The Mess of the Mass - A Reformed Catholic Critique of Merit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- In this video, I articulate the classical Protestant critique of the mass. I read from my upcoming book on Anglican orders, and show how the system of merit doesn't really make much internal sense. My hope is that this can advance the conversation and provide clarity as to why contemporary pop-Roman Catholic defenses of purgatory completely miss the issue. I hope this is helpful to you!
Music: From the exceptionally talented Taryn Harbridge, "Be Thou My Vision": / @tarynharbridge
Patreon: / anglicanaesthetics
GoFundMe: www.gofundme.c...
The dog is clearly a papist.
This is way too funny 😂
I literally said the same thing to my wife as we were watching 😂
That sounds like Taryn Harbridge's music. If it is, please give her credit. She puts so much work into her music.
@@wonderingpilgrim it is--and thanks for this! Will add as soon as I get home
@@anglicanaesthetics Thank you! I'm sure she'll appreciate it. Taryn is a true blessing. God has greatly gifted her!
I think you too readily conflate the expositions of individual Catholic theologians with defined dogma and settled doctrine. Yet, as even you acknowledge, the Council of Trent discouraged unwarranted speculations on the nature of purgatory. For a Catholic, the statement of Pope Benedict XVI on the nature of purgatory in his encyclial "Spe Salvi" as the final purifying-transformative encounter with God in Christ after death would carry more weight than the opinions of Martin Jugie.
Also, at the reunion councils of 2 Lyons and Florence, in deference to the Greeks, the Latins did not insist on the "fire" of purgatory as essential to the doctrine itself or regard it as Church-dividing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly says that the "pains" of purgatory are utterly different from those of hell since damnation is the deliberate exclusion of God's transforming love, while purgatory is the final postmortem efficacy of God's love that is present in the soul of one who loves God and is justified by the grace of Christ.
The writings of St Catherine of Genoa and of St John Henry Newman in his "Dream of Gerontius" have had wide influence among Catholics. Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn are not trimming corners: they're just sticking to what is actually Catholic doctrine. I'm perfectly free to think that the explanation of purgatory in the encyclical of Benedict XVI and in the writings of St Catherine and Newman are preferable to those of St Thomas More and even St Thomas Aquinas. After all, a prominent Anglican like C.S. Lewis expressed belief in purgatory in "Letters to Malcolm", defending the efficacy of prayers for the dead, even while distancing himself from some opinions that many Catholics also would not share.
Also, it is a commonplace of Catholic theology that theological language is analogical due to the finitude of human words in expressing divine truth. To speak of "punishment" as necessarily substantially different from "consequences" or "divine discipline" or "medicinal remedies" for effects of already-forgiven sin is unwarranted. All of these expressions can be understood in a too-anthropomorphic sense; all can be understood in a legitimate analogical sense. Authoritative Protestant confessions acknowledge that God may bring temporal "judgments" on his people as a discipline. That is certainly correct though it would be an anthropomorphic error to see God's "judgments" as if they were like the arbitrary and fallible decisions of human judges in a penal court. This entire question is part of a larger one of the analogical nature of any words that we use regarding the relationship between God and man--and also about belief in a personal God. As C.S. Lewis said in "Mere Christianity", personal language is the highest language that we have; yet it falls short of God in his infinite glory. And all Catholic theologians would agree.
The Westminster Confession (the work of Puritan divines in 1646, valued also by many evangelical Anglicans) has this to say:
"Through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalence of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, [true believers justified by Christ may] fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves" (from John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine in the Bible to the Present (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1973), p. 212).
Well said. Many commentators pick out bits of Catholic theology here and there and create a straw man out of them.
Good critique overall. However, I'd like to point out that there absolutely is a difference between medicinal chastisement and retributive wrath. As Sean Luke pointed out, Trent itself makes this distinction. Sean is correct that Roman pop-apologists often conflate the idea of post-mortem cleansing in general with the Romish conception of purgatory: if one does not address purgatory within the context of temporal debt and the system of merit, they are not actually defending purgatory, but rather demonstrating a classic example of the motte-bailey fallacy.
I used to make the exact same argument as you. However, the Council of Trent's statements contain the highest dogmatic authority on the matter. Pope Benedict's encyclical has many beautiful elements and reflects C.S. Lewis' model (which is much more in harmony with Orthodox thought as well as St. Mark of Ephesus' Greek view at Florence). Council of Trent states that temporal guilt remains upon the soul even after confession for already forgiven sins, "“"If any shall say, that after the grace of justification has been received, the offence is so remitted to the penitent sinner, and the guilt of eternal punishment so effaced, that there remains no GUILT of temporal punishment to be suffered, either in this world, or in the world to come in purgatory, before admission can be obtained to the kingdom of heaven; 'let him be accursed (anathematized)’." Council of Trent also says that penance/satisfaction is about paying for past sins and appeasing God's vengence/retribution toward them: "The Council of Trent also connects this remaining guilt to God’s vengeance when it states: “But let them have in view, that the satisfaction, which they impose, be not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine of infirmity,(s) but also for the avenging and punishing of past sins.” The Catechism of Trent (the Church’s official catechism for 500 years) is very clear about God’s vengeance remaining toward forgiven Christians. It states, “Finally, the punishment which the sinner endures disarms the vengeance of God and averts the punishments decreed against us.” Ultimately, Orthodox nor Protestants desire to sign off on the infallible statements of Trent. This 'place of expiation' of temporal guilt and debt anchored in God's vengeance was the standard view for Latin theologians for 800+ years from Aquinas & Bonaventure to Cardinal Bellarmine to Fr. Lagrange. Pope Benedict XVI attempted to renovate purgatory and indulgences to be more in line with the thinking of the Orthodox. We are happy about these changes towards the truth, but Trent is there forever whether Roman Catholics like it or not.
@@barrelagedfaith You have pointed out that many theologians spoke in terms of purgatory in terms of punishment for guilt. My reply was that those have never been defined as the only possible ways to speak of the reality of postmortem purification and transformation. "Infallible" means "not false", but not necessarily exhaustive or incapable of further explanation or interpretation. Certainly, I don't reject these terms; but I don't see these various ways of speaking of purgatory as contradictory. Something may be termed analogically a "punishment" owed to God's justice and also be a healing remedy, both in this life and in the life to come. Perhaps these are really aspects of one and the same thing: they can be distinguished mentally but not separated in fact (rather like justification and sanctification, as even most of the Reformed will acknowledge).
Though actually the scholastic theologians coined the term "satispassion" precisely to distinguish it from active satisfaction: it is a passive purgation beyond this life, somewhat analogous to the passive purgation of which St John of the Cross speaks though beyond the gate of death. That is the way of considering purgatory that makes most sense to me. The making of that distinction between active penance in this life and the unique experience of purgation beyond death suggests that even those theologians recognized that the penitential or punitive or medicinal terms were really analogies for what is beyond human words.
As an illustration, the famous 19th-century devotional writer, Fr Frederick Faber, wrote in his work "All for Jesus" about two ways of speaking of purgatory among Catholic writers. The first tendency speaks more in terms of God's vindictive justice, the second more of transformation. Faber saw no direct contradiction. This is what Fr Faber wrote:
"“The second view of purgatory does not deny any one of the features of the preceding [punitive] view, but it almost puts them out of sight by the other considerations which it brings more prominently forward. It goes into purgatorv with its eyes fascinated and its spirit sweetly tranquillised by the face of Jesus, its first sight of the Sacred Humanity at the Particular Judgment which it has undergone. That vision abides with it still, and beautifies the uneven terrors of its prison as if with perpetual silvery showers of moon light which seem to fall from our Saviour’s loving eyes. In the sea of fire it holds fast by that image. The moment that in His sight it perceives its own unfitness for heaven: it wings its voluntary flight to purgatory, like a dove to her proper nest in the shadows of the forest. There need no Angels to convey it thither. It is its own free worship
of the purity of God.”
That second view presented by Faber is, in fact, very close to what C.S. Lewis suggested.
In any case, Trent never intended to shut down the various opinions held and discussed freely in the theological schools (for example, on grace and predestination). The explanation given by Pope Benedict points in the direction that I have suggested. He doesn't deny anything that Trent said but emphasizes other aspects. At a minimum, a Catholic is certainly free to agree with the Pope's language and to use it, unless it is in formal contradiction to earlier defined doctrine. But it's not.
@@PaterIgnotus Right, Benedict XVI led a major renovation of purgatory. The problem is that of weaponized ambiguity. Everyone loves Benedict's view today, but everyone could easily return to the retributive model tomorrow (and still exists as dogma per Trent). Also, the retributive model still exists and is not completely locked up with the sanctification model. For example, consider how to receive a plenary indulgence which removes the 'debt of temporal punishment' owed to God. The person must go to confession, receive the Eucharist, do xyz, and be completely detached from any love of sin" before receiving the plenary indulgence. One must ask, if you have reached that level of sanctification, why would you even need a plenary indulgence? (Because you still have the 'guilt of temporal debt' owed to God is the easiest explanation in Latin theology on this topic). Had Ratzinger introduced Rahner's explanation on indulgences and overhauled the devotional practices, his view would make more sense. But he did not. Instead, Rahner's proposal was generally rejected by Pope Paul VI. So Ratzinger's renovation of purgatory and indulgences is incomplete (and may have to stay that way) due to the dogmatic history of Latin theology.
Thanks for this and well done brother, you're a huge inspiration. I hope your book comes out soon. God bless
I would like to hear your thoughts on Ybarra’s book on Melchezidek.
I want to do a deep dive eventually!
Im pretty sure hes just representing bellarmines arguments
I am orthodox and we teach that worthy reception restores baptism (or at least at theophon does). My issue with temporal punishment is also that there seems to be a troubling asymmetry. The beatific vision is merited by the state of our soul (supernatural orientation towards god) but every sin has a temporal “price of pain”. Yet for sinners this pain goes on forever. Why can’t sinners pay the temporal element and be returned to limbo where they suffer the loss of the beatific vision but not the positive pain? I’m sure there is a way to make sense of it but it just shows that the system is not even something demanded by a philosophy of justice… it’s actually just an attempt to abstractly explain medieval devotional practices
Isn't Jesus our Great high priest? Doesn't He absolve our sins actively through repentance and faith?
Yes it is! Hallelujah
Yes, although he does use means to do this (i.e. the Sacraments)
@@MarkTodd-yc1zdthat are administered once per week. How do we receive this throughout the normal week?
@@jadenweatherly1778 God uses a multiplicity of means to give us the necessary grace to live the Christian life. We can pray and read the Scriptures to encounter Him and to receive forgiveness. But Christ also gives us Himself in a unique and efficacious manner through the Eucharist, among other things. He explicitly says that it is for the forgiveness of sins.
@@MarkTodd-yc1zd totally agree that the Eucharist is. I’m just trying to understand how sacraments forgive sins in light of the total plan of salvation.
Like as Protestants we affirm justification that doesn’t fluctuate or grow as Rome says, yet there is still on going forgiveness through multiple means, and I’m trying to wrap my head around that.
What is the church in the intro? It’s beautiful and (especially) if it’s Anglican I’d love to visit it one day
Great job on the intro, mic, and quality content.
27:40- that’s right. That’s the question.
Excellent and very helpful background on these issues. It might be beyond the scope of your usual content, but would you consider doing something on the invocation of the saints and whether the practice has a place within Reformed Catholicism?
Your mic sounds great!
You should have some dialogues with your Lutheran brethren about these things. You would find some strong agreement on some of your points.
I'm not at all well read enough on this topic to say one way or another, but I just don't understand the comparison between baptism and the Eucharist near the end. Baptism itself is a renewal of a person (John 3:5) and incorporation into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), and his death (Rom. 6:3-4), and is essentially becoming a new man. The Eucharist as I understand was not instituted for this renewal, but rather in the nourishing and perfection of that new man (John 6:51), so I don't think that's a fair parallel to make. It's very likely that I'm missing something here, so I'm sure you'll let me know!
I should definitely read all of St. Thomas sections on the Eucharist, mortal/venial sins, and eternal/temporal punishments related to sins again, as it seems that all of those would be relevant for this topic.
Have a great day Sean!
Thank you for the very interesting video! What do you think about the argument of wages due? Assuming the authority of the Pope to bind and loose, it must be presupposed that the authority is there to have the Roman Catholic view to begin with. If Christ through his Church gives us an additional opportunity to remit sins and we are promised a wage for it, why would it not be okay for us to go and take the gift of being able to earn that wage?
The total remission of temporal punishment is still a gift, we do not have a right to have this opportunity given to us. Just as remission of sin from Christ in general is a gift that we have an opportunity to receive.
Amen!
What happens then if I, as an Anglican, commit sins from Thursday through Saturday and die before the reception of absolution and communion. Am I not in the status of forgiveness at all, or did I just miss out on “extra” if you will
“14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14.) your forgiveness is based solely on what Jesus did and not on what you do. Christ’s one sacrifice perfected you for ever and ever. If you trust in what Jesus did all your sins are forgiven, you are perfected (or completed. Notice that it is for all time; so you don’t get forgiven and then unforgiven- perfected then inperfected.
Hi Sean, could you explain how Baptism interacts with the infused righteousness model of justification (I.e God gives you the grace which empowers the good works necessary for justification). If justification under the Catholic system is by works, how does the imputation-esque mechanism in Baptism square with this? If Baptism is sufficient to justify… why define works as necessary for justification?
Or is this really just a big inconsistency?
Broadly speaking- is their system one where you get in and have to work to stay in (e.g penances for venual sin), or work to “climb up” (become righteous)?
Basically if you break the law you lose that righteousness
Hey you got a new mic! Sounds good!
Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine):
Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin AND DOES WHAT IS JUST (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) AND RIGHT (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) AND RIGHT (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); HE SHALL SURELY LIVE.
To do what is right and just AFTER a person turns from his sin (or repent) is known as as temporal punishment in Catholic teaching. The reason of doing what is just and right or temporal punishment is to fulfil justice. In contrast according to the Reformers, which you faithfully follow, to fulfill justice Christ voluntarily offer Himself to take the punishment the believers deserve for their sins on the cross - consequently the sins of believers must be imputed on Him as if He were the one who commit those sins and His righteousness imputed on believers as if they were righteous That explains why you have problem with Catholic teaching on temporal punishment, indulgences and purgatory - those add what Christ already accomplished on the cross.. Scripture flatly denies (double) imputation in Eze. 18:20: "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." By punishing/condemning Christ for the sins He did not commit, the Reformers (AND YOU) makes God do abomination as stated in Pro. 17:15 (ESV): “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”
While the Reformers relates Christ crucifixion with being punished/condemned for sins of believers imputed on Him, the Catholic Church relates what He did on the cross with what Adam did, known as the Fall as stated in Rom. 5:18 (ESV): “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [δικαίωμα] leads to justification [δικαίωσις] and life for all men.” What Christ did on the cross outweighs or atones what Adam did, through which sins comes into the world and through sins come death (Rom. 5:12).
magisterial protestants? reformed catholic? can i know more?
"The Protestant problem" that you present here is that you think God's chastening of Christians (as in for example Hebrews 12) is in no sense a punishment, and to think that there are no temporal consequences for a Christian sinning, and that God has no right to impose such a punishment. It is only by the grace provided in Christ's propitiation that the Christian who is contrite and does penance is spared from the eternal consequences of sin:everlasting damnation. But temporal punishment there must be, as God is just and He justly requires temporal punishment for sin. If such punishment is incomplete in this life, God mercifully provides for it in purgatory. The reason for indulgences is that the chastening can take the form of submitting to means of making amends by some self denial, by prayers, good works, giving of alms etc. The indulgence is a mitigating of the temporal punishment due for sin by providing these means of practicing such self denial, and they are loving help done for departed Christians to obtain mitigation of the temporal punishments due to them. This is one important way in which Christians obey the command to help one another, bearing one anothers' burdens and bringing gifts of God's help to them. This is all possible through the merits of Christ's sacrifice for us, which is made present for us in the Eucharist/Mass. Such loving actions are a working out of the benefits of Christ's sacrifice as applied to Christians in each age. You seem to want to sin without suffering any consequences. That would be a despising of God's holiness and mercy.
Temporal consequences and temporal punishments are simply not the same thing. The person who is Baptized will still have temporal consequences for their sin (say if they were a murderer, they'd still go to prison), but they wouldn't have temporal punishments owing to Baptism's efficacy in wiping away all temporal punishments. So saying that this is tantamount to "wanting to sin without suffering any consequences" is like saying that the person Baptized just doesn't want to face the consequences for their sin. We all acknowledge temporal consequences, and hence fatherly chastisements aimed at sanctification; that's not the issue here.
@@anglicanaestheticsSo, you think prison isn't a punishment?!
@@anselman3156 See Aquinas--his reply particularly to objection 3 is pertinent here:
Objection 1. It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (Romans 13:1): "Those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulgate: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']." But guilt is not set in order save by punishment, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl). Therefore Baptism does not take away the debt of punishment due to sins already committed.
Objection 2. Further, the effect of a sacrament has a certain likeness to the sacrament itself; since the sacraments of the New Law "effect what they signify," as stated above (III:62:1 ad 1). But the washing of Baptism has indeed a certain likeness with the cleansing from the stain of sin, but none, seemingly, with the remission of the debt of punishment. Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken away by Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, when the debt of punishment has been remitted, a man no longer deserves to be punished, and so it would be unjust to punish him. If, therefore, the debt of punishment be remitted by Baptism, it would be unjust, after Baptism, to hang a thief who had committed murder before. Consequently the severity of human legislation would be relaxed on account of Baptism; which is undesirable. Therefore Baptism does not remit the debt of punishment.
On the contrary, Ambrose, commenting on Romans 11:29, "The gifts and the calling of God ate without repentance," says: "The grace of God in Baptism remits all, gratis."
I answer that, As stated above (III:49:3 ad 2; 68, 1,4,5) by Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of Christ, according to Romans 6:8: "If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ." Hence it is clear that the Passion of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so that he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now Christ's Passion, as stated above (III:68:5), is a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins of all men. Consequently he who is baptized, is freed from the debt of all punishment due to him for his sins, just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for all his sins.
Reply to Objection 1. Since the pains of Christ's Passion are communicated to the person baptized, inasmuch as he is made a member of Christ, just as if he himself had borne those pains, his sins are set in order by the pains of Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2. Water not only cleanses but also refreshes. And thus by refreshing it signifies the remission of the debt of punishment, just as by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt.
Reply to Objection 3. In punishments inflicted by a human tribunal, we have to consider not only what punishment a man deserves in respect of God, but also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and scandalized by another's sin. Consequently, although a murderer is freed by Baptism from his debt of punishment in respect of God, he remains, nevertheless, in debt to men; and it is right that they should be edified at his punishment, since they were scandalized at his sin. But the sovereign may remit the penalty to such like out of kindness.
@@anselman3156 Also, see the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
In Baptism not only is sin forgiven, but with it all the punishment due to sin is mercifully remitted by God. To
communicate the efficacy of the Passion of Christ our Lord is an effect common to all the Sacraments; but of
Baptism alone does the Apostle say, that by it we die and are buried together with Christ.
Hence holy Church has always understood that to impose those works of piety, usually called by the holy
Fathers works of satisfaction, on one who is to be cleansed in Baptism, would be injurious to this Sacrament in
the highest degree.
Nor is there any discrepancy between the doctrine here taught and the practice of the primitive Church, which
of old commanded the Jews, when preparing for Baptism, to observe a fast of forty successive days. (The fast thus imposed) was not enjoined as a work of satisfaction; but those who had received Baptism were thus
admonished to devote some time to the uninterrupted exercise of fasting and prayer in honour of so great a
Sacrament.
Baptism Does Not Exempt From Penalties Of The Civil Law
Although the remission by Baptism of the punishments due to sin cannot be questioned, we are not to infer that
it exempts an offender from the punishments decreed by civil tribunals for some grave crime. Thus a person
sentenced to death is not rescued by Baptism from the penalty ordained by the law.
We cannot, however, too highly commend the religion and piety of those rulers who remit the sentence of the
law, that the glory of God may be the more strikingly displayed in His Sacraments.
Aquinas' doctrine on Baptism seems to breed superstition. This would be like if I were laying in bed and dying with pneumonia, and a doctor came in with a shot of penicillin and immediately afterwards said "Well, you're cured...back to work you go!" No one is instantly ready for Canonization just because of Baptism. We all know people who were just as much scoundrels after baptism as before, and if they'd died immediately after the sacrament there's no way they'd be able to walk right into Heaven without stinking the place up
Thanks for talking on the modern-Catholic apologetic about Purgatory... it bothers me as well that they basically paint it as post-mortem sanctification, which is not the historic teaching AT ALL. It's about satisfaction of sin, rejecting the efficacious nature of Christ's sacrifice.
Incorrect conclusion.
Purgatory is a further extension of God's infinite mercy.
Scripture clearly refers to sins being purged (purged being the root of the word Purgatory).
Purgatory is purification. The "punishment" is only punishment as viewed from our human lens, where we suffer "punishment" as a result of our own actions. Just like I am punished the next day if I eat a whole pizza.
@@seamusweber8298 Scripture does not refer to sin being purged AFTER DEATH, which is required for Purgatory to be true.
Also, the question is: Are we PUNISHED for our sin after death, or are we simply sanctified by seeing God as He truly is (1 John 3)?
@@theepitomeministry Maccabees 2, Corinthians Chapter 1.
@aisthpaoitht Spiritual imperfection are purged, purified, in Purgatory. Souls in Purgatory will get to Heaven but those souls need to be purified first in Purgatory.
You can sit here and pretend that you have gotten to the bottom of things on this issue, but you are kidding yourself if you think that is the case. There are counter objections on both sides that would take an extraordinary amount of time and effort to get through alone, not to mention you have to understand them well enough without error. Trust me, I've done the same thing you have done. If we are relying purely on how well we can dive into the issues and read to get us to Heaven, we are not playing a winning game and are frankly making a turn towards gnosticism. "Look at me, I have found the correct answers wow! Now me and my church of 30 people who all think the same way will just be so perfect!"
That is not to say that this sort of stuff does not have a role in religion. I think serious academic discussion is an integral part of things and I know that there are some very smart and thoughtful Anglicans (like yourself) who are real academics worthy of the name. But the truth has to be discernable somehow in this later part of history by us simpler folk and really what it boils down to is this: which Church has fulfilled the prophecies of Christ Church found in the sacred scriptures? What singular Church has made it's presence known throughout the world? What singular Church has had all of the nations flow into it like it says in Isaiah? What Church has taken Christ's command to "Baptize all nations" the most seriously? What Church has carried on the Apostolic spirit the most throughout history? What Church has offered a rebuke to the Nations? Finally, ask this question: if the Anti-Christ were to come today, would my Church be able to handle it or would it crumble to pieces? This is not even considering all of the miracles that have been sent by God to confirm the truth of our faith as well as the saints. If you think the Anglican Church (or any Church for that matter) has fulfilled these prophecies more so than the Catholic Church has then you are kidding yourself. There is no way around it: throughout the history of the world after Christ, the Catholic Church has been the main character without a doubt. No one sees the Anglican Church as a threat in any way, even the Anglo-Catholic or High Church community. Of course they aren't. In fact, no one really even knows about them, especially the more conservatives. Moreover, you guys don't even really have a positive existence. Your existence as a communion is "We are not Catholic!" Slinter groups are notorious for abusing that kind of rhetoric because, frankly, they are the little men on the block. The Catholic Church has been confident in itself whereas Orthodoxy and Protestantism have just tried to establish themselves. It looks so bad and the lack of visibility is a real concern. It's not merely, "Oh Catholic Church big so true." Rather, it is a tell-tale sign that the work of the Apostles is still ongoing throughout history until the Gospel be preached throughout all nations.
Point being is that as much as you may find the Anglican theological tradition more persuasive, betting your soul on the idea that you can comprehend these arguments thoroughly enough is a dangerous game to play. God wills that everyone come to knowledge of the truth and be saved. To this end, he made it obvious where to go by giving us the signs of the true Church, as maddening as that may be for someone of your intellectual caliber.
Well said Matt.
The Catholic Church is the only means to salvation for all of us. Her sacraments offer the means to be able to receive God's grace. We however must be sincere in our spiritual state to receive those graces. We must not be in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin prevents us from being able to receive God's salvic grace in this life.
Are our lives in perfect conformance with the 10 Commandments? At all times?
The sacrament of confession is the only means to enable us to leave our sins and to try to start again fresh. God so loves us that He gave us this sacrament to try to help us in our weakness.
Your argument seems to be:
1. You’re smart
2. Only smart people could understand these arguments
3. The only historic Christendom tradition that can make a claim back to the ancient church validly, and easily accessibly, is the Catholic Church.
The sign of a smart person is being able to explain at multiple levels. Sean’s able to do this. Catholicism’s teaching requires someone like him to actually intricately deconstruct it- because in its design, it circularly absorbs critiques and elaborates its magisterium polemically.
The smartness you’re critiquing has come about because years of smart Christians have made critiques like this. Why not deal with Sean’s arguments, rather than claiming a simple person could understand the present complications of the Magisterium?
Ironically, Sean’s arguing with you a simple Christian should have a simpler system.
Let me start with this: my goal in writing what I wrote was not to get into a detailed theological/philosophical argument like you aren’t trying to propose. I’m not qualified to give such a retort. If you want something like that, go read St. Robert Bellarmine’s book on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Better yet, speak to a Dominican who can explain these things far better than I can.
What I’m saying here is that there is an issue of methodology that is a common problem for contemporary apologists,
namely, trying to play this game where we take a single, niche issue like the one being discussed in the video and say to ourselves, “I researched this one really vast, expansive field of study and I feel confident that I have covered everything and understood all of it as best as I can.” I’m not saying smart people cannot understand this stuff or even get to the bottom of things. But there is a presumption that is made on the part of such a person that they really are smart enough to comprehend such detailed issues in spite of the reality of sin which blinds our intellect.
I’m saying that is not a winning game. There are more obvious indicators that Christ left us as I have mentioned above that frankly I don’t think can be legitimately argued against by any other denomination because they have objectively, up to this point in time anyway, failed to meet them, and are thereby not credible claimants to begin the true Church. There is no Church on earth that has presented the fullness of unity, catholicity and apostolicity as the Catholic Church has. From this we can conclude to its holiness. Not only this but the OT prophecies of the character of the Church fit far more in line with the Catholic Church than anyone else, let’s face it. On top of this, it is the only Church that can legitimately fulfill Christs command in Matthew 18:15-17 because it is the only one with any legitimate authority.
All that I’m saying here is that before you get into the weeds and minutia, make sure that you ask yourself the more fundamental questions such as, “Does my Church meet, based on the testimony of the scriptures, the necessary pre-conditions for it to be the one, true Church?”
While I’m at it, let also consider this one other key point: have you ever seen a Black Lords Supper before? Personally, I haven’t. I could be wrong, maybe it happens a lot more than I realize. Throughout my life, I have only heard of Black Masses being performed. So even those who worship Satan, who do his bidding on earth, as far as I can tell, seem to be hyper fixated on the Eucharist. I could of course go into the miracles and things like that as well which have been verified but I understand that also carries with it little apologetic value.
Also just to clarify I’m not trying to be uncharitable if I’m coming across that way. I genuinely do care about these things and the salvation of souls. Please forgive me if my tone suggests otherwise.
@@mattphelan1252 brother, we agree on the fundamental question, and the nature of Satanic warfare against the true worship of God. We disagree on how to answer the question by the testimony of the Scriptures and history. One reason Sean’s such a good apologist is that intricacy and patience that actually seems to so manifestly understand the sources that the likes of Eric Ybarra can actually interview him multiple times and you can walk away from those interactions edified and aware that Protestantism isn’t a mere historical novelty, but truly, as Schaff said, a medieval reform and recovery movement.