Everyone should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church! It's a breathtakingly beautiful work by men and women who have completely dedicated their lives to God. Go into a church and talk to a priest. So grateful for Catholicism.
So true. This is what’s sealing the deal for me, since it is what officially represents the Church’s teachings, rather than random persons on the internet. The indigenous understanding of Creator, creation and the interconnected of all things, the light and beauty that is God, the love God has for us, thus giving us freedom but still having a plan of salvation for us when we stray… its approach is so universal, by which it is aptly called Catholic
the catechism is false... CCC841 is patently false no matter how you interpret it... Muslims don't adore the same God... they will tell you that... they reject the trinity, they reject Jesus as God. That statement alone sinks it.
As a Catholic, I appreciate this conversation. I think anyone with a logical mind that keeps at a distance the disposition to defend and believe what one *wants* has to sympathize with Austin’s reservations. To believe and defend only what *can be* defended will leave one in a perpetual state of fresh testing and constant openings for doubting a particular system. No system is so invincible that it can’t falter under the rightly engineered criticism. The Catholic philosopher is right to call one to faith. However, I have to say that we Catholics are in a bit of our own challenge when we have to resort to the adjustability, flexibility, and changeability of the Magisterium’s own continuity. That power of adjusting and reformulation can easily come across to the inquirer as a self-serving editorial privilege that forces the continuity. I think that is one of the deepest challenges and people like Austin are simply looking against that and saying, “hmm, how can I feel comfortable having to resort to what seems like an epidemic hack to defend the Catholic system? I’d like to be able to defend Catholicism with its own nature conforming to itself rather than having to employ what appears to be inorganic work-arounds.”
Thank you Eric. I'm a Protestant in the exact same boat and would love to discuss my current journey sometime over email. I know you're a busy man, so no worries if that's not feasible
@@charlesjoyce982 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11, 1). Albeit it is a specific kind of certainty, it is very different kind of certainty than those we achieve by reason and objectivity. In this very biblical sense, faith is even antagonistic with objective certainty: we wouldn’t need assurance of things hoped for if we had already achieved them; we wouldn’t need conviction of things unseen if we simply had seen them prior. The things gotten or seen would suffice in the mere getting or seeing as vehicles of the certainty formulated. Faith is entirely different. We can only have assurance and that kind of conviction by the movement of the Spirit INTO us as subjects, yet so many could claim things entirely different believing they were moved by the same Holy Spirit (that’s EXACTLY the case of Protestant epistemology) grounding it all in the faith a particular subject has. If that means certainty, then it can only demonstrate how Protestantism and relativism are inevitably intertwined. Which is the case, obviously.
Very interesting conversation. After being a Baptist for more than 4 decades I was incorporated into the Catholic Church and I see a clear connection between its doctrines and the witness of the Biblical canon it defined.
Pray for me please. I’m starting to question Protestantism and it’s scary. I want to come to the right conclusions. And I’m afraid of setting off a bomb in my marriage if I were to convert. :( my (Protestant) husband and I are best friends and have no major disagreements on anything, and this could send us into a tailspin.
I’m trying to make a top five books to understand Catholicism, so far I’ve got: 1. The Holy Bible (comprised of 72 books) 2. The Catechism of Trent 3. The Confessions of Saint Augustine 4. The Imitation of Christ by Kempis 5. The Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas In that order. If you are not Catholic and read these five books I would say that you have a true insight into Catholicism. And if you are a Catholic all these books are guaranteed to help you grow spiritually.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (latest version) is the best document to understand. Also, the Youcat book is a great, straight-to-the-point explanation.
@ very true, but it isn’t as complete as the Catechism of Trent, hence why I chose it. The catechism of Baltimore is also very good, the catechism of Saint Pio X is excellent if you want a short catechism and Credo by bishop Schneider is the best of the modern ones in my opinion.
Dr. Aspray is so intelligent and wise, kind about the treasure that is the Catholic Faith in the face of facing reality squarely and so makes me feel so wonderful about being Catholic! Thank you to both men for this discussion. ✝️🙏❤️👏👏👏🌷
Thanks to both of you for the respectful approach made in the spirit of friendship this dialog took. The humility demonstrated will go far further healing the body of Christ (John 17:20 - 23) than any loud statement made by a proud apologist.
Fascinating conversation. Thank you! As a recent convert to Catholicism I just couldn’t find in Protestantism the consistent belief and practice that baptism was regenerative and that the Eucharist was truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and as I read the the Church Fathers i couldn’t find any who did not believe this to be true. I struggled forever and probably still struggle if I’m honest with some of the Marian dogmas, etc but I felt even more lost and disillusioned with my Protestant upbringing. What church could I go to that honestly believed and practiced what the early church did on just these two issues? It was a driving force to seriously investigate the claims of the Catholic Church for me. If I only submitted to the things I agreed with then really i was only submitting to me. That was basically the approach I had to take on some of these other issues. Who determines orthodox doctrine and who has the right to determine it? Thanks again for the great content and guests you have on your channel. Also appreciate the irenic spirit.
“I just couldn’t find in Protestantism the consistent belief and practice that baptism was regenerative and that the Eucharist was truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ” It sounds like you didn’t actually look and fell for the Roman Catholic caricature of lowest common denominator Protestantism. Both of those beliefs are upheld by Lutherans in the strongest possible terms. “What church could I go to that honestly believed and practiced what the early church did on just these two issues?” FYI, the early church did not withhold the cup from the laity, re-sacrifice Jesus, or over explain things with pagan philosophy. “still struggle if I’m honest with some of the Marian dogmas, etc" You are absolutely right to push back against beliefs that are completely unfounded and contrary to scripture, and you shouldn’t have to crank the cognitive dissonance up to 11 to be a Christian. Rome is not the only option, and you would profit from investigating other options like Lutheranism or even Orthodoxy where you can find the fullness of the sacraments without the Marian baggage.
I can only agree wholeheartedly. The challenge I set for myself in my journey back to Catholicism was simply: I will read the Catechism of the Church in its entirety. And if I were to find something in there which I, given my very limited Christian education, could not digest, I would take my objection, for want of a better word, to a Catholic authority for clarification. but it never came to that.. I just fell in love with the beauty, simplicity and authority of the Church.
there is no such thing as "Jewish Catholic"...once the water of Baptism hits your head you stop being a Jew. I don't understand how this got 70+ likes. It baffles me, you are either a Catholic or Jew. Judaism of today IS NOT the religion of the Hebrews, since the Church is the NEW ISRAEL. Moses looked forward to the Lord's coming.
@@bobaphat3676There are Jewish Catholics, just like there are Italian Catholics and Irish Catholics. 😊 It’s just a culture within the Church in this case, though. Judaism and Catholicism are two different religions. You’re right about that! But if a Jewish person becomes Catholic, the Church doesn’t go to the extreme of making them give up their Jewish culture. So, there you have it: There’s Jewish Catholics, Mexican Catholics, Vietnamese Catholics, etc…but we are all still part of the one Catholic Church.
@@GospelSimplicitygotta get one of the based ones too 😏. Fr Turbo Qualls is always interesting and was Protestant for a while. I don’t remember which denomination or non.
@@terrencemedders1867 These Priests have been on many times except for Fr. Quall’s. Fr. John Strickland is an excellent historian (look at his old podcast or Book Age of Division, from Schism to the Reformation) Dr. Jeannie Constantinople A++ most knowledgeable!
This is an awesome conversation. I love that they are both calm and respectful, even when they disagree. I also think this guest is brilliant and kudos to Austin as well. He certainly can hold his own. I am Greek Orthodox but I subscribe to his channel as he is one of my favorites. Wouldn't it be fantastical if we could invent a time machine and settle these arguments once and for all. But since we can't and won't , we have to believe the spoken and written word of the first 300 years after the death of our Lord and Savior.
“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.
Protestant here, curious about the Catholic Church. I have so many questions...I spoke with a priest last week and had a great conversation that made me even more curious and Im really trying to make sense of the Eucharist, Mary, and the Saints. I've been to adoration 2x within the past couple of weeks, praying if this is really for me and if it's really God's intention for His Church. I'm currently in the "patiently waiting" phase for confirmation bc it's a big leap for me. I didn't "feel" or experience Jesus in adoration...what am I missing? Are my expectations for an experience or confirmation from the Lord unrealistic?
@@Bkenda05Be careful going by “feelings”. Feelings change, all the time. Ask the priest at the Church about OCIA. OCIA is a series of classes that allow you to learn about our faith and ask questions and voice your concerns. Keep praying that God will lead you to where He wants you to be. God Bless 🙏
@@Bkenda05 First, patience and prayer. Before Him, at home, everywhere. It is good to ponder that adoration does benefit us but far more so, it is for Christ, who is due our adoration. It spiritually and physically humbles ourselves as we recognize Christ as King - we become the thief on the cross! Think Mary of Bethany in Luke 10:38-42. She dropped everything and sat at our Lord's feet in rapt attention - adoration! If you have a King James Bible, read the last supper accounts. (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). Jesus says the words "New Testament" regarding one specific thing. When? What? At the time He blessed the wine and offered the cup to the Apostles, telling them This is the "New Testament in my blood" The New Testament is the Holy Eucharist. On the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), two disciples who had spent years with Christ did not recognize Him. Very curious! Once at Emmaus, Jesus blessed and broke bread. The others who had not recognized Him, suddenly saw Him 'in' the breaking of the blessed bread. He then vanished, leaving them with the bread. That is huge. They had lost hope at this point, but their faith was suddenly restored by this action of the Lord breaking bread and they immediately returned to Jerusalem. Grace flows through the Eucharist - which means "Thanks." We give thanks by receiving the Eucharist. Jesus described the New Testament not as writing which did not yet exist, but as the bread and wine which became His Blood at His command. You may not feel anything at adoration for days, months or longer. But! When and if you do, it will not be a "feeling" but a spiritual confirmation that can be neither described nor ignored. The only words which suffice here are "the peace which surpasses all understanding." Catholics who believe that Christ spoke the truth in John 6, know that we are commanded as disciples to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord, Paul describes this in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. He calls it a "participation" in the Body and Blood of the lord. Notice that Jesus never used the words "symbolic", "represents' 'similar to", "stands for" or any other symbolic language. He said "This IS My Body." It is true communion with Jesus Christ. The more deeply and profoundly you beg the Lord to reveal Himself, the more powerfully He will do so. Yet, He will not offer all of Himself until you offer all of YOURself. Prayer, faith and patience. Prayers are ascending for you.
@@Bkenda05 I can also recommend "Catholicism for Dummies" which is one of the Dummies series of books. Very good and understandable. It covers virtually all aspects of the faith.
I really appreciate your videos, Austin. They always contain so much thoughtful content and have helped me to think more deeply about the Christian faith. I’ve been looking into Catholicism for 3+ years, and I’m finally starting to find some rest within it despite knowing I can never know it’s true with absolute certainty. These videos help with that.
Core issue for me (ex-Catholic, now-Orthodox) was whether I could accept the picture of development as truly going beyond what came before. Dr Aspray gives the analogy of how we read OT in light of the New, and the New in light of Church Councils. Did St Paul have Trinitarian formulae in his mind? And he suggests: obviously not. Thus, even if earlier Magisterium didn’t have a notion of (say) religious freedom, we can still interpret those older documents as supporting religious freedom given some long-arc perspective of Spirit-led history. (Never mind that the later doctrine contradicts what the original author did have in mind.) But just because St Paul might not have used a formula with the terms ousia and hypostasis doesn’t mean he didn’t hold the exact same understanding as Nicea and Constantinople. St Paul wasn’t fuzzy on the Trinity. He didn’t have an inchoate idea of Christ’s full divinity. This is where the analogy with the OT vs NT breaks down: Christ’s coming, and his revelation of God, are qualitatively different than anything the Church later did-unless you hold to some kind of quasi-Hegelian or progressivist idea of history where the Church is constantly receiving deeper transformative insights relative to what came before. Instead of a rock of certain unchanging faith, we have a mechanism for shifting doctrine away from what came before in incompatible ways: “Now that we *really* understand human dignity, we realize that such-and-such is actually totally morally licit.” This is what I couldn’t accept. Surely, St Athanasius didn’t understand the Trinity better than St Peter-or else why were we taught by St Peter? How could he be one of the apostolic cornerstones of the Church, if it turns out he had a rather underdeveloped theology? (And incidentally, another reason the OT vs NT analogy breaks down is people in the OT had a much more Trinitarian idea of God than a Unitarian one.)
@@b.d.4746 The Catholic and Protestant Churches are so wrapped up in intellectualism that they have to explain and understand every little thing to please themselves and define God. This is impossible. You know God in relationship with Him. This is the difference between Catholic, Protestant and the Orthodox. Orthodox have no problem with mystery and saying we don’t know how Christ is present in the Eucharist or how God created the Universe or what Heaven is like. The goal of the Christian life is the relationship between God and man. As scripture says Romans 12:2 ‘be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind (nous)’ (illumination/sanctification) Go to Liturgy and the Liturgy will teach you everything you need to know. This makes no sense to the intellectual. However, without the knowledge and experience of the living God, all the knowledge means nothing. Sitting in a pew as observer isn’t a faith lived either. Movement or involvement of the whole person is important. Nowhere in scripture were God’s people spectators.
@@GospelSimplicity Ask Scott Hahn. I believe he would gladly speak with you. I think you should send some of your videos to Bishop Barron's group , show them who you have already interviewed so they understand you are serious and coming at your questions from a place of respect. I really think Bishop Barron would gladly speak with you. Maybe show up at one of his talks and hand him a sample of your videos :)
@@valwhelan3533 He has already chatted with both! He hosted a very good debate on the Papacy (with the podcast Cordial Catholic) between Hesch and Ortlund.
One of Newman's most interesting observation is that historically orthodoxy stood or fell based upon the difference between the mystical and literal interpretation of scripture. All heresies derive from a literal interpretation of scripture -- or an approach that only accepts the literal. Catholicism , who alone always maintained orthodoxy, always held to an approach to interpretation that accepted both the mystical and the literal.
As someone working in ecumenism, specifically with Evangelicals, I really appreciated this dialogue. Still, I thought an engagement with the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity's recent document, "The Bishop of Rome", would have been helpful here. I know it's a bit of inside ball as the discussion centers around Newman but where it engaged the question of infallibility I felt more contemporary discussions around papal primacy and synodality would have been salient. I would encourage you to check it out as it raises some great questions and gives insight into the now widespread acknowledgement of the need for an authoritative voice (coming from non-Catholic communions) and the importance of listening to the whole church (coming from the Catholics).
Why believe in the new testament canon is a very interesting question. Lately I'm asking myself, if we accept the early churches verdict on the New Testament, why would we reject their authority on the Old Testament canon? And I guess there is no good answer to that. So the pre-reformed canon ot is I guess?
Someone wrote, "...I just can’t make the connections necessary to buy into Catholic dogmatic teachings...", referring specifically to the audacious claim of the Catholic Church of having magisterial authority coming from being the church that Jesus Christ left behind. Fair enough. It is a risk. But if we apply those objections to the question of why you should accept the Bible as the word of God, we will not believe the bible either. For us to trust the Bible is also a risk. After all, who bequeathed to and told Luther that it was scripture? The Catholic Church. And what was the Bible? The scripture of the Roman Catholic Church. It took centuries to compile a definitive canon of scripture. The Catholic Church had absolute and total control of the Bible from the start up until Luther. Could they have added, subtracted, edited, replaced passages and entire books? Absolutely. No one could counter them. There was no other body to say otherwise. Why trust Catholic scripture if they have no magisterium? After all, we would never trust the Quran just because Mohammad claimed it was scripture or the Book of Mormon just because Smith said so since we reject the Islamic or Mormon claims of prophethood and magisterial authority. To trust the scripture of a false church that bases its claims on a non-existent magisterium just because they assert that it is scripture is nuts. If you apply the objections to the question of why you should accept the Bible as the word of God and follow the trail back, you will not believe the bible either.
“The Catholic Church had absolute and total control of the Bible from the start up until Luther.” I see this talking point common enough but I can’t help but see it as disingenuous. The Catholic Church of the 14th century is not the Catholic Church of the 2nd. This talking point sounds nice, but the reality is far more complicated and it neglects to acknowledge the possibility that other Apostolic Traditions are faithful to… Apostolic Tradition.
I’m extremely excited about this. I just cannot get past a lot of the Marian Dogmas and the claim that the Papacy started with Peter. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence to back any of it up, and the only Catholic response in the face of evidence seems to be, “Well, we’re the one true church established by Jesus so you just have to trust our magisterium.” Hope to have my mind changed, but I’m somehow doubtful lol UPDATE: Mr. Austin did an excellent, excellent, excellent job and asked many of the very questions I wrestle with. In the spirit of charitability, I personally didn’t really hear a single satisfying answer from Dr. Aspray. Mr. Austin raised many excellently worded questions, and I felt like they were almost being sidestepped or deflected instead of taken head on. It was quite perplexing how instead of directly answering Austin’s reasonable questions about infallibility, Dr. Aspray saw fit to tackle the definition of the word. If these teachings are so obvious as to form the backbone of one of the world’s oldest institutions, they should be quite easy to defend without delving into these strange, off-handed arguments. One question that stuck out is when he was asked about the historical assertions of the church that are REQUIRED to be Catholic, and Dr. Aspray just delved into a philosophical argument instead of directly addressing the completely reasonable Protestant objection to historical assertions that lack historical evidence. It’s just a continuous cycle of, as Austin brought up, circular reasoning. The argument basically boils down to 1: You have to accept X dogma to become a member of Y church 2: Why? There isn’t evidence to support that dogma. 1: It’s carried down through sacred tradition and can be found in the writings of the church fathers. Z church father wrote about it. 2: The church fathers disagreed about many things. B church father wrote against that belief. 1: Well our magisterium was directly appointed by Jesus and they tell us to believe it so it’s true. 2: I don’t see the evidence to support that your magisterium was appointed by Jesus. 1: 1: It’s carried down through sacred tradition and can be found in the writings of the church fathers. Z church father wrote about it… 2: The church fathers disagreed about many things. B church father wrote against that belief… And now it’s become a circular argument. Anyway, I’m completely satisfied with the questions, and quite dissatisfied with the answers. I wish I could become Catholic. I know many lovely people and have greatly enjoyed each of my visits to Catholic parishes, and yet I just can’t make the connections necessary to buy into Catholic dogmatic teachings required to become a member of their church. I hope I don’t come off as unfairly critical of Dr. Aspray, I just find it quite frustrating that these questions are apparently so hard to answer 😢
Daniel, please read Genesis and Revelation. You will find Mary as the ark of the new covenant established by the sacrifice of Jesus to Mary, crushing the head of the serpent in Revelation. If you missed these two vital points, then of course you can not see the relevance of Mary in the process of humanity's reconciliation with God the Father.
Can you please explain why you don't think there's any evidence that the papacy started with Peter. As a catholic, it seems obvious to me that the papacy started with Peter, and I'm genuinely curious why you don't see it that way.
CANNOT wait to see this as a "Protestant" (Raised Non-Denominational) and very invested in researching Catholic theology, but I too have issues with it
i was raised a Baptist and had many of the usual handed-down prejudices and false ideas about the Catholic Church. But I've been a Catholic for 37 years and all of the things I assumed about the Catholic Church were proven wrong. There is full Biblical support for every Catholic teachings and Dogmas. I never knew that the Holy Bible was compiled BY the Catholic Church more than 1,100 years BEFORE any protestant sect ever existed. That blew my mind.
I'm a former-Evangelical who became Catholic in 2004. I now have over 20 years of studying early Christianity. The Bible is a Catholic book. The Gospels and letters all composed by members of the Catholic Church. 3 Popes are mentioned by name in them(St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Clement) The term "New Testament" comes from Catholic priest Tertullian of Carthage. The council of Rome is what gave us the Christian canon of scripture. The term "Bible" comes from Pope Sircius. It was later two Catholic Archbishops that would later divide the Bible into chapters and verses. The entire Early Church was Catholic. "The Fathers know best" by Jimmy Aikin is the Gold Standard book for writings on early Christianity. Hundreds of quotes from early Christians and info on early councils and heresies that popped up. St. Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253] St. Augustine of Hippo “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397] Renowned historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440). St. Justin Martyr “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). St. Irenaeus “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). St. Cyril of Jerusalem “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350] St. Theodore of Mopsuestia “When Christ gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]
@@michelleishappy4036 The Cc says Jesus sacrifice didnt get rid of all sins. And even if you are a good catholic, bow to all the pretty graven images, eat all the god crackers, pray to the virgin queen all day and night, you will still wake up in the flames of some pergatory. At least they are honest about waking up in flames.
Yes, the Catholic Church does keep on adding things. It keeps on adding clarity. That is the Catholic Church's strength; it provides the People of God with clarity and understanding where there is disagreement. The Protestant Churches have no such mechanism. They just keep on disagreeing and leaving their followers in total confusion.
Oh my. If you really believe that, then you don't know the first thing about other Christians. We are Christians, for starters, not protestants. There is plenty of clarity among most protestant churches. In some ways, we have more clarity, because we have more simplicity. I find the Catholic faith so bloated w/ accretions that most Catholics don't really understand it. You can't just read the bible and understand your faith. you have to read the catechism, you have to years of CAtholic school, or as an adult you go to RCIA. Which is so antithetical to the Christians in the bible, that I can't even begin to start explaining that one. Then among RCIA classes, I hear Catholics saying they often had to switch parishes to get a decent RCIA course, because some are total crap and some add heresies. So there's all that.
Newman’s theory of doctrinal development was crucial in my own conversion to The Catholic Church. This was a fantastically nuanced and fair discussion.
Does Austin’s argument against having faith in the magisterium out of despair 58:10 remind anyone else of Luther’s argument that Jesus taught hard things to bring us to despair, so that we would accept salvation by faith alone? Now I want to know what Austin thinks of Luther’s argument there.
1:09:43 an interesting example of this is found in John chapter 11 when Caiaphas prophecies that it's better for one man to die than that an entire nation parish. He is certainly not intending to mean that the second person of the Trinity who became incarnate would suffer and die and Rise Again to bring about the restoration of all people.
I am leaning heavily towards Catholicism, but also believe that Christianity is more about being brought into union with Christ to learn to Love the things he loves and hate the things He hates. To be transformed and renewed by his gospel then holding to a set of propositions. I believe Catholicism actually balances this view well though.
There is no better exemplification in the Scriptures of what I have called the loop of grace. God offers, as a sheer grace, the gift of being, but if we try to cling to that gift and make it our own, we lose it. -Bishop Robert Barron
"But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb 11:6) Kinda surprised that the discussion didn't touch upon the fundamental question, the origin and end of the whole dispute: What "Faith" pleases God, and will thereby save a soul - your soul, my soul, all souls?
I am thankful for Protestantism because it led me back to Catholicism after 40 years of seeking the truth. That search revealed that Protestantism is a denial of the FULL truth of Christ. It is thus the core deceit at the centre of the heresies of the end times we are now experiencing. Like all of Satan's lies, it is built on half truths and personal subjective interpretations of the scriptures while denying the traditions that brought the scriptures into being from the beginning.
Leo, the Protestant church didn't lead you back to Catholicism if they heard you say this they would rip apart their clothes. Don't stop searching for the truth because if you stopped at Roman Catholicism you aren't done finding the TRUTH. They changed some very important tenants to the faith as they walked away from the unified faith that is now identified as Orthodoxy. There is a reason why the Protestant faiths stem directly from the Catholic church the Devil is there. There is so much obviousness to how Satan caused this spiraling of truth and the the "faith" and how to commit oneself to Christ through true "worship".
53:33 I'd really like to know whether Dr Aspray says 'literary' or 'literal' sense here, can't make out the word properly. I think there are a couple problems with this line of thought; firstly it seems to assume 'the Protestant approach to Scripture' is to treat it like a textbook(though again I couldn't hear him properly so I may be misunderstanding his statement), whereas I think something like Covenant theology only makes sense because people are looking at Scripture as a narrative with certain structures to it. I guess he's saying this is a modern problem but that's why I'd like more clarity on what he meant. I think it's somewhat mistaken either way though. Secondly he seems to suggest a false dichotomy when asserting Scripture is really there to be 'used to nourish my soul and spirit' which sounds very nice and all but kind of just assumes Biblical doctrine isn't nourishing? It's also the kind of thing that's easy to say with the luxury of living after the Protestant movement lent to the Scriptures being accessible to people in the first place. If you weren't a Latin speaking member of clergy you wouldn't be using Scripture this way, so there's this weird paradox where Protestantism has allegedly made the reading of Scripture into this very stoic quest for extracting doctrine, while sort of claiming Scripture was being used more to bless and nourish people before this which isn't true for laity living in the Middle Ages. Unless you mean them receiving from it second hand, which would then involve theologians extracting doctrines and teaching, assuming that's where they got them from. To be clear I think Protestantism put Scripture front and center and many Roman Catholic's have benefited from this. It's quite frustrating to hear Aspray pin a narrow use of Scripture on Protestantism while ignoring how central the preaching of God's Word is in Protestant understanding of liturgy(which is very much still the case in the kinds of fundamentalist contexts he seems to be alluding to) and how much it has been an impetus in mission work, scholarship and translating Scripture not just into English but many languages globally. If the Catholic Church passed on the Scriptures then the Protestant Church gave it to the masses in a form they could read. Lastly, not to extend my ramblings too much, but the Scriptures themselves seem to contain didactic content that is very much conveying doctrinal commitments. Sure there are narrative aspects which are descriptive rather than prescriptive, but you also have sermons within those narratives, epistles written to both Churches and individuals regarding doctrinal issues and things that are straight up commandments. How you read these without inferring doctrines is a baffling proposition to me honestly, it seems you end up simply mishandling them so I'm not sure how they are nourishing at that point. Which is partly why I'm not convinced even the early Church saw Scripture in the way he describes; it seems both doctrine and being built in the faith flow from reflecting on God's Word by the same Spirit who authored it.
Before the printing press, was it difficult and costly to provide bibles? If so, would it be hard to provide the bible to a great number of people? If so, would that mean that the poor who could not have a bible would not be able to be nourished because they do not have a bible? Wouldnt that mean that before the printing press, which was obviously quite a long time after the beginning of Christianity, that somehow God's plan was stupid? Why wouldnt God have waited for the printing press to initiate His saving plan if having and reading the bible were essential to salvation?
@@charlesjoyce982 The printing press didn't translate the Bible into English; doing so and trying to spread the Bible in this way is what Tyndale was killed for. If someone is using a Latin Bible for the liturgy then they aren't reading it aloud in a way the laity can understand, which is why I then pointed out any such teaching is necessarily the kind of second hand information that involves exegeting the text. If in fact this is the basis of much teaching at the time. I do think you're being quite obtuse and ignoring the context of my response to Barnabus. Please don't put words in my mouth, including blasphemy, without a sincere attempt to understand what I was saying. The point is preaching requires learning the Bible which implies doctrinal knowledge and falls to my charge of a false dichotomy; I have no problem with the Scriptures being read aloud to the Church before the printing press, but that requires it be in a language they understand.
@@zacdredge3859 and you dont think the Church was preaching the word of God? The hierarchy was trying to deceive the people for 1500 years? The word of God exists apart from the scriptures. It existed before the scriptures. The apostles were preaching the word at least a decade before anything was written.
I think the Orthodox response for many "new" questions is "The question premise is based on a VIEW (modernism, for example) that already has a response.
Generally the rule is that “Saint” comes before a title unless that title is of the level of Patriarch. So “Pope St. John Paul II” or “Patriarch St. John Chrysostom.” But “St. King Louis IX” and “St. Emperor Constantine the Great” and “Bl. Emperor Charles I” and “St. Padre Pio” and “St. Mother Theresa.”
My main objection to the “Catholic” approach is it’s eagerness for Accretion in Doctrine and practice, which unavoidably detracts from the basic Faith. Sticking with the simple Gospel is a very good path.
I have considered myself a centrist seeing the truth in many arguments, your comment about living in a tent and not a house is so familiar. I have said the plight of the centrist is he is never at home. In a way he is always on the outside looking in. Eventually the arguments aren't enough and a hunger for a settled place remains. This is one reason a leap is inevitable or a dismissal.
Great discussion! It seems that doctrinal development has been limited to an intellectual tradition shaped by reason and consensus. However, the concepts of a closed canon and a fixed deposit of faith weren’t primary concerns for prophets and early Church Fathers. Historical revelation was not just an intellectual exercise. By relying solely on uncovering doctrine through examining the past, rather than seeking fresh inspiration from above, do we risk closing off the heavens? Jesus says in John “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear” - would this include doctrinal developments that are more revelatory in nature?
I disagree that Orthodoxy is fossilized or that Orthodox take the position that they have figured it all out. The faith being once delivered is just that. The Apostolic deposit has been deposited, but the "development" aspect is still true in that the deposit hasn't been fully exhausted and continues to bring forth riches of revelation. Like a seed turning into a flower.
“Lord I believe, help me with my unbelief.” Mark 9:23-25 This isn’t a failure but an example of an honest Christian. We don’t begin by knowing everything and then believe. It’s impossible to approach the vastness of Christianity purely by intellect only. “Lord help me with my unbelief.” My Priest says that my effort or small attempt to change is success even when I fail to hit the mark 100%. I’m receiving the help I need. Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox on UA-cam podcasts turn people towards intellectualism instead of spirituality. The question shouldn’t be which church has the best writers and current theologians to argue against or who is bigger than the rest with proper structure or no structure at all. Where are, dear Christians, the conversations about worship and experience over time of a holy life in the tradition you’re a part of? What is the point of attending your denomination or Church? What’s the point of continuing the arguments about which church tradition is better? Why does the Church have to cater to your intellectual criteria? Aren’t we missing the essential reason for assembly?
Dear Catholics: if you stopped treating people like they’re stupid or immature until they finally “come home to Rome”, you would 1. Come up with much more effective arguments 2. Be much less awkward and frankly weird to interact with. With much love and respect!
huh? Did you mean "Dear Protestants"? Because they are the one going around calling Catholics "demonic" and "not christians". So, no. With respect and love, of course.
@ I absolutely do not say anything like that about Catholics. Saying, “no, I’m not gonna stop misrepresenting and patronizing Protestants because some of them are mean” is a wild and unchristian thing to say.
@@Traditiononamission That is exactly the point I'm addressing, as you generalise "Dear Catholics" I also need to generalise "Dear Protestants". I guess that each of us christians perhaps should focus less on bashing each others, and be more united in Christ. And for our divergenses is going to be a long process to reunite us because the schism we are in today is definetely not what Christ wanted, but that starts with a polite and kind dialogue and not having being at each others throats. I'm not saying that some Catholics are doing any better than some Protestants, and I would inclued myself in this as oftentime I come harsh on my bretheren that disagree with me. Let us be one, God bless you.
@ You can’t generalize Protestants the same way you can generalize Catholics. The Catholic Church is an institution and Protestantism is a category. I do not say those things about Catholics and never will. I love Catholicism dearly. I was addressing the tendency for Catholics to treat Protestants like a project, which is weird and awkward. I’m not saying Protestants don’t do this (too many do), but *I* certainly do not.
@@Traditiononamission I understand, but can you understand that we have to bundle you in a category for a purpose? Beside that all protestants have some kind of doctrine in common to some degree that is "opposite" in a sense to what catholicism is. We cannot address you individually, but you can. What should we do to address you? Do I have to list every single denomination? This is also a problem when I argue online with Protestants, they often hide their denomination and I cannot call them out, but they can. There is no honesty in these kind of discussions. Evangelicals, baptists, calvinist, uniterians, one pentacostals, modalists, presbiterians, lutherans, anglicans among others, how can we address you? None of these denominations have unity in doctrines, even when they prophess the same beliefs, the diverge in doctrines. Therefore that is the only way that we can address you. This is not an "us" problem, but a "you" problem. And again, I'm not singling you out. As you said catholics to embrace us all, I have to say protestants to flip the coin. Should I say non-catholics? We are argueing semantics for nothing. As I said before, we should try to find unity in charity and not attacking each other, can we leave it at that?
I don’t even think 99% of these commenters have watched one of Austin’s videos to completion, let alone this one. The quality of this content couldn’t be better than the quality of the comments in these sections, and it’s the most utterly painful contrast to see with my eyes.
Why would scripture be the fountain of revelation? The word of God existed prior to the NT scripture. The apostles and the presbyters they appointed were preaching the word long before scripture was written.
Hey! What are your thoughts on the following statements? 1. It is always possible to avoid schism and heresy, and be neither. 2. If the magisterium gets things wrong, then one must be a schismatic in disagreeing with it, or a heretic in agreeing with it. It would not be possible to be neither. C. Therefore, the magisterium doesn't get things wrong. The only remaining question would be which magisterium.
@@SeanusAurelius Well, that's certainly true for heresy. God gave us the faith. However, it seems like Paul means, when he says by the Spirit that schism is a sin - it seems like he's talking about splitting off into factions, trying to make your own team out of the Christian church. In disagreeing with an existing church's magisterium, refusing to be in communion with it, *and then creating a new church*, it seems like you're committing the sin of schism. What was once whole is now divided. What do you think schism means?
Totally disagree with you there, there is but one truth, anything outside of that is heresy. The Catholic Church is the body of Christ. See all the miracles, which can be seen over and over and over again. There is no menu of options. So let's go over the miracles: 1) Our Lady of Guadalupe's tilma has miraculous characteristics including: the material of the tilma disintegrates within 30 to 40 years. It's been nearly 500 years. 2) The tilma cannot be reproduced by modern artists. 3) the temperature of either Mary or at Mary's womb is the temperature a human would have. 4) Incorruptible bodies of saints. They do not decompose. 5) The blood that was gathered I think from a consecration is in an Italian church. It becomes liquid once every year. 6) During the atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima during WWII, a group of 5 or 6 priest survived the atomic explosion. They did not even get radiation poisoning. No one else survived from many miles around. Look up these miracles. These are the small and big ways God proves this is the Church he left behind. There's also almost all exorcisms they go through Catholic Priests. The real exorcism, not the ones televangelist fake. There were also numerous Marian apparations by hundreds or thousands of documented and never documented miracles. Whole teams of scientists tests the mystics that receive the messages. So your state is highly biased and shows you are not open to seeing the truth. Possible ways for you to see the truth are having humility and being simple, brotherly love as well as non-judgmental. Read what you wrote, you will not find any of what you just wrote. The two presenters have thosequalities: Humility Simpleness Brotherly love Are non-judgmdntal
@@littlerock5256You're not Catholic, you're not united to the Holy See and in your pride you have created a religion of selective nostalgia instead of following the universal faith.
@@geoffjs The first three are about pastoral matters, this means how to treat christians in our times in order to bring them closer to God; there is nothing new to them other than some christians claiming that they somehow in odds with church teaching. We see after ten years of amoris leatitia: nope, all smoke no fire. While they often repeat church teaching (like on abortion, the sacred nature of marriage, the sin of homosexuality) none of those teach anything new. They are more about application than development. Not exactly sure what they mean when talking about synodality, but synods are occuring early on in Christianity. They are like councils, but for the regional church. They can decide on regional matters, and sometimes they are tasked to line out a specific question (like the synod of Carthage that worked out a conon to be later approved by the whole church) Nothing wrong there (the german "synodal way" is not a Synod btw), and there is no doctrin that prohibits laymen to partake in a synod. The churches stance on death penalty is: it is not contrary to the faith. But after revisioning the church teaches now that the circumstances that would allow for death penalty are not given anymore. This means that basically every country on earth has the capacity to deal in better ways with criminals. But if you find yourself on an Island with a dangerous murder and no help available, it can be justified to excersise a death sentence.
My main concern with the Papacy is that its inferred infallibility is baseless according to Scripture. Saint Peter, who certainly exercised primacy within the Church, was not the central Apostle of the Church in Acts. If Peter as the first Pope truly practiced supremacy in certain circumstances, then the Church of Acts would have structurally (patristically) formed and revolved around Peter-which it didn’t. Nor did any of the subsequent Popes of Rome lay claim to infallibility until Vatican I, which is an inconsistent accretion.
Catholic here. Infallibility boils down to "it is true when it is true." It's a tautology. If a teaching ends up false, that just means it wasn't infallible in the first place. Silly? Yeah. I don't like Vatican I. But it is what it is.
What a thought-provoking discussion gentlemen. Thank you both. I know that engaging in historical counter-factual discussions is always a bit hazardous, but this episode prompted a thought experiment. What if the Church had never sifted orthodoxy/heresy through the Councils, but had instead taken the approach we that took root in Protestantism? Your example of Arianism is a good one. As Dr Aspray said, Arius had a solid line of scriptural argumentation along with strong theological and philosophical points to support his position. He also had a sizeable group of Bishops who sided with him. A sola scriptura approach would not have been sufficient to determine the correct position and so the tools within Protestantism couldn’t help. It isn’t too difficult for us to guess what would have happened under Protestantism because situations very similar to this played out across the first few centuries of the Reformation. I suggest that the Arian Christian denomination would have been founded with a large minority of Catholic bishops going into the new church. We could say the same perhaps for Gnosticism, Marcianism and all the rest. My question is, what would have happened to historical Christianity if it had become so heterodox so early in its development. Would it have lost its identity so quickly that it would have dissipated and died out long before Luther had an opportunity to object? My gut instinct is that the Church would not have existed into the second millenium and, it certainly couldn’t have been capable of defending its distinctive qualities (because it would be difficult to point to any) against different world faiths that emerged. Does anyone have any ideas?
I see the Shaff translation (or a few selected volumes) on the shelf. The good points are that it is one of the most reprinted of the translations of the Fathers, so you can find sets for very low prices most everywhere. It is also out of copywrite, so you can also find it online in both Catholic and Protestant websites. The drawbacks are that the translation has a very mid 19th Century anti-Catholic bias among both the individual translators and Schaff himself as General Editor,. Another less obvious bias which is less evident as it's does not show up in vocabulary and word choices such as translating Episcopi and Presbyteros as Elders and Pastors.... Schaff removed large sections of the text because (as with Ortland's bias) Schaff determined for himself that they sounded too Catholic. Sometimes he would put the text into the footnotes other times they would be removed and forgotten. During the time Schaff was editing the set, texts that were older and more complete than what Schaff and his translators were using were found (in many cases by Protestants travelling though the Middle East, who promised the Monasteries they would be returned, but in most cases never did) These texts which predated the Schaff documents by 500 - 1200 years, all contained those passages that sounded too Catholic to Schaff and he insisted were inserted by later Catholic copyists in the 15th to 17th Centuries. There are better (alas more expensive) translations done by Catholic, Orthodox and some Anglican and Lutheran translators that are not only more true to the original and complete. Rather that Accretions as Dr,. O runs to in defense of his rejection of Roman Catholic and to a lesser extent because of his lack of familiarity with Orthodoxy, is driven by the use of Schaff which omits those teachings the Fathers held and Shaff removed,
Interesting interaction, but one weakness is the emphasis on just intellectual satisfaction, when really the gospel is about our relationship with Christ. It is reduced to once you are in a Church that seems to have most things correct then you are fine. So you have to remain insecure until you are convinced that most of the Church fathers on your side! I am afraid this is utter folly, the Catholics will claim there are the only ones who are right, so are the Orthodox, so will the Protestant scholars...in other words you have to read forever which Ecclesiasts 12:12, tells is futile. So salvation is not for the intellectual but for anyone who has been transferred from the kingdom of darkness into light through Christ who is the only light of the world! It is possible for an illiterate granny to have better relationship with the Lord and know the Lord better than some of the professors who have read volumes of Theology. Also the Holy Spirit is not just residing in Bishops but whoever comes to Christ to drink the water that He gives. Lastly, you are not saved by the size of your canon, the Ethiopian eunuch to the best of my knowledge only had Isaiah and but put in the hands of an Evangelist, there was enough content there to lead to his conversion
@GospelSimplicity: Austin, this conversation was great! ...but on the topic of the Orthodox (@22:05 and following), I feel that you and your guest both missed a critical issue: There is NOT simply one "Orthodox Church!" If an Orthodox apologist were to claim (as you say), "Yeah, we kinda hammered out the faith. We got it!" ..., the just response would be: "Okay, which one of you? There are, after all, several Orthodox Churches which are _not_ in communion with each other. Let us know which communion continuously _was_ The Orthodox Church in the wake of Chalcedon -- the Chalcedonians, or the non-Chalcedonians? -- and whether, right now, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is autocephalous? And whether we must be in communion with ROCOR, or the True Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East?" The reality of Orthodoxy's _multiplicity of authority_ means that Dr. Aspray is making his own case _too weakly,_ when he says, "Again, you can't prove either way. It comes down to your view of history...." (@23:18 and following). Buck up, Dr. Aspray: Your position has more ammunition left than _that!_ It might seem that, by poking at open wounds in Orthodox unity, I am being unfair: The current schism between Russian and Greek Orthodox over the authority (or, non-authority) of the Ecumenical Patriarch to declare Ukraine's church autocephalous is embarrassing, but surely the existence of antipopes in past centuries is equally embarrassing? And, if Protestantism's divisions are sufficient to falsify _Protestantism's_ "Epistemology of Faith,"* and if divisions between the various Orthodox claimants falsify _Orthodoxy's_ "Epistemology of Faith," then surely the divisions in _Catholicism_ falsify the Catholic "Epistemology of Faith," right? And if all three are falsified, haven't we therefore falsified _everyone's_ claim to know "What is Christianity?" Have we not demonstrated that "the required content of the Christian religion" is a thing _unknowable,_ a thing lost in the mists of time, to be dubiously reconstructed by us moderns from whatever evidence we can dig up, with anybody's guess being as good as anybody else's? Perhaps all these attempts to answer "What is the required content of the Christian religion?" have, by their failures, sufficiently compelled us all to adopt a kind of _Agnostic Liberalism_ about what Jesus requires of us! But, not so fast. First, I doubt we could sustain Jesus' claim to be God, at all, if His ecclesiology was as bad as all that. What would become of His claim that we shall "know the truth," that we are not "left orphans," that the Holy Spirit will "lead [us] into all truth?" Or, of the claim that He knew what was in the hearts of men? (Really: Could not _anyone_ with sufficient experience of humans predict that the response to church disputes would _inevitably_ be competing claims of "Which Church is THE Church?" Any competent sociologist could have foreseen _that,_ let alone God Incarnate!) So, I keep returning to Matthew 18's church discipline process: "If he refuses to listen _even to the Church,_ let him be to _y'all_ as a heathen or publican. For, whatsoever _y'all_ bind on earth is [has been already] bound in Heaven; and whatsoever y'all loose on earth is [has already been] loosed in Heaven." That passage, in light of 1 Cor 5 and Acts 15, leaves us no doubt that "The Church" is expected to have a capacity to judicially determine who's in, and who's out. If you have _that,_ then surely the only remaining question is, "If two groups mutually excommunicate each other over some dispute, what objective standard do they offer to determine _which one retains continuity_ as THE Church, and which one has just been expelled, creating a new and separate entity?" Famously, none of the Orthodoxies have any single agreement on how such a question can be answered. There are several theories; but none have majority support (or ever have had). If one were to be settled upon _now,_ the question would immediately arise: Whence comes the _novelty_ of this sudden adoption of an objective standard determining which side of a division retains continuity with Christ's Church? And by what _authority_ can that new standard claim to have been validly adopted?" It seems impossible that any of the Orthodoxies have, or ever _could_ have, an answer to _that_ question which is consistent with their ecclesiology (with _any_ of their ecclesiologies!). It is, so far as I can tell, the unavoidable kill-shot. Meanwhile, the Catholic answer to the continuity question is, simply: "Which of the two dividing bodies retains the Al Bayith, the Successor of Peter, validly selected according to the existing laws of the Church?" And that, really, is a mic-drop moment. One can _know the answer._ And with _that_ system, the continuity of the church and the finality of a highest-court-of-appeal for disputed matters is _knowably_ established for all to see. Even the scandal of three claimants to the papacy a few centuries back doesn't interrupt it. After all, only one of those claimants was validly selected; the others were antipopes whose pretenses began _while the office was already occupied._ That doesn't mean it's true! ...but, it does mean it is _workable_ in a way that no other proposed ecclesiology on earth can claim. So, _contra_ Dr. Aspray, one needn't retreat to something as subjective as "one's view of history" to cope with the authority-claims of the various forms of Orthodoxy. Thanks, Austin! * = I define "Epistemology of Faith" as, "The _means_ by which Christ intends us to know, and to _know that we know,_ with well-founded confidence, what is the required content of the Christian religion: The belief, praxis, and group-membership which Christ has made obligatory on us, as Christians."
You could also look at the different claims and history of the different groups and see that there may be identifiable reasons to see one as legitimate over another...
Almost all evangelicals believe that St. Peter was infallible….at least on two occasions…when he wrote his two epistles. For Catholics in other clearly defined circumstances, the pope is infallible in order to protect the Church.
Orthodoxy rejects doctrinal development because it suggests that we understand Christianity better than the apostles and Church fathers. I think the opposite is the case. Early Christians understood Christianity at a much deeper level intuitively, because they lived in tje same culture. We don't really understand that culture anymore and need the crutch of a detailed re-explanation to understand what was obvious to early Christians.
Increasingly, I find those who convert to Catholicism will state it is because of the church fathers, "To be deep in history is to be Catholic," or "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." What I don't see is "To be deep in the Bible . . ." That is a huge red flag when a person or religious institution upholds their writings above the Bible. That and the pride that oozes out of the Roman Catholic Church.
Thanks for this insightful comment! As a matter of fact, it was my love of the Bible that drove me into the Catholic Church. I would love to share that journey with you if you're interested.
@geoffjs he is and he's perhaps going through a deconstruction, but a deconstruction of a good kind where he'll eventually reconstruct in the one true church of Christianity. Just gotta have faith.
I think that a good reason to defer judgement and accept infallibility is indicated in the Acclamation of St. Thomas to Jesus and Jesus' response. Thomas had good reason to doubt, but his response clearly shows that reason did not serve him on this occasion. Jesus' response to him, i think, was a promise of reward for faith, thus blessedness, as God's gift of Himself, provides a good "reason" to suspend one's judgement. Taken in concert with other promises of Jesus to the Apostles, I submit this is not a risky or reckless path for Doctrinal Development.
A fundamental reason for doctrinal development would be that modern culture is totally different from early Christian culture. Back then, people regarded the world mostly in supernatural terms, while we often use scientific explanations. We simply can't go back to early Christianity. We need some form of translation to understand what people meant because we don't speak their cultural language anymore.
I’m inquiring a lot into Catholicism and Orthodoxy but I don’t see any positive cases that this Catholic makes for the reason to believe in the papacy. Most of it just draws on which belief system makes it easier to not be a skeptic. But if you are downplaying the reliability of scripture and tradition than you are downplaying the two things you have to derive the papacy from. This would compel me to Orthodoxy but it is so hard to believe that the one true church would be widely unknown and not participants in most of the world and it’s issues.
I think there is a misconception about this. The Catholocs believe in the inerrency of Scripture and other apostolic Tradition as much as Protestants do. And when asked about the Primacy of Peter and his office they point to those . (Peter=the rock, the keys of the Kingdom, Jesus' prayer, "tend to my sheep", who is the greatest of the apostles etc., and to early Christians like Ignatius of Antioch who clearly believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.)
Hierarchical structures with one person as the head exist in almost all human institutions, whether it be a Dean of a university, a CEO of a company, or a President of a country. As a society, we've determined that that is the best way to organize. So then why is it so unreasonable for the same structure to exist in the Church, arguably the most important institution in the world?
The schism of 1054 went widely unknown in the Greek speaking world for a couple hundred years. Upon learning about the schism, many of the churches still recognized the Pope and returned to the Catholic Church. These became the 23 eastern catholic churches. During the patristic age, there were many church contiversies and they almost always appealed to the Pope to settle them. The primacy of the pope wasn't broadly questioned until 1054. As st. Iraneus wrote in 167, due to the dual founding ministry of Peter and Paul in Rome, all bishops should remain in communion with Rome.
Finding something new in an old text is not the same as redefining what the old text said in direct contradiction with what the original authors claimed
I know I’m coming in late and I’m probably being too simplistic but I don’t so much have faith in the councils, I have faith in the Holy Spirit. The fact that He uses human agency to flesh it out does not make humans the source of the infallibility
In my opinion the Catholic professors take that the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrinal development is mistaken. Personally, I feel that doctrine is not a development but an affirmation of what scripture says already. That being said I don’t think you can make the same affirmation regarding prayer to saints. Most arguments for prayer to saints in my opinion are outside of scripture. This seems more clearly to be a doctrinal development.
Nice job! Hello everyone, I am a theology student who has to improve his fluency in speaking English. So if there is anyone with the same issue I would aprreciate like ft 1 time weekly, maybe talking about some actual theological problems or something like that 😊
Essentially, it's due to a lack of agreed lines of authority on who can summon a council. They tried in 2016, and it could have been the first Orthodox ecumenical council in 1300 years. But four of the autocephalous churches refused to participate, which highlights the problem.
We have, the Palamite councils. This is just something some catholics weirdly insist on when demonstrably the Orthodox are capable of having councils that then result in unanimous adoption.
@@barneyaspray IMO it being difficult to add to the list of dogmas is a good thing, a lot harder for human beings to fill up the doctrinal list with things that should stay in the realm of theological opinion
@@barneyaspray It was a wonderful conversation, Dr. Aspray. I just found it funny that the ghost of Gavin Ortlund was about to pop up for a moment there, during the discussion.
You really ought to read "Tradition and Apocalypse" by David Bentley Hart it really cleared everything up for me and offers a much less circular argument than Newman's
The Truth is God. In the end, Christ is literally The Truth, not a denomination. However we can discern where The Truth is most earnestly loved and worshipped.
Catholicism can be beautiful, just as Eastern Orthodoxy can be, just as any religion can be. But no one religious tradition has all the answers in so far as they often exculde valuable elements of other religious traditions.
Sorry, Calvin’s post hoc belief regarding how we know scripture is demonstrably false (even well intentioned Protestants don’t all recognize the same scriptures) and it is very much like Joseph Smith’s burning in the bosom for his Book of Mormon. It’s just another “I want it my way” and no one can judge better than me.
Good conversation. But Dr Aspray seems unaware that the Orthodox Church continued to meet in ecumenical councils in the second millennium, and continued to function as a unified Church, every bit as much as in the first millennium.
@ Happy to share some more context. In the second millennium, we continued to meet in “Pan-Orthodox” (or “Near-Pan”) fashion to discuss and rule on issues, continuing the model of the first great/undisputed Ecumenical Councils (which themselves, as I’m sure you know, were sometimes only “Near-Pan” themselves). Some notable non-exhaustive examples include: - Constantinople 1341-1351, on the Palamite controversy - Jerusalem 1583, on a variety of East-West issues - Jerusalem 1672, on Calvinism and other issues - Constantinople 1923, which authorized the Revised Julian Calendar - Sofia 1998, on the Bulgarian schism Also the failed reunion councils at Lyons and Ferrara-Florence demonstrate the same point: that the objective was the reconciliation of two internally unified and coherent bodies: “the Orthodox,” not merely “disparate Orthodox churches,” as some apologists like to suggest. One also sees unified responses on the part of Orthodox patriarchs to issues in writing, most famously perhaps the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in response to Pope Pius IX. There are scores of scholarly books that go into the history in more depth than a UA-cam comment, but those are some fairly easy and uncontroversial examples to point to to start.
Everyone should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church! It's a breathtakingly beautiful work by men and women who have completely dedicated their lives to God. Go into a church and talk to a priest. So grateful for Catholicism.
So true. This is what’s sealing the deal for me, since it is what officially represents the Church’s teachings, rather than random persons on the internet. The indigenous understanding of Creator, creation and the interconnected of all things, the light and beauty that is God, the love God has for us, thus giving us freedom but still having a plan of salvation for us when we stray… its approach is so universal, by which it is aptly called Catholic
the catechism is false... CCC841 is patently false no matter how you interpret it... Muslims don't adore the same God... they will tell you that... they reject the trinity, they reject Jesus as God. That statement alone sinks it.
In whcih has many errors and contradictions to the Bible. No thank you!
@@KasparPel-r9d but what if it is patently false?
CCC841 is not true.
As a Catholic, I appreciate this conversation. I think anyone with a logical mind that keeps at a distance the disposition to defend and believe what one *wants* has to sympathize with Austin’s reservations. To believe and defend only what *can be* defended will leave one in a perpetual state of fresh testing and constant openings for doubting a particular system. No system is so invincible that it can’t falter under the rightly engineered criticism. The Catholic philosopher is right to call one to faith. However, I have to say that we Catholics are in a bit of our own challenge when we have to resort to the adjustability, flexibility, and changeability of the Magisterium’s own continuity. That power of adjusting and reformulation can easily come across to the inquirer as a self-serving editorial privilege that forces the continuity. I think that is one of the deepest challenges and people like Austin are simply looking against that and saying, “hmm, how can I feel comfortable having to resort to what seems like an epidemic hack to defend the Catholic system? I’d like to be able to defend Catholicism with its own nature conforming to itself rather than having to employ what appears to be inorganic work-arounds.”
Is faith certainty?
Erick _The Ace of Spades_ ♠ Ybarra
watch?v=86Iwytfa6ms
("and don't forget the Joker!" )
🃏
Thank you Eric. I'm a Protestant in the exact same boat and would love to discuss my current journey sometime over email. I know you're a busy man, so no worries if that's not feasible
@@charlesjoyce982 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11, 1). Albeit it is a specific kind of certainty, it is very different kind of certainty than those we achieve by reason and objectivity. In this very biblical sense, faith is even antagonistic with objective certainty: we wouldn’t need assurance of things hoped for if we had already achieved them; we wouldn’t need conviction of things unseen if we simply had seen them prior. The things gotten or seen would suffice in the mere getting or seeing as vehicles of the certainty formulated. Faith is entirely different. We can only have assurance and that kind of conviction by the movement of the Spirit INTO us as subjects, yet so many could claim things entirely different believing they were moved by the same Holy Spirit (that’s EXACTLY the case of Protestant epistemology) grounding it all in the faith a particular subject has. If that means certainty, then it can only demonstrate how Protestantism and relativism are inevitably intertwined. Which is the case, obviously.
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment (as always), Erick! Hope you and your family are doing well.
Very interesting conversation. After being a Baptist for more than 4 decades I was incorporated into the Catholic Church and I see a clear connection between its doctrines and the witness of the Biblical canon it defined.
Pray for me please. I’m starting to question Protestantism and it’s scary. I want to come to the right conclusions. And I’m afraid of setting off a bomb in my marriage if I were to convert. :( my (Protestant) husband and I are best friends and have no major disagreements on anything, and this could send us into a tailspin.
Thank you for sharing. Sometimes we forget that not everybody can simply come to the Church on a wimp.
I prayed for you that Christ helps you find where He wants you to be and that your marriage remain strong
That’s a tough situation and you have my prayers. Check out Orthodoxy. It doesn’t have a lot of the hang ups Protestants have with Catholicism.
Thank you so much everyone
Watch “Lectio: Salvation” with your husband.
I’m trying to make a top five books to understand Catholicism, so far I’ve got:
1. The Holy Bible (comprised of 72 books)
2. The Catechism of Trent
3. The Confessions of Saint Augustine
4. The Imitation of Christ by Kempis
5. The Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas
In that order.
If you are not Catholic and read these five books I would say that you have a true insight into Catholicism. And if you are a Catholic all these books are guaranteed to help you grow spiritually.
That's a solid list!
Excellent collection. A Bible with commentary, such as Haydock, is very helpful.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (latest version) is the best document to understand. Also, the Youcat book is a great, straight-to-the-point explanation.
@ very true, but it isn’t as complete as the Catechism of Trent, hence why I chose it. The catechism of Baltimore is also very good, the catechism of Saint Pio X is excellent if you want a short catechism and Credo by bishop Schneider is the best of the modern ones in my opinion.
@@RealBadgerScrutiny Credo by Schneider has errors.
Dr. Aspray is so intelligent and wise, kind about the treasure that is the Catholic Faith in the face of facing reality squarely and so makes me feel so wonderful about being Catholic! Thank you to both men for this discussion. ✝️🙏❤️👏👏👏🌷
Thanks to both of you for the respectful approach made in the spirit of friendship this dialog took. The humility demonstrated will go far further healing the body of Christ (John 17:20 - 23) than any loud statement made by a proud apologist.
Fascinating conversation. Thank you! As a recent convert to Catholicism I just couldn’t find in Protestantism the consistent belief and practice that baptism was regenerative and that the Eucharist was truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and as I read the the Church Fathers i couldn’t find any who did not believe this to be true. I struggled forever and probably still struggle if I’m honest with some of the Marian dogmas, etc but I felt even more lost and disillusioned with my Protestant upbringing. What church could I go to that honestly believed and practiced what the early church did on just these two issues? It was a driving force to seriously investigate the claims of the Catholic Church for me. If I only submitted to the things I agreed with then really i was only submitting to me. That was basically the approach I had to take on some of these other issues. Who determines orthodox doctrine and who has the right to determine it? Thanks again for the great content and guests you have on your channel. Also appreciate the irenic spirit.
Tks for your comment. I encourage you to read about & meditate on Marian dogma as it will bring you much peace, pray the rosary!
Do you count Lutherans as protestants?
@@tayalollipop2317 I love what you said: if I only submitted to the things I agreed with then really I was only submitting to me.
“I just couldn’t find in Protestantism the consistent belief and practice that baptism was regenerative and that the Eucharist was truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ”
It sounds like you didn’t actually look and fell for the Roman Catholic caricature of lowest common denominator Protestantism. Both of those beliefs are upheld by Lutherans in the strongest possible terms.
“What church could I go to that honestly believed and practiced what the early church did on just these two issues?”
FYI, the early church did not withhold the cup from the laity, re-sacrifice Jesus, or over explain things with pagan philosophy.
“still struggle if I’m honest with some of the Marian dogmas, etc"
You are absolutely right to push back against beliefs that are completely unfounded and contrary to scripture, and you shouldn’t have to crank the cognitive dissonance up to 11 to be a Christian. Rome is not the only option, and you would profit from investigating other options like Lutheranism or even Orthodoxy where you can find the fullness of the sacraments without the Marian baggage.
Thank you for your comment. I so relate to what you’re are saying.
Appreciate the conversation gentlemen
I can only agree wholeheartedly. The challenge I set for myself in my journey back to Catholicism was simply: I will read the Catechism of the Church in its entirety. And if I were to find something in there which I, given my very limited Christian education, could not digest, I would take my objection, for want of a better word, to a Catholic authority for clarification. but it never came to that.. I just fell in love with the beauty, simplicity and authority of the Church.
Love the dialogue. Jewish Catholic here. 😊🌹🙏
I hope you realize the Roman Church heavily persecuted the Jewish people for hundreds of years.
Very interested in jewish catholicism, because She, the Mother of the Lord, was a jew and Saint Joseph TOO.
@@pepehaydn7039it’s just Catholic. Since there’s no difference between a Greek or a Jew under God.
there is no such thing as "Jewish Catholic"...once the water of Baptism hits your head you stop being a Jew. I don't understand how this got 70+ likes. It baffles me, you are either a Catholic or Jew. Judaism of today IS NOT the religion of the Hebrews, since the Church is the NEW ISRAEL. Moses looked forward to the Lord's coming.
@@bobaphat3676There are Jewish Catholics, just like there are Italian Catholics and Irish Catholics. 😊 It’s just a culture within the Church in this case, though. Judaism and Catholicism are two different religions. You’re right about that! But if a Jewish person becomes Catholic, the Church doesn’t go to the extreme of making them give up their Jewish culture. So, there you have it: There’s Jewish Catholics, Mexican Catholics, Vietnamese Catholics, etc…but we are all still part of the one Catholic Church.
I hope you do this on Orthodoxy as well. I'm searching myself, and you've been super instrumental in that journey.
I'd love to do an in-person dialogue on that with someone. Perhpas I can get Fr. Damick down to Maryland some time
@@GospelSimplicitygotta get one of the based ones too 😏. Fr Turbo Qualls is always interesting and was Protestant for a while. I don’t remember which denomination or non.
There's good options for a priest to speak with. Fr Damick is good, as is Fr De Young, Fr Trenham, and Fr Qualls.
@@terrencemedders1867
These Priests have been on many times except for Fr. Quall’s.
Fr. John Strickland is an excellent historian (look at his old podcast or Book Age of Division, from Schism to the Reformation)
Dr. Jeannie Constantinople A++ most knowledgeable!
I'd suggest trying to get someone like John Behr or Andrew Louth but that may be very hard
This is an awesome conversation. I love that they are both calm and respectful, even when they disagree. I also think this guest is brilliant and kudos to Austin as well. He certainly can hold his own. I am Greek Orthodox but I subscribe to his channel as he is one of my favorites. Wouldn't it be fantastical if we could invent a time machine and settle these arguments once and for all. But since we can't and won't , we have to believe the spoken and written word of the first 300 years after the death of our Lord and Savior.
“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.
Excellent comment which I endorse!
Protestant here, curious about the Catholic Church. I have so many questions...I spoke with a priest last week and had a great conversation that made me even more curious and Im really trying to make sense of the Eucharist, Mary, and the Saints. I've been to adoration 2x within the past couple of weeks, praying if this is really for me and if it's really God's intention for His Church. I'm currently in the "patiently waiting" phase for confirmation bc it's a big leap for me. I didn't "feel" or experience Jesus in adoration...what am I missing? Are my expectations for an experience or confirmation from the Lord unrealistic?
@@Bkenda05Be careful going by “feelings”. Feelings change, all the time. Ask the priest at the Church about OCIA. OCIA is a series of classes that allow you to learn about our faith and ask questions and voice your concerns.
Keep praying that God will lead you to where He wants you to be. God Bless 🙏
@@Bkenda05 First, patience and prayer. Before Him, at home, everywhere. It is good to ponder that adoration does benefit us but far more so, it is for Christ, who is due our adoration. It spiritually and physically humbles ourselves as we recognize Christ as King - we become the thief on the cross! Think Mary of Bethany in Luke 10:38-42. She dropped everything and sat at our Lord's feet in rapt attention - adoration!
If you have a King James Bible, read the last supper accounts. (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). Jesus says the words "New Testament" regarding one specific thing. When? What? At the time He blessed the wine and offered the cup to the Apostles, telling them This is the "New Testament in my blood" The New Testament is the Holy Eucharist.
On the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), two disciples who had spent years with Christ did not recognize Him. Very curious! Once at Emmaus, Jesus blessed and broke bread. The others who had not recognized Him, suddenly saw Him 'in' the breaking of the blessed bread. He then vanished, leaving them with the bread. That is huge. They had lost hope at this point, but their faith was suddenly restored by this action of the Lord breaking bread and they immediately returned to Jerusalem.
Grace flows through the Eucharist - which means "Thanks." We give thanks by receiving the Eucharist.
Jesus described the New Testament not as writing which did not yet exist, but as the bread and wine which became His Blood at His command.
You may not feel anything at adoration for days, months or longer. But! When and if you do, it will not be a "feeling" but a spiritual confirmation that can be neither described nor ignored. The only words which suffice here are "the peace which surpasses all understanding."
Catholics who believe that Christ spoke the truth in John 6, know that we are commanded as disciples to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord, Paul describes this in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. He calls it a "participation" in the Body and Blood of the lord.
Notice that Jesus never used the words "symbolic", "represents' 'similar to", "stands for" or any other symbolic language. He said "This IS My Body." It is true communion with Jesus Christ.
The more deeply and profoundly you beg the Lord to reveal Himself, the more powerfully He will do so. Yet, He will not offer all of Himself until you offer all of YOURself.
Prayer, faith and patience. Prayers are ascending for you.
@@Bkenda05 I can also recommend "Catholicism for Dummies" which is one of the Dummies series of books. Very good and understandable. It covers virtually all aspects of the faith.
As a Catholic... I like Protestants and I'm not sorry.
What makes you different?
We can joke on the internet, at least for me. But in the real world it’s all love.
I love all people but I won't stand for heresy and disrespect towards Our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@piouspapistisn’t that pretty similar to what Peter said before Jesus called him Satan? Or am I remembering that passage wrong
How dare you like us. Apologise immediately.
Loved (and am still processing), your interview with Dr. Sijuwade on the A Priori perspective.
I look forward to watching this one as well.
Healthy to have genuine doubts. Critical thinking is important, seek and you will find. Wisdom is more precious than gold
I really appreciate your videos, Austin. They always contain so much thoughtful content and have helped me to think more deeply about the Christian faith. I’ve been looking into Catholicism for 3+ years, and I’m finally starting to find some rest within it despite knowing I can never know it’s true with absolute certainty. These videos help with that.
I'm glad these videos have been helpful!
Core issue for me (ex-Catholic, now-Orthodox) was whether I could accept the picture of development as truly going beyond what came before.
Dr Aspray gives the analogy of how we read OT in light of the New, and the New in light of Church Councils. Did St Paul have Trinitarian formulae in his mind? And he suggests: obviously not. Thus, even if earlier Magisterium didn’t have a notion of (say) religious freedom, we can still interpret those older documents as supporting religious freedom given some long-arc perspective of Spirit-led history. (Never mind that the later doctrine contradicts what the original author did have in mind.)
But just because St Paul might not have used a formula with the terms ousia and hypostasis doesn’t mean he didn’t hold the exact same understanding as Nicea and Constantinople. St Paul wasn’t fuzzy on the Trinity. He didn’t have an inchoate idea of Christ’s full divinity.
This is where the analogy with the OT vs NT breaks down: Christ’s coming, and his revelation of God, are qualitatively different than anything the Church later did-unless you hold to some kind of quasi-Hegelian or progressivist idea of history where the Church is constantly receiving deeper transformative insights relative to what came before. Instead of a rock of certain unchanging faith, we have a mechanism for shifting doctrine away from what came before in incompatible ways: “Now that we *really* understand human dignity, we realize that such-and-such is actually totally morally licit.”
This is what I couldn’t accept. Surely, St Athanasius didn’t understand the Trinity better than St Peter-or else why were we taught by St Peter? How could he be one of the apostolic cornerstones of the Church, if it turns out he had a rather underdeveloped theology?
(And incidentally, another reason the OT vs NT analogy breaks down is people in the OT had a much more Trinitarian idea of God than a Unitarian one.)
Wonderfully said!
@@b.d.4746 The Catholic and Protestant Churches are so wrapped up in intellectualism that they have to explain and understand every little thing to please themselves and define God.
This is impossible.
You know God in relationship with Him.
This is the difference between Catholic, Protestant and the Orthodox.
Orthodox have no problem with mystery and saying we don’t know how Christ is present in the Eucharist or how God created the Universe or what Heaven is like.
The goal of the Christian life is the relationship between God and man. As scripture says Romans 12:2 ‘be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind (nous)’ (illumination/sanctification)
Go to Liturgy and the Liturgy will teach you everything you need to know.
This makes no sense to the intellectual.
However, without the knowledge and experience of the living God, all the knowledge means nothing.
Sitting in a pew as observer isn’t a faith lived either.
Movement or involvement of the whole person is important.
Nowhere in scripture were God’s people spectators.
Praying Austin that you interview in your channel Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Dr. Tim Gray, Dr. Brant Pitre and Bishop Barron 🙏🙏🙏
I would happily interview any of them!
Or Trent Horn/Joe Heschmeyer - these are great apologists
@GospelSimplicity have you done an interview with Matt Fradd?
@@GospelSimplicity Ask Scott Hahn. I believe he would gladly speak with you. I think you should send some of your videos to Bishop Barron's group , show them who you have already interviewed so they understand you are serious and coming at your questions from a place of respect. I really think Bishop Barron would gladly speak with you. Maybe show up at one of his talks and hand him a sample of your videos :)
@@valwhelan3533 He has already chatted with both! He hosted a very good debate on the Papacy (with the podcast Cordial Catholic) between Hesch and Ortlund.
Wonderful, thoughtful, and immensely intelligent discussion. Thank you.
Great Video. I love your honesty and humility. Thanks for sharing that with us.
This was a much needed conversation that I feel like no one ever really discusses.
One of Newman's most interesting observation is that historically orthodoxy stood or fell based upon the difference between the mystical and literal interpretation of scripture.
All heresies derive from a literal interpretation of scripture -- or an approach that only accepts the literal.
Catholicism , who alone always maintained orthodoxy, always held to an approach to interpretation that accepted both the mystical and the literal.
As someone working in ecumenism, specifically with Evangelicals, I really appreciated this dialogue. Still, I thought an engagement with the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity's recent document, "The Bishop of Rome", would have been helpful here. I know it's a bit of inside ball as the discussion centers around Newman but where it engaged the question of infallibility I felt more contemporary discussions around papal primacy and synodality would have been salient. I would encourage you to check it out as it raises some great questions and gives insight into the now widespread acknowledgement of the need for an authoritative voice (coming from non-Catholic communions) and the importance of listening to the whole church (coming from the Catholics).
That's a great document! Perhaps Barney and I can chat about it in the future.
Catholicism has so much to learn and unpack
Many graces and blessings
Love from a Catholic ❤️ God Bless!😊🙏❤️
It could be interesting to get Dr. Constantinou back on your channel to give the Orthodox Perspective on all of this!
Why believe in the new testament canon is a very interesting question. Lately I'm asking myself, if we accept the early churches verdict on the New Testament, why would we reject their authority on the Old Testament canon?
And I guess there is no good answer to that. So the pre-reformed canon ot is I guess?
Someone wrote, "...I just can’t make the connections necessary to buy into Catholic dogmatic teachings...", referring specifically to the audacious claim of the Catholic Church of having magisterial authority coming from being the church that Jesus Christ left behind.
Fair enough.
It is a risk.
But if we apply those objections to the question of why you should accept the Bible as the word of God, we will not believe the bible either.
For us to trust the Bible is also a risk.
After all, who bequeathed to and told Luther that it was scripture? The Catholic Church.
And what was the Bible? The scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.
It took centuries to compile a definitive canon of scripture.
The Catholic Church had absolute and total control of the Bible from the start up until Luther. Could they have added, subtracted, edited, replaced passages and entire books? Absolutely.
No one could counter them. There was no other body to say otherwise.
Why trust Catholic scripture if they have no magisterium?
After all, we would never trust the Quran just because Mohammad claimed it was scripture or the Book of Mormon just because Smith said so since we reject the Islamic or Mormon claims of prophethood and magisterial authority.
To trust the scripture of a false church that bases its claims on a non-existent magisterium just because they assert that it is scripture is nuts.
If you apply the objections to the question of why you should accept the Bible as the word of God and follow the trail back, you will not believe the bible either.
“The Catholic Church had absolute and total control of the Bible from the start up until Luther.”
I see this talking point common enough but I can’t help but see it as disingenuous. The Catholic Church of the 14th century is not the Catholic Church of the 2nd. This talking point sounds nice, but the reality is far more complicated and it neglects to acknowledge the possibility that other Apostolic Traditions are faithful to… Apostolic Tradition.
That's why some Protestants are now throwing out St. Paul from the Bible because he's inconvenient for feminism.
All will eventually become Catholic. It is the fullness of the truth God bless you all 💕🙏💕
I’m extremely excited about this. I just cannot get past a lot of the Marian Dogmas and the claim that the Papacy started with Peter. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence to back any of it up, and the only Catholic response in the face of evidence seems to be, “Well, we’re the one true church established by Jesus so you just have to trust our magisterium.”
Hope to have my mind changed, but I’m somehow doubtful lol
UPDATE: Mr. Austin did an excellent, excellent, excellent job and asked many of the very questions I wrestle with. In the spirit of charitability, I personally didn’t really hear a single satisfying answer from Dr. Aspray. Mr. Austin raised many excellently worded questions, and I felt like they were almost being sidestepped or deflected instead of taken head on. It was quite perplexing how instead of directly answering Austin’s reasonable questions about infallibility, Dr. Aspray saw fit to tackle the definition of the word. If these teachings are so obvious as to form the backbone of one of the world’s oldest institutions, they should be quite easy to defend without delving into these strange, off-handed arguments.
One question that stuck out is when he was asked about the historical assertions of the church that are REQUIRED to be Catholic, and Dr. Aspray just delved into a philosophical argument instead of directly addressing the completely reasonable Protestant objection to historical assertions that lack historical evidence. It’s just a continuous cycle of, as Austin brought up, circular reasoning.
The argument basically boils down to
1: You have to accept X dogma to become a member of Y church
2: Why? There isn’t evidence to support that dogma.
1: It’s carried down through sacred tradition and can be found in the writings of the church fathers. Z church father wrote about it.
2: The church fathers disagreed about many things. B church father wrote against that belief.
1: Well our magisterium was directly appointed by Jesus and they tell us to believe it so it’s true.
2: I don’t see the evidence to support that your magisterium was appointed by Jesus.
1: 1: It’s carried down through sacred tradition and can be found in the writings of the church fathers. Z church father wrote about it…
2: The church fathers disagreed about many things. B church father wrote against that belief…
And now it’s become a circular argument.
Anyway, I’m completely satisfied with the questions, and quite dissatisfied with the answers. I wish I could become Catholic. I know many lovely people and have greatly enjoyed each of my visits to Catholic parishes, and yet I just can’t make the connections necessary to buy into Catholic dogmatic teachings required to become a member of their church. I hope I don’t come off as unfairly critical of Dr. Aspray, I just find it quite frustrating that these questions are apparently so hard to answer 😢
If their graven images and funny looking costume holymen dont convince you, nothing will.
There is lots of Scriptural evidence. Keep digging in! 😊🌹🙏
Dr Brant Pitre's work helped me understand the Marian dogmas. It's a beautiful tradition, very very grateful to be there.
Daniel, please read Genesis and Revelation. You will find Mary as the ark of the new covenant established by the sacrifice of Jesus to Mary, crushing the head of the serpent in Revelation. If you missed these two vital points, then of course you can not see the relevance of Mary in the process of humanity's reconciliation with God the Father.
Can you please explain why you don't think there's any evidence that the papacy started with Peter. As a catholic, it seems obvious to me that the papacy started with Peter, and I'm genuinely curious why you don't see it that way.
Absolutely fantastic video. One of the best dialogues between a well-informed protestant and a well-informed catholic. Great job.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great discussion here! Former Protestant and Muslim; God bless everyone!
CANNOT wait to see this as a "Protestant" (Raised Non-Denominational) and very invested in researching Catholic theology, but I too have issues with it
I hope you enjoy it!
i was raised a Baptist and had many of the usual handed-down prejudices and false ideas about the Catholic Church. But I've been a Catholic for 37 years and all of the things I assumed about the Catholic Church were proven wrong. There is full Biblical support for every Catholic teachings and Dogmas. I never knew that the Holy Bible was compiled BY the Catholic Church more than 1,100 years BEFORE any protestant sect ever existed. That blew my mind.
I'm a former-Evangelical who became Catholic in 2004. I now have over 20 years of studying early Christianity. The Bible is a Catholic book. The Gospels and letters all composed by members of the Catholic Church. 3 Popes are mentioned by name in them(St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Clement) The term "New Testament" comes from Catholic priest Tertullian of Carthage. The council of Rome is what gave us the Christian canon of scripture. The term "Bible" comes from Pope Sircius. It was later two Catholic Archbishops that would later divide the Bible into chapters and verses. The entire Early Church was Catholic. "The Fathers know best" by Jimmy Aikin is the Gold Standard book for writings on early Christianity. Hundreds of quotes from early Christians and info on early councils and heresies that popped up.
St. Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]
St. Augustine of Hippo
“There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]
Renowned historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
St. Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
St. Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]
St. Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When Christ gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]
@@michelleishappy4036 The Cc says Jesus sacrifice didnt get rid of all sins. And even if you are a good catholic, bow to all the pretty graven images, eat all the god crackers, pray to the virgin queen all day and night, you will still wake up in the flames of some pergatory. At least they are honest about waking up in flames.
@@peterzinya1all of this is a caricature of the Catholic Church.
52:59 the discussion of using scripture to confirm preexisting doctrine in the early Church is 🔥
Glad you enjoyed that! It's also a good reminder that I think I still need to put timestamps in for this one
24:25 -- "that's not what they did back then." That's not what *the Roman Catholic Church* did back then... but that's a circular argument.
Yes, the Catholic Church does keep on adding things. It keeps on adding clarity. That is the Catholic Church's strength; it provides the People of God with clarity and understanding where there is disagreement. The Protestant Churches have no such mechanism. They just keep on disagreeing and leaving their followers in total confusion.
Oh my. If you really believe that, then you don't know the first thing about other Christians. We are Christians, for starters, not protestants. There is plenty of clarity among most protestant churches. In some ways, we have more clarity, because we have more simplicity. I find the Catholic faith so bloated w/ accretions that most Catholics don't really understand it. You can't just read the bible and understand your faith. you have to read the catechism, you have to years of CAtholic school, or as an adult you go to RCIA. Which is so antithetical to the Christians in the bible, that I can't even begin to start explaining that one. Then among RCIA classes, I hear Catholics saying they often had to switch parishes to get a decent RCIA course, because some are total crap and some add heresies. So there's all that.
Yet Modern Catholicism is mired in confusion.
Newman’s theory of doctrinal development was crucial in my own conversion to The Catholic Church. This was a fantastically nuanced and fair discussion.
@@shaneseniour glad you enjoyed it!
Does Austin’s argument against having faith in the magisterium out of despair 58:10 remind anyone else of Luther’s argument that Jesus taught hard things to bring us to despair, so that we would accept salvation by faith alone?
Now I want to know what Austin thinks of Luther’s argument there.
In choosing between the two different traditions, I gotta go with the British accent..seriously I love Austin and his content. Well done.
1:09:43 an interesting example of this is found in John chapter 11 when Caiaphas prophecies that it's better for one man to die than that an entire nation parish. He is certainly not intending to mean that the second person of the Trinity who became incarnate would suffer and die and Rise Again to bring about the restoration of all people.
I am leaning heavily towards Catholicism, but also believe that Christianity is more about being brought into union with Christ to learn to Love the things he loves and hate the things He hates. To be transformed and renewed by his gospel then holding to a set of propositions. I believe Catholicism actually balances this view well though.
Catholicism is all about divinization (theosis).
And there is no better way to do that than to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Mske sure you don't just consume one sided apologetic material.
@@b.r.holmes6365 What do you recommend I read or watch?
Great conversation! I don't know if you've already considered it, but Fr John Behr is a good guy to talk to on the EO view of this topic.
There is no better exemplification in the Scriptures of what I have called the loop of grace. God offers, as a sheer grace, the gift of being, but if we try to cling to that gift and make it our own, we lose it.
-Bishop Robert Barron
"But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb 11:6)
Kinda surprised that the discussion didn't touch upon the fundamental question, the origin and end of the whole dispute:
What "Faith" pleases God, and will thereby save a soul - your soul, my soul, all souls?
32:20 generally persons are “infallible” and texts are “inerrant.”
I am thankful for Protestantism because it led me back to Catholicism after 40 years of seeking the truth. That search revealed that Protestantism is a denial of the FULL truth of Christ. It is thus the core deceit at the centre of the heresies of the end times we are now experiencing. Like all of Satan's lies, it is built on half truths and personal subjective interpretations of the scriptures while denying the traditions that brought the scriptures into being from the beginning.
Leo, the Protestant church didn't lead you back to Catholicism if they heard you say this they would rip apart their clothes. Don't stop searching for the truth because if you stopped at Roman Catholicism you aren't done finding the TRUTH. They changed some very important tenants to the faith as they walked away from the unified faith that is now identified as Orthodoxy. There is a reason why the Protestant faiths stem directly from the Catholic church the Devil is there. There is so much obviousness to how Satan caused this spiraling of truth and the the "faith" and how to commit oneself to Christ through true "worship".
Blah blah blah
How does it deny the full truth of Christ?
@@dylanwagoner9768 Thank you for your answer is very mature and wise🤣
@@lucasperez7149 Check out the Augustine Institute
53:33 I'd really like to know whether Dr Aspray says 'literary' or 'literal' sense here, can't make out the word properly. I think there are a couple problems with this line of thought; firstly it seems to assume 'the Protestant approach to Scripture' is to treat it like a textbook(though again I couldn't hear him properly so I may be misunderstanding his statement), whereas I think something like Covenant theology only makes sense because people are looking at Scripture as a narrative with certain structures to it. I guess he's saying this is a modern problem but that's why I'd like more clarity on what he meant. I think it's somewhat mistaken either way though.
Secondly he seems to suggest a false dichotomy when asserting Scripture is really there to be 'used to nourish my soul and spirit' which sounds very nice and all but kind of just assumes Biblical doctrine isn't nourishing?
It's also the kind of thing that's easy to say with the luxury of living after the Protestant movement lent to the Scriptures being accessible to people in the first place. If you weren't a Latin speaking member of clergy you wouldn't be using Scripture this way, so there's this weird paradox where Protestantism has allegedly made the reading of Scripture into this very stoic quest for extracting doctrine, while sort of claiming Scripture was being used more to bless and nourish people before this which isn't true for laity living in the Middle Ages. Unless you mean them receiving from it second hand, which would then involve theologians extracting doctrines and teaching, assuming that's where they got them from.
To be clear I think Protestantism put Scripture front and center and many Roman Catholic's have benefited from this. It's quite frustrating to hear Aspray pin a narrow use of Scripture on Protestantism while ignoring how central the preaching of God's Word is in Protestant understanding of liturgy(which is very much still the case in the kinds of fundamentalist contexts he seems to be alluding to) and how much it has been an impetus in mission work, scholarship and translating Scripture not just into English but many languages globally. If the Catholic Church passed on the Scriptures then the Protestant Church gave it to the masses in a form they could read.
Lastly, not to extend my ramblings too much, but the Scriptures themselves seem to contain didactic content that is very much conveying doctrinal commitments. Sure there are narrative aspects which are descriptive rather than prescriptive, but you also have sermons within those narratives, epistles written to both Churches and individuals regarding doctrinal issues and things that are straight up commandments. How you read these without inferring doctrines is a baffling proposition to me honestly, it seems you end up simply mishandling them so I'm not sure how they are nourishing at that point. Which is partly why I'm not convinced even the early Church saw Scripture in the way he describes; it seems both doctrine and being built in the faith flow from reflecting on God's Word by the same Spirit who authored it.
Before the printing press, was it difficult and costly to provide bibles?
If so, would it be hard to provide the bible to a great number of people?
If so, would that mean that the poor who could not have a bible would not be able to be nourished because they do not have a bible?
Wouldnt that mean that before the printing press, which was obviously quite a long time after the beginning of Christianity, that somehow God's plan was stupid?
Why wouldnt God have waited for the printing press to initiate His saving plan if having and reading the bible were essential to salvation?
@@charlesjoyce982 The printing press didn't translate the Bible into English; doing so and trying to spread the Bible in this way is what Tyndale was killed for.
If someone is using a Latin Bible for the liturgy then they aren't reading it aloud in a way the laity can understand, which is why I then pointed out any such teaching is necessarily the kind of second hand information that involves exegeting the text. If in fact this is the basis of much teaching at the time.
I do think you're being quite obtuse and ignoring the context of my response to Barnabus. Please don't put words in my mouth, including blasphemy, without a sincere attempt to understand what I was saying. The point is preaching requires learning the Bible which implies doctrinal knowledge and falls to my charge of a false dichotomy; I have no problem with the Scriptures being read aloud to the Church before the printing press, but that requires it be in a language they understand.
@@zacdredge3859 and you dont think the Church was preaching the word of God?
The hierarchy was trying to deceive the people for 1500 years?
The word of God exists apart from the scriptures.
It existed before the scriptures.
The apostles were preaching the word at least a decade before anything was written.
@@zacdredge3859 tyndale was killed for heresy -- not innocently translating bible.
I think the Orthodox response for many "new" questions is "The question premise is based on a VIEW (modernism, for example) that already has a response.
Great guest! Met him in person and lovely guy.
Hes convivial, but his insistence that faith is not certainity, is absolutely false.
Generally the rule is that “Saint” comes before a title unless that title is of the level of Patriarch.
So “Pope St. John Paul II” or “Patriarch St. John Chrysostom.”
But “St. King Louis IX” and “St. Emperor Constantine the Great” and “Bl. Emperor Charles I” and “St. Padre Pio” and “St. Mother Theresa.”
Good to know!
My main objection to the “Catholic” approach is it’s eagerness for Accretion in Doctrine and practice, which unavoidably detracts from the basic Faith. Sticking with the simple Gospel is a very good path.
I have considered myself a centrist seeing the truth in many arguments, your comment about living in a tent and not a house is so familiar. I have said the plight of the centrist is he is never at home. In a way he is always on the outside looking in. Eventually the arguments aren't enough and a hunger for a settled place remains. This is one reason a leap is inevitable or a dismissal.
Excellent!! Austin seems to not be willing to leap into faith vs certainty. Austin, certainty is not possible
Great discussion! It seems that doctrinal development has been limited to an intellectual tradition shaped by reason and consensus. However, the concepts of a closed canon and a fixed deposit of faith weren’t primary concerns for prophets and early Church Fathers. Historical revelation was not just an intellectual exercise.
By relying solely on uncovering doctrine through examining the past, rather than seeking fresh inspiration from above, do we risk closing off the heavens?
Jesus says in John “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear” - would this include doctrinal developments that are more revelatory in nature?
None of the Early Fathers say ‘Just follow the Bishop of Rome, he has universal jurisdiction and is infallible.’
I disagree that Orthodoxy is fossilized or that Orthodox take the position that they have figured it all out. The faith being once delivered is just that. The Apostolic deposit has been deposited, but the "development" aspect is still true in that the deposit hasn't been fully exhausted and continues to bring forth riches of revelation. Like a seed turning into a flower.
“Lord I believe, help me with my unbelief.” Mark 9:23-25 This isn’t a failure but an example of an honest Christian.
We don’t begin by knowing everything and then believe. It’s impossible to approach the vastness of Christianity purely by intellect only.
“Lord help me with my unbelief.”
My Priest says that my effort or small attempt to change is success even when I fail to hit the mark 100%. I’m receiving the help I need.
Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox on UA-cam podcasts turn people towards intellectualism instead of spirituality.
The question shouldn’t be which church has the best writers and current theologians to argue against or who is bigger than the rest with proper structure or no structure at all.
Where are, dear Christians, the conversations about worship and experience over time of a holy life in the tradition you’re a part of?
What is the point of attending your denomination or Church?
What’s the point of continuing the arguments about which church tradition is better?
Why does the Church have to cater to your intellectual criteria?
Aren’t we missing the essential reason for assembly?
As Father G always said '' we recommend it to our friends and enemys 😇 ''
That is what most honest Protestant start with, until they end up crossing the Tiber.
I always find it so odd how Catholic responses tend to use the same repetitive, slightly awkward, slogans. Almost like they are AI or something.
@jellyphase Strangely the same comes from Protestants too.
@@jeremiahong248No. No they don’t.
@@jellyphasesome slogans don’t make sense til they do.
There are no meaningful difference between you Western christians. You're all humanists pretending to worship God.
Dear Catholics: if you stopped treating people like they’re stupid or immature until they finally “come home to Rome”, you would
1. Come up with much more effective arguments
2. Be much less awkward and frankly weird to interact with.
With much love and respect!
huh? Did you mean "Dear Protestants"? Because they are the one going around calling Catholics "demonic" and "not christians". So, no. With respect and love, of course.
@ I absolutely do not say anything like that about Catholics. Saying, “no, I’m not gonna stop misrepresenting and patronizing Protestants because some of them are mean” is a wild and unchristian thing to say.
@@Traditiononamission That is exactly the point I'm addressing, as you generalise "Dear Catholics" I also need to generalise "Dear Protestants". I guess that each of us christians perhaps should focus less on bashing each others, and be more united in Christ. And for our divergenses is going to be a long process to reunite us because the schism we are in today is definetely not what Christ wanted, but that starts with a polite and kind dialogue and not having being at each others throats. I'm not saying that some Catholics are doing any better than some Protestants, and I would inclued myself in this as oftentime I come harsh on my bretheren that disagree with me.
Let us be one, God bless you.
@ You can’t generalize Protestants the same way you can generalize Catholics. The Catholic Church is an institution and Protestantism is a category. I do not say those things about Catholics and never will. I love Catholicism dearly.
I was addressing the tendency for Catholics to treat Protestants like a project, which is weird and awkward. I’m not saying Protestants don’t do this (too many do), but *I* certainly do not.
@@Traditiononamission I understand, but can you understand that we have to bundle you in a category for a purpose? Beside that all protestants have some kind of doctrine in common to some degree that is "opposite" in a sense to what catholicism is. We cannot address you individually, but you can. What should we do to address you? Do I have to list every single denomination? This is also a problem when I argue online with Protestants, they often hide their denomination and I cannot call them out, but they can. There is no honesty in these kind of discussions. Evangelicals, baptists, calvinist, uniterians, one pentacostals, modalists, presbiterians, lutherans, anglicans among others, how can we address you? None of these denominations have unity in doctrines, even when they prophess the same beliefs, the diverge in doctrines. Therefore that is the only way that we can address you.
This is not an "us" problem, but a "you" problem. And again, I'm not singling you out. As you said catholics to embrace us all, I have to say protestants to flip the coin. Should I say non-catholics? We are argueing semantics for nothing. As I said before, we should try to find unity in charity and not attacking each other, can we leave it at that?
Loved this interview! Great guest!
I don’t even think 99% of these commenters have watched one of Austin’s videos to completion, let alone this one.
The quality of this content couldn’t be better than the quality of the comments in these sections, and it’s the most utterly painful contrast to see with my eyes.
Why would scripture be the fountain of revelation?
The word of God existed prior to the NT scripture.
The apostles and the presbyters they appointed were preaching the word long before scripture was written.
Once you chose one of the houses, you have to let go of the other two. The loss of potential that comes with that can be immobilising.
Hey! What are your thoughts on the following statements?
1. It is always possible to avoid schism and heresy, and be neither.
2. If the magisterium gets things wrong, then one must be a schismatic in disagreeing with it, or a heretic in agreeing with it. It would not be possible to be neither.
C. Therefore, the magisterium doesn't get things wrong.
The only remaining question would be which magisterium.
The conciliar religion came into being with Vatican II.
2. Is flawed, heresy and schism are not defined by a (human) magisterium but conflicting with the authority of God Himself.
@@SeanusAurelius Well, that's certainly true for heresy. God gave us the faith.
However, it seems like Paul means, when he says by the Spirit that schism is a sin - it seems like he's talking about splitting off into factions, trying to make your own team out of the Christian church.
In disagreeing with an existing church's magisterium, refusing to be in communion with it, *and then creating a new church*, it seems like you're committing the sin of schism. What was once whole is now divided.
What do you think schism means?
Totally disagree with you there, there is but one truth, anything outside of that is heresy. The Catholic Church is the body of Christ. See all the miracles, which can be seen over and over and over again.
There is no menu of options.
So let's go over the miracles:
1) Our Lady of Guadalupe's tilma has miraculous characteristics including: the material of the tilma disintegrates within 30 to 40 years. It's been nearly 500 years.
2) The tilma cannot be reproduced by modern artists.
3) the temperature of either Mary or at Mary's womb is the temperature a human would have.
4) Incorruptible bodies of saints. They do not decompose.
5) The blood that was gathered I think from a consecration is in an Italian church. It becomes liquid once every year.
6) During the atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima during WWII, a group of 5 or 6 priest survived the atomic explosion. They did not even get radiation poisoning. No one else survived from many miles around.
Look up these miracles. These are the small and big ways God proves this is the Church he left behind.
There's also almost all exorcisms they go through Catholic Priests. The real exorcism, not the ones televangelist fake.
There were also numerous Marian apparations by hundreds or thousands of documented and never documented miracles. Whole teams of scientists tests the mystics that receive the messages.
So your state is highly biased and shows you are not open to seeing the truth.
Possible ways for you to see the truth are having humility and being simple, brotherly love as well as non-judgmental. Read what you wrote, you will not find any of what you just wrote.
The two presenters have thosequalities:
Humility
Simpleness
Brotherly love
Are non-judgmdntal
Is Traditionis custodes, Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia supplicans, Synodality, and the reversal of the death penalty doctrinal development?
None of those deal with doctrines. So no.
I'm interested: where did you get these from? Any channel you want to recommend?
@@dyzmadamachus9842. Why do you say that they are not doctrine? They appear to be attempts to develop doctrine, if I’m wrong, pls explain.
Those are all creations of the conciliar religion that started at Vatican II.
@@littlerock5256You're not Catholic, you're not united to the Holy See and in your pride you have created a religion of selective nostalgia instead of following the universal faith.
@@geoffjs The first three are about pastoral matters, this means how to treat christians in our times in order to bring them closer to God; there is nothing new to them other than some christians claiming that they somehow in odds with church teaching. We see after ten years of amoris leatitia: nope, all smoke no fire. While they often repeat church teaching (like on abortion, the sacred nature of marriage, the sin of homosexuality) none of those teach anything new. They are more about application than development.
Not exactly sure what they mean when talking about synodality, but synods are occuring early on in Christianity. They are like councils, but for the regional church. They can decide on regional matters, and sometimes they are tasked to line out a specific question (like the synod of Carthage that worked out a conon to be later approved by the whole church) Nothing wrong there (the german "synodal way" is not a Synod btw), and there is no doctrin that prohibits laymen to partake in a synod.
The churches stance on death penalty is: it is not contrary to the faith. But after revisioning the church teaches now that the circumstances that would allow for death penalty are not given anymore. This means that basically every country on earth has the capacity to deal in better ways with criminals. But if you find yourself on an Island with a dangerous murder and no help available, it can be justified to excersise a death sentence.
My main concern with the Papacy is that its inferred infallibility is baseless according to Scripture. Saint Peter, who certainly exercised primacy within the Church, was not the central Apostle of the Church in Acts. If Peter as the first Pope truly practiced supremacy in certain circumstances, then the Church of Acts would have structurally (patristically) formed and revolved around Peter-which it didn’t. Nor did any of the subsequent Popes of Rome lay claim to infallibility until Vatican I, which is an inconsistent accretion.
Catholic here. Infallibility boils down to "it is true when it is true." It's a tautology. If a teaching ends up false, that just means it wasn't infallible in the first place.
Silly? Yeah. I don't like Vatican I. But it is what it is.
These dialogues are nice but given the direction of the culture and society at large, I wish we could focus less on "friendly fire"
This is a very valid point and I agree! That's what my podcast is for :)
What a thought-provoking discussion gentlemen. Thank you both.
I know that engaging in historical counter-factual discussions is always a bit hazardous, but this episode prompted a thought experiment. What if the Church had never sifted orthodoxy/heresy through the Councils, but had instead taken the approach we that took root in Protestantism?
Your example of Arianism is a good one. As Dr Aspray said, Arius had a solid line of scriptural argumentation along with strong theological and philosophical points to support his position. He also had a sizeable group of Bishops who sided with him. A sola scriptura approach would not have been sufficient to determine the correct position and so the tools within Protestantism couldn’t help.
It isn’t too difficult for us to guess what would have happened under Protestantism because situations very similar to this played out across the first few centuries of the Reformation. I suggest that the Arian Christian denomination would have been founded with a large minority of Catholic bishops going into the new church. We could say the same perhaps for Gnosticism, Marcianism and all the rest.
My question is, what would have happened to historical Christianity if it had become so heterodox so early in its development. Would it have lost its identity so quickly that it would have dissipated and died out long before Luther had an opportunity to object? My gut instinct is that the Church would not have existed into the second millenium and, it certainly couldn’t have been capable of defending its distinctive qualities (because it would be difficult to point to any) against different world faiths that emerged.
Does anyone have any ideas?
I see the Shaff translation (or a few selected volumes) on the shelf. The good points are that it is one of the most reprinted of the translations of the Fathers, so you can find sets for very low prices most everywhere. It is also out of copywrite, so you can also find it online in both Catholic and Protestant websites. The drawbacks are that the translation has a very mid 19th Century anti-Catholic bias among both the individual translators and Schaff himself as General Editor,. Another less obvious bias which is less evident as it's does not show up in vocabulary and word choices such as translating Episcopi and Presbyteros as Elders and Pastors.... Schaff removed large sections of the text because (as with Ortland's bias) Schaff determined for himself that they sounded too Catholic. Sometimes he would put the text into the footnotes other times they would be removed and forgotten. During the time Schaff was editing the set, texts that were older and more complete than what Schaff and his translators were using were found (in many cases by Protestants travelling though the Middle East, who promised the Monasteries they would be returned, but in most cases never did) These texts which predated the Schaff documents by 500 - 1200 years, all contained those passages that sounded too Catholic to Schaff and he insisted were inserted by later Catholic copyists in the 15th to 17th Centuries. There are better (alas more expensive) translations done by Catholic, Orthodox and some Anglican and Lutheran translators that are not only more true to the original and complete. Rather that Accretions as Dr,. O runs to in defense of his rejection of Roman Catholic and to a lesser extent because of his lack of familiarity with Orthodoxy, is driven by the use of Schaff which omits those teachings the Fathers held and Shaff removed,
Austin, what are you afraid of getting wrong in living your faith? If you acquiesce to Catholicism, what are you afraid of in doing that?
Very interesting discussion, gents! Thank you!
Interesting interaction, but one weakness is the emphasis on just intellectual satisfaction, when really the gospel is about our relationship with Christ. It is reduced to once you are in a Church that seems to have most things correct then you are fine. So you have to remain insecure until you are convinced that most of the Church fathers on your side! I am afraid this is utter folly, the Catholics will claim there are the only ones who are right, so are the Orthodox, so will the Protestant scholars...in other words you have to read forever which Ecclesiasts 12:12, tells is futile.
So salvation is not for the intellectual but for anyone who has been transferred from the kingdom of darkness into light through Christ who is the only light of the world! It is possible for an illiterate granny to have better relationship with the Lord and know the Lord better than some of the professors who have read volumes of Theology. Also the Holy Spirit is not just residing in Bishops but whoever comes to Christ to drink the water that He gives.
Lastly, you are not saved by the size of your canon, the Ethiopian eunuch to the best of my knowledge only had Isaiah and but put in the hands of an Evangelist, there was enough content there to lead to his conversion
Hmm, but what one must believe to be saved isn't the main point, or even the basis of the conversation.
On knowledge/certainty see The Ascetical Homilies of St Isaac the Syrian, and Vladimir Lossky.
@GospelSimplicity: Austin, this conversation was great! ...but on the topic of the Orthodox (@22:05 and following), I feel that you and your guest both missed a critical issue: There is NOT simply one "Orthodox Church!"
If an Orthodox apologist were to claim (as you say), "Yeah, we kinda hammered out the faith. We got it!" ..., the just response would be: "Okay, which one of you? There are, after all, several Orthodox Churches which are _not_ in communion with each other. Let us know which communion continuously _was_ The Orthodox Church in the wake of Chalcedon -- the Chalcedonians, or the non-Chalcedonians? -- and whether, right now, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is autocephalous? And whether we must be in communion with ROCOR, or the True Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East?"
The reality of Orthodoxy's _multiplicity of authority_ means that Dr. Aspray is making his own case _too weakly,_ when he says, "Again, you can't prove either way. It comes down to your view of history...." (@23:18 and following). Buck up, Dr. Aspray: Your position has more ammunition left than _that!_
It might seem that, by poking at open wounds in Orthodox unity, I am being unfair: The current schism between Russian and Greek Orthodox over the authority (or, non-authority) of the Ecumenical Patriarch to declare Ukraine's church autocephalous is embarrassing, but surely the existence of antipopes in past centuries is equally embarrassing?
And, if Protestantism's divisions are sufficient to falsify _Protestantism's_ "Epistemology of Faith,"* and if divisions between the various Orthodox claimants falsify _Orthodoxy's_ "Epistemology of Faith," then surely the divisions in _Catholicism_ falsify the Catholic "Epistemology of Faith," right?
And if all three are falsified, haven't we therefore falsified _everyone's_ claim to know "What is Christianity?" Have we not demonstrated that "the required content of the Christian religion" is a thing _unknowable,_ a thing lost in the mists of time, to be dubiously reconstructed by us moderns from whatever evidence we can dig up, with anybody's guess being as good as anybody else's? Perhaps all these attempts to answer "What is the required content of the Christian religion?" have, by their failures, sufficiently compelled us all to adopt a kind of _Agnostic Liberalism_ about what Jesus requires of us!
But, not so fast.
First, I doubt we could sustain Jesus' claim to be God, at all, if His ecclesiology was as bad as all that. What would become of His claim that we shall "know the truth," that we are not "left orphans," that the Holy Spirit will "lead [us] into all truth?" Or, of the claim that He knew what was in the hearts of men? (Really: Could not _anyone_ with sufficient experience of humans predict that the response to church disputes would _inevitably_ be competing claims of "Which Church is THE Church?" Any competent sociologist could have foreseen _that,_ let alone God Incarnate!)
So, I keep returning to Matthew 18's church discipline process: "If he refuses to listen _even to the Church,_ let him be to _y'all_ as a heathen or publican. For, whatsoever _y'all_ bind on earth is [has been already] bound in Heaven; and whatsoever y'all loose on earth is [has already been] loosed in Heaven." That passage, in light of 1 Cor 5 and Acts 15, leaves us no doubt that "The Church" is expected to have a capacity to judicially determine who's in, and who's out.
If you have _that,_ then surely the only remaining question is, "If two groups mutually excommunicate each other over some dispute, what objective standard do they offer to determine _which one retains continuity_ as THE Church, and which one has just been expelled, creating a new and separate entity?"
Famously, none of the Orthodoxies have any single agreement on how such a question can be answered. There are several theories; but none have majority support (or ever have had). If one were to be settled upon _now,_ the question would immediately arise: Whence comes the _novelty_ of this sudden adoption of an objective standard determining which side of a division retains continuity with Christ's Church? And by what _authority_ can that new standard claim to have been validly adopted?"
It seems impossible that any of the Orthodoxies have, or ever _could_ have, an answer to _that_ question which is consistent with their ecclesiology (with _any_ of their ecclesiologies!). It is, so far as I can tell, the unavoidable kill-shot.
Meanwhile, the Catholic answer to the continuity question is, simply: "Which of the two dividing bodies retains the Al Bayith, the Successor of Peter, validly selected according to the existing laws of the Church?"
And that, really, is a mic-drop moment. One can _know the answer._ And with _that_ system, the continuity of the church and the finality of a highest-court-of-appeal for disputed matters is _knowably_ established for all to see. Even the scandal of three claimants to the papacy a few centuries back doesn't interrupt it. After all, only one of those claimants was validly selected; the others were antipopes whose pretenses began _while the office was already occupied._
That doesn't mean it's true! ...but, it does mean it is _workable_ in a way that no other proposed ecclesiology on earth can claim.
So, _contra_ Dr. Aspray, one needn't retreat to something as subjective as "one's view of history" to cope with the authority-claims of the various forms of Orthodoxy.
Thanks, Austin!
* = I define "Epistemology of Faith" as, "The _means_ by which Christ intends us to know, and to _know that we know,_ with well-founded confidence, what is the required content of the Christian religion: The belief, praxis, and group-membership which Christ has made obligatory on us, as Christians."
Tldr: Roman Catholicism built up papal supremacy on numerous forgeries.
You could also look at the different claims and history of the different groups and see that there may be identifiable reasons to see one as legitimate over another...
He was formally canonized in 2019
You mean @GospelSimplicity?
Almost all evangelicals believe that St. Peter was infallible….at least on two occasions…when he wrote his two epistles.
For Catholics in other clearly defined circumstances, the pope is infallible in order to protect the Church.
So we're other biblical writers.
Yet Francis leads Catholicism in a confused manner.
Orthodoxy rejects doctrinal development because it suggests that we understand Christianity better than the apostles and Church fathers.
I think the opposite is the case. Early Christians understood Christianity at a much deeper level intuitively, because they lived in tje same culture. We don't really understand that culture anymore and need the crutch of a detailed re-explanation to understand what was obvious to early Christians.
Secondly, it puts them in a quagmire as it can be demonstrated clearly that certain practice have changed over the millennium
Fantastic conversation. Dr Barnanbas mentioned a 19th century theologian Vader, new to me. Anyone have any more information on him?
Increasingly, I find those who convert to Catholicism will state it is because of the church fathers, "To be deep in history is to be Catholic," or "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." What I don't see is "To be deep in the Bible . . ." That is a huge red flag when a person or religious institution upholds their writings above the Bible. That and the pride that oozes out of the Roman Catholic Church.
Thanks for this insightful comment! As a matter of fact, it was my love of the Bible that drove me into the Catholic Church. I would love to share that journey with you if you're interested.
💯
somehow I get the impression that we aren't dealing with the most robust form of protestantism in these conversations....
Austin seems like he's searching so he's perhaps somewhere in between I guess. Nothing wrong with that.
Sadly true!
@@ThruTheUnknown. Austin is obviously searching but is embarrassingly ambivalent about Catholicism to which he is very strongly drawn.
@geoffjs he is and he's perhaps going through a deconstruction, but a deconstruction of a good kind where he'll eventually reconstruct in the one true church of Christianity. Just gotta have faith.
Which denomination is the 'most robust form of Protestantism'?
I think that a good reason to defer judgement and accept infallibility is indicated in the Acclamation of St. Thomas to Jesus and Jesus' response. Thomas had good reason to doubt, but his response clearly shows that reason did not serve him on this occasion. Jesus' response to him, i think, was a promise of reward for faith, thus blessedness, as God's gift of Himself, provides a good "reason" to suspend one's judgement. Taken in concert with other promises of Jesus to the Apostles, I submit this is not a risky or reckless path for Doctrinal Development.
A fundamental reason for doctrinal development would be that modern culture is totally different from early Christian culture.
Back then, people regarded the world mostly in supernatural terms, while we often use scientific explanations.
We simply can't go back to early Christianity. We need some form of translation to understand what people meant because we don't speak their cultural language anymore.
Great conversation.
I’m inquiring a lot into Catholicism and Orthodoxy but I don’t see any positive cases that this Catholic makes for the reason to believe in the papacy. Most of it just draws on which belief system makes it easier to not be a skeptic. But if you are downplaying the reliability of scripture and tradition than you are downplaying the two things you have to derive the papacy from. This would compel me to Orthodoxy but it is so hard to believe that the one true church would be widely unknown and not participants in most of the world and it’s issues.
Your last point makes a lot of sense!
I think there is a misconception about this. The Catholocs believe in the inerrency of Scripture and other apostolic Tradition as much as Protestants do.
And when asked about the Primacy of Peter and his office they point to those .
(Peter=the rock, the keys of the Kingdom, Jesus' prayer, "tend to my sheep", who is the greatest of the apostles etc., and to early Christians like Ignatius of Antioch who clearly believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.)
Hierarchical structures with one person as the head exist in almost all human institutions, whether it be a Dean of a university, a CEO of a company, or a President of a country. As a society, we've determined that that is the best way to organize.
So then why is it so unreasonable for the same structure to exist in the Church, arguably the most important institution in the world?
The schism of 1054 went widely unknown in the Greek speaking world for a couple hundred years. Upon learning about the schism, many of the churches still recognized the Pope and returned to the Catholic Church. These became the 23 eastern catholic churches. During the patristic age, there were many church contiversies and they almost always appealed to the Pope to settle them. The primacy of the pope wasn't broadly questioned until 1054. As st. Iraneus wrote in 167, due to the dual founding ministry of Peter and Paul in Rome, all bishops should remain in communion with Rome.
Question: where is it in the Bible that "the one true church will be involved in world issues"?
That's a strawman.
Finding something new in an old text is not the same as redefining what the old text said in direct contradiction with what the original authors claimed
I know I’m coming in late and I’m probably being too simplistic but I don’t so much have faith in the councils, I have faith in the Holy Spirit. The fact that He uses human agency to flesh it out does not make humans the source of the infallibility
In my opinion the Catholic professors take that the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrinal development is mistaken. Personally, I feel that doctrine is not a development but an affirmation of what scripture says already. That being said I don’t think you can make the same affirmation regarding prayer to saints. Most arguments for prayer to saints in my opinion are outside of scripture. This seems more clearly to be a doctrinal development.
Nice job! Hello everyone, I am a theology student who has to improve his fluency in speaking English. So if there is anyone with the same issue I would aprreciate like ft 1 time weekly, maybe talking about some actual theological problems or something like that 😊
Nice discussion
It’s “St. John Henry Cardinal Newman”
Not to everyone.
Just can’t agree about Baltimore being a great city at this time 🤦 😂
But the benches say so!
I just simply do not find protestantism to be convincing anymore
Heck yeah, now sign up for RCIA
22:30 why can't Orthodoxy have a council anymore?
Essentially, it's due to a lack of agreed lines of authority on who can summon a council. They tried in 2016, and it could have been the first Orthodox ecumenical council in 1300 years. But four of the autocephalous churches refused to participate, which highlights the problem.
@@barneyasprayyet Nicea was called by a secular Roman Emperor.
We have, the Palamite councils. This is just something some catholics weirdly insist on when demonstrably the Orthodox are capable of having councils that then result in unanimous adoption.
@@barneyaspray IMO it being difficult to add to the list of dogmas is a good thing, a lot harder for human beings to fill up the doctrinal list with things that should stay in the realm of theological opinion
''using Gavin Ortlund's definition of accretion'' LOL
Yeeaaah, I'm a wee bit confused as to why he'd defer to him for a definition.
@@liamagyar Sorry to be confusing. It was a way of saying that his definition isn't very good because it would undermine things he believes in.
@@barneyasprayhim being wrong doesn't make you correct.
@@liamagyar I think Mr. Aspray was being slightly sarcastic there. Oh, I see he has already answered :)
@@barneyaspray It was a wonderful conversation, Dr. Aspray. I just found it funny that the ghost of Gavin Ortlund was about to pop up for a moment there, during the discussion.
You really ought to read "Tradition and Apocalypse" by David Bentley Hart it really cleared everything up for me and offers a much less circular argument than Newman's
It's on my list!
The Truth is God. In the end, Christ is literally The Truth, not a denomination. However we can discern where The Truth is most earnestly loved and worshipped.
Catholicism can be beautiful, just as Eastern Orthodoxy can be, just as any religion can be. But no one religious tradition has all the answers in so far as they often exculde valuable elements of other religious traditions.
Sorry, Calvin’s post hoc belief regarding how we know scripture is demonstrably false (even well intentioned Protestants don’t all recognize the same scriptures) and it is very much like Joseph Smith’s burning in the bosom for his Book of Mormon. It’s just another “I want it my way” and no one can judge better than me.
@mikelopez…spot on!🎯
Is Vatican II a non-negotiable?
What do you mean?
Yes, it's an Ecumenical Council.
Good conversation. But Dr Aspray seems unaware that the Orthodox Church continued to meet in ecumenical councils in the second millennium, and continued to function as a unified Church, every bit as much as in the first millennium.
Can you point me to some resources which discuss this?
@ Happy to share some more context.
In the second millennium, we continued to meet in “Pan-Orthodox” (or “Near-Pan”) fashion to discuss and rule on issues, continuing the model of the first great/undisputed Ecumenical Councils (which themselves, as I’m sure you know, were sometimes only “Near-Pan” themselves). Some notable non-exhaustive examples include:
- Constantinople 1341-1351, on the Palamite controversy
- Jerusalem 1583, on a variety of East-West issues
- Jerusalem 1672, on Calvinism and other issues
- Constantinople 1923, which authorized the Revised Julian Calendar
- Sofia 1998, on the Bulgarian schism
Also the failed reunion councils at Lyons and Ferrara-Florence demonstrate the same point: that the objective was the reconciliation of two internally unified and coherent bodies: “the Orthodox,” not merely “disparate Orthodox churches,” as some apologists like to suggest.
One also sees unified responses on the part of Orthodox patriarchs to issues in writing, most famously perhaps the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in response to Pope Pius IX.
There are scores of scholarly books that go into the history in more depth than a UA-cam comment, but those are some fairly easy and uncontroversial examples to point to to start.