I'm currently a catechumen.. never in a million years thought id say that but i love my priest and i love my church. And most importantly, i LOVE the mass and i cant wait to be able to take full part in communion
@@thecatechumen I challenge you to a debate on infallibility right here in the comment section, taking the opposing view that the Council of Trent was NOT infallible. I will use as my Text, CCC 1376, where they are quoted that Jesus "SAID" the bread was "TRULY" his body. That is a lie. No Bible on Earth claims the Lord "SAID" any such thing; thus, the C.O.T. was not infallible after all. Are you up for the challenge?
What is the best place to read the ecumenical councils? I hear NewAdvent often has the canon lists, but I see quotations and commentary from the Fathers around the councils that they don’t have.
Most scholars, notably Francis Sullivan, will show that the idea that ecumenical councils were infallible did not arise until Theodore Abu Qurrah in the eighth century. The councils were understood as authoritative, but not infallible. Reading infallibility into the church fathers is an example of eisegesis and not exegesis. There’s nothing wrong with the development of understanding the infallibility of an ecumenical council, but any scholar will tell you that the infallibility of councils was not on any of the Church Fathers’ minds
If you want to further the conversation I think all of the Christian apologetics needs to ask the question why some people are convince of certain arguments and some aren’t. This is something I have truly struggled with figuring out and I think a focus on this could definitely further the discussion.
"the question, why some people are convinced of certain arguments and some aren’t." The answer is because the Romanists, nor Orthodox, nor Protestants, are honest with the Early Church evidence. They all twist things and most people are smart enough to realize that they are not fair or honest with the evidence. For example, if the Western Church ( The Romans) provided biblical, logical, Apostolic Tradition reasons for disputed doctrines, based on reason, the East would accept it and come into Communion with Rome....but sadly Rome can't produce the evidence by Scripture, Holy Tradition, or Reason, so the East wins by default.
Your entire position rests upon horribly flawed premises: 1) It doesn't follow from the fact that someone believes X (i.e., that some councils are infallible) that they actually are. Attempting to claim that some councils are infallible because these guys over here say they are is just a non-starter. 2) As is often the case (especially for Roman apologists), you have twisted the words of Scripture to suit your purposes. Jesus claimed that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church -- the gates of hell being, effectively, the boundary that held souls in Sheol prior to Christ's rescuing all who were there. Jesus also claimed that the Spirit would lead people into truth. He NEVER claimed that anyone in the church would never err in matters of faith and morals, or that groups of people would never err likewise. It is simply impossible for the Roman Magisterium to actually be infallible. It is impossible because the Magisterium has made claim X at one time, and not-X at another time... repeatedly. For example, Pope Boniface claimed that submission to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for salvation (Unam Sanctam). Yet, Vatican II -- also an exercise of the Roman Magisterium -- claims that such submission is not necessary. Indeed, it openly recognizes other groups as instruments of salvation. There is nothing wrong with claiming that the decisions of a leadership council have a binding power upon the membership of an organization. That is common enough. It is a completely different matter to claim that my leaders are infallible or their special meeting are infallible. If you have to twist Scripture and engage in fallacies to get to that next step, perhaps it is a step that should not be taken. I encourage you to reflect more deeply upon the claims you are making in this video and ask yourself: If the same claims were made by an apologist for ANOTHER church, would you basically give it the free pass you are giving it here, or would you bring more careful scrutiny to bear?
1. You're right. This video has in mind a certain kind of Protestant who sees the value in pointing to the Church Fathers as a sort of indication for the true faith. As I mentioned in the beginning, the Protestant reformers often quoted the Church Fathers to try and ground their position. As this video demonstrates, their position is flatly contradicted. 2. The gates of hell, as I demonstrated in the video, have historically been used in application to heresy (not exclusively, to be fair, but it is often used in this way). If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into truth, that would entail a certain protection against error. If the Universal Church could teach something heretical, would that not falsify such a promise? Do you have any theological framework as a Protestant for identifying the guidance of the Holy Spirit or is it just wishful thinking? It really isn't impossible. The Church still teaches that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation and that outside of the Church there is no salvation. However, as we have reflected more deeply about this question, there has arisen a need to spell out certain nuances that would indicate this rule is not to be taken as exceptionless. Half of the Christian world is Catholic and the other half is a mixture of the various Protestant sects and Eastern churches. People born in such communities vary in their level of culpability as well as, by their baptism, retaining a certain level of imperfect communion with the Church. It is these considerations that have led the Church to confess - not that the Church is unnecessary for salvation or that there are other paths outside of the one Church of Christ - but that the issue has been complexified through the number of lasting schisms in the last 500 years. Nonetheless, when the Magisterium is teaching in an ordinary capacity and is not intending to irreversibly bind all the faithful to this or that doctrine, we believe it to act fallibly. Those instances in which the Catholic Church is said to speak with an irrevocable voice, however, is when the Magisterium is speaking infallibly. It has long been the Christian practice to identify valid Scriptural interpretations through appealing to Sacred Tradition. You say I twist the Scripture. I say your position is a theological novelty which justifies endless division. Divine Providence has ensured the Church to always retain and preach the truth. The infallibility of Ecumenical Councils is merely that fact recognized in history. The same claims are made by an apologist for another church - namely, the Orthodox Church - and we agree with them. They confess the first 7 Ecumenical Councils and, after their split from the Catholic Church, they have been unable to meet to exercise the extraordinary magisterium ever since (wonder why that is). It also just so happens that Protestants have denied the existence of infallible rules outside of Scripture thereby separating themselves explicitly from the faith of the fathers. Considering the Protestant movement intended to retrieve the faith of the fathers, it seems that their reform efforts were misguided and inaccurate.
@@thecatechumen writes: " As this video demonstrates, their position is flatly contradicted." As is often the case in your videos, you are being innocently (ignorantly) hypocritical and ignoring the underlying issue. As I noted, anyone can find some person or cherry-picked excerpt that affirms his position. The important issue is not whether some guy -- or even many guys -- affirm X, nor is it about whether my intellectual opponents have made a bad argument. The important issue is whether X is actually true. In this case, the important issue is not whether some people have (or have not) asserted that certain meetings are infallible, but whether they actually are. You continue: "If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into truth, that would entail a certain protection against error. If the Universal Church could teach something heretical, would that not falsify such a promise? Do you have any theological framework as a Protestant for identifying the guidance of the Holy Spirit or is it just wishful thinking?" First, I'm not a Protestant. Again, you need to not be making assumptions, whether about others or about the truth of your positions. Further, it would also be prudent (and self-aware) to not mock other people's positions as "wishful thinking" while failing to recognize that you are really just doing the same thing but with lots of decorations and scaffolding on it. Second, the answer to your rhetorical question is no, and for (at least) two reasons. The first is that you have engaged in equivocation. You refer to the "Universal Church" when what you really mean is the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is NOT the Universal Church. Consequently, even if it was true that the Universal Church is preserved from (significant) error, it doesn't follow that this applies to the Church of Rome specifically. You've simply presumed that these are both the same thing, or that what applies to one necessarily also applies to the other. That is a false, unjustified assumption. We make a lot of those as we grow, mature, etc. The second reason for the "no" is that it does not follow from the claim that one will be led to truth that he will never err. You have (again) simply presumed this. You then attempted to explain away a clear contradiction in positions by appeal to "doctrinal development." This is little more than the Roman Catholic version of "We can change doctrines while claiming that we didn't really change doctrines." Again, you would (rightly) criticize anyone and everyone else for doing this, yet somehow it is magically good and necessary when Rome does it. "I say your position is a theological novelty which justifies endless division." As usual, you are speaking/writing from profound ignorance. I haven't presented to you a "position" from which any sensible person could make such a judgment. You are simply presuming to know what mine is, then smearing it with the (tiresome and completely self-unaware) assertion of "endless division." It is, in fact, Rome's claims of Papal Supremacy that have been the cause and perpetuator of "endless division." Yet, again, you simply accuse others of what you do. And, while doing so, you pretend that it isn't division at all when you do it, but when others do it, well, that's just bad. You seem like a sincere guy. Indeed, you and your rhetoric remind me much of myself around that stage of life. I hope that things work out well for you and that you don't cause too much spiritual damage to others or to yourself in the process.
This was absolutely elementary level schismatic pop apologetics and blatantly not even reading the video title. You’re going to need to try a lot harder to get people to join you and satan.
Is just Laughable how you quote against Heresies, he is a Premillenial and a modalist. Premillennialism “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.” “For what are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this word, the entertainments given to the poor, and the suppers for which a return is made? These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.” Modalism “5. But God being all Mind, and all Logos, both speaks exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself. He, therefore, who speaks of the mind of God, and ascribes to it a special origin of its own, declares Him a compound Being, as if God were one thing, and the original Mind another. So, again, with respect to Logos, when one attributes to him the third place of production from the Father; on which supposition he is ignorant of His greatness; and thus Logos has been far separated from God. As for the prophet, he declares respecting Him, Who shall describe His generation? Isaiah 53:8 But you pretend to set forth His generation from the Father, and you transfer the production of the word of men which takes place by means of a tongue to the Word of God, and thus are righteously”
St Augustine says women arent equal in the image of God other than the mind. ST Gregory of Nyssa say so both are, and in the final state of humans arent either male or female. Church Fathers are insanely contradictory, speculate all the time, How do we know that their teaching on the ecumencial council wasnt just u know same way, many believed in a form of universalism like, St maximus and such right. How do we know. How can we use our private interpretation to judge what is canon and non canon within the church father. how do we truely know what is apostolic when it seems to be so contradictory specially concerning the 7th ecumenical council which its teachings cant be found patristicly but atually contradict the council and its teaching on veneration of icons. so how do we know and truely be able to judge with our private intrepretation to know what is apotolic and what is not or if a council would err?
That is why there is a magisterium, which ecumenical councils are part of. These are protected from error, by a charism of the Holy Spirit. So we do not have to try and work out what teaching is apostolic vs a private interpretation. The council of Trent only said that unanimous teachings of the fathers are infallible or maybe merely could not be taught against. The reason is this, if a teaching is found in all places and all times, it must have come from the apostles from which all the church fathers and the churches have originated. On their own we cannot be certain which teaching of the fathers is apostolic tradition. It is only by the consensus of the Fathers, or a definition by the magisterium (teaching authority of the Catholic Church) which is protected by the promise “the gates of hell will not prevail against it[the church]” and “ Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.” And “he who hears you he’s me[Jesus]”
Babe wake up The Catechumen posted
😂😂😂 LETS GOOO
I'm currently a catechumen.. never in a million years thought id say that but i love my priest and i love my church. And most importantly, i LOVE the mass and i cant wait to be able to take full part in communion
Awesome!!
wELCOME hOME !! Millions of Saints and Angels are cheering you on in your progression towards this Divine Intimacy with Our Lord!!!
@garyr.8116 thank you so much.
Fantastic
That's awesome. I remember when I first started going to Mass. I wanted to be confirmed yesterday but had to wait a little over a year. God bless
I’m so glad you’re uploading again
Same here! Thanks for the support 🙏
Welcome back
Well… I know what I’m listening to this morning
💪😤
Great (and exhaustive) work!
Certified banger classic( I haven't watched yet.)
😂😤😤😤
@@thecatechumen I challenge you to a debate on infallibility right here in the comment section, taking the opposing view that the Council of Trent was NOT infallible. I will use as my Text,
CCC 1376, where they are quoted that Jesus "SAID" the bread was "TRULY" his body.
That is a lie.
No Bible on Earth claims the Lord "SAID" any such thing; thus, the C.O.T. was not infallible after all.
Are you up for the challenge?
Another Catechumen classic
🙏🙏
first, well made video
second, what's the chant at the beginning 😅?
Thanks man! I need to find the actual name of it. It’s been so long since I made that intro haha
What is the best place to read the ecumenical councils? I hear NewAdvent often has the canon lists, but I see quotations and commentary from the Fathers around the councils that they don’t have.
www.ccel.org/ccel/s/schaff/npnf214/cache/npnf214.pdf
Amen 💞💞🙏🙏😊😊
Do a video on Catholic and Episcopalian nuns.
Hey! I was wondering if you could share the name of the chant in your intro? It's so familiar to me, but I can't quite place it!
Just wondering, what’s the chant you used in your opening to the video?
Most scholars, notably Francis Sullivan, will show that the idea that ecumenical councils were infallible did not arise until Theodore Abu Qurrah in the eighth century. The councils were understood as authoritative, but not infallible. Reading infallibility into the church fathers is an example of eisegesis and not exegesis. There’s nothing wrong with the development of understanding the infallibility of an ecumenical council, but any scholar will tell you that the infallibility of councils was not on any of the Church Fathers’ minds
First comment!
🙏
If you want to further the conversation I think all of the Christian apologetics needs to ask the question why some people are convince of certain arguments and some aren’t. This is something I have truly struggled with figuring out and I think a focus on this could definitely further the discussion.
"the question, why some people are convinced of certain arguments and some aren’t." The answer is because the Romanists, nor Orthodox, nor Protestants, are honest with the Early Church evidence. They all twist things and most people are smart enough to realize that they are not fair or honest with the evidence. For example, if the Western Church ( The Romans) provided biblical, logical, Apostolic Tradition reasons for disputed doctrines, based on reason, the East would accept it and come into Communion with Rome....but sadly Rome can't produce the evidence by Scripture, Holy Tradition, or Reason, so the East wins by default.
The early church fathers were some of the first to walk away from Paul and follow the apostles doctrine for Israel.
Do you follow the 10 commandments to attain salvation as taught by the Catholic Church?
Your entire position rests upon horribly flawed premises:
1) It doesn't follow from the fact that someone believes X (i.e., that some councils are infallible) that they actually are. Attempting to claim that some councils are infallible because these guys over here say they are is just a non-starter.
2) As is often the case (especially for Roman apologists), you have twisted the words of Scripture to suit your purposes. Jesus claimed that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church -- the gates of hell being, effectively, the boundary that held souls in Sheol prior to Christ's rescuing all who were there. Jesus also claimed that the Spirit would lead people into truth. He NEVER claimed that anyone in the church would never err in matters of faith and morals, or that groups of people would never err likewise.
It is simply impossible for the Roman Magisterium to actually be infallible. It is impossible because the Magisterium has made claim X at one time, and not-X at another time... repeatedly. For example, Pope Boniface claimed that submission to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for salvation (Unam Sanctam). Yet, Vatican II -- also an exercise of the Roman Magisterium -- claims that such submission is not necessary. Indeed, it openly recognizes other groups as instruments of salvation.
There is nothing wrong with claiming that the decisions of a leadership council have a binding power upon the membership of an organization. That is common enough. It is a completely different matter to claim that my leaders are infallible or their special meeting are infallible. If you have to twist Scripture and engage in fallacies to get to that next step, perhaps it is a step that should not be taken.
I encourage you to reflect more deeply upon the claims you are making in this video and ask yourself: If the same claims were made by an apologist for ANOTHER church, would you basically give it the free pass you are giving it here, or would you bring more careful scrutiny to bear?
1. You're right. This video has in mind a certain kind of Protestant who sees the value in pointing to the Church Fathers as a sort of indication for the true faith. As I mentioned in the beginning, the Protestant reformers often quoted the Church Fathers to try and ground their position. As this video demonstrates, their position is flatly contradicted.
2. The gates of hell, as I demonstrated in the video, have historically been used in application to heresy (not exclusively, to be fair, but it is often used in this way). If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into truth, that would entail a certain protection against error. If the Universal Church could teach something heretical, would that not falsify such a promise? Do you have any theological framework as a Protestant for identifying the guidance of the Holy Spirit or is it just wishful thinking?
It really isn't impossible. The Church still teaches that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation and that outside of the Church there is no salvation. However, as we have reflected more deeply about this question, there has arisen a need to spell out certain nuances that would indicate this rule is not to be taken as exceptionless. Half of the Christian world is Catholic and the other half is a mixture of the various Protestant sects and Eastern churches. People born in such communities vary in their level of culpability as well as, by their baptism, retaining a certain level of imperfect communion with the Church. It is these considerations that have led the Church to confess - not that the Church is unnecessary for salvation or that there are other paths outside of the one Church of Christ - but that the issue has been complexified through the number of lasting schisms in the last 500 years.
Nonetheless, when the Magisterium is teaching in an ordinary capacity and is not intending to irreversibly bind all the faithful to this or that doctrine, we believe it to act fallibly. Those instances in which the Catholic Church is said to speak with an irrevocable voice, however, is when the Magisterium is speaking infallibly.
It has long been the Christian practice to identify valid Scriptural interpretations through appealing to Sacred Tradition. You say I twist the Scripture. I say your position is a theological novelty which justifies endless division. Divine Providence has ensured the Church to always retain and preach the truth. The infallibility of Ecumenical Councils is merely that fact recognized in history.
The same claims are made by an apologist for another church - namely, the Orthodox Church - and we agree with them. They confess the first 7 Ecumenical Councils and, after their split from the Catholic Church, they have been unable to meet to exercise the extraordinary magisterium ever since (wonder why that is). It also just so happens that Protestants have denied the existence of infallible rules outside of Scripture thereby separating themselves explicitly from the faith of the fathers. Considering the Protestant movement intended to retrieve the faith of the fathers, it seems that their reform efforts were misguided and inaccurate.
@@thecatechumen writes: " As this video demonstrates, their position is flatly contradicted."
As is often the case in your videos, you are being innocently (ignorantly) hypocritical and ignoring the underlying issue. As I noted, anyone can find some person or cherry-picked excerpt that affirms his position. The important issue is not whether some guy -- or even many guys -- affirm X, nor is it about whether my intellectual opponents have made a bad argument. The important issue is whether X is actually true. In this case, the important issue is not whether some people have (or have not) asserted that certain meetings are infallible, but whether they actually are.
You continue: "If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into truth, that would entail a certain protection against error. If the Universal Church could teach something heretical, would that not falsify such a promise? Do you have any theological framework as a Protestant for identifying the guidance of the Holy Spirit or is it just wishful thinking?"
First, I'm not a Protestant. Again, you need to not be making assumptions, whether about others or about the truth of your positions. Further, it would also be prudent (and self-aware) to not mock other people's positions as "wishful thinking" while failing to recognize that you are really just doing the same thing but with lots of decorations and scaffolding on it.
Second, the answer to your rhetorical question is no, and for (at least) two reasons. The first is that you have engaged in equivocation. You refer to the "Universal Church" when what you really mean is the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is NOT the Universal Church. Consequently, even if it was true that the Universal Church is preserved from (significant) error, it doesn't follow that this applies to the Church of Rome specifically. You've simply presumed that these are both the same thing, or that what applies to one necessarily also applies to the other. That is a false, unjustified assumption. We make a lot of those as we grow, mature, etc.
The second reason for the "no" is that it does not follow from the claim that one will be led to truth that he will never err. You have (again) simply presumed this.
You then attempted to explain away a clear contradiction in positions by appeal to "doctrinal development." This is little more than the Roman Catholic version of "We can change doctrines while claiming that we didn't really change doctrines." Again, you would (rightly) criticize anyone and everyone else for doing this, yet somehow it is magically good and necessary when Rome does it.
"I say your position is a theological novelty which justifies endless division."
As usual, you are speaking/writing from profound ignorance. I haven't presented to you a "position" from which any sensible person could make such a judgment. You are simply presuming to know what mine is, then smearing it with the (tiresome and completely self-unaware) assertion of "endless division." It is, in fact, Rome's claims of Papal Supremacy that have been the cause and perpetuator of "endless division." Yet, again, you simply accuse others of what you do. And, while doing so, you pretend that it isn't division at all when you do it, but when others do it, well, that's just bad.
You seem like a sincere guy. Indeed, you and your rhetoric remind me much of myself around that stage of life. I hope that things work out well for you and that you don't cause too much spiritual damage to others or to yourself in the process.
🔥🔥 comment
@@philoalethia Questions: Do you believe the Council in Acts 15 was infallible? If so, how do you know it was infallible?
This was absolutely elementary level schismatic pop apologetics and blatantly not even reading the video title. You’re going to need to try a lot harder to get people to join you and satan.
Is just Laughable how you quote against Heresies, he is a Premillenial and a modalist.
Premillennialism
“For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”
“For what are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this word, the entertainments given to the poor, and the suppers for which a return is made? These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.”
Modalism
“5. But God being all Mind, and all Logos, both speaks exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself. He, therefore, who speaks of the mind of God, and ascribes to it a special origin of its own, declares Him a compound Being, as if God were one thing, and the original Mind another. So, again, with respect to Logos, when one attributes to him the third place of production from the Father; on which supposition he is ignorant of His greatness; and thus Logos has been far separated from God. As for the prophet, he declares respecting Him, Who shall describe His generation? Isaiah 53:8 But you pretend to set forth His generation from the Father, and you transfer the production of the word of men which takes place by means of a tongue to the Word of God, and thus are righteously”
@@internautaoriginal9951 bruh. St. Irenaeus was not a modalist 😂
@@thecatechumen
Yes he was.
He called the Logos THE FATHER.
And why you don’t follow his eschatological view ?
St Augustine says women arent equal in the image of God other than the mind. ST Gregory of Nyssa say so both are, and in the final state of humans arent either male or female. Church Fathers are insanely contradictory, speculate all the time, How do we know that their teaching on the ecumencial council wasnt just u know same way, many believed in a form of universalism like, St maximus and such right.
How do we know.
How can we use our private interpretation to judge what is canon and non canon within the church father.
how do we truely know what is apostolic when it seems to be so contradictory specially concerning the 7th ecumenical council which its teachings cant be found patristicly but atually contradict the council and its teaching on veneration of icons.
so how do we know and truely be able to judge with our private intrepretation to know what is apotolic and what is not or if a council would err?
That is why there is a magisterium, which ecumenical councils are part of. These are protected from error, by a charism of the Holy Spirit. So we do not have to try and work out what teaching is apostolic vs a private interpretation.
The council of Trent only said that unanimous teachings of the fathers are infallible or maybe merely could not be taught against. The reason is this, if a teaching is found in all places and all times, it must have come from the apostles from which all the church fathers and the churches have originated. On their own we cannot be certain which teaching of the fathers is apostolic tradition. It is only by the consensus of the Fathers, or a definition by the magisterium (teaching authority of the Catholic Church) which is protected by the promise “the gates of hell will not prevail against it[the church]” and “ Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.” And “he who hears you he’s me[Jesus]”