I wish my husband would understand this. He has become sedevacatist due to all the Pope "wrong doing" as they see it. This priest he has met has told him that the Pope is an heretic Pope, and several popes before, that the vatican has not had a rightful Pope since John XXIII, I think. I believe that if the Pope is right or wrong, God will judge him and we should follow Jesus teachings and just pray for the Pope. In the end, he is the Pope and we can't deny that.
Your husband is correct. Those in this podcast are wrong. Heretics are not members of the Church. You should study and see the evidence for yourself. It's abundant. There is no way around it. Search and you shall find the truth as your husband did, the amazing heresies of the recent 'popes'.
Your husband has found the truth, he is right. Those in this podcast are terrible wrong. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and cannot hold an office in it. Search for the amazing heresies of the recent so called popes. It's overwhelming, abundant, clear as water. Look it up, hold the evidence against traditional catholic teaching, and see that your husband is right.
There is nothing to understand. The arguments they are giving in this video are circular reasoning nonsense. In any normal line of reasoning having evidence that Pope's were bad in the past is evidence that Jesus is not who he claims to be and that he is not keeping his promise to protect the Church from errors in faith and morals and that Christianity is not true at all.
People outside the faith really struggle with the pope, Christ is the head and the pope is the final say but we have the dogma and the magisterium, lots of checks and balances. We are humans and are not perfect but Christ is king.
It's probably the biggest issue people have with joining the Catholic Church. Other than perhaps them falsely thinking Catholics worship Mary and Saints etc
The "dogma and magesterium" do not actually exist in a physical form. They are not authoritatively and officially written down. The Catechism has changed. There are no "checks and balances." The idea is that Jesus protects and guides the Church.
@@Tom_McMurtry Other than Christ, when you have the highest official in the Church who's the final say and is able to speak infallably repeatedly saying there are many paths to God, I can see why people are iffy about the Catholic Church.
We've endured bad popes and bad clergy before, including far worse popes. The Church remains because Christ established it, and it remains in spite of bad shepherds. Catholicism is true because of Jesus, not because of its fallible members.
The whole thing is a pile of rubbish its rotten all the way through you have been lied to, thats why we have hundreds of denominations and hundreds of religions or belief systems
I'm not a Catholic, but I'm sympathetic to some of their concerns and would argue that the actions of any given pope should not be cause for doubting their faith. God didn't promise he would give you an unbroken line of sinless men to head the church. EVERY pope has been a sinner, because EVERY man from Adam down has been a sinner, barring Christ himself. Every head of every other faith and denomination and secular political organization has also been a sinner. There is nowhere you can go to find a sinless leader on this earth. That is exactly WHY Christ was needed to begin with.
Its circular reasoning. This is nonsense. In any normal line of reasoning having evidence that Pope's were bad in the past is evidence that Jesus is not who he claims to be and that he is not keeping his promise to protect the Church from errors in faith and morals and that Christianity is not true at all.
@@FireFly-l6x Bad Popes are evidence that Jesus isn't who He claims to be and that Christianity isn't true at all? What a weird thing to say. Of course, you're joking. So if we have a bad President, does that mean America isn't true at all?
As a protestant, I would love to here Matt Fradd tall about Nicea II. Specifically the idea that we are an anathema if we don't venerate Icons. -even more so, I become an anathema if I speak with someone who knowingly is against the Icon veneration... I didnt grow up in the church and had a radical encounter with Jesus that changed my life. It's hard for me to believe that Paul would be OK with Christians kissing/kneeling before Icons/statues.
First comment! Thanks for all you do Matt, and everyone on your team who works to get this content together! You’ve been an incredible resource in my reversion to the Catholic Faith
Hey Matt, suggestion for tomorrow's debate! Ask Ubi and Ybarra to both state 3 points which they think are the strongest for the other side's position, be it an event, quote, letter, whatever. God bless!
*Context I’m a Protestant in a Protestant Bible College and a friend of mine has converted to Catholicism* This might sound like a strange question, but how do I respond to now new beliefs in a way that builds him up rather than tear down. I’m familiar with some Catholic teaching but I’d rather know from the horses mouth as it were.
Infallibility is very narrow in what it covers. It means the pope is prevented from teaching in error when speaking Ex Cathedra, which he seldom does. That's it. That's why the core Doctrine has remained the same for 2000 years, despite some truly awful popes. It does not mean the pope is sinless; it means the Holy Spirit, in an act of mercy, prevents him from teaching heresy when speaking Ex Cathedra. This explanation can't possibly cover all of the detail, so if you're not satisfied, check out Ascension Presents for more detail.
I’m sorry, it seems that Pope Francis is held to a different standard than his predecessors. If we’re so willing to compare him to bad popes of the past because of his imperfections (perceived or otherwise), then we need to hold his predecessors to the same standard. McCarrick was removed during Pope Francis’ reign, while he was active under John Paul II. I will be the last person to criticize JPII, and I recognize that many of these things that we know now were not known to him then. I think very much the same thing is happening with Pope Francis, but because of other ideological and cultural differences, people give themselves more permission to be hostile to him than to his predecessors.
Sinner popes are not the worst, those who messed up with doctrine are. Gregory VII was the first pope to mess up massively with confusions in doctrine, even though his personal virtues and the good reforms he did for the Church are not in question. Eugene IV was a felon. He was among the counciliar fathers of Constance before he became pope, then forsook his own papal confirmations of doctrinal conciliar decrees and almost reignited the antipapacy schism because of that.
Yes, it is shortsighted in my opinion not to take into consideration the bad popes that have lived. To not put into perspective the tribulations were church has gone through before our time.
The Pope is only infallible when Ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter. Pope Francis is not even close to being a “bad” pope. He’s definitely confusing faithful Catholics. The Holy Spirit is guiding the church, we are in good hands.
The Pope is not infallible, only his ex cathedra statements are infallible. Many pope's never speak ex cathedra so technical they were not infallible at all.
Infallibility has nothing to do with personal behavior. It is a protection granted to the pope so that he will not err in matters of faith and morals when teaching something that much be believed by the universal Church. It's related to his teaching office, not to his personal virtue.
Sure! I'll help. It's because it's not his infallibility, it's the infallibility of the Church as a whole. The organs that speak for the Church then exercise this infallibility whenever they act as the Church's mouthpiece. This is why we have THREE modes of infallibility, not just one. 1) Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is where all the Bishops of the Church of different times and places throughout the Church have agreed on a teaching or taught the same thing, then it is infallible, because the Church as a whole cannot er. It is called ordinary because this is the normal way in which the Church teaches. 2) Ecumenical Councils, which is where a group of Bishops who are in communion within the pope (i.e, they have not been formally excommunicated, not that they disagree with him as some popesplainers imagine, lol) gather in a council to determine a question of doctrine; if their decision is ratified by the pope, then it, too, is infallible, because their definitions bind the whole Church on that particular doctrinal question, and as the whole Church cannot er, then their decision must enjoy the Church's infallibility as well. - It is one of two "extraordinary" magisteriums, because they typically happen in response to controversy and are not the normal way of teaching. For perspective, there have been only 21 of them in 2,000 years. 3) Papal Infallibility, is where the Pope, by himself, does the same thing, ie, determine a doctrinal question binding on the whole Church, as the Church's final authority beyond which there can be no appeal, kinda like the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church on questions of doctrine. Again, because he is then acting on behalf of the whole Church and his decisions bind the whole Church on that doctrinal issue, such acts must also enjoy the Church's infallibility. - This is the other "extraordinary" magisterium, because, again, this is not the normal way of teaching. For perspective, there have been VERY, VERY few such declarations in the Church's entire history: The last one was in 1950 and before then, 1854. So, in 200 years, between 21 popes, HUNDREDS of encyclicals/bulls etc, we have only TWO papal statements that count as infallible. 😊 So, as you see, infallibility is a characteristic, not of any person or prelate in the Church but of the Church herself. It is only operative with regards to certain offices of the Church when, and ONLY when, they are acting as the mouth/speech of the Church. When not, it does not attach to them at all because in all those other cases, they are acting as individual SERVANTS of the Church but not as the Catholic Church herself. As individual Servants/stewards, these men can range from the very good and holy to the downright wicked: you can see this in Our Lord's own teaching on stewards of the master's household, including the parable Jesus told of the wicked chief steward who is caught by his master on his return and severely punished (judgment).
@@stormcrow1970It does not apply of course to actual Peter, who heretically taught circumcision until he was corrected by Paul. Which was easier back then cuz no one in their right mind amongst the Apostles would have ever thought Peter to be infallible. Least of all Peter
As a Protestant looking into Catholicism, these are legitimate hang ups for us on the other side. Its hard to understand the arguments that the church is infallible or at least the pope rather (at times)..or that the gates if hell havent prevailed against the church when i would say hell is prevailing when their is corruption and chaos happening in the highest most important roles. Whats the encouragement for those wanting to consider catholisim but here stuff like this! Why trusy the church?
Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall it prevail against it”. This doesn’t mean the members of the church will be perfect. We saw Peter deny Jesus three times after acknowledging he is the Lord! What this means for us is that as a teaching institution the Church will not bind us into erroneous teachings. Consider all the bad popes, the unholy clergymen, and political backstabbing that are/were present in the church. If it were a country with the same caliber of leadership I would argue that it couldn’t last long at all, much less last over 2000 years! Obviously there are tons of other points to think through and pray about, but I would say the fact that the Catholic Church is still standing is a testament to its divine institution. Ultimately, you must go where God calls you. May the Lord bless you and keep you.
There is an apocryphal interaction between Napolean and a cardinal where Napolean said he had the power to destroy the church. The cardinal retorted, "we clergy have been trying for 1800 years. what makes you think you can do any better?" My point in using this quote is that despite the flawed (which is an understatement) men in the Church, it still stands. The period of time referred to in this video also produced such saints as Cyril and Methodius (missionaries to Slavic lands and the creators of the Cyrillic alphabet), Wenceslas (the namesake of the song known for his great acts of charity) and Adalbert of Prague (who brough Christianity to the Poles). A century later, Sts. Dominic and Francis brought the church out of this corrupt period reforming it towards radical spiritual piety and charity. St. Dominic especially emphasized an educated and preaching clergy in his ministry. My point is that even when the leaders at the top are corrupt, the fruits of the Church are still seen in the saints in produces.
I think Dr. Feser is wrong on John XXII it’s not that he denied the particular judgement, but that the disembodied saints see the beatific vision before their resurrection at the second coming.
Yes it related to the Beatific Vision. In November 1331 Pope John XXII preached that the blessed dead see the Human Chris, not His Divinity (Nestorianism) and that only Holy Mary sees the full Christ but the rest including the blessed dead (Saints) do not till the General /Universal resurrection of all the dead (professed In Creed). This was in a homily to Cardinals and some Bishops in Avignon (not Rome as the papacy is in Avignon), who pushed back, but not yet full-blown Controversy. Pope John XXII continued preaching homilies regarding his view of the beatific vision and it became known publicly in all regions of the Church. Thus, in January of 1333 an English Dominican priest/theologian named Thomas Waleys denounced Pope John XXII teaching as heretical. Fr. Waleys was arrested by the Inquisition at the request of John XXII. Cardinal Jacques Fournier (who would become Pope Benedict XII) and Durandus de St. Pourcian, Bishop of Meaux France also stated the Pope was in error. A Commission that the Pope Appointed did not fully support the Pope either. The Pope then asked for an assembly of Theologians to debate the issue at the University of Paris. They also said he was wrong. So had tripled down. The Franciscan Superior Gurial Ot gave support to Pope John XXII, resulting in the Theologians at Paris protesting and then an Assembly of Bishops met with all the Theologians at Paris and stated Pope John XXII was wrong, all the Blessed dead (Saints) see the Beatific vision. Given the tensions between Emperor Louis IV and Pope John XXII, He saw a chance to be seen as the Hero of Catholic Christendom and told the Cardinals he would back a Council of Cardinals to formally charge Pope John XXII with heresy and depose Him. Pope John XXII recanted and then died. Now whether that Council would have been valid would depend if the next Pope recognized it has Valid. Cardinal Jacques Fournier was elected as Pope and took the name Benedict XII (1334-1342), and He issued Benedictus Deus- On the Beatific Vision of God in The Constitution issued 1336 Dogmatically defined with a solemn Definition Beatific Vision. Pope John XXII by recanting His error/heretical teachings was never declared a Formal Heretic but he did in fact teach heresy publicly as a private theologian as Pope (he never Dogmatically defined his teaching).
What about Pope Pius IX involvement in the Mortara case? Was this wrong to take away a Jewish boy from his parents because the law of the Papal States forbade the raising of Christians by members of other faiths, it ordered that the boy be taken from his family and brought up by the Church? Pope Pius IX received many requests to dogmatize the Immaculate conception, which he later formed a council of theologians to analyze this position. There were some theologians and bishops who were against this idea. Why didn’t this become dogma way before the 19th century? Was did Pius had personal biases and beliefs about this Marian doctorine? Wasn’t this legend? What did the apostles say about this? Was this mentioned in the apocryphal book of James?
I think the actions of Pope Pius IX in the Mortara case were abominable but I think the boy did embrace Christianity and even became a priest. Ultimately, he maintained his faith as a free choice but the circumstances that brough him to it were wrong. As for the immaculate conception, it was a long-heald doctrine. At the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), the EO church formalized it as well, although I think they avoid the phrase "immaculate conception." Dogmas are usually issued similarly to supreme court rulings. If a widely held belief goes unchallenged, it does not need to be dogmatized. Even the magisterial reformers believed in the sinlessness of Mary, although they too didn't use the phrase Immaculate Conception. The belief wasn't challenged on a large scale until the radical reformation of the 1600s thus it did not necessitate a dogmatic definition.
Francis is definitely the worst since he leads souls to perdition by confirming them in their sin. way worse than an immoral man on the throne. The Man on the throne today leads an antigospel.
Well only a a future Pope can formally judge a previous Pope this side of the heaven, so that would be something that a future Pope would have to look at see if Pope Francis, while he has not taught anything via Extraordinary magisterium or even ordinary Universal, one could argue that via his authoritative magisterium he has caused confusion and not protected the Holy Catholic faith in a manner of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) should. I am thinking something similar to what happened to Pope Honorius.
Hebrews 10:12 KJV "But this MAN (JESUS CHRIST), after "HE had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER" sat down on the right hand of GOD" 14 For by ONE OFFERING (CHRIST shedding HIS real blood and giving HIS real body on a real cross) HE has PERFECTED FOREVER (saved) them that are sanctified" (forgiven of all sins) 18 Now where remission of these (sins) is, "there is NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN" (Parenthesis Mine)
Here he is again, you sure like to hang around on Catholic Channels. I don't think anyone really cares what you think. Cheers and have a nice cup of tea.
You’ll find corruption at your local church. Within Jews, Jehovah witness, SDA, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, non denomination churches you can’t escape it.
Every time I hear this kind of nonsense it makes me cringe. Catholicism has just totally given up on rationality and the pursuit of Truth. Having bad popes in the past is just cumulative evidence Christinity is not true at all. It is evidence Jesus does not keep his promise to protect the Church and it burns the credibility of the Church to the ground. Plus it makes people making these arguments look foolish. It is circular reasoning.
Firefly suggested: It is evidence Jesus does not keep his promise to protect the Church and it burns the credibility of the Church to the ground. Me: The church is still going strong after 2000 years and good and bad popes Jesus is keeping his promise. And not once has a bad pope changed the doctrine, the first thing that the corrupt usually do. And that confirms Jesus' promise to send the spirit of truth to the apostles and their successors (John 14:16--17). Sounds like the Catholic Church has weather evil by the protection of Jesus.
I was indoctrinated from birth to believe in the god of my family and community, therefore i believe my god is real and other gods are imaginary, what god do you think i believe in
I wish my husband would understand this. He has become sedevacatist due to all the Pope "wrong doing" as they see it. This priest he has met has told him that the Pope is an heretic Pope, and several popes before, that the vatican has not had a rightful Pope since John XXIII, I think. I believe that if the Pope is right or wrong, God will judge him and we should follow Jesus teachings and just pray for the Pope. In the end, he is the Pope and we can't deny that.
Honestly, the sedevacantists are the only historically honest catholics as far as I can tell.
Your husband is correct. Those in this podcast are wrong. Heretics are not members of the Church. You should study and see the evidence for yourself. It's abundant. There is no way around it. Search and you shall find the truth as your husband did, the amazing heresies of the recent 'popes'.
Your husband has found the truth, he is right. Those in this podcast are terrible wrong. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and cannot hold an office in it. Search for the amazing heresies of the recent so called popes. It's overwhelming, abundant, clear as water. Look it up, hold the evidence against traditional catholic teaching, and see that your husband is right.
Exactly. Humility and prudence.
There is nothing to understand. The arguments they are giving in this video are circular reasoning nonsense. In any normal line of reasoning having evidence that Pope's were bad in the past is evidence that Jesus is not who he claims to be and that he is not keeping his promise to protect the Church from errors in faith and morals and that Christianity is not true at all.
People outside the faith really struggle with the pope, Christ is the head and the pope is the final say but we have the dogma and the magisterium, lots of checks and balances. We are humans and are not perfect but Christ is king.
It's probably the biggest issue people have with joining the Catholic Church. Other than perhaps them falsely thinking Catholics worship Mary and Saints etc
Vatican 1
There are no checks on the pope's power.
Vatican I made that pretty clear.
The "dogma and magesterium" do not actually exist in a physical form. They are not authoritatively and officially written down. The Catechism has changed. There are no "checks and balances." The idea is that Jesus protects and guides the Church.
@@Tom_McMurtry Other than Christ, when you have the highest official in the Church who's the final say and is able to speak infallably repeatedly saying there are many paths to God, I can see why people are iffy about the Catholic Church.
We've endured bad popes and bad clergy before, including far worse popes. The Church remains because Christ established it, and it remains in spite of bad shepherds. Catholicism is true because of Jesus, not because of its fallible members.
We've probably never before had a pope who negated the need and undermines sound doctrine in itselg
The whole thing is a pile of rubbish its rotten all the way through you have been lied to, thats why we have hundreds of denominations and hundreds of religions or belief systems
I'm not a Catholic, but I'm sympathetic to some of their concerns and would argue that the actions of any given pope should not be cause for doubting their faith. God didn't promise he would give you an unbroken line of sinless men to head the church. EVERY pope has been a sinner, because EVERY man from Adam down has been a sinner, barring Christ himself. Every head of every other faith and denomination and secular political organization has also been a sinner. There is nowhere you can go to find a sinless leader on this earth. That is exactly WHY Christ was needed to begin with.
This was an excellent interview! A great interviewer interviewing a brilliant theologian
Its circular reasoning. This is nonsense. In any normal line of reasoning having evidence that Pope's were bad in the past is evidence that Jesus is not who he claims to be and that he is not keeping his promise to protect the Church from errors in faith and morals and that Christianity is not true at all.
@@FireFly-l6x Bad Popes are evidence that Jesus isn't who He claims to be and that Christianity isn't true at all? What a weird thing to say. Of course, you're joking. So if we have a bad President, does that mean America isn't true at all?
As a protestant, I would love to here Matt Fradd tall about Nicea II.
Specifically the idea that we are an anathema if we don't venerate Icons. -even more so, I become an anathema if I speak with someone who knowingly is against the Icon veneration...
I didnt grow up in the church and had a radical encounter with Jesus that changed my life.
It's hard for me to believe that Paul would be OK with Christians kissing/kneeling before Icons/statues.
First comment! Thanks for all you do Matt, and everyone on your team who works to get this content together! You’ve been an incredible resource in my reversion to the Catholic Faith
Hey Matt, suggestion for tomorrow's debate! Ask Ubi and Ybarra to both state 3 points which they think are the strongest for the other side's position, be it an event, quote, letter, whatever. God bless!
I dont think Pope Francis is a bad Pope
*Context I’m a Protestant in a Protestant Bible College and a friend of mine has converted to Catholicism*
This might sound like a strange question, but how do I respond to now new beliefs in a way that builds him up rather than tear down. I’m familiar with some Catholic teaching but I’d rather know from the horses mouth as it were.
Read the early Church was the Catholic Church by Joe Heishmeir
Infallibility is very narrow in what it covers. It means the pope is prevented from teaching in error when speaking Ex Cathedra, which he seldom does. That's it. That's why the core Doctrine has remained the same for 2000 years, despite some truly awful popes. It does not mean the pope is sinless; it means the Holy Spirit, in an act of mercy, prevents him from teaching heresy when speaking Ex Cathedra. This explanation can't possibly cover all of the detail, so if you're not satisfied, check out Ascension Presents for more detail.
This is nonsense and heresy the Papists added to the Faith of the Apostles.
@@Deathbytroll Funny you make the accusation of heresy by lying
I’m sorry, it seems that Pope Francis is held to a different standard than his predecessors. If we’re so willing to compare him to bad popes of the past because of his imperfections (perceived or otherwise), then we need to hold his predecessors to the same standard. McCarrick was removed during Pope Francis’ reign, while he was active under John Paul II. I will be the last person to criticize JPII, and I recognize that many of these things that we know now were not known to him then. I think very much the same thing is happening with Pope Francis, but because of other ideological and cultural differences, people give themselves more permission to be hostile to him than to his predecessors.
Sinner popes are not the worst, those who messed up with doctrine are. Gregory VII was the first pope to mess up massively with confusions in doctrine, even though his personal virtues and the good reforms he did for the Church are not in question. Eugene IV was a felon. He was among the counciliar fathers of Constance before he became pope, then forsook his own papal confirmations of doctrinal conciliar decrees and almost reignited the antipapacy schism because of that.
Yes, it is shortsighted in my opinion not to take into consideration the bad popes that have lived. To not put into perspective the tribulations were church has gone through before our time.
As I am evangelical this is very strange......case of pope the 6
Can someone explain how a pope can be infallible but also do evil? honest question
The Pope is only infallible when Ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter. Pope Francis is not even close to being a “bad” pope. He’s definitely confusing faithful Catholics. The Holy Spirit is guiding the church, we are in good hands.
The Pope is not infallible, only his ex cathedra statements are infallible. Many pope's never speak ex cathedra so technical they were not infallible at all.
Infallibility has nothing to do with personal behavior. It is a protection granted to the pope so that he will not err in matters of faith and morals when teaching something that much be believed by the universal Church. It's related to his teaching office, not to his personal virtue.
Sure! I'll help. It's because it's not his infallibility, it's the infallibility of the Church as a whole. The organs that speak for the Church then exercise this infallibility whenever they act as the Church's mouthpiece. This is why we have THREE modes of infallibility, not just one.
1) Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is where all the Bishops of the Church of different times and places throughout the Church have agreed on a teaching or taught the same thing, then it is infallible, because the Church as a whole cannot er. It is called ordinary because this is the normal way in which the Church teaches.
2) Ecumenical Councils, which is where a group of Bishops who are in communion within the pope (i.e, they have not been formally excommunicated, not that they disagree with him as some popesplainers imagine, lol) gather in a council to determine a question of doctrine; if their decision is ratified by the pope, then it, too, is infallible, because their definitions bind the whole Church on that particular doctrinal question, and as the whole Church cannot er, then their decision must enjoy the Church's infallibility as well.
- It is one of two "extraordinary" magisteriums, because they typically happen in response to controversy and are not the normal way of teaching. For perspective, there have been only 21 of them in 2,000 years.
3) Papal Infallibility, is where the Pope, by himself, does the same thing, ie, determine a doctrinal question binding on the whole Church, as the Church's final authority beyond which there can be no appeal, kinda like the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church on questions of doctrine. Again, because he is then acting on behalf of the whole Church and his decisions bind the whole Church on that doctrinal issue, such acts must also enjoy the Church's infallibility.
- This is the other "extraordinary" magisterium, because, again, this is not the normal way of teaching. For perspective, there have been VERY, VERY few such declarations in the Church's entire history: The last one was in 1950 and before then, 1854. So, in 200 years, between 21 popes, HUNDREDS of encyclicals/bulls etc, we have only TWO papal statements that count as infallible. 😊
So, as you see, infallibility is a characteristic, not of any person or prelate in the Church but of the Church herself. It is only operative with regards to certain offices of the Church when, and ONLY when, they are acting as the mouth/speech of the Church. When not, it does not attach to them at all because in all those other cases, they are acting as individual SERVANTS of the Church but not as the Catholic Church herself. As individual Servants/stewards, these men can range from the very good and holy to the downright wicked: you can see this in Our Lord's own teaching on stewards of the master's household, including the parable Jesus told of the wicked chief steward who is caught by his master on his return and severely punished (judgment).
@@stormcrow1970It does not apply of course to actual Peter, who heretically taught circumcision until he was corrected by Paul. Which was easier back then cuz no one in their right mind amongst the Apostles would have ever thought Peter to be infallible. Least of all Peter
Can we dig Formosa back up?
As a Protestant looking into Catholicism, these are legitimate hang ups for us on the other side. Its hard to understand the arguments that the church is infallible or at least the pope rather (at times)..or that the gates if hell havent prevailed against the church when i would say hell is prevailing when their is corruption and chaos happening in the highest most important roles. Whats the encouragement for those wanting to consider catholisim but here stuff like this! Why trusy the church?
Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall it prevail against it”. This doesn’t mean the members of the church will be perfect. We saw Peter deny Jesus three times after acknowledging he is the Lord! What this means for us is that as a teaching institution the Church will not bind us into erroneous teachings. Consider all the bad popes, the unholy clergymen, and political backstabbing that are/were present in the church. If it were a country with the same caliber of leadership I would argue that it couldn’t last long at all, much less last over 2000 years! Obviously there are tons of other points to think through and pray about, but I would say the fact that the Catholic Church is still standing is a testament to its divine institution.
Ultimately, you must go where God calls you.
May the Lord bless you and keep you.
There is an apocryphal interaction between Napolean and a cardinal where Napolean said he had the power to destroy the church. The cardinal retorted, "we clergy have been trying for 1800 years. what makes you think you can do any better?" My point in using this quote is that despite the flawed (which is an understatement) men in the Church, it still stands. The period of time referred to in this video also produced such saints as Cyril and Methodius (missionaries to Slavic lands and the creators of the Cyrillic alphabet), Wenceslas (the namesake of the song known for his great acts of charity) and Adalbert of Prague (who brough Christianity to the Poles). A century later, Sts. Dominic and Francis brought the church out of this corrupt period reforming it towards radical spiritual piety and charity. St. Dominic especially emphasized an educated and preaching clergy in his ministry. My point is that even when the leaders at the top are corrupt, the fruits of the Church are still seen in the saints in produces.
I think Dr. Feser is wrong on John XXII it’s not that he denied the particular judgement, but that the disembodied saints see the beatific vision before their resurrection at the second coming.
Yes it related to the Beatific Vision. In November 1331 Pope John XXII preached that the blessed dead see the Human Chris, not His Divinity (Nestorianism) and that only Holy Mary sees the full Christ but the rest including the blessed dead (Saints) do not till the General /Universal resurrection of all the dead (professed In Creed). This was in a homily to Cardinals and some Bishops in Avignon (not Rome as the papacy is in Avignon), who pushed back, but not yet full-blown Controversy.
Pope John XXII continued preaching homilies regarding his view of the beatific vision and it became known publicly in all regions of the Church. Thus, in January of 1333 an English Dominican priest/theologian named Thomas Waleys denounced Pope John XXII teaching as heretical. Fr. Waleys was arrested by the Inquisition at the request of John XXII. Cardinal Jacques Fournier (who would become Pope Benedict XII) and Durandus de St. Pourcian, Bishop of Meaux France also stated the Pope was in error. A Commission that the Pope Appointed did not fully support the Pope either. The Pope then asked for an assembly of Theologians to debate the issue at the University of Paris. They also said he was wrong. So had tripled down.
The Franciscan Superior Gurial Ot gave support to Pope John XXII, resulting in the Theologians at Paris protesting and then an Assembly of Bishops met with all the Theologians at Paris and stated Pope John XXII was wrong, all the Blessed dead (Saints) see the Beatific vision. Given the tensions between Emperor Louis IV and Pope John XXII, He saw a chance to be seen as the Hero of Catholic Christendom and told the Cardinals he would back a Council of Cardinals to formally charge Pope John XXII with heresy and depose Him. Pope John XXII recanted and then died. Now whether that Council would have been valid would depend if the next Pope recognized it has Valid.
Cardinal Jacques Fournier was elected as Pope and took the name Benedict XII (1334-1342), and He issued Benedictus Deus- On the Beatific Vision of God in The Constitution issued 1336 Dogmatically defined with a solemn Definition Beatific Vision. Pope John XXII by recanting His error/heretical teachings was never declared a Formal Heretic but he did in fact teach heresy publicly as a private theologian as Pope (he never Dogmatically defined his teaching).
Why is Ed lying about the Republican Party’s stance on abortion?
I'm ex-atheist from Malaysia, now Catholic. Atheism is useless, I left atheism for couple years now.
What about Pope Pius IX involvement in the Mortara case? Was this wrong to take away a Jewish boy from his parents because the law of the Papal States forbade the raising of Christians by members of other faiths, it ordered that the boy be taken from his family and brought up by the Church?
Pope Pius IX received many requests to dogmatize the Immaculate conception, which he later formed a council of theologians to analyze this position. There were some theologians and bishops who were against this idea. Why didn’t this become dogma way before the 19th century? Was did Pius had personal biases and beliefs about this Marian doctorine? Wasn’t this legend? What did the apostles say about this? Was this mentioned in the apocryphal book of James?
I think the actions of Pope Pius IX in the Mortara case were abominable but I think the boy did embrace Christianity and even became a priest. Ultimately, he maintained his faith as a free choice but the circumstances that brough him to it were wrong.
As for the immaculate conception, it was a long-heald doctrine. At the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), the EO church formalized it as well, although I think they avoid the phrase "immaculate conception." Dogmas are usually issued similarly to supreme court rulings. If a widely held belief goes unchallenged, it does not need to be dogmatized. Even the magisterial reformers believed in the sinlessness of Mary, although they too didn't use the phrase Immaculate Conception. The belief wasn't challenged on a large scale until the radical reformation of the 1600s thus it did not necessitate a dogmatic definition.
Matt the truth would be nice Jonathan Kleck UA-cam
Francis is definitely the worst since he leads souls to perdition by confirming them in their sin. way worse than an immoral man on the throne. The Man on the throne today leads an antigospel.
He's definitely among the worst, although he is no excuse for people to go and sin.
Chill
@JohnnyNada LGBT Vatican Pilgrimage approved by Francis chill enough?
@@ml48218 yes definitely, I don't care about that at all. Love your neighbor
@JohnnyNada it's not loving and nice to allow someone to go to hell. It's actually the most unloving thing someone can do.
Thinking maybe francis will be on this list
Well only a a future Pope can formally judge a previous Pope this side of the heaven, so that would be something that a future Pope would have to look at see if Pope Francis, while he has not taught anything via Extraordinary magisterium or even ordinary Universal, one could argue that via his authoritative magisterium he has caused confusion and not protected the Holy Catholic faith in a manner of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) should. I am thinking something similar to what happened to Pope Honorius.
@ ecumenism is the Church will only get worse
Hebrews 10:12 KJV "But this MAN (JESUS CHRIST), after "HE had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER" sat down on the right hand of GOD"
14 For by ONE OFFERING (CHRIST shedding HIS real blood and giving HIS real body on a real cross) HE has PERFECTED FOREVER (saved) them that are sanctified" (forgiven of all sins)
18 Now where remission of these (sins) is, "there is NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN"
(Parenthesis Mine)
Here he is again, you sure like to hang around on Catholic Channels. I don't think anyone really cares what you think. Cheers and have a nice cup of tea.
That’s why I can’t go into Catholic Church…. Corruption …Tks for sharing history.
You’ll find corruption at your local church. Within Jews, Jehovah witness, SDA, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, non denomination churches you can’t escape it.
What about Judas?
Every time I hear this kind of nonsense it makes me cringe. Catholicism has just totally given up on rationality and the pursuit of Truth. Having bad popes in the past is just cumulative evidence Christinity is not true at all. It is evidence Jesus does not keep his promise to protect the Church and it burns the credibility of the Church to the ground. Plus it makes people making these arguments look foolish. It is circular reasoning.
Go spread YOUR NONSENSE somewhere else. If you don't agree with them, THEN GET OUT OF HERE!!!
The Church has been protected for 2000 years even with bad popes.
@@diegofuentes6783 sounds like you know I am right. No nonsense here. Just realities you do not want to face.
Firefly suggested: It is evidence Jesus does not keep his promise to protect the Church and it burns the credibility of the Church to the ground.
Me: The church is still going strong after 2000 years and good and bad popes Jesus is keeping his promise. And not once has a bad pope changed the doctrine, the first thing that the corrupt usually do. And that confirms Jesus' promise to send the spirit of truth to the apostles and their successors (John 14:16--17). Sounds like the Catholic Church has weather evil by the protection of Jesus.
Yet here you are 😅 what’s missing in your life? Or just a slow evening?
I think pope Francis is not catholic 😢
I was indoctrinated from birth to believe in the god of my family and community, therefore i believe my god is real and other gods are imaginary, what god do you think i believe in
@@tasmanndrive the god of self. Pride