The Papacy is true because what a certain Pope explicitly said multiple times that contradicts other authoritative teachings were not what he actually meant, you just need another Pope to interpret it but what he says that contradicts the last Pope is also just a misunderstanding because what he said is not what he meant and you need the next pope to interpret it.
@@z8urducks Both mainstream Protestants and conservative Catholics recognize the Bible as infallible. However, the issue at hand is not the Bible's infallibility. Just because Protestants consider something (x) to be infallible doesn't mean that other things (y and z) must also be regarded the same way. For instance, while Protestants believe the Bible is infallible, that doesn’t mean I have to treat my biology textbook as infallible as well. However, if someone is claiming y and or z are also infallible then the burden of proof falls on them.
@@z8urducks When one compares contradictions within the Bible to contradictions within magisterial teachings, they are conflating two distinct categories: Source vs. Interpretation: The Bible is the source of divine truth, while the magisterium claims to offer authoritative interpretations of that truth. Comparing contradictions within these two categories ignores their fundamentally different roles. Bible (the source): Contradictions within the Bible itself, if they exist, would require theological and hermeneutical work to reconcile them, but they don’t directly challenge the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired. Magisterium (the interpreter): On the other hand, contradictions in the magisterium’s teachings or interpretations would cast doubt on the magisterium’s role as a trustworthy and divinely guided interpreter. If the magisterium is meant to preserve and interpret the truth, yet it produces contradictory theological positions, its claim to infallibility or reliability becomes suspect.
@@z8urducks Source vs. Interpretation: The Bible is considered the source of divine truth, while the magisterium claims to provide the authoritative interpretation of that truth. Comparing contradictions between these two misses their distinct roles. The Bible as the Source: Any perceived contradictions in the Bible would require careful theological and interpretive work to understand and resolve. However, these issues don't necessarily undermine the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired. The Magisterium as the Interpreter: On the other hand, if the magisterium, as the body responsible for preserving and interpreting biblical truth, delivers contradictory teachings, it raises questions about its reliability. If it's supposed to be a divinely guided interpreter but presents conflicting theological positions, its claim to infallibility or trustworthiness could be called into doubt. In other words, it is a categorical error to compare supposed errors in scripture vs the magisterium.
“Pope” St. Gregory said that any man who calls himself a “universal bishop” is “the anti Christ” the funniest part is listening to Romanists blatantly lie to explain away that quote.
For me all this boils down to, “We’re correct because we say we’re correct. And if you disagree, you’re wrong and you’re to ignorant to understand why we’re correct.” And not to be derogatory, but this is very anti-intellectual behavior and very cult like at its core.
@@SaltShack Evangelicals and Catholics are so opposite that they wind up arguing like each others. It’s the Horseshoe theory but for Christians. “Accept these harsh dogmatics and if you don’t, you’re not a real Christian. Why? because we said. Now read all these books from John McArthur about why you’re wrong.” And each denomination whether Lutheranism or Presbyterianism, has this underlying dogmatic view that when push comes to shove, they don’t accept intellectual freedom on certain grounds. Its why I prefer the openness in Anglicanism. It allots for a range of beliefs while maintaining a level of distinction from other traditions. You can be more Lutheran in one view, more liberal here and more Catholic there. An umbrella tradition, while maintaining some barriers like infant baptism and the episcopate.
@@WizardOfTheDesert How? They both share the same epistemological foundation, reliance on the authority of the individual to determine Truth from Error. The only Authority over Truth and Error is the Holy Spirit. The Papacy wrestled that Authority away from the Holy Spirit and gave it to the Pope. The Protestant Reformers just took the Pope’s lead and took the authority away from him and gave it to themselves. Unfortunately American Evangelicalism has granted the authority to any individual with a Bible and an opinion who lacks the fear of God to use it. This is precisely why every Protestant sermon I’ve ever heard is an 8 second reading of Scripture colony a 37 minute dissertation about what it means and is inevitably preceded by “what Jesus is saying here is” or some variation. So much for Sola Scriptura.
Debating church history and scripture with Catholics feels like a dishonest exercise. At any point they can just say that you are outside the Magisterium, so your interpretation can be disregarded.
If the church fathers agree with you, they are wrong, if the church fathers agree with them, it was clearly the infallible magisterium being correct. No honesty from the average Roman.
It sure seems like that at times. “SCRIPTURE is what we say it is and means what we say it does; TRADITION is what we say it is and means what we say it does”
@@Stanzan52 you are outside of the church, the only one that has 2000 year of history. The others are only sects, that's why they divide in +40000 parts.
As a former JW, their history of doctrinal flip/flops is described as “new light.” For example their failed history of end times dating interpretation failures ( 1874, 1914-1974,75 that “this generation” would see Armageddon), was again revised as “new light’ during the 1990’s as a “wicked generation” wouldn’t pass away until Armageddon was fulfilled …
Yes, please keep reading your substack. It's helpful because I can listen while I work, and I work with lots of English second language people, and I can share with them your videos more easily than written works.
2:15 In all fairness to Roman Catholics, when Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto wrote to John Calvin urging him to return to the Roman Catholic faith or to (come home), it made sense. "Rome" was once home to John as he was a "cradle catholic". However, for Catholics to use that phrase centuries later and then broaden it for those who were never catholic to begin with; I find that to be sentimentally manipulative.
Of Course it is sentimentalism. The other way would be repeating what you really are: damned heretics who will end up burning in Hell. I prefer sentimentalism + Truth, so please, convert and come Home.
Why? As a Catholic, I wouldn't necessarily use that turn of phrase as it's foreign to me. However for those who convert to Catholicism, particularly those who have deeply struggled through atheism or protestant sects, they do feel like they have reached their spiritual (for the atheist) and authentic Christian home back in the Church their ancestors left or were forced to leave. For those I have spoken to who have converted, most love this phrase because it's deeply validating of their feelings and it makes them feel truly welcome. Because at heart, we know, that the only absolute valid straight path to God is through the Catholic Church, only she can provide definite salvation. So therefore we always reach out to other Christian brothers and sisters who have fallen away from the Church with open arms to come back to her salvific embrace. Will most accept this offer? Probably not, and we don't know what that means for their souls. But we pray God is merciful and understands just how hard it is to be confronted with and to accept truth, and the true nature of the Church.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 The term convert, or conversion ought not be used when someone moves from Church to Church. The Biblical understanding of conversion refers to someone being dead in his sins, who is then born again through repentance and True Faith in Christ. When it comes to us being brothers and sisters in Christ, The Council of Trent seen us in a damnable light worthy of hell, we were anathematized; we do preach a different Gospel after all. I do not find that Roman Catholicism provides any definite assurance of salvation (that would be sinfully presumptuous) but requires absolute faith in the dogmas she defines. I can certainly appreciate your loving concern for us, it's very kind and the feeling is mutual from me at least. If it's true salvific faith in Jesus and all that entails for God to grant us Grace, then I'm sure many of us are already in union together, albeit not in one of your beautiful cathedrals. God Bless
I've had a similar difficulty identifying precisely the criteria by which the RCC determines whether a magisterial, conciliar, or papal statement, doctrine, or proclamation is infallible or not. What are these criteria? And more fundamentally, what is the basis for such criteria? As much as I greatly appreciate many aspects of the RCC tradition, I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer to these questions. Thank you much for this video, Dr. Cooper. God bless you in your ministry.
Trent Horn recently corrected Catholics who made the same mistake he did in this video by claiming ONLY the Popes Ex Cathedra statements are infallible. That is not what the RCC teaches. All the Popes teachings be they ordinary, extraordinary, or universal etc are binding. Never let a lay Catholic pull the Ex Cathedra card on you it's totally a bogus claim.
@@Eloignif everything a pope says is infallible then the RCC is in bigger trouble yet. I watch the RCC trying to do backflips through flaming hoops to try to cover for the universalism and Pelagian heresy of the current Pope often falling back on “it wasn’t ex-cathededra” but rather an ordinary statement to be welcoming to a Hindu or Muslim.
@@charlesjoyce982 Because he quoted Vatican II? I read the documents myself you should also. To give an easy example: Lumen Gentium, Paragraph 25 "This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; that is, it must be given in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." Simply speaking if the Pope repeats something a Catholic has to accept that as his mind and will to which they need to submit their will and intellect. All his statements about gay stuff? Need to submit to it. All his goofy political takes? Need to submit your mind and will to it. etc etc That's a serious problem.
@@Eloign That quote from V2 is not a dogma. At the outset of V2, the Pope who initiated it explained that it was going to be a unique kind of new council -- a pastoral one. And that it would not be defining any new dogmas. This pastoral -- rather docrinal -- character of v2 excludes it from the protection of infallibility Since only councils that are spefically convened to settle a theological issue are truly guarded by the Spirit from error Futhermore, The concept of religious assent to a non-dogmatic teaching does not exclude dissent from it. It merely teaches that dissent should be done with great care and after careful study. In other words, dissent to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium should not be flippant.
I always found the rejection of Papal Supremacy by the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the most convincing example through history and tradition that the Bishop of Rome is not the supreme unquestionable leader of the Catholic (meaning universal) Church. As a questioning Catholic I have to admit this one of things that make me pause and wonder about the whole thing.
RC apologist: *makes any argument about Roman Catholicism* Me: Are you the Pope? Them: ....No? Me: So, you're obviously wrong. Yours is private interpretation. Them: But St. Jerome... Me: Was he the Pope? Them: ....no, but Aquinas... Me: Was he the Pope? Repeat until they either give up or call Frank.
I'm a bit confused (as a Catholic) why you think that we hold the "Pope's interpretation" to be infallible? That isn't Catholic teaching. We also have theologians and scholars that engage in interpretation of doctrine and dogma. Private interpretation isn't wrong per se, it's just not every single person's private interpretation is going to be true, and the Church only promotes what is true so we have to have a body that decides how we determine truth from false (i.e. magisterium) and an arbitrator that helps provide finality to any arguments in interpretation (i.e. the Pope).
@@garrettstephens91 - I don't think it's meant to follow. I think the logical train of thought here is the apparent tactic of the Protestant is to bully the RC apologist into conceding that the single person with sole authority on Church teaching is the Pope. Therefore, any attempt to reach beyond this authority is not appropriate. Despite the fact that various Church teachings, that even Protestants hold to were not compiled by the Pope at the time but by scholars, theologians, doctors etc. of the Church. In earnest - I don't really know any Protestants that seriously argue this way, most of the Protestants I know are very intelligent and construct arguments.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 You are correct that the magisterium is the arbiter if there is difference in opinions or interpretations. The Pope's interpretation is ONLY infallible when the Pope claims "Ex cathedra" which is something very specific and has only been used a few times throughout Church history amongst all Popes. That is Church teaching, it is defined in the first Vatican Council. If a Pope sends out a Tweet or says something in an interview, it is not automatically infallible because the Pope said it. People misunderstand Papal infallibility.
@@WaterMelon-Cat you think Dr. Cooper is better than Trent Horn? I mean I would agree😂 explain why you think that? I totally agree I love Dr. Cooper he and Gavin Ortlund have helped me stay Protestant.
I think he should have a dialogue with Christian Wagner (scholastic answers). I think it would be better for Dr. Cooper to move on to stronger arguments, instead of your average internet Catholic apologist.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 You just lied lol. What man made denomination are you affiliated with? I'm curious to know what your founder has that Christ lacked, since Christ's church wasn't enough
I’m with the pope call me a common papist then , a badge of honour given by Jesus, the term papist wouldn’t have had a derogatory connotation for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
Two protestant over-simplified hot takes: 1) Arguments for the papacy come down to "trust us, bro." 2) The idea that the pope is infallible only in certain situations is the Catholic version of protestants picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible.
This post is made in very bad faith; you haven't actually tried to dissect and understand the argument, I wouldn't be shocked if you didn't bother watching the video
Christian's believe the entire scripture. And the old testament predicts the new testament. And new testament explains what christians are to believe and practice.
Thank you for the video! I read through the essay on the substack before, and enjoyed it then. The audio delivery is a nice addition. Question if I may: what would you say to an RC who posited that A) Application of this same kind of examination can be used to undermine the Lutheran position vis a vis Sola Scriptura and even the Christian evidence for the Resurrection, and B) That the requirement to falsify a dogma warrants Scriptural refutation instead of Scriptural absence of attestation is a feature and not a bug of the RC position, but does denote a deficit in the Protestant position? I ask because I'm in long term discussion with an RC on these issues (if you see this, hey!) in the hope of friendly ecumenical discourse, and pointed him at this video asking for thoughts.
1. Falsifiability: He argues that claims about the papacy are not falsifiable, and thus cannot be examined or disproven in the same way as, for example, the historical resurrection. This criticism is partly valid depending on how one views religious doctrines in general, as these are often based on faith and theological reasoning rather than strict scientific methods. 2. Circular reasoning: Another of his main critiques is that Catholic doctrine is based on a form of circular reasoning, where Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority) validate each other. This is a common objection to Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective, but Catholic theologians would likely respond that the Church’s authority comes from a long historical and spiritual tradition that traces back to the apostles, and that this structure is part of God’s order. 3. Development of dogmas: He brings up John Henry Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine and argues that it allows the Church to change its teachings over time, which could be seen as problematic. Catholics would argue, however, that development does not mean old teachings are changed but rather that the understanding deepens. This can be hard to argue against if one accepts the premise that the Church has the authority to interpret its own heritage. 4. Ex cathedra and papal infallibility: He discusses how few ex cathedra statements there actually are (e.g., the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary) and questions whether there is sufficient consensus on what qualifies as infallibility. This is a valid point of discussion that even within Catholic circles is sometimes debated. Challenged AI to make a summary. What do you think? Correct?
Problems with a papacy: Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles.
That is very poor arguments. Do you believe in Trinity? If yes, can you point out just ONE VERSE that says God is one God in three Hypostases? Do you accept 66-book Bible? If yes, can you point out just ONE VERSE that says Scripture has only 66 books and name each one of them?
@@justfromcatholic Here is another problem with the papacy claims: The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
@@justfromcatholic Those are pretty poor arguments imo The reason why we only have 66 books is not because of a Bible verse, but because we didn't bother including the deuterocanonical books BECAUSE the Mass Printing the Bible meant you had to save expenses by not including the Apocrypha. This whole "the Bible doesn't say it has 66 books" is an argument from silence. Similarly, just because the Bible does not STATE that the Trinity exists outright, does not mean that reading scripture without Catholic dogma means you can't find the trinity. Muslims similarly use this low-hanging fruit to reject the Trinity; it is frankly not an intellectual argument. The Trinitarian God forced us into the Trinitarian Position because of the way God communicates and works in scripture. You don't need the Pope to have a Bible, you need a Church. We don't reject the Church.
Addendum: Most of these arguments are derived from a poor understanding of Sola Scriptura. They take the extreme Baptist view of it meaning solely reading the Bible on your own and just making the truth of the Bible whatever you want to make it. Being painted with the same brush as Jehovas Witnesses, Baptists and Prosperity Preachers when you are a Lutheran, who share 99% of theological ideas with Catholics, is immensely frustrating. Seek to understand what you are talking about first.
@@justfromcatholicIt's foundational in Roman Catholicism that Peter was chosen by Christ to lead the Church and that he was to pass on his authority to successors but there's no evidence of this in Scripture. Roman Catholic interpretations of various passages in Scripture are only convincing to Roman Catholics. Others who read these passages don't conclude that they affirm the Papacy. They conclude rightly that the Papacy is just simply read into the texts when it isn't actually there. One would expect with such an important doctrine as the primacy of Peter that he would refer to it himself in his letters. After all it's central to the Catholic claim, but Peter makes no mention of it. Instead in 1 Peter 1 he refers to himself simply as an apostle, and not the chief apostle, and says in 1 Peter 2 that Christ is the cornerstone and Christians are living stones being built into a spiritual house. There's no hint of a special stone which exists between the cornerstone and the other stones. I was originally a member of the Catholic church but left it when I realised that its claims are false.
I mean bring this up to Catholic answers, Dr Scott Hahn would be someone to talk to, Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology, Alex of Voice of Reason, Trent Horn, Bryan Mercier of Catholic truth. Have a legitimate debate addressing the inability to formulate definitional arguments for the papacy or just an open public dialogue.
Michael Lofton has the mental capacity of a toddler, voice of “reason” literally removed words from quotes to lie and try to support his doctrine. Why would Dr. Cooper lower himself ?
These Roman apologists have been refuted already. Now tell me why thr Augsburg Confession was condemned for teaching that we receive the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ, for the sake of Christ, and not because of our merits or good works?
It’s a bit of a shame that following the reformation things have gotten so complicated in Christianity that we even need these debates, once there was one church one baptism one faith shame that church, baptism and faith have a variety of meanings outside catholicsm.
@toneyh1 that's false, before the Reformation professing Christians were divided into the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of rhe East, the Church of Bohemia, the Waldenesians, the Lollards, the Chuch of Rome. Who taught you there was only 'one church' before thr Reformation? That person either was ignorant or lied to you.
@@toneyh1 This is not true. There was never a universal consensus on anything even within the church. The Church fathers for example had different opinions and different emphases depending on their era and what they were debating. The schism of 1054 with the Orthodox Church occurred before the reformation and there differing opinions they have as well like not believing in purgatory, original sin, the papacy. The idea that there was always unity and complete consensus is an illusion.
You don't understand how the church operates. The Pope only uses his infallibility to settle a dispute that is causing scandal or schism. Otherwise, they just stick to sharing private interpretations in line with the tradition. To say "Why haven't they constructed an complete and consistent infallible commentary on the Bible?" is the same mistake as saying "Why hasn't mathematics published a complete and consistent proof of all possible theorems?". First, it is mathematically impossible to do. Second it is impractical. One look at Russel's Principia Mathematica will easily convince somebody that most proofs don't need proving because they aren't interesting or useful.
Well this listener prefers the Substack. I like to read arguments. Also I don't like commenting on YT because I prefer to compose on Word to check spelling more easily etc , but if you "paste" in a comment on YT the YT algorithms are often enough sure they are detecting "spam". And other disappearing comment phenomena on YT is equally frustrating.
Popes Jesus picked 1. St. Peter (32-67) 2. St. Linus (67-76) 3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) 4. St. Clement I (88-97) 5. St. Evaristus (97-105) 6. St. Alexander I (105-115) 7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) 8. St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9. St. Hyginus (136-140) 10. St. Pius I (140-155) 11. St. Anicetus (155-166) 12. St. Soter (166-175) 13. St. Eleutherius (175-189) 14. St. Victor I (189-199) 15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 16. St. Callistus I (217-22) 17. St. Urban I (222-30) 18. St. Pontian (230-35) 19. St. Anterus (235-36) 20. St. Fabian (236-50) 21. St. Cornelius (251-53) 22. St. Lucius I (253-54) 23. St. Stephen I (254-257) 24. St. Sixtus II (257-258) 25. St. Dionysius (260-268) 26. St. Felix I (269-274) 27. St. Eutychian (275-283) 28. St. Caius (283-296) 29. St. Marcellinus (296-304) 30. St. Marcellus I (308-309) 31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310) 32. St. Miltiades (311-14) 33. St. Sylvester I (314-35) 34. St. Marcus (336) 35. St. Julius I (337-52) 36. Liberius (352-66) 37. St. Damasus I (366-384) 38. St. Siricius (384-99) 39. St. Anastasius I (399-401) 40. St. Innocent I (401-17) 41. St. Zosimus (417-18) 42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419) 43. St. Celestine I (422-32) 44. St. Sixtus III (432-40) 45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) 46. St. Hilarius (461-68) 47. St. Simplicius (468-83) 48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92) 49. St. Gelasius I (492-96) 50. Anastasius II (496-98) 51. St. Symmachus (498-514) 52. St. Hormisdas (514-23) 53. St. John I (523-26) 54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30) 55. Boniface II (530-32) 56. John II (533-35) 57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) 58. St. Silverius (536-37) 59. Vigilius (537-55) 60. Pelagius I (556-61) 61. John III (561-74) 62. Benedict I (575-79) 63. Pelagius II (579-90) 64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) 65. Sabinian (604-606) 66. Boniface III (607) 67. St. Boniface IV (608-15) 68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18) 69. Boniface V (619-25) 70. Honorius I (625-38) 71. Severinus (640) 72. John IV (640-42) 73. Theodore I (642-49) 74. St. Martin I (649-55) 75. St. Eugene I (655-57) 76. St. Vitalian (657-72) 77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76) 78. Donus (676-78) 79. St. Agatho (678-81) 80. St. Leo II (682-83) 81. St. Benedict II (684-85) 82. John V (685-86) 83. Conon (686-87) 84. St. Sergius I (687-701) 85. John VI (701-05) 86. John VII (705-07) 87. Sisinnius (708) 88. Constantine (708-15) 89. St. Gregory II (715-31) 90. St. Gregory III (731-41) 91. St. Zachary (741-52) 92. Stephen II (III) (752-57) 93. St. Paul I (757-67) 94. Stephen III (IV) (767-772) 95. Adrian I (772-95) 96. St. Leo III (795-816) 97. Stephen IV (V) (816-17) 98. St. Paschal I (817-24) 99. Eugene II (824-27) 100. Valentine (827) 101. Gregory IV (827-44) 102. Sergius II (844-47) 103. St. Leo IV (847-55) 104. Benedict III (855-58) 105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67) 106. Adrian II (867-72) 107. John VIII (872-82) 108. Marinus I (882-84) 109. St. Adrian III (884-85) 110. Stephen V (VI) (885-91) 111. Formosus (891-96) 112. Boniface VI (896) 113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-97) 114. Romanus (897) 115. Theodore II (897) 116. John IX (898-900) 117. Benedict IV (900-03) 118. Leo V (903) 119. Sergius III (904-11) 120. Anastasius III (911-13) 121. Lando (913-14) 122. John X (914-28) 123. Leo VI (928) 124. Stephen VIII (929-31) 125. John XI (931-35) 126. Leo VII (936-39) 127. Stephen IX (939-42) 128. Marinus II (942-46) 129. Agapetus II (946-55) 130. John XII (955-63) 131. Leo VIII (963-64) 132. Benedict V (964) 133. John XIII (965-72) 134. Benedict VI (973-74) 135. Benedict VII (974-83) 136. John XIV (983-84) 137. John XV (985-96) 138. Gregory V (996-99) 139. Sylvester II (999-1003) 140. John XVII (1003) 141. John XVIII (1003-09) 142. Sergius IV (1009-12) 143. Benedict VIII (1012-24) 144. John XIX (1024-32) 145. Benedict IX (1032-45) 146. Sylvester III (1045) 147. Benedict IX (1045) 148. Gregory VI (1045-46) 149. Clement II (1046-47) 150. Benedict IX (1047-48) 151. Damasus II (1048) 152. St. Leo IX (1049-54) 153. Victor II (1055-57) 154. Stephen X (1057-58) 155. Nicholas II (1058-61) 156. Alexander II (1061-73) 157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) 158. Blessed Victor III (1086-87) 159. Blessed Urban II (1088-99) 160. Paschal II (1099-1118) 161. Gelasius II (1118-19) 162. Callistus II (1119-24) 163. Honorius II (1124-1130) 164. Innocent II (1130-43) 165. Celestine II (1143-44) 166. Lucius II (1144-45) 167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53) 168. Anastasius IV (1153-54) 169. Adrian IV (1154-59) 170. Alexander III (1159-81) 171. Lucius III (1181-85) 172. Urban III (1185-87) 173. Gregory VIII (1187) 174. Clement III (1187-91) 175. Celestine III (1191-98) 176. Innocent III (1198-1216) 177. Honorius III (1216-27) 178. Gregory IX (1227-41) 179. Celestine IV (1241) 180. Innocent IV (1243-54) 181. Alexander IV (1254-61) 182. Urban IV (1261-64) 183. Clement IV (1265-68) 184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76) 185. Blessed Innocent V (1276) 186. Adrian V (1276) 187. John XXI (1276-77) 188. Nicholas III (1277-80) 189. Martin IV (1281-85) 190. Honorius IV (1285-87) 191. Nicholas IV (1288-92) 192. St. Celestine V (1294) 193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303) 194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04) 195. Clement V (1305-14) 196. John XXII (1316-34) 197. Benedict XII (1334-42) 198. Clement VI (1342-52) 199. Innocent VI (1352-62) 200. Blessed Urban V (1362-70) 201. Gregory XI (1370-78) 202. Urban VI (1378-89) 203. Boniface IX (1389-1404) 204. Innocent VII (1404-06) 205. Gregory XII (1406-15) 206. Martin V (1417-31) 207. Eugene IV (1431-47) ( 208. Nicholas V (1447-55) 209. Callistus III (1455-58) 210. Pius II (1458-64) 211. Paul II (1464-71) 212. Sixtus IV (1471-84) 213. Innocent VIII (1484-92) 214. Alexander VI (1492-1503) 215. Pius III (1503) 216. Julius II (1503-13) 217. Leo X (1513-21) 218. Adrian VI (1522-23) 219. Clement VII (1523-34) 220. Paul III (1534-49) 221. Julius III (1550-55) 222. Marcellus II (1555) 223. Paul IV (1555-59) 224. Pius IV (1559-65) 225. St. Pius V (1566-72) 226. Gregory XIII (1572-85) 227. Sixtus V (1585-90) 228. Urban VII (1590) 229. Gregory XIV (1590-91) 230. Innocent IX (1591) 231. Clement VIII (1592-1605) 232. Leo XI (1605) 233. Paul V (1605-21) 234. Gregory XV (1621-23) 235. Urban VIII (1623-44) 236. Innocent X (1644-55) 237. Alexander VII (1655-67) 238. Clement IX (1667-69) 239. Clement X (1670-76) 240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89) 241. Alexander VIII (1689-91) 242. Innocent XII (1691-1700) 243. Clement XI (1700-21) 244. Innocent XIII (1721-24) 245. Benedict XIII (1724-30) 246. Clement XII (1730-40) 247. Benedict XIV (1740-58) 248. Clement XIII (1758-69) 249. Clement XIV (1769-74) 250. Pius VI (1775-99) 251. Pius VII (1800-23) 252. Leo XII (1823-29) 253. Pius VIII (1829-30) 254. Gregory XVI (1831-46) 255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) 256. Leo XIII (1878-1903) 257. St. Pius X (1903-14) 258. Benedict XV (1914-22) 259. Pius XI (1922-39) 260. Pius XII (1939-58) 261. St. John XXIII (1958-63) 262. Paul VI (1963-78) 263. John Paul I (1978) 264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005) 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013) 266. Francis (2013 to Present
Rome's argument for the papacy seems to come down to a kind of historicism. Truth is the consensus of those who hold office in the institution. Trust in it is an act of the will, not intellect.
that video can be resumed in 1 sentence, too much bla bla bla for a simple thing. The only way is to find a contradiction ex chatedra, that means someone needs to find some doctrine that WAS NOT DEFINED before and then the pope defined, that means it is ex cathedra, and then list it, can someone list for me one or more doctrines defined after being undefined by any pope that contradicts a previous dogma?
The Council of Florence and Vatican II blatantly contradict each other on salvation, baptism, martyrs, and the communion of the Orthadox. If you can formulate a half baked nonsensical lie to reconcile each contradiction than go for it.
Have you considered the possibility that any fact which is truly unfalsifiable is actually just true? That pops up in Mathematics sometimes. The continuum hypothesis was proven true by proving it was unprovable.
To be clear, the CH was proven to be independent of ZFC and so can be believed or not believed depending on how you desire to construct your math. Maybe the papacy is an axiom independent of Protestant axiom systems? As far as the historical arguments go, archeology is pretty clear that Peter had successors. Ancient mosaics show Linus and Peter together, with Linus being acknowledged as his successor.
If you're talking about Karl Popper's version of unfalsifiability, then "nearly impossible" is not sufficient. It requires actual unfalsifiability. The classic example is Adlerian psychology where it was claimed that a man saving a child affirmed Adlerian psychology, whereas and man declining to save a child also affirmed Adlerian psychology.
Dr. Cooper, I think a study of Max Weber's 3 types of authority is a useful framework to examine the fundamental disputes between protestants and catholics.
There is no fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Each has replaced the Holy Spirit as the authority over Truth and Error with an individual. Epistemologically they are the same.
I mean, this whole video actually proved why we need the Pope. If there isn't an office like the papacy, then everything is subjected to private interpretation. It's obviously a matter of faith, the same way is a matter of faith to say the Bible is inerrant. An atheist can easily use the type of arguments you're using against believing the Bible to be infallible.
Nope. Having the papacy has not brought clarity whatsoever for the modern Catholic Church. Like the many Catholics who are trying to explain to me that “Pope Francis reallyyyy meant..” No one seems to be clear. You still need an interpreter at the end of the day. Plus putting the papacy on the same level on the Bible is wild. It’s like Catholicism is uncritiqable. The Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus and the apostles and they also agree that the papacy is an invention that has no basis.
How can Christians decide which church to join or evaluate distinctives? Most established denominations teach self-consistent doctrine. I would love it if you made a video on practical epistemology.
"There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose? How shall we answer him? Each of you (says he) asserts, 'I speak the truth! No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule." - John Chrysostom, Acts Homily 33 The reformation, and classical Protestants heed this advice. Although I am in the reformed camp, like he said above. The classical confessions (Augsberg, Westminster, Belgic) I feel really do this.
What about Matthew Chapter 16? Also, what happens when people have dissagreements over what scripture actually says? Are people free to interpret and implement the Bible however they see fit? No they are not. You need to have a moderator that makes sure that you don't have one group of people who say that gays can get married, and another group of people who says that they cannot. That moderator is the CHURCH that Jesus established in Matthew Chapter 16.
@@garrettstephens91 You're wrong; even the Catholic manmade institution composed of sinful men, changes doctrine, like once upon a time condemning to hell all Christians who. trusted the Bible & Jesus but not Rome's teaching. It's a different " story" today. MANY MISTAKES, FALSEHOODS, & GRIEVOUS SINS IN THE CATHOLIC INSTITUTION & ITS LEADERS! VERY SHOCKING & SAD. REPENT & TRUST JESUS -- THE truth, God, Savior, Lord, THE way! PRAISE & GLORY TO GOD ALONE.
@@christafarion9 Sure, Jesus did that because Peter was saying and doing worldly things. This is also the chapter that Jesus establishes his Church on Earth and makes Peter the head of said Church, then establishes authority. You could then infer that "Well then the Catholic Church is satanic then" and that is wrong, because ALL humans whether in positions of power or authority will fall short of the glory of God.
@garrettstephens91 Jesus's church on earth isn't an institution, it's the gathering of the called out ones. It's an etherical thing. There are those within the Catholic Church who are not saved. But don't come to a protestant church expecting to find the true church, because there are those within said church who are not saved. It's not the church that saves, it's the Lord Jesus Christ. Don't place your faith in a church, or a denomination. Place your faith (entirely) in the Lord Jesus's promise.
No. His argument is that the arguments that Roman Catholics give in favor of their tradition being correct, ultimately rest on the presupposition that their tradition is correct, which is what is being contended for in the first place. Therefore, the arguments are viciously circular and consequently unconvincing.
Luther and the other Protestants recognized in scripture that the little horn in Daniel 7:25 was the papacy. In that it would: 1. Persecute the saints. 2. Blaspheme and speak arrogantly before God. 3. Think to change times and laws. The first two are clear to what most believers know about the papacy. But the third, he thinks to change times and laws are hotly debated with those amongst traditional Christians. One must ask what law is most important to God? Obviously the Decalogue. But how has the RCC changed God’s Ten Commandment’s? If you read in the catechism the second commandment has been removed, the one concerning the worshiping of idols and the tenth concerning coveting has been split to make up the difference! Secondly, the changing of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. In his debate with Martin Luther, John Ekk argued that the seventh day Sabbath has always been the day that the Bible says to keep holy, but the RCC had changed it to Sunday. Thereby, by keeping Sunday Luther was still acknowledging Rome’s authority!!!!
Wycliffe said of the Pope: “When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: “two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them.”
@@ScalerWave That’s very interesting, but begs the question who was Wycliffe? What authority did he have to make his interpretations and opinions anymore valid than either of the Popes he rebuked so harshly? The same question applies to Luther, Calvin, Knox……..
@@ScalerWave Exactly, thank you. Wycliffe and the others have no access to the truth other than accidentally stumbling onto it. Well done, though I normally refrain from quoting a Verse or two of Scripture because quote mining is of little if not any assistance in determining Truth as every heresy ever uttered has been accompanied by Bible quotes including the Papacies and those of the Protestant Reformers let alone American Evangelicals who have stripped away the Holy Spirits Authority and granted it to any individual with a Bible and an Opinion who lack the fear of God to use it.
@@ScalerWave I’ll try again. Are you suggesting that this passage or any component of this book is authorizing individual interpretation or suggesting in any way that doing so can be authoritative. If you are, answer this question, who is Timothy? It should be quite clear the opposite is in fact the lesson.
You do realize that you just did a circular argument to refute the circular argument offered in support of the papacy, don't you? You start by saying that the sola fides doctrine depends on a particular interpretation of Paul: the one that Luther made. But anyone can come up with a different interpretation and thus refute the doctrine of faith without works. You can pile up interpretations till the cows come home. But how do you know which one is the right interpretation? You built your argument to refute the papacy around the assumption that anything that is not falsifiable is not true. Can you offer a mechanism to falsify this assumption? Unless, of course, you weren't really seeking to debunk the papacy but only to explain yourself for not believing in it. That would be the typical atheist move that suddenly ceases to be an atheist-one who denies God's existence-to become instead "unconvinced that God exists." In this case, all is fine and good, but there's no way to argue with you, because you can always circle back to your premise "I'm not convinced." And that, my friend, is the paradigm of unfalsifiable statements.
The question is why do you even think you need an interpretation of Paul's letter to the Romans? It's pretty clear on the matter. Simply read it. It's not a circular argument to point out that the catholic church has traditions that directly contradict scripture. If they claim "but the Bible is 'a catholic book'" then obviously their traditions contradict. Also - there is still the joint declaration of the Doctrine of Justification in which catholics and protestants agreed that we are not justified by works.
@MrSeedi76 Yes. Thank God we are taking steps to be reunited. It's about time! You always need to interpret what you read, it's an intrinsic part of reading. Very smart people have disagreed in interpretations. Sometimes it's ok since the disagreements do not affect the central tenets of our faith. But some other times, those central tenets can be jeopardized by a certain interpretation. In those cases, you need a way to settle the dispute. In the US we have one constitution and many interpretations. When they enter into conflict, you need an authority that decides which one is the right interpretation. Thank goodness the framers were smart enough to make a provision for those cases, and established the Supreme Court of Justice as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Absent that provision, the US would have disintegrated many times. The Founder of Christianity has to have made a similar provision. He was a lot smarter than the US Constitution framers.
You forgot about exegesis Bro. It's not about my interpretation vs your interpretation. It's about our interpretation (personal input or what we want to mean to the text) vs exegesis (real logical, scientific, philosophical, linguistic and historical textual criticism). RCs cannot claim that they're the only one who can exegete, which they selfishly claim.
@leunammesphone1425 I don't think we claim that. In fact, from Trent to our days, the Catholic Church has taken into account even the Reformers' and later protestant theologians. But you seem to be ignoring the repeatedly proven fact that some interpretations enter into conflict with others, and more likely than not, their proponents will claim that theirs is the right exegesis according to all those parameters you cite (logic, scientific, philosophic, etc). Sometimes those conflicts are irreconcilable, and only a supreme authority can be the antidote to dissolution.
@@allikirman2183 the papacy wasn’t an invention, the Pope always had authority over the western church. It’s the universal jurisdiction that no Pope ever claimed to have until the 10th century leading into the Gregorian reforms that was the innovation.
The authority of the hierarchy preceded scripture. The hierarchy created scripture. The hierarchy selected scripture. Why would scripture have more authority than the authority that preceded and created it? The word of God was being proclaimed by the hierarchy for decades before the scriptures were written.
@@kylefoster2777 Of course not. They just claimed to be right and the Pope wrong and each other wrong so that today Truth can be claimed by any individual with a Bible and an opinion who lacks the fear of God to use it. And what got this hot mess of anarchy and fracture in motion? an individual claiming to be right and abandoning the Biblical Principles of enduring consensus and Scriptures commands to be of one mind and judgement, aka The Pope, the first Protestant.
I don't see why Linus being a successor of Peter is a strict requirement for the papacy. Even now, a new pope isn't elected immediately, but it takes some time for the cardinals to do the choice. So why couldn't it be the case, that the papacy is true, but it simply took some time for the elders of the church of Rome to choose the next pope? Perhaps they were distracted by severe persecution, or something else, and decided to wait.
Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Fact check if you don’t believe me. Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, Protestantism generally, doesn’t have proper worship, so not “church”, but, truthfully, more like synagogue with prayer & teaching! No entity from family to corporates & govt can survive without hierarchy & unifying authority so without these attributes, Protestantism is unsustainable
Opposition to sola fide isn't about justification before God. It's about affirmation through ritual or through ecclesiastical approval. This is the root of RC authority, especially the papacy. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, it is the king who has authority. When the forgiven servant is unmerciful to his lowly debtor, the fellow servants tell the king about it, and leave judgment to him. The king then makes his ruling. The servants didn't take vengeance, for example, by beating the ungrateful servant because they think that's what the king wants. Luther was primarily interested in ending ecclesiastical abuse. The lowly believer has to do works of obeisance to the Church. Sola fide is the freedom from dealing with the threats of excommunication by the Roman Catholic church to protect their power. It is a subtle tyranny by which the Vatican ruled the believers.
Let's keep it simple: PAPAL INFALLIBILITY has been used 3 times regarding dogmatic statements: 1) in 1870 when the dogma was declared and formally defined at Vatican I Council 2) The dogmatic declaration concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary c. 1858 3) The dogmatic declaration concerning Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven in 1950. THAT'S IT! These are required to be made by the Pope and his fellow bishops speaking together....It's NOT a one-man operation. There are many authoritative statements made by popes throughout the millennia. These come from the Office of Peter that the pope occupies, and are to be followed so as to give direction to the Church. Putting it bluntly: EVERY TEAM NEEDS A REFEREE. With about two billion Catholics in the world (as in every household!) SOMEBODY HAS TO CALL THE SHOTS. I hope this helps to clarify the issue in a simple manner. I don't get up in the morning and wonder about what the Pope is doing (especially this one). It mystifies me that SOOOO many Protestants get their knickers in a twist about this. Hey guys it's OUR "issue".....not yours to "resolve" or "explain." Worry about your own ecclesial issues.......you appear to have many of them.
I’ll raise an even better “exegetical” problem within Protestantism. Sola Scriptura and any Protestant ecclesiology cannot resolve disagreements about fundamental dogmas. For instance, Lutherans believe a certain view about the Eucharist which the reform deny. Both present their exegetical arguments and scholarship and yet neither side is budging. Maybe some move from Lutheran to Reformed and vice versa but there is still no principle way that settles the issue. There is no “church” to take the dispute to. That’s far more problematic of an issue than whether there is an allowance for falsifying the papacy through Biblical exegesis. We principally have a way to resolve these issues based not on “scholarly” exegesis but by those appointed as our overseers in the Church.
Not really a good argument for the papacy this just shows minor theological disagreements both churches can agree that both are a road to salvation which is fundamentally cooperative
@@DanielRojq This wouldn’t be my argument for the papacy. It’s an argument against Protestant ecclesiology. It also seems like you are downplaying the disagreements. Think of the differing views on Baptism and whether one can lose salvation. These ideas are pretty serious and Protestants have no Church that can actually settle the issues.
Which infallible church are you referring to? The Roman Church, the Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, or the Oriental Orthodox Church? Between their theological disagreements, and each of their exclusive claims of infallible authority, what authority ought I to appeal to when deciding which is correct?
@@jfitz6517 I’m Catholic. There are reasons why I believe it is the Church that Christ founded. And yes, I know that it’s a common “tu quoque” objection to say I used my “private interpretation” to come to conclude that Catholicism is true. However, that’s not the same kind of objection that is meant when criticizing Protestantism “private interpretation” paradigm. There is no Church to settle dogmatic disputes in Protestantism. There can’t be. It’s up to individuals to use their private interpretation to not only find the church but also to exegete correct dogmas because there is no real Church authority over interpretation of dogma. That’s different than looking at evidence for the Church Christ founded and coming to believe in Catholicism.
Well, the Catholic church literally has disagreements internally about secondary issues itself, so not sure what your point is. Ex. Thomism vs Scotism You also have some liberal priests and some conservative ones, you also have clergy who are committing sexual abuse, and you have a person who claims to be the "vicar of Christ" giving messages that are eerily close to, if not outright, universalist. Your church also burned hundreds if not thousands at the stake for simply translating/distributing the Bible. Yeah, I'm good to respectfully deal with the protestant disagreements on secondary/tertiary issues rather than sweep all the Roman Catholic problems under the rug and then turn my nose up at all other Christians.
@@DrJordanBCooper I don’t know what @ScroopGroop is talking about. Saw this comment, went over to Wagner’s channel, and watched it… he definitely put forward arguments. Did he use insulting language? Yes, just as St. Jerome called people fools, for example, but nothing that was unbecoming of a Christian. One may even rightly argue that bad ideas and bad arguments should be ridiculed, just as the Reformers used words like “sophistry” contra the Papists. Since you’re a gentleman and a scholar, Dr. Cooper, I would recommend watching Wagner’s critique, which did, in fact, include arguments, as opposed to what @ScroopGroop wrote, if you wish to hear a response to your video, since iron sharpens iron. Blessings.
So, it's actually rather simple. It wasnt the pope who declared, "Im infallible." It was all the Church's bishops meeting in council (Vatican I) that formally declared this. This is the same group of men (not the same persons, but the same group) who gave you the canon of scripture in the late 300's. If you trust their authority to deliver an infallible canon to you, then one must logically take the next step and trust their infallible pronouncements on everything else. You DONT trust their authority to deliver and infallible canon to you, otherwise you would have all 73 books in your Bible instead of 66. So, this is essentially to say that you're trying to make a certain ("infallible") claim from a fallible set of books. In other words, the Protestant has no solid ground on which to stand by which to critique Catholic theology.
All I hear are twisted echoes of 1 Corinthians 1:13 … Is Christ divided? Was Luther crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Luther? And btw, what would prove Lutheranism false? Or Calvinism? Or any of the other half dozen mainline Protestant denominations? All of you argue that you have the true interpretation of scripture and then to turn scripture to justify your interpretation of scripture. But that kind of circular reasoning is cool ... got it.
Why do you think scripture needs interpretation? Do you think Christ was incapable of presenting His message clearly? Or the gospel writers? Or Paul? Or any other apostle from whom we have letters? It seems some people lack a basic understanding of communication theory. The catholic catechism is longer than the new testament. Do you think you can read it and understand it or does your pastor/priest have to interpret it for you? Do we need a catechism for the catechism and where does this endless line of interpretations stop?
@@MrSeedi76 Um, well. 2 Peter 3:16 "... [Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." So, it looks like you're already at odds with scripture. I guess you probably ignored or misread most of what I wrote so I'll rephrase: If scripture is so simple and clear, why are there a dozen or so mainline protestant denominations? Why can't they all just read the Bible and arrive at the same conclusions? And what part of the Catholic Catechism do you find perplexing? I've always found it pretty straight forward.
@@BTRet-xlr Pauls says some are hard to understand, and some not. I'm at odds because I can understand that, which what Paul's said.😂 Anyways, paul saying some things are hard to understand doesn't follow that those things cannot be understood or cannot be understood without a teacher. It does not also surely follow that an interpretative guide is always necessary just because something is hard to understand. One example, one can understand by further studying and meditating... Ohh how much I thank the Greek thinkers. 😌 It's like saying, "one must be roman catholic or rely on a roman catholic to understand the scripture." 😅
I think there needs to be more work done on the “private interpretation” argument from Catholics. Catholics do not have a similar problem, in principle, than Protestants when it comes to the necessity of the individual to properly interpret dogmas. The main difference is that there is no Church within Protestantism that resolves the disputes between dogmas. In Catholicism, there is. You know how I know that the actual Canon of Scripture includes more books than most Protestant claim? Because the Church tells me. This is not from my private interpretation of tradition. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some liberty in certain doctrines that have not been definitively defined (think Scotism and Thomism) but in the things that Catholics have the liberty to disagree about, there still remains unity, in principle. Of course there can always be dissenters.
But it just simply isn't true that a claim being unfalsifiable implies that it is false or that no good argument exists for it., or that it isn't worthy of belief. If this were the case, for instance wouldn't you need to stop believing in God, since it is impossible to disprove the existence of something that has the power to completely hide from us? Also, the fact that there are many bad arguments for the papacy floating around, does not mean it is false or that no good arguments exist.
The title is “why arguments for the papacy fail” not “why the papacy is false.” If you watch his other videos he’s not totally dismissive of Catholic claims. From a different starting point the papacy makes sense.
I believe his point is that the argument for the papacy is not convincing to him. He sees no basis for debating it without an appeal to a priori concepts in RCC doctrine. He does not even touch on any difficult points, but merely points out what a pointless discussion this represents. One way to perhaps advance here would be to demonstrate that yes, there is a way to verify the doctrine by some non-circular criteria or, from a common dogma in Christianity (such as Scripture), the doctrine is necessarily demonstrable or follows by necessary inference.
@@Catholic-PerennialistExcept Scripture clearly shows that God gave David the kingship and promised his descendants would continue to rule. Thats a clear exegetical argument you can’t “debunk” in the way Cooper is addressing the papacy. And saying that we shouldn’t hold the claims of Catholicism to a “rigid” logical coherence is really just admitting Cooper’s point. It’s a conversation stopper because you’ve basically said reason has nothing to do with it.
@@Catholic-Perennialist the fact it was a concession doesn’t alter God’s promise, and if you think that debunks the monarchy then you (to say nothing of Orthodox Judaism) have a problem with messianic prophecy. You can’t have a Jewish Messiah descended from David without a Jewish monarchy. As for Peter’s primacy, no one is disputing that, but his primacy is not the only thing required to support the papacy. Maybe you didn’t notice but Cooper noted the lack of any support for succession. And if you think hermeneutics is no different than taste or fashion, you really have ended the conversation, because you’ve made all questions of theology completely subjective. But if so, God has no right to judge any of us over it, so I think we’d be best served by not wasting time over something that literally can’t matter in the end.
@@Catholic-Perennialist except no one is arguing against an executive per se. And yes, subjectivity of theology is very much the end of discussion. Which is why I won’t bother replying again.
All human communication requires interpretation. This includes supposedly infallible interpretations of Scripture. This fact should obliterate every Catholic argument for Papal Infallibility.
@@charlesjoyce982 Literally every Catholic website that explains or elaborates on any dogma proves my point. There would be no need for any explanation if I was wrong.
Dr. Cooper just repeated the same old arguments. Basically what he is doing is rejecting what he pre-decided not to believe using any excuses he can produce. Whatever he pre-decided to believe he would believe it, even though there is no single verse that says so. For example Dr. Cooper believes in Trinity even though there is no SINGLE VERSE in Scripture that says God is one God in three Hypostases. He accepted 66-book Bible even though there is no SINGLE VERSE that says Scripture has only 66 books and name each one of them. He mentioned sola fide - is that scriptural? The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense . Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be justified) was completed in the past with continuing effect to the present .
It would be good for you to come to this discussion with the mindset that we are fellow Followers of Christ, having good faith behind your arguments. You are doing the exact thing you are accusing him of: repeating old arguments with pre-decided conclusions and excuses.
No it is not four times it is presented in the new testament of this idea of separation of faith from works, but it is rather numerous times that I have not yet fully counted which is explicitly or implicitly said that we are justified apart from righteous works works especially in versus like from Titus 3:5-7 "5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." I will post many examples down below
Romans 11:5-6 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 3:25-28 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Galatians 3:10-11 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” Galatians 2:16 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Titus 3:5-7 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 2 Timothy 1:9 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, Philippians 3:9 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith. Romans 4:4-5 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
@@alchemicalalek7535 I do acknowledge Lutheran as fellow believers of Christ. But it does not mean I turn blind eye on the standard charges against Catholic belief. Dr. Cooper is fully entitled to reject papacy for whatever reason he chose but he should be consistent, that is, applying the same reason for other beliefs as well.
Arguments from what the Bible doesn’t say doesn’t disprove the Papacy. Jesus founded the papacy, not Matthew 16. You are bound to only Scripture. We are not.
@@rayenamarir5764 I thought much is his reasoning was good. But he’s looking for a checks and balances of a democracy instead of the authority of a kingdom, which Christendom is.
@@The_Catholic_Christian The bound of Scripture for Lutherans is to hold that Scripture is the sole infallible source of doctrine, but it is not the only source of doctrine. It is a proper placement of Scripture and Tradition in an hierarchy of authority where Scripture has a special status as being God-breathed. No other source can make such a claim and such sources are, by this "God-breathed" standard, insufficient in and of themselves for the determination of doctrine.
@@pete3397 just because something is unique, doesn’t make it solely sufficient. Your comment is unique, does that mean it’s solely sufficient for understanding the BOC?
Our Lord Jesus told His followers to go and teach all nations, and the Catholic Church is getting on with the job. I am sure you have some brilliant arguments, but there are rather more Roman Catholics around the world than there are Confessional Lutherans. Looking on UA-cam, I don’t see huge numbers of videos attacking Confessional Lutheranism.
Since when did numbers decide about the truth claims of an institution? If that was the case then we wouldn't have any Christian church in the first place.
The Papacy is true because what a certain Pope explicitly said multiple times that contradicts other authoritative teachings were not what he actually meant, you just need another Pope to interpret it but what he says that contradicts the last Pope is also just a misunderstanding because what he said is not what he meant and you need the next pope to interpret it.
Basically.
Be careful you just describe the Bible too
@@z8urducks Both mainstream Protestants and conservative Catholics recognize the Bible as infallible. However, the issue at hand is not the Bible's infallibility. Just because Protestants consider something (x) to be infallible doesn't mean that other things (y and z) must also be regarded the same way. For instance, while Protestants believe the Bible is infallible, that doesn’t mean I have to treat my biology textbook as infallible as well. However, if someone is claiming y and or z are also infallible then the burden of proof falls on them.
@@z8urducks When one compares contradictions within the Bible to contradictions within magisterial teachings, they are conflating two distinct categories: Source vs. Interpretation: The Bible is the source of divine truth, while the magisterium claims to offer authoritative interpretations of that truth. Comparing contradictions within these two categories ignores their fundamentally different roles.
Bible (the source): Contradictions within the Bible itself, if they exist, would require theological and hermeneutical work to reconcile them, but they don’t directly challenge the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Magisterium (the interpreter): On the other hand, contradictions in the magisterium’s teachings or interpretations would cast doubt on the magisterium’s role as a trustworthy and divinely guided interpreter. If the magisterium is meant to preserve and interpret the truth, yet it produces contradictory theological positions, its claim to infallibility or reliability becomes suspect.
@@z8urducks Source vs. Interpretation: The Bible is considered the source of divine truth, while the magisterium claims to provide the authoritative interpretation of that truth. Comparing contradictions between these two misses their distinct roles.
The Bible as the Source: Any perceived contradictions in the Bible would require careful theological and interpretive work to understand and resolve. However, these issues don't necessarily undermine the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired.
The Magisterium as the Interpreter: On the other hand, if the magisterium, as the body responsible for preserving and interpreting biblical truth, delivers contradictory teachings, it raises questions about its reliability. If it's supposed to be a divinely guided interpreter but presents conflicting theological positions, its claim to infallibility or trustworthiness could be called into doubt. In other words, it is a categorical error to compare supposed errors in scripture vs the magisterium.
"The papacy is true and you MUST submit to the Pope!" - signed, the Pope
“Pope” St. Gregory said that any man who calls himself a “universal bishop” is “the anti Christ” the funniest part is listening to Romanists blatantly lie to explain away that quote.
Countersigned by all faithful Catholics who believe in the pope
Only God is perfect. @@WaterMelon-Cat
"I'm a prophet and you should trust me" -signed, Mohammed
He got the last revelation, @@vinicraftmaster7597
You and Issues, Etc. were instrumental to my conversation to Confessional Lutheranism!
God bless you!
Welcome home 😊
Welcome home.
Me too!]
Welcome home!
For me all this boils down to, “We’re correct because we say we’re correct. And if you disagree, you’re wrong and you’re to ignorant to understand why we’re correct.” And not to be derogatory, but this is very anti-intellectual behavior and very cult like at its core.
Exactly. The problem is that same sentiment applies to Protestants and especially Evangelicals.
@@SaltShack Evangelicals and Catholics are so opposite that they wind up arguing like each others. It’s the Horseshoe theory but for Christians. “Accept these harsh dogmatics and if you don’t, you’re not a real Christian. Why? because we said. Now read all these books from John McArthur about why you’re wrong.”
And each denomination whether Lutheranism or Presbyterianism, has this underlying dogmatic view that when push comes to shove, they don’t accept intellectual freedom on certain grounds.
Its why I prefer the openness in Anglicanism. It allots for a range of beliefs while maintaining a level of distinction from other traditions. You can be more Lutheran in one view, more liberal here and more Catholic there. An umbrella tradition, while maintaining some barriers like infant baptism and the episcopate.
@@SaltShackExactly. It’s almost like all those groups are ultimately just cults when we boil it all down. Even the group you belong to.
@@SaltShackHow?
@@WizardOfTheDesert How? They both share the same epistemological foundation, reliance on the authority of the individual to determine Truth from Error. The only Authority over Truth and Error is the Holy Spirit. The Papacy wrestled that Authority away from the Holy Spirit and gave it to the Pope. The Protestant Reformers just took the Pope’s lead and took the authority away from him and gave it to themselves. Unfortunately American Evangelicalism has granted the authority to any individual with a Bible and an opinion who lacks the fear of God to use it. This is precisely why every Protestant sermon I’ve ever heard is an 8 second reading of Scripture colony a 37 minute dissertation about what it means and is inevitably preceded by “what Jesus is saying here is” or some variation. So much for Sola Scriptura.
Debating church history and scripture with Catholics feels like a dishonest exercise. At any point they can just say that you are outside the Magisterium, so your interpretation can be disregarded.
If the church fathers agree with you, they are wrong, if the church fathers agree with them, it was clearly the infallible magisterium being correct. No honesty from the average Roman.
It sure seems like that at times.
“SCRIPTURE is what we say it is and means what we say it does; TRADITION is what we say it is and means what we say it does”
+40000 protestants sects and the contdown continues.... 😂
@@agustinmarchioni2029 thank you for ignoring the concern
@@Stanzan52 you are outside of the church, the only one that has 2000 year of history. The others are only sects, that's why they divide in +40000 parts.
As a former JW, their history of doctrinal flip/flops is described as “new light.” For example their failed history of end times dating interpretation failures ( 1874, 1914-1974,75 that “this generation” would see Armageddon), was again revised as “new light’ during the 1990’s as a “wicked generation” wouldn’t pass away until Armageddon was fulfilled …
Yes, please keep reading your substack. It's helpful because I can listen while I work, and I work with lots of English second language people, and I can share with them your videos more easily than written works.
2:15 In all fairness to Roman Catholics, when Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto wrote to John Calvin urging him to return to the Roman Catholic faith or to (come home), it made sense. "Rome" was once home to John as he was a "cradle catholic". However, for Catholics to use that phrase centuries later and then broaden it for those who were never catholic to begin with; I find that to be sentimentally manipulative.
Of Course it is sentimentalism. The other way would be repeating what you really are: damned heretics who will end up burning in Hell.
I prefer sentimentalism + Truth, so please, convert and come Home.
Why? As a Catholic, I wouldn't necessarily use that turn of phrase as it's foreign to me. However for those who convert to Catholicism, particularly those who have deeply struggled through atheism or protestant sects, they do feel like they have reached their spiritual (for the atheist) and authentic Christian home back in the Church their ancestors left or were forced to leave. For those I have spoken to who have converted, most love this phrase because it's deeply validating of their feelings and it makes them feel truly welcome. Because at heart, we know, that the only absolute valid straight path to God is through the Catholic Church, only she can provide definite salvation. So therefore we always reach out to other Christian brothers and sisters who have fallen away from the Church with open arms to come back to her salvific embrace.
Will most accept this offer? Probably not, and we don't know what that means for their souls. But we pray God is merciful and understands just how hard it is to be confronted with and to accept truth, and the true nature of the Church.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 The term convert, or conversion ought not be used when someone moves from Church to Church. The Biblical understanding of conversion refers to someone being dead in his sins, who is then born again through repentance and True Faith in Christ. When it comes to us being brothers and sisters in Christ, The Council of Trent seen us in a damnable light worthy of hell, we were anathematized; we do preach a different Gospel after all. I do not find that Roman Catholicism provides any definite assurance of salvation (that would be sinfully presumptuous) but requires absolute faith in the dogmas she defines. I can certainly appreciate your loving concern for us, it's very kind and the feeling is mutual from me at least. If it's true salvific faith in Jesus and all that entails for God to grant us Grace, then I'm sure many of us are already in union together, albeit not in one of your beautiful cathedrals. God Bless
Yes, Please keep reading your substack 🥰🥰🥰
Stellar work, Dr. Cooper. Keep writing!
Reading the church's fathers and every council should clarify any doubt about what christians proffessed through the years
Do you think episcopal polity would be good within our church?
Sure.
I've had a similar difficulty identifying precisely the criteria by which the RCC determines whether a magisterial, conciliar, or papal statement, doctrine, or proclamation is infallible or not. What are these criteria? And more fundamentally, what is the basis for such criteria? As much as I greatly appreciate many aspects of the RCC tradition, I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer to these questions.
Thank you much for this video, Dr. Cooper. God bless you in your ministry.
Trent Horn recently corrected Catholics who made the same mistake he did in this video by claiming ONLY the Popes Ex Cathedra statements are infallible. That is not what the RCC teaches. All the Popes teachings be they ordinary, extraordinary, or universal etc are binding. Never let a lay Catholic pull the Ex Cathedra card on you it's totally a bogus claim.
@@Eloignif everything a pope says is infallible then the RCC is in bigger trouble yet. I watch the RCC trying to do backflips through flaming hoops to try to cover for the universalism and Pelagian heresy of the current Pope often falling back on “it wasn’t ex-cathededra” but rather an ordinary statement to be welcoming to a Hindu or Muslim.
@@Eloign
And why should anyone accept what Horn says?
Is he infallible?
@@charlesjoyce982 Because he quoted Vatican II? I read the documents myself you should also.
To give an easy example:
Lumen Gentium, Paragraph 25
"This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; that is, it must be given in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
Simply speaking if the Pope repeats something a Catholic has to accept that as his mind and will to which they need to submit their will and intellect.
All his statements about gay stuff? Need to submit to it. All his goofy political takes? Need to submit your mind and will to it. etc etc
That's a serious problem.
@@Eloign
That quote from V2 is not a dogma.
At the outset of V2, the Pope who initiated it explained that it was going to be a unique kind of new council -- a pastoral one. And that it would not be defining any new dogmas.
This pastoral -- rather docrinal -- character of v2 excludes it from the protection of infallibility
Since only councils that are spefically convened to settle a theological issue are truly guarded by the Spirit from error
Futhermore,
The concept of religious assent to a non-dogmatic teaching does not exclude dissent from it.
It merely teaches that dissent should be done with great care and after careful study.
In other words, dissent to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium should not be flippant.
I always found the rejection of Papal Supremacy by the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the most convincing example through history and tradition that the Bishop of Rome is not the supreme unquestionable leader of the Catholic (meaning universal) Church. As a questioning Catholic I have to admit this one of things that make me pause and wonder about the whole thing.
I'm not used to you being so straightforward in your videos lol. I got like halfway through this and started wondering "where are the tangents?"
Haha. Yeah, no tangents when I write. Only when I speak.
Yes, continue these type of UA-cam videos!
RC apologist: *makes any argument about Roman Catholicism*
Me: Are you the Pope?
Them: ....No?
Me: So, you're obviously wrong. Yours is private interpretation.
Them: But St. Jerome...
Me: Was he the Pope?
Them: ....no, but Aquinas...
Me: Was he the Pope?
Repeat until they either give up or call Frank.
What does Jerome and Aquinas have to do with personal revelation or the Pope? I don't quite follow.
I'm a bit confused (as a Catholic) why you think that we hold the "Pope's interpretation" to be infallible? That isn't Catholic teaching. We also have theologians and scholars that engage in interpretation of doctrine and dogma. Private interpretation isn't wrong per se, it's just not every single person's private interpretation is going to be true, and the Church only promotes what is true so we have to have a body that decides how we determine truth from false (i.e. magisterium) and an arbitrator that helps provide finality to any arguments in interpretation (i.e. the Pope).
@@garrettstephens91 - I don't think it's meant to follow. I think the logical train of thought here is the apparent tactic of the Protestant is to bully the RC apologist into conceding that the single person with sole authority on Church teaching is the Pope. Therefore, any attempt to reach beyond this authority is not appropriate. Despite the fact that various Church teachings, that even Protestants hold to were not compiled by the Pope at the time but by scholars, theologians, doctors etc. of the Church.
In earnest - I don't really know any Protestants that seriously argue this way, most of the Protestants I know are very intelligent and construct arguments.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 You are correct that the magisterium is the arbiter if there is difference in opinions or interpretations.
The Pope's interpretation is ONLY infallible when the Pope claims "Ex cathedra" which is something very specific and has only been used a few times throughout Church history amongst all Popes. That is Church teaching, it is defined in the first Vatican Council. If a Pope sends out a Tweet or says something in an interview, it is not automatically infallible because the Pope said it. People misunderstand Papal infallibility.
As a new lutheran, i really do appreciate your work
Please debate Trent horn or another catholic apologist on this subject, I would be very interested to hear their response
Watch his debate with rob koons on justification
Or his other debate on justification with Jimmy Akin
Trent horn is beneath the theological level of Dr. Cooper. Imagine a toddler explain automobiles to an F1 mechanic.
@@WaterMelon-Cat you think Dr. Cooper is better than Trent Horn? I mean I would agree😂 explain why you think that? I totally agree I love Dr. Cooper he and Gavin Ortlund have helped me stay Protestant.
I think he should have a dialogue with Christian Wagner (scholastic answers).
I think it would be better for Dr. Cooper to move on to stronger arguments, instead of your average internet Catholic apologist.
Common Papist L
Enjoy your rock concerts and female pastors
@@a.ihistory5879 that’s crazy, my church has neither! I heard the Novus Ordo is leaning towards that…
@@gumbyshrimp2606 You just lied lol. What man made denomination are you affiliated with? I'm curious to know what your founder has that Christ lacked, since Christ's church wasn't enough
@@a.ihistory5879 cope and seethe
I’m with the pope call me a common papist then , a badge of honour given by Jesus, the term papist wouldn’t have had a derogatory connotation for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
Two protestant over-simplified hot takes:
1) Arguments for the papacy come down to "trust us, bro."
2) The idea that the pope is infallible only in certain situations is the Catholic version of protestants picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible.
This post is made in very bad faith; you haven't actually tried to dissect and understand the argument, I wouldn't be shocked if you didn't bother watching the video
@@alchemicalalek7535He said that they are hot takes that are over-simplified. It’s not bad faith lol.
@@alchemicalalek7535 I did watch the video. And I agree with it.
Christian's believe the entire scripture. And the old testament predicts the new testament. And new testament explains what christians are to believe and practice.
@@alchemicalalek7535 +40000 protestants sects in 2024, and the count continues.... 😂
Thank you for the video! I read through the essay on the substack before, and enjoyed it then. The audio delivery is a nice addition.
Question if I may: what would you say to an RC who posited that A) Application of this same kind of examination can be used to undermine the Lutheran position vis a vis Sola Scriptura and even the Christian evidence for the Resurrection, and B) That the requirement to falsify a dogma warrants Scriptural refutation instead of Scriptural absence of attestation is a feature and not a bug of the RC position, but does denote a deficit in the Protestant position?
I ask because I'm in long term discussion with an RC on these issues (if you see this, hey!) in the hope of friendly ecumenical discourse, and pointed him at this video asking for thoughts.
1. Falsifiability: He argues that claims about the papacy are not falsifiable, and thus cannot be examined or disproven in the same way as, for example, the historical resurrection. This criticism is partly valid depending on how one views religious doctrines in general, as these are often based on faith and theological reasoning rather than strict scientific methods.
2. Circular reasoning: Another of his main critiques is that Catholic doctrine is based on a form of circular reasoning, where Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority) validate each other. This is a common objection to Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective, but Catholic theologians would likely respond that the Church’s authority comes from a long historical and spiritual tradition that traces back to the apostles, and that this structure is part of God’s order.
3. Development of dogmas: He brings up John Henry Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine and argues that it allows the Church to change its teachings over time, which could be seen as problematic. Catholics would argue, however, that development does not mean old teachings are changed but rather that the understanding deepens. This can be hard to argue against if one accepts the premise that the Church has the authority to interpret its own heritage.
4. Ex cathedra and papal infallibility: He discusses how few ex cathedra statements there actually are (e.g., the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary) and questions whether there is sufficient consensus on what qualifies as infallibility. This is a valid point of discussion that even within Catholic circles is sometimes debated.
Challenged AI to make a summary. What do you think? Correct?
Problems with a papacy:
Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church.
The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church.
Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles.
That is very poor arguments. Do you believe in Trinity? If yes, can you point out just ONE VERSE that says God is one God in three Hypostases? Do you accept 66-book Bible? If yes, can you point out just ONE VERSE that says Scripture has only 66 books and name each one of them?
@@justfromcatholic Here is another problem with the papacy claims:
The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar
Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
@@justfromcatholic Those are pretty poor arguments imo
The reason why we only have 66 books is not because of a Bible verse, but because we didn't bother including the deuterocanonical books BECAUSE the Mass Printing the Bible meant you had to save expenses by not including the Apocrypha. This whole "the Bible doesn't say it has 66 books" is an argument from silence.
Similarly, just because the Bible does not STATE that the Trinity exists outright, does not mean that reading scripture without Catholic dogma means you can't find the trinity. Muslims similarly use this low-hanging fruit to reject the Trinity; it is frankly not an intellectual argument. The Trinitarian God forced us into the Trinitarian Position because of the way God communicates and works in scripture.
You don't need the Pope to have a Bible, you need a Church. We don't reject the Church.
Addendum:
Most of these arguments are derived from a poor understanding of Sola Scriptura. They take the extreme Baptist view of it meaning solely reading the Bible on your own and just making the truth of the Bible whatever you want to make it. Being painted with the same brush as Jehovas Witnesses, Baptists and Prosperity Preachers when you are a Lutheran, who share 99% of theological ideas with Catholics, is immensely frustrating. Seek to understand what you are talking about first.
@@justfromcatholicIt's foundational in Roman Catholicism that Peter was chosen by Christ to lead the Church and that he was to pass on his authority to successors but there's no evidence of this in Scripture. Roman Catholic interpretations of various passages in Scripture are only convincing to Roman Catholics. Others who read these passages don't conclude that they affirm the Papacy. They conclude rightly that the Papacy is just simply read into the texts when it isn't actually there. One would expect with such an important doctrine as the primacy of Peter that he would refer to it himself in his letters. After all it's central to the Catholic claim, but Peter makes no mention of it. Instead in 1 Peter 1 he refers to himself simply as an apostle, and not the chief apostle, and says in 1 Peter 2 that Christ is the cornerstone and Christians are living stones being built into a spiritual house. There's no hint of a special stone which exists between the cornerstone and the other stones. I was originally a member of the Catholic church but left it when I realised that its claims are false.
Love the audio form of substack articles
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
I mean bring this up to Catholic answers, Dr Scott Hahn would be someone to talk to, Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology, Alex of Voice of Reason, Trent Horn, Bryan Mercier of Catholic truth. Have a legitimate debate addressing the inability to formulate definitional arguments for the papacy or just an open public dialogue.
Michael Lofton has the mental capacity of a toddler, voice of “reason” literally removed words from quotes to lie and try to support his doctrine. Why would Dr. Cooper lower himself ?
These Roman apologists have been refuted already. Now tell me why thr Augsburg Confession was condemned for teaching that we receive the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ, for the sake of Christ, and not because of our merits or good works?
It’s a bit of a shame that following the reformation things have gotten so complicated in Christianity that we even need these debates, once there was one church one baptism one faith shame that church, baptism and faith have a variety of meanings outside catholicsm.
@toneyh1 that's false, before the Reformation professing Christians were divided into the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of rhe East, the Church of Bohemia, the Waldenesians, the Lollards, the Chuch of Rome. Who taught you there was only 'one church' before thr Reformation? That person either was ignorant or lied to you.
@@toneyh1 This is not true. There was never a universal consensus on anything even within the church. The Church fathers for example had different opinions and different emphases depending on their era and what they were debating. The schism of 1054 with the Orthodox Church occurred before the reformation and there differing opinions they have as well like not believing in purgatory, original sin, the papacy. The idea that there was always unity and complete consensus is an illusion.
You would think if the Pope's powers included infallible teaching they would produce an infallibly interpreted Bible.
You don't understand how the church operates. The Pope only uses his infallibility to settle a dispute that is causing scandal or schism. Otherwise, they just stick to sharing private interpretations in line with the tradition. To say "Why haven't they constructed an complete and consistent infallible commentary on the Bible?" is the same mistake as saying "Why hasn't mathematics published a complete and consistent proof of all possible theorems?". First, it is mathematically impossible to do. Second it is impractical. One look at Russel's Principia Mathematica will easily convince somebody that most proofs don't need proving because they aren't interesting or useful.
A superb and straightforward argument!
This unfalsifiability argument type is also applicable to the theories of evolution or Evolution capital E.
Well this listener prefers the Substack. I like to read arguments. Also I don't like commenting on YT because I prefer to compose on Word to check spelling more easily etc , but if you "paste" in a comment on YT the YT algorithms are often enough sure they are detecting "spam". And other disappearing comment phenomena on YT is equally frustrating.
This was excellent! Love your work defending Protestantism. It's so necessary. You and Gavin are like the only high-level defenders of it.
They do it for a living. Otherwise the would have to work...
Popes
Jesus picked
1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125)
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontian (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296)
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-384)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36)
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (III) (752-57)
93. St. Paul I (757-67)
94. Stephen III (IV) (767-772)
95. Adrian I (772-95)
96. St. Leo III (795-816)
97. Stephen IV (V) (816-17)
98. St. Paschal I (817-24)
99. Eugene II (824-27)
100. Valentine (827)
101. Gregory IV (827-44)
102. Sergius II (844-47)
103. St. Leo IV (847-55)
104. Benedict III (855-58)
105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
106. Adrian II (867-72)
107. John VIII (872-82)
108. Marinus I (882-84)
109. St. Adrian III (884-85)
110. Stephen V (VI) (885-91)
111. Formosus (891-96)
112. Boniface VI (896)
113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-97)
114. Romanus (897)
115. Theodore II (897)
116. John IX (898-900)
117. Benedict IV (900-03)
118. Leo V (903)
119. Sergius III (904-11)
120. Anastasius III (911-13)
121. Lando (913-14)
122. John X (914-28)
123. Leo VI (928)
124. Stephen VIII (929-31)
125. John XI (931-35)
126. Leo VII (936-39)
127. Stephen IX (939-42)
128. Marinus II (942-46)
129. Agapetus II (946-55)
130. John XII (955-63)
131. Leo VIII (963-64)
132. Benedict V (964)
133. John XIII (965-72)
134. Benedict VI (973-74)
135. Benedict VII (974-83)
136. John XIV (983-84)
137. John XV (985-96)
138. Gregory V (996-99)
139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
140. John XVII (1003)
141. John XVIII (1003-09)
142. Sergius IV (1009-12)
143. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
144. John XIX (1024-32)
145. Benedict IX (1032-45)
146. Sylvester III (1045)
147. Benedict IX (1045)
148. Gregory VI (1045-46)
149. Clement II (1046-47)
150. Benedict IX (1047-48)
151. Damasus II (1048)
152. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
153. Victor II (1055-57)
154. Stephen X (1057-58)
155. Nicholas II (1058-61)
156. Alexander II (1061-73)
157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
158. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
159. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
160. Paschal II (1099-1118)
161. Gelasius II (1118-19)
162. Callistus II (1119-24)
163. Honorius II (1124-1130)
164. Innocent II (1130-43)
165. Celestine II (1143-44)
166. Lucius II (1144-45)
167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
168. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
169. Adrian IV (1154-59)
170. Alexander III (1159-81)
171. Lucius III (1181-85)
172. Urban III (1185-87)
173. Gregory VIII (1187)
174. Clement III (1187-91)
175. Celestine III (1191-98)
176. Innocent III (1198-1216)
177. Honorius III (1216-27)
178. Gregory IX (1227-41)
179. Celestine IV (1241)
180. Innocent IV (1243-54)
181. Alexander IV (1254-61)
182. Urban IV (1261-64)
183. Clement IV (1265-68)
184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
185. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
186. Adrian V (1276)
187. John XXI (1276-77)
188. Nicholas III (1277-80)
189. Martin IV (1281-85)
190. Honorius IV (1285-87)
191. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
192. St. Celestine V (1294)
193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
195. Clement V (1305-14)
196. John XXII (1316-34)
197. Benedict XII (1334-42)
198. Clement VI (1342-52)
199. Innocent VI (1352-62)
200. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
201. Gregory XI (1370-78)
202. Urban VI (1378-89)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
204. Innocent VII (1404-06)
205. Gregory XII (1406-15)
206. Martin V (1417-31)
207. Eugene IV (1431-47) (
208. Nicholas V (1447-55)
209. Callistus III (1455-58)
210. Pius II (1458-64)
211. Paul II (1464-71)
212. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
213. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
214. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215. Pius III (1503)
216. Julius II (1503-13)
217. Leo X (1513-21)
218. Adrian VI (1522-23)
219. Clement VII (1523-34)
220. Paul III (1534-49)
221. Julius III (1550-55)
222. Marcellus II (1555)
223. Paul IV (1555-59)
224. Pius IV (1559-65)
225. St. Pius V (1566-72)
226. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
227. Sixtus V (1585-90)
228. Urban VII (1590)
229. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
230. Innocent IX (1591)
231. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232. Leo XI (1605)
233. Paul V (1605-21)
234. Gregory XV (1621-23)
235. Urban VIII (1623-44)
236. Innocent X (1644-55)
237. Alexander VII (1655-67)
238. Clement IX (1667-69)
239. Clement X (1670-76)
240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
241. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
242. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243. Clement XI (1700-21)
244. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
245. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
246. Clement XII (1730-40)
247. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
248. Clement XIII (1758-69)
249. Clement XIV (1769-74)
250. Pius VI (1775-99)
251. Pius VII (1800-23)
252. Leo XII (1823-29)
253. Pius VIII (1829-30)
254. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
256. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257. St. Pius X (1903-14)
258. Benedict XV (1914-22)
259. Pius XI (1922-39)
260. Pius XII (1939-58)
261. St. John XXIII (1958-63)
262. Paul VI (1963-78)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
266. Francis (2013 to Present
You have lots of time on your handd
@@tomo5136 lol He probably just asked AI to list all the popes throughout history and their years of reigning and copied and pasted it here
Amen, all it took was a cut and paste to present a history that has been accepted for 2000 years.
@@a.ihistory5879 copy and paste yes. AI I have no clue
Rome's argument for the papacy seems to come down to a kind of historicism. Truth is the consensus of those who hold office in the institution. Trust in it is an act of the will, not intellect.
that video can be resumed in 1 sentence, too much bla bla bla for a simple thing.
The only way is to find a contradiction ex chatedra, that means someone needs to find some doctrine that WAS NOT DEFINED before and then the pope defined, that means it is ex cathedra, and then list it, can someone list for me one or more doctrines defined after being undefined by any pope that contradicts a previous dogma?
The Council of Florence and Vatican II blatantly contradict each other on salvation, baptism, martyrs, and the communion of the Orthadox. If you can formulate a half baked nonsensical lie to reconcile each contradiction than go for it.
Have you considered the possibility that any fact which is truly unfalsifiable is actually just true? That pops up in Mathematics sometimes. The continuum hypothesis was proven true by proving it was unprovable.
To be clear, the CH was proven to be independent of ZFC and so can be believed or not believed depending on how you desire to construct your math. Maybe the papacy is an axiom independent of Protestant axiom systems? As far as the historical arguments go, archeology is pretty clear that Peter had successors. Ancient mosaics show Linus and Peter together, with Linus being acknowledged as his successor.
If you're talking about Karl Popper's version of unfalsifiability, then "nearly impossible" is not sufficient. It requires actual unfalsifiability. The classic example is Adlerian psychology where it was claimed that a man saving a child affirmed Adlerian psychology, whereas and man declining to save a child also affirmed Adlerian psychology.
Dr. Cooper, I think a study of Max Weber's 3 types of authority is a useful framework to examine the fundamental disputes between protestants and catholics.
There is no fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Each has replaced the Holy Spirit as the authority over Truth and Error with an individual. Epistemologically they are the same.
You need to have a conversation with Erick Ybarra and read his book
Planning on it.
I mean, this whole video actually proved why we need the Pope. If there isn't an office like the papacy, then everything is subjected to private interpretation. It's obviously a matter of faith, the same way is a matter of faith to say the Bible is inerrant. An atheist can easily use the type of arguments you're using against believing the Bible to be infallible.
Nope. Having the papacy has not brought clarity whatsoever for the modern Catholic Church. Like the many Catholics who are trying to explain to me that “Pope Francis reallyyyy meant..” No one seems to be clear. You still need an interpreter at the end of the day. Plus putting the papacy on the same level on the Bible is wild. It’s like Catholicism is uncritiqable. The Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus and the apostles and they also agree that the papacy is an invention that has no basis.
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom...."- Jesus speaking to Peter
Wait, what?
He will not find peace in Lutheranism.
How can Christians decide which church to join or evaluate distinctives? Most established denominations teach self-consistent doctrine. I would love it if you made a video on practical epistemology.
Lutheran confessions hold closest to the Sacred Scriptures therefore we are the closest church
@@WaterMelon-Cat That sounds consistent.
"There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?
How shall we answer him? Each of you (says he) asserts, 'I speak the truth! No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule."
- John Chrysostom, Acts Homily 33
The reformation, and classical Protestants heed this advice. Although I am in the reformed camp, like he said above. The classical confessions (Augsberg, Westminster, Belgic) I feel really do this.
What about Matthew Chapter 16?
Also, what happens when people have dissagreements over what scripture actually says? Are people free to interpret and implement the Bible however they see fit? No they are not. You need to have a moderator that makes sure that you don't have one group of people who say that gays can get married, and another group of people who says that they cannot. That moderator is the CHURCH that Jesus established in Matthew Chapter 16.
@@garrettstephens91 You're wrong; even the Catholic manmade institution composed of sinful men, changes doctrine, like once upon a time condemning to hell all Christians who. trusted the Bible & Jesus but not Rome's teaching. It's a different " story" today. MANY MISTAKES, FALSEHOODS, & GRIEVOUS SINS IN THE CATHOLIC INSTITUTION & ITS LEADERS! VERY SHOCKING & SAD. REPENT & TRUST JESUS -- THE truth, God, Savior, Lord, THE way! PRAISE & GLORY TO GOD ALONE.
You mean the chapter where Jesus calls Peter Satan? Edit: by the way, the word "Satan," while being a name of the devil, also means "adversary"
@@christafarion9 Sure, Jesus did that because Peter was saying and doing worldly things.
This is also the chapter that Jesus establishes his Church on Earth and makes Peter the head of said Church, then establishes authority.
You could then infer that "Well then the Catholic Church is satanic then" and that is wrong, because ALL humans whether in positions of power or authority will fall short of the glory of God.
@garrettstephens91 Jesus's church on earth isn't an institution, it's the gathering of the called out ones. It's an etherical thing. There are those within the Catholic Church who are not saved. But don't come to a protestant church expecting to find the true church, because there are those within said church who are not saved. It's not the church that saves, it's the Lord Jesus Christ. Don't place your faith in a church, or a denomination. Place your faith (entirely) in the Lord Jesus's promise.
@@christafarion9 where did you get that interpretation of that passage?
The dogma of the papacy is unfalsifiable, therefore it’s false?
No. His argument is that the arguments that Roman Catholics give in favor of their tradition being correct, ultimately rest on the presupposition that their tradition is correct, which is what is being contended for in the first place.
Therefore, the arguments are viciously circular and consequently unconvincing.
Luther and the other Protestants recognized in scripture that the little horn in Daniel 7:25 was the papacy. In that it would:
1. Persecute the saints.
2. Blaspheme and speak arrogantly before God.
3. Think to change times and laws.
The first two are clear to what most believers know about the papacy. But the third, he thinks to change times and laws are hotly debated with those amongst traditional Christians.
One must ask what law is most important to God? Obviously the Decalogue. But how has the RCC changed God’s Ten Commandment’s?
If you read in the catechism the second commandment has been removed, the one concerning the worshiping of idols and the tenth concerning coveting has been split to make up the difference!
Secondly, the changing of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. In his debate with Martin Luther, John Ekk argued that the seventh day Sabbath has always been the day that the Bible says to keep holy, but the RCC had changed it to Sunday. Thereby, by keeping Sunday Luther was still acknowledging Rome’s authority!!!!
If it fails, why the Pope is present until now?
There's no connection bro.
Wycliffe said of the Pope:
“When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: “two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them.”
@@ScalerWave That’s very interesting, but begs the question who was Wycliffe? What authority did he have to make his interpretations and opinions anymore valid than either of the Popes he rebuked so harshly? The same question applies to Luther, Calvin, Knox……..
@@SaltShack “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” 2 Timothy 2:15. Answer your own question.
@@ScalerWave Exactly, thank you. Wycliffe and the others have no access to the truth other than accidentally stumbling onto it. Well done, though I normally refrain from quoting a Verse or two of Scripture because quote mining is of little if not any assistance in determining Truth as every heresy ever uttered has been accompanied by Bible quotes including the Papacies and those of the Protestant Reformers let alone American Evangelicals who have stripped away the Holy Spirits Authority and granted it to any individual with a Bible and an Opinion who lack the fear of God to use it.
@@ScalerWave Reply deleted.
@@ScalerWave I’ll try again. Are you suggesting that this passage or any component of this book is authorizing individual interpretation or suggesting in any way that doing so can be authoritative. If you are, answer this question, who is Timothy? It should be quite clear the opposite is in fact the lesson.
The papacy being false does not make Lutheranism (or Protestantism, by extension) true or a valid option by default.
You see! you admit Christianity is false so Islam is True! lol
@@The_Surge8760 that's retarded, there's still Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, I'm just showing how Cooper's point doesn't get you anywhere.
@@The_Surge8760 I almost threw up reading that
@@a.ihistory5879 This Is proof!
@@a.ihistory5879 This is proof! lol
Good vid
In Ephesians 4 are all types of person gifts from Jesus for edifying the church. There is no pope.
Man white bearded protestant Michael Knowles is awesome
You do realize that you just did a circular argument to refute the circular argument offered in support of the papacy, don't you?
You start by saying that the sola fides doctrine depends on a particular interpretation of Paul: the one that Luther made. But anyone can come up with a different interpretation and thus refute the doctrine of faith without works. You can pile up interpretations till the cows come home. But how do you know which one is the right interpretation?
You built your argument to refute the papacy around the assumption that anything that is not falsifiable is not true. Can you offer a mechanism to falsify this assumption?
Unless, of course, you weren't really seeking to debunk the papacy but only to explain yourself for not believing in it. That would be the typical atheist move that suddenly ceases to be an atheist-one who denies God's existence-to become instead "unconvinced that God exists." In this case, all is fine and good, but there's no way to argue with you, because you can always circle back to your premise "I'm not convinced."
And that, my friend, is the paradigm of unfalsifiable statements.
The question is why do you even think you need an interpretation of Paul's letter to the Romans? It's pretty clear on the matter. Simply read it. It's not a circular argument to point out that the catholic church has traditions that directly contradict scripture. If they claim "but the Bible is 'a catholic book'" then obviously their traditions contradict.
Also - there is still the joint declaration of the Doctrine of Justification in which catholics and protestants agreed that we are not justified by works.
@MrSeedi76 Yes. Thank God we are taking steps to be reunited. It's about time!
You always need to interpret what you read, it's an intrinsic part of reading. Very smart people have disagreed in interpretations. Sometimes it's ok since the disagreements do not affect the central tenets of our faith. But some other times, those central tenets can be jeopardized by a certain interpretation. In those cases, you need a way to settle the dispute.
In the US we have one constitution and many interpretations. When they enter into conflict, you need an authority that decides which one is the right interpretation. Thank goodness the framers were smart enough to make a provision for those cases, and established the Supreme Court of Justice as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Absent that provision, the US would have disintegrated many times.
The Founder of Christianity has to have made a similar provision. He was a lot smarter than the US Constitution framers.
You forgot about exegesis Bro.
It's not about my interpretation vs your interpretation. It's about our interpretation (personal input or what we want to mean to the text) vs exegesis (real logical, scientific, philosophical, linguistic and historical textual criticism).
RCs cannot claim that they're the only one who can exegete, which they selfishly claim.
@leunammesphone1425 I don't think we claim that. In fact, from Trent to our days, the Catholic Church has taken into account even the Reformers' and later protestant theologians. But you seem to be ignoring the repeatedly proven fact that some interpretations enter into conflict with others, and more likely than not, their proponents will claim that theirs is the right exegesis according to all those parameters you cite (logic, scientific, philosophic, etc). Sometimes those conflicts are irreconcilable, and only a supreme authority can be the antidote to dissolution.
Too little to late. The Papacy was already an established reality more than 1000 years before Luther...
That doesn't make it true though
It was established but changed into what it is with infallibility and supreme authority much later.
And the cult of serpent (Satan) worship was established all the way back in the Garden (I'm not calling Catholicism a cult or Satanic). Age ≠ truth.
The Orthodox Church was founded under the same apostles, and yet they disagree and say the papacy was an invention so…
@@allikirman2183 the papacy wasn’t an invention, the Pope always had authority over the western church. It’s the universal jurisdiction that no Pope ever claimed to have until the 10th century leading into the Gregorian reforms that was the innovation.
Read the Great Controversy between Satan and Jesus Christ by Ellen G. White. It’s the quintessential book on the reformation and the papacy!
So much effort to dismiss the true church so everyone can make up their own.
The authority of the hierarchy preceded scripture.
The hierarchy created scripture.
The hierarchy selected scripture.
Why would scripture have more authority than the authority that preceded and created it?
The word of God was being proclaimed by the hierarchy for decades before the scriptures were written.
Real and true
"Peter was the first pope!"
Source: trust me bro
Catholics: But you see, the person who said "trust me bro" is infallible. Why is he infallible? Because he said "trust me bro"
Sure, but what made Calvin, Luther, Knox, Zwingli, Edwards, Mohamed, Joseph Smoth, Billy Graham or Joel Osteen any different?
They never claimed to be infallible
@@kylefoster2777 exactly. Only the pope claims to be infallible
@@kylefoster2777 Of course not. They just claimed to be right and the Pope wrong and each other wrong so that today Truth can be claimed by any individual with a Bible and an opinion who lacks the fear of God to use it. And what got this hot mess of anarchy and fracture in motion? an individual claiming to be right and abandoning the Biblical Principles of enduring consensus and Scriptures commands to be of one mind and judgement, aka The Pope, the first Protestant.
coolness
I don't see why Linus being a successor of Peter is a strict requirement for the papacy. Even now, a new pope isn't elected immediately, but it takes some time for the cardinals to do the choice. So why couldn't it be the case, that the papacy is true, but it simply took some time for the elders of the church of Rome to choose the next pope? Perhaps they were distracted by severe persecution, or something else, and decided to wait.
That would even further prove my point.
Sola Ecclesia fr
Pope Cooper at it again. Thanks!
Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Fact check if you don’t believe me.
Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, Protestantism generally, doesn’t have proper worship, so not “church”, but, truthfully, more like synagogue with prayer & teaching!
No entity from family to corporates & govt can survive without hierarchy & unifying authority so without these attributes, Protestantism is unsustainable
The existence of an institution is no proof for anything.
2000y of popes
Such a huge fail
lol
Are u just frustrated that u cannot disprove Catholicism? Maybe u should give up the futile attempt. "It is hard for you to kick against the goads"
+40000 protestants sects, and the countdown continues....
Opposition to sola fide isn't about justification before God. It's about affirmation through ritual or through ecclesiastical approval. This is the root of RC authority, especially the papacy.
In the parable of the unforgiving servant, it is the king who has authority. When the forgiven servant is unmerciful to his lowly debtor, the fellow servants tell the king about it, and leave judgment to him. The king then makes his ruling. The servants didn't take vengeance, for example, by beating the ungrateful servant because they think that's what the king wants.
Luther was primarily interested in ending ecclesiastical abuse. The lowly believer has to do works of obeisance to the Church. Sola fide is the freedom from dealing with the threats of excommunication by the Roman Catholic church to protect their power. It is a subtle tyranny by which the Vatican ruled the believers.
Let's keep it simple: PAPAL INFALLIBILITY has been used 3 times regarding dogmatic statements: 1) in 1870 when the dogma
was declared and formally defined at Vatican I Council 2) The dogmatic declaration concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary
c. 1858 3) The dogmatic declaration concerning Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven in 1950. THAT'S IT! These are required to be made by the Pope and his fellow bishops speaking together....It's NOT a one-man operation.
There are many authoritative statements made by popes throughout the millennia. These come from the Office of Peter that the pope occupies, and are to be followed so as to give direction to the Church. Putting it bluntly: EVERY TEAM NEEDS A REFEREE.
With about two billion Catholics in the world (as in every household!) SOMEBODY HAS TO CALL THE SHOTS. I hope this helps to
clarify the issue in a simple manner. I don't get up in the morning and wonder about what the Pope is doing (especially this one).
It mystifies me that SOOOO many Protestants get their knickers in a twist about this. Hey guys it's OUR "issue".....not yours to
"resolve" or "explain." Worry about your own ecclesial issues.......you appear to have many of them.
St Peter • janitor of heaven • pray for us
I’ll raise an even better “exegetical” problem within Protestantism. Sola Scriptura and any Protestant ecclesiology cannot resolve disagreements about fundamental dogmas. For instance, Lutherans believe a certain view about the Eucharist which the reform deny. Both present their exegetical arguments and scholarship and yet neither side is budging. Maybe some move from Lutheran to Reformed and vice versa but there is still no principle way that settles the issue. There is no “church” to take the dispute to. That’s far more problematic of an issue than whether there is an allowance for falsifying the papacy through Biblical exegesis. We principally have a way to resolve these issues based not on “scholarly” exegesis but by those appointed as our overseers in the Church.
Not really a good argument for the papacy this just shows minor theological disagreements both churches can agree that both are a road to salvation which is fundamentally cooperative
@@DanielRojq This wouldn’t be my argument for the papacy. It’s an argument against Protestant ecclesiology. It also seems like you are downplaying the disagreements. Think of the differing views on Baptism and whether one can lose salvation. These ideas are pretty serious and Protestants have no Church that can actually settle the issues.
Which infallible church are you referring to? The Roman Church, the Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, or the Oriental Orthodox Church? Between their theological disagreements, and each of their exclusive claims of infallible authority, what authority ought I to appeal to when deciding which is correct?
@@jfitz6517 I’m Catholic. There are reasons why I believe it is the Church that Christ founded. And yes, I know that it’s a common “tu quoque” objection to say I used my “private interpretation” to come to conclude that Catholicism is true. However, that’s not the same kind of objection that is meant when criticizing Protestantism “private interpretation” paradigm. There is no Church to settle dogmatic disputes in Protestantism. There can’t be. It’s up to individuals to use their private interpretation to not only find the church but also to exegete correct dogmas because there is no real Church authority over interpretation of dogma. That’s different than looking at evidence for the Church Christ founded and coming to believe in Catholicism.
Well, the Catholic church literally has disagreements internally about secondary issues itself, so not sure what your point is. Ex. Thomism vs Scotism
You also have some liberal priests and some conservative ones, you also have clergy who are committing sexual abuse, and you have a person who claims to be the "vicar of Christ" giving messages that are eerily close to, if not outright, universalist. Your church also burned hundreds if not thousands at the stake for simply translating/distributing the Bible.
Yeah, I'm good to respectfully deal with the protestant disagreements on secondary/tertiary issues rather than sweep all the Roman Catholic problems under the rug and then turn my nose up at all other Christians.
As I watch Christian Wagners response to this, I was frustrated that he totally missed the point of the video and resorted to slander and insults.
Why would you expect anything else?
@@DrJordanBCooper I don’t know what @ScroopGroop is talking about. Saw this comment, went over to Wagner’s channel, and watched it… he definitely put forward arguments. Did he use insulting language? Yes, just as St. Jerome called people fools, for example, but nothing that was unbecoming of a Christian. One may even rightly argue that bad ideas and bad arguments should be ridiculed, just as the Reformers used words like “sophistry” contra the Papists. Since you’re a gentleman and a scholar, Dr. Cooper, I would recommend watching Wagner’s critique, which did, in fact, include arguments, as opposed to what @ScroopGroop wrote, if you wish to hear a response to your video, since iron sharpens iron. Blessings.
Because Papacy never work, don't deliver promised product of their intepretation
Cope
So, it's actually rather simple. It wasnt the pope who declared, "Im infallible." It was all the Church's bishops meeting in council (Vatican I) that formally declared this. This is the same group of men (not the same persons, but the same group) who gave you the canon of scripture in the late 300's. If you trust their authority to deliver an infallible canon to you, then one must logically take the next step and trust their infallible pronouncements on everything else.
You DONT trust their authority to deliver and infallible canon to you, otherwise you would have all 73 books in your Bible instead of 66. So, this is essentially to say that you're trying to make a certain ("infallible") claim from a fallible set of books. In other words, the Protestant has no solid ground on which to stand by which to critique Catholic theology.
All I hear are twisted echoes of 1 Corinthians 1:13 … Is Christ divided? Was Luther crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Luther?
And btw, what would prove Lutheranism false? Or Calvinism? Or any of the other half dozen mainline Protestant denominations? All of you argue that you have the true interpretation of scripture and then to turn scripture to justify your interpretation of scripture. But that kind of circular reasoning is cool ... got it.
Why do you think scripture needs interpretation? Do you think Christ was incapable of presenting His message clearly? Or the gospel writers? Or Paul? Or any other apostle from whom we have letters? It seems some people lack a basic understanding of communication theory. The catholic catechism is longer than the new testament. Do you think you can read it and understand it or does your pastor/priest have to interpret it for you? Do we need a catechism for the catechism and where does this endless line of interpretations stop?
@@MrSeedi76 Um, well. 2 Peter 3:16 "... [Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." So, it looks like you're already at odds with scripture. I guess you probably ignored or misread most of what I wrote so I'll rephrase: If scripture is so simple and clear, why are there a dozen or so mainline protestant denominations? Why can't they all just read the Bible and arrive at the same conclusions?
And what part of the Catholic Catechism do you find perplexing? I've always found it pretty straight forward.
@@BTRet-xlr Pauls says some are hard to understand, and some not. I'm at odds because I can understand that, which what Paul's said.😂
Anyways, paul saying some things are hard to understand doesn't follow that those things cannot be understood or cannot be understood without a teacher. It does not also surely follow that an interpretative guide is always necessary just because something is hard to understand.
One example, one can understand by further studying and meditating... Ohh how much I thank the Greek thinkers. 😌
It's like saying, "one must be roman catholic or rely on a roman catholic to understand the scripture." 😅
They will switch the standard as it suits them such that's almost impossible ro reason honestly.
TLDR - the first commandment
I think there needs to be more work done on the “private interpretation” argument from Catholics. Catholics do not have a similar problem, in principle, than Protestants when it comes to the necessity of the individual to properly interpret dogmas. The main difference is that there is no Church within Protestantism that resolves the disputes between dogmas. In Catholicism, there is. You know how I know that the actual Canon of Scripture includes more books than most Protestant claim? Because the Church tells me. This is not from my private interpretation of tradition. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some liberty in certain doctrines that have not been definitively defined (think Scotism and Thomism) but in the things that Catholics have the liberty to disagree about, there still remains unity, in principle. Of course there can always be dissenters.
Everyone has presuppositions which are unfalsifiable.
Thats true short of complete nihilism which is a worldview it’s doubtful than anyone could actually hold to in any kind of principled way.
But it just simply isn't true that a claim being unfalsifiable implies that it is false or that no good argument exists for it., or that it isn't worthy of belief.
If this were the case, for instance wouldn't you need to stop believing in God, since it is impossible to disprove the existence of something that has the power to completely hide from us?
Also, the fact that there are many bad arguments for the papacy floating around, does not mean it is false or that no good arguments exist.
The title is “why arguments for the papacy fail” not “why the papacy is false.” If you watch his other videos he’s not totally dismissive of Catholic claims. From a different starting point the papacy makes sense.
I believe his point is that the argument for the papacy is not convincing to him. He sees no basis for debating it without an appeal to a priori concepts in RCC doctrine. He does not even touch on any difficult points, but merely points out what a pointless discussion this represents. One way to perhaps advance here would be to demonstrate that yes, there is a way to verify the doctrine by some non-circular criteria or, from a common dogma in Christianity (such as Scripture), the doctrine is necessarily demonstrable or follows by necessary inference.
@@Catholic-PerennialistExcept Scripture clearly shows that God gave David the kingship and promised his descendants would continue to rule. Thats a clear exegetical argument you can’t “debunk” in the way Cooper is addressing the papacy. And saying that we shouldn’t hold the claims of Catholicism to a “rigid” logical coherence is really just admitting Cooper’s point. It’s a conversation stopper because you’ve basically said reason has nothing to do with it.
@@Catholic-Perennialist the fact it was a concession doesn’t alter God’s promise, and if you think that debunks the monarchy then you (to say nothing of Orthodox Judaism) have a problem with messianic prophecy. You can’t have a Jewish Messiah descended from David without a Jewish monarchy. As for Peter’s primacy, no one is disputing that, but his primacy is not the only thing required to support the papacy. Maybe you didn’t notice but Cooper noted the lack of any support for succession. And if you think hermeneutics is no different than taste or fashion, you really have ended the conversation, because you’ve made all questions of theology completely subjective. But if so, God has no right to judge any of us over it, so I think we’d be best served by not wasting time over something that literally can’t matter in the end.
@@Catholic-Perennialist except no one is arguing against an executive per se. And yes, subjectivity of theology is very much the end of discussion. Which is why I won’t bother replying again.
The Bible clearly does not support the papacy.
All human communication requires interpretation. This includes supposedly infallible interpretations of Scripture. This fact should obliterate every Catholic argument for Papal Infallibility.
Give an example of a dogma that requires interpretation.
@@charlesjoyce982 I'm not sure what was difficult to understand about my statement.
@@ChipKempston
Didnt say it was difficult.
I was giving you the opportunity to prove your point with an example.
@@charlesjoyce982 Literally every Catholic website that explains or elaborates on any dogma proves my point. There would be no need for any explanation if I was wrong.
@@ChipKempston
How about the immaculate conception?
Does that need interpretatiom?
Dr. Cooper just repeated the same old arguments. Basically what he is doing is rejecting what he pre-decided not to believe using any excuses he can produce. Whatever he pre-decided to believe he would believe it, even though there is no single verse that says so. For example Dr. Cooper believes in Trinity even though there is no SINGLE VERSE in Scripture that says God is one God in three Hypostases. He accepted 66-book Bible even though there is no SINGLE VERSE that says Scripture has only 66 books and name each one of them. He mentioned sola fide - is that scriptural? The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense . Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be justified) was completed in the past with continuing effect to the present .
It would be good for you to come to this discussion with the mindset that we are fellow Followers of Christ, having good faith behind your arguments. You are doing the exact thing you are accusing him of: repeating old arguments with pre-decided conclusions and excuses.
Maybe because those arguments are yet to be actually refuted… God bless.
No it is not four times it is presented in the new testament of this idea of separation of faith from works, but it is rather numerous times that I have not yet fully counted which is explicitly or implicitly said that we are justified apart from righteous works works especially in versus like from Titus 3:5-7 "5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." I will post many examples down below
Romans 11:5-6
5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Romans 3:25-28
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Galatians 3:10-11
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 2:16
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Titus 3:5-7
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
2 Timothy 1:9
9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
Philippians 3:9
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.
Romans 4:4-5
4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
@@alchemicalalek7535 I do acknowledge Lutheran as fellow believers of Christ. But it does not mean I turn blind eye on the standard charges against Catholic belief. Dr. Cooper is fully entitled to reject papacy for whatever reason he chose but he should be consistent, that is, applying the same reason for other beliefs as well.
Arguments from what the Bible doesn’t say doesn’t disprove the Papacy. Jesus founded the papacy, not Matthew 16. You are bound to only Scripture. We are not.
Did you watch the video?
@@rayenamarir5764 in its entirety.
@@rayenamarir5764 I thought much is his reasoning was good. But he’s looking for a checks and balances of a democracy instead of the authority of a kingdom, which Christendom is.
@@The_Catholic_Christian The bound of Scripture for Lutherans is to hold that Scripture is the sole infallible source of doctrine, but it is not the only source of doctrine. It is a proper placement of Scripture and Tradition in an hierarchy of authority where Scripture has a special status as being God-breathed. No other source can make such a claim and such sources are, by this "God-breathed" standard, insufficient in and of themselves for the determination of doctrine.
@@pete3397 just because something is unique, doesn’t make it solely sufficient. Your comment is unique, does that mean it’s solely sufficient for understanding the BOC?
Our Lord Jesus told His followers to go and teach all nations, and the Catholic Church is getting on with the job. I am sure you have some brilliant arguments, but there are rather more Roman Catholics around the world than there are Confessional Lutherans. Looking on UA-cam, I don’t see huge numbers of videos attacking Confessional Lutheranism.
Since when did numbers decide about the truth claims of an institution? If that was the case then we wouldn't have any Christian church in the first place.
Amen, as simple as that.