I'm about 40 minutes into this video, and had to subscribe. I'm someone within a low-church context, and I find the high-church traditions incredibly fascinating, and I have found this video thoroughly insightful and rigorous in the details. Well done.
Erick's ordinary cadence and rate of speech is quite slow that the increased speed just makes him sound normal. Lol Very good video. Charitable both from Mr. Ybarra and from you, Michael.
Enjoyed this! I learned from this that my church practices open communion (confessional presbyterian) and I think the confessional lutheran way laid out here has merit.
There's a bit of a lack of parallel between closed communion for Catholics/Orthodox vs Protestants. When Catholics and Orthodox practice "closed communion", their reasoning is that they and they alone are the one true Church, and that communion is only for true Christians. When conservative Protestants do it, they are restricting communion with the full knowledge and acceptance that "The Church" is larger than their particular denomination/congregation -- thus denying the reality of the one communion of the one church.
Great post, Truth Unto Godliness. BTW, Matthew Broderick is a perpetual troll here and on other channels (like Other Paul's) and he just doesn't have any actual charitable dialogue. Might want to to give him the boot. Just saying.
Yeah... I know. I'm thinking about that. But then again he isn't exactly breaking any rules and I don't think that being somewhat thick headed is sufficient reason to be banned.
I loved the title. And I think it proves Catholicism. The Church exists alongside the bible. No amount of church err should ever make anyone leave the church. Jesus said the Church will be till he comes back.
Open communion can be understood in a variety of ways. Certainly, the more liberal church bodies allow absolute open table (non-Christians are welcome, no repentance necessary, etc)... but many conservative Anglicans and even Reformed bodies still "fence the table" within a broad framework of open communion. They won't commune non-baptized Christians or the unrepentant (nor will they commune those who deny the real presence, for example), but they also don't limit communion explicitly to denominational/fellowship borders. Several Anglican priests I know say they will call the pastor/minister of the inquiring Christian to ask if they are in good standing and commune them (even if they are from another denominational tradition). It's complicated.
Yeah, there's a lot of different practices. IMO the semi-closed practices fall short of the standard insofar as the pastor doesn't live up to the full responsibility of his office of guarding the sheep since he either doesn't check up on the approaching sheep so as to keep them safe or tries to do so by providing some vague general admonition which the sheep might lack the information to understand properly, i.e. a lot of this information might not make sense to cultural-Christian who, though hearing an admonition like "those can come up and receive the eucharist who are baptized and wish to belong to Christ" thinks that applies to him though he doesn't really believe in God nor does he have any repentance. It is also not proper for the pastor to move away the responsibility from himself and then place it on the sheep.
@@truthuntogodliness Yeah, to me it's more important that the pastor is able to evaluate the proper worthiness of the recipient rather than fretting over denominational membership. The error on the closed side is not bothering to worry about what Luther's Catechism says about personal worthiness so long as they're carrying the right card (plenty of unrepentant sinners hold the right "membership status").
Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins) 400AD But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. [6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
I haven't watched the video yet (I'll do it later), I'm wrestling a little bit with 1 Thesalonnians 2 : 15 regarding Sola Scriptura, I don't know if you talk about it in the video. I read some bible commentary where it says that even if there was a separate oral infallible tradition, the channels of transmission for it still wouldn't be, hence Sola Scriptura should be held at least for practical reasons, but I'm still not 100% satisfied with that explanation, also according to some polemicists, some church fathers believed in an oral tradition that was supposed to be observed together with scripture as equal authority. I would like you to explain me this verse in light of Sola Scriptura please, that if you didn't do it in this video.
Thanks for your comment, that is a good question. I think I'll do a series on sola Scriptura and the deuterocanon. But to give you a short answer then no one should deny that the apostles naturally also preached orally, and that the memory of this oral preaching also passed on for quite a time in the church. The question is whether this oral teaching contains doctrines and necessary teachings in addition to, and beyond that, which is given to us in Scripture. To this we must answer in the negative, first because doctrine must be based on God's infallible revelation, such as Scripture which is granted by all low o Orthodox Christians - so if a Christian in addition want to posit some infallible oral tradition teaching something in addition to Holy Scripture then he needs to lift that burden of proof, just as the Mormon needs to do if he posits the existence of some infallible prophet in Utah. Secondly, Scripture itself posits that it is useful for doctrine and reproof so as to thoroughly equip the godly man for every good work, which wouldn't be the case if some articles of the faith lacked in Scripture. Thirdly, this is also simply against the witness of the fathers. Most of them talk about oral teaching and traditions, but this is not viewed as some second infallible posit for inspired teaching. Augustine, too, talked about tradition yet is also firm in saying that "For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life" and Augustine is not alone here. Athanasius says, "The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. " in Against the Heathen, I:3 And one of the earliest fathers who spoke most about oral traditions and their importance, Irenæus, also said, "all doctrine (omnem doctrinam)" is found within the Holy Scriptures, Against Heresies 4:34.1
@@truthuntogodliness but this would only argue against those who have a “partum partum” view right? Otherwise most Catholics also hold to the material sufficiency of scripture. Hence there would be no need for them to posit that tradition goes beyond what is written. Those who hold to this view would believe that all of what is contained in tradition is also contained in scripture.
So then, Protestants admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, As Scripture ALONE is infallible! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Whose Fallible Pastor's interpretations do we listen to, as Scripture ALONE is infallible? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@dave1370 I knew you had no Biblical refutation! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Your church has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. This means you are left with your own fallible-private interpretations. All billion catholics are.
@@Justas399 Your church teaches Scripture alone, yet, Holy Scripture never teaches that. The manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 It is true that the Scriptures ALONE are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is. Can you give me a couple of examples from pope Francis that he revealed the "manifold wisdom of God"?
Why don't you read the actual documents instead on snippets in Protestant literature? It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.. . . Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . . . And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world . . . . . . In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit Eternal Life; . . . (Catechetical Lecture XVIII, sections 23, 25, 27, 28) When I left Alexandria, I did not go . . . to any other persons, but only to Rome; . . . having laid my case before the Church . . . (Defense before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239) [C]oncerning matters of faith, they [The Fathers at Nicea] did not write: ‘It was decided,’ but ‘Thus the Catholic Church believes.’ . . . in order to show tu y yhat their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact Apostolic times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is simply that which was taught by the apostles. (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 5; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
The same Church Fathers teach we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! No Protestant actually practices Scripture ALONE, as Holy Scripture teaches, "if you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", ( Matthew 19:17), and "it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24), as Jesus Christ warns those who HAVE FAITH in HIM, that if they do NOT BEAR FRUIT, THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY. ( John 15:2). Protestants though don't believe these Holy Scripture verses to be accurate. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior
@@dave1370 You tried to refute me, but have failed miserably each time! Feel free to keep trying! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Your problem is you don't acknowledge that you are arguing against strawmen. I see you do this elsewhere often. You don't acknowledge that you actually don't understand the arguments against which you are arguing. It's frustrating as hell. Furthermore, it's obvious you don't actually watch the videos on which you were trolling. Often, they answer points that you bring up over and over again.
@@dave1370Such is your fallible opinion! Thankfully, God shall have the final say on who is actually the ignorant one and lacking in Biblical knowledge! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
I'm about 40 minutes into this video, and had to subscribe. I'm someone within a low-church context, and I find the high-church traditions incredibly fascinating, and I have found this video thoroughly insightful and rigorous in the details. Well done.
Thank you for the kind words!
@@truthuntogodliness Thank you for the quality and knowledgeable discussion done with charity and grace toward those with whom you disagree with!
Great video!! Im glad to find good confessional Lutherans in Europe
Erick's ordinary cadence and rate of speech is quite slow that the increased speed just makes him sound normal. Lol Very good video. Charitable both from Mr. Ybarra and from you, Michael.
Enjoyed this! I learned from this that my church practices open communion (confessional presbyterian) and I think the confessional lutheran way laid out here has merit.
Sounds like relativism to me. Who solves it?
Also we should note that Roman churches basically practice open communion even though it’s against their official statements.
There's a bit of a lack of parallel between closed communion for Catholics/Orthodox vs Protestants. When Catholics and Orthodox practice "closed communion", their reasoning is that they and they alone are the one true Church, and that communion is only for true Christians. When conservative Protestants do it, they are restricting communion with the full knowledge and acceptance that "The Church" is larger than their particular denomination/congregation -- thus denying the reality of the one communion of the one church.
Great post, Truth Unto Godliness. BTW, Matthew Broderick is a perpetual troll here and on other channels (like Other Paul's) and he just doesn't have any actual charitable dialogue. Might want to to give him the boot. Just saying.
Yeah... I know. I'm thinking about that. But then again he isn't exactly breaking any rules and I don't think that being somewhat thick headed is sufficient reason to be banned.
Little known fact: It's the actual Matthew Broderick, the actor!
I loved the title. And I think it proves Catholicism.
The Church exists alongside the bible. No amount of church err should ever make anyone leave the church. Jesus said the Church will be till he comes back.
Open communion can be understood in a variety of ways. Certainly, the more liberal church bodies allow absolute open table (non-Christians are welcome, no repentance necessary, etc)... but many conservative Anglicans and even Reformed bodies still "fence the table" within a broad framework of open communion. They won't commune non-baptized Christians or the unrepentant (nor will they commune those who deny the real presence, for example), but they also don't limit communion explicitly to denominational/fellowship borders.
Several Anglican priests I know say they will call the pastor/minister of the inquiring Christian to ask if they are in good standing and commune them (even if they are from another denominational tradition). It's complicated.
Yeah, there's a lot of different practices. IMO the semi-closed practices fall short of the standard insofar as the pastor doesn't live up to the full responsibility of his office of guarding the sheep since he either doesn't check up on the approaching sheep so as to keep them safe or tries to do so by providing some vague general admonition which the sheep might lack the information to understand properly, i.e. a lot of this information might not make sense to cultural-Christian who, though hearing an admonition like "those can come up and receive the eucharist who are baptized and wish to belong to Christ" thinks that applies to him though he doesn't really believe in God nor does he have any repentance.
It is also not proper for the pastor to move away the responsibility from himself and then place it on the sheep.
@@truthuntogodliness Yeah, to me it's more important that the pastor is able to evaluate the proper worthiness of the recipient rather than fretting over denominational membership. The error on the closed side is not bothering to worry about what Luther's Catechism says about personal worthiness so long as they're carrying the right card (plenty of unrepentant sinners hold the right "membership status").
Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins) 400AD
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Does the church have a constitution I.E, Scripture or can it do whatever it wants? Pax
I haven't watched the video yet (I'll do it later), I'm wrestling a little bit with 1 Thesalonnians 2 : 15 regarding Sola Scriptura, I don't know if you talk about it in the video. I read some bible commentary where it says that even if there was a separate oral infallible tradition, the channels of transmission for it still wouldn't be, hence Sola Scriptura should be held at least for practical reasons, but I'm still not 100% satisfied with that explanation, also according to some polemicists, some church fathers believed in an oral tradition that was supposed to be observed together with scripture as equal authority.
I would like you to explain me this verse in light of Sola Scriptura please, that if you didn't do it in this video.
Thanks for your comment, that is a good question. I think I'll do a series on sola Scriptura and the deuterocanon. But to give you a short answer then no one should deny that the apostles naturally also preached orally, and that the memory of this oral preaching also passed on for quite a time in the church. The question is whether this oral teaching contains doctrines and necessary teachings in addition to, and beyond that, which is given to us in Scripture.
To this we must answer in the negative, first because doctrine must be based on God's infallible revelation, such as Scripture which is granted by all low o Orthodox Christians - so if a Christian in addition want to posit some infallible oral tradition teaching something in addition to Holy Scripture then he needs to lift that burden of proof, just as the Mormon needs to do if he posits the existence of some infallible prophet in Utah.
Secondly, Scripture itself posits that it is useful for doctrine and reproof so as to thoroughly equip the godly man for every good work, which wouldn't be the case if some articles of the faith lacked in Scripture.
Thirdly, this is also simply against the witness of the fathers. Most of them talk about oral teaching and traditions, but this is not viewed as some second infallible posit for inspired teaching. Augustine, too, talked about tradition yet is also firm in saying that "For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life" and Augustine is not alone here. Athanasius says, "The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
" in Against the Heathen, I:3
And one of the earliest fathers who spoke most about oral traditions and their importance, Irenæus, also said, "all doctrine (omnem doctrinam)" is found within the Holy Scriptures, Against Heresies 4:34.1
@@truthuntogodliness Thank you very much for your answer sir, God bless.
@@truthuntogodliness but this would only argue against those who have a “partum partum” view right? Otherwise most Catholics also hold to the material sufficiency of scripture. Hence there would be no need for them to posit that tradition goes beyond what is written. Those who hold to this view would believe that all of what is contained in tradition is also contained in scripture.
So then, Protestants admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, As Scripture ALONE is infallible! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Whose Fallible Pastor's interpretations do we listen to, as Scripture ALONE is infallible? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Troll
@@dave1370 I knew you had no Biblical refutation! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Your church has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. This means you are left with your own fallible-private interpretations. All billion catholics are.
@@Justas399 Your church teaches Scripture alone, yet, Holy Scripture never teaches that. The manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 It is true that the Scriptures ALONE are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is.
Can you give me a couple of examples from pope Francis that he revealed the "manifold wisdom of God"?
Why don't you read the actual documents instead on snippets in Protestant literature?
It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.. . . Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
. . . And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world . . .
. . . In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit Eternal Life; . . . (Catechetical Lecture XVIII, sections 23, 25, 27, 28)
When I left Alexandria, I did not go . . . to any other persons, but only to Rome; . . . having laid my case before the Church . . . (Defense before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239)
[C]oncerning matters of faith, they [The Fathers at Nicea] did not write: ‘It was decided,’ but ‘Thus the Catholic Church believes.’ . . . in order to show tu y yhat their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact Apostolic times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is simply that which was taught by the apostles. (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 5; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
The same Church Fathers teach we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved!
No Protestant actually practices Scripture ALONE, as Holy Scripture teaches, "if you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", ( Matthew 19:17), and "it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24), as Jesus Christ warns those who HAVE FAITH in HIM, that if they do NOT BEAR FRUIT, THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY. ( John 15:2). Protestants though don't believe these Holy Scripture verses to be accurate. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior
I've already refuted you elsewhere. You just don't listen. Just stop.
@@dave1370 You tried to refute me, but have failed miserably each time! Feel free to keep trying! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Your problem is you don't acknowledge that you are arguing against strawmen. I see you do this elsewhere often. You don't acknowledge that you actually don't understand the arguments against which you are arguing. It's frustrating as hell. Furthermore, it's obvious you don't actually watch the videos on which you were trolling. Often, they answer points that you bring up over and over again.
@@dave1370Such is your fallible opinion! Thankfully, God shall have the final say on who is actually the ignorant one and lacking in Biblical knowledge! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Can you point out a couple of Protestant denominations that don't believe you have to fruit? Please cite official documents.