promise I didn't do it on purpose.
It baffling how RZ doesn't realize how his arguments cut against his own positions.
Protestants at the first council of Jerusalem:
The SCRIPTURE says we need to be circumcised so I will not take this council into consideration.
Ah yes, the Protestants at the council would totally argue with the 12 apostles, who we agree were given divine authority from Christ to set the doctrines of the church
@@ryandelaune139 Well, they argue against the Bishops who were given authority by the apostles.
@@ryandelaune139 yes. Just like they today dismiss that same authority that the apostles passed on.
@@ryandelaune139 They definitely would. It's supposed to be approved men who preach not random pastors, and disputes would be taken to the Church
@@ryandelaune139So you are saying that the apostles had the authority to change teachings but the we were left orphans?
I sympathize with your loss. I've felt it many a time. Very glad that you returned to this series and i hope to see more of it! God bless you!
Hi there! I think you and your channel are very cool, I just wanted to say.
Hey, thanks!
RZ position in a nutshell: If the entire church teaches something, you should follow it. Unless you think that it's wrong. Then don't.
Bro when you lost the world I really felt that 🙏
Thanks bro 😭🙏 I changed the thumbnail to reflect my sorrow
@@thecatechumenThe hearts😭 cool detail
Such a treat! Love and follow both of your channels! You are both very intellectual and articulate. I am on a journey to learn more about Catholicism, I appreciate your work and enjoy your delivery. God bless you richly😊
Much appreciated!
Dropping another banger 🗣🔥💯
😎😎
You forgot to post the recipe for how to craft a Infallible Council.
So true. I need to get on that right away
I appreciate the work RZ does overall, but I don’t think he knows as much about Theology as he thinks he does, and as a result it makes him come across as a little smug.
I’m glad to see someone address his videos in spirit, charity, and kindness.
Please consider inviting him for a formal (moderated) debate! We need fresh minds, new approaches and argumentation.
👀
I loved this video, the minecraft kept my low attention span at bay and I was engaged haha
So my tactics are working then 😎
House churches definitely had alters and icons, but it's interesting how his forebears had many of the same theological views as him but acted like house churches and the early Church were very different. But as the evidence has become undeniable, does he change his view and recognize house churches and therefore the ancient Church was very different from his first view? No, of course not. It's simply taken that house churches and the early necessarily couldn't have icons because in his mind they were protestant or proto-protestant
I honestly think next video related to ecumenical councils with Orthodoxy
That would be pretty wild
I was wondering when this would come back!
🙏🙏🙏
Instructions unclear. I am now a Papal positivist
The reformed definitely don't hold to any of the councils, and the onus is on them to show how the council definitions are the same as theirs not to just read their current definitions, which vary from even their own immediate forebears, into the councils
These counter points would have been excellent in your debate with RZ.
Via Amazon I just recently bought encyclical by John xxiii pacem en Terres and that mystical body thing from Pius xii. Loved both popes. True! I’m an old fart at this senior center.
When are you and reformed zoomer gonna do an actual show together? Y’all both seem like nice guys 👍
👀
Pls invite hime for a debate xd
👀
Redemmed Zoomer ahh video