I thought this was an appropriate response to Dr. Cooper's video. Thank you! Recently I saw a video of his from 5 years ago talking about his top reasons why he can't be Catholic. One of his objections was about apostolic succession or tradition and made the claim neither one couldn't be found in the early Church. What made me laugh about his claim was he had the entire 38 volume set of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene Church Fathers on his bookshelf right behind him! 😂 For those who don't know, these books contain writings of the Church Fathers that overwhelming show evidence of Apostolic Succession and Tradition. These writing go as far back to the first century.
@thomasfolio7931
29 күн бұрын
Yes the most common translations of the Church Fathers (my first set was the same 150 Volume set which had Schaff as the General Editor. Still in reprint by Hicks Publisher.) This is now Public domain and is one of the few editions available and commonly used in an e-format too. Many times because you can access it free of charge, it is used by Catholic websites. But aside from the Protestant bias in the Protestant slant, Shaff removed sections of the Father's writings which he felt was a later addition by the Catholic Church in the 16th and 17th centuries. Sometimes the passages were put into the footnotes other times just omitted with no further comment on their removal. Since the first edition of the Schaff text in the mid 1800s older copies of the Father's have been discovered (in many cases by Anglican scholars, who "borrowed" them from Eastern Orthodox monasteries at the latter part of the 19th Century, after Schaff had finished his work. These texts were conveniently never returned to the Orthodox owners and are still being translated today. What is important is that the texts some over 800 - 1000 years older than what Schaff was using, and pre-dating the texts he claimed had Catholic additions, still have the texts Schaff claimed to be of later invention, disproving his belief that they were later additions.
@AnselmInstitute
Ай бұрын
Thank you for your work on this
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
My pleasure!
@PInk77W1
Ай бұрын
“ In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” Dan. 2:44
@MrJohnmartin2009
Ай бұрын
Papal infallibility is correctly defined as a negative protection against error and does not affirm a positive property of Papal power. Therefore hypothetically, if we presume Papal infallibility has an overwhelming amount of historical evidence with successive Popes correctly defining dogmas and doctrines and resolving many faith based controversies, there still isn't enough evidence to affirm Papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is tied into a historical Papacy with succession until the end of time which can only be affirmed inductively if man has access to all Papal statements throughout the entirety of human history until the second coming when the Papacy is finally made redundant. Then and only then can the sum total of all Papal statements be assessed to determine if the negative protection is true. In practice, opponents of Papal infallibility only have access to past and present Papal statements and can only scrutinise a limited number of Papal statements less than the sum total expected accounting for the future Papal statements. And opponents of Papal infallibility are themselves fallible individuals without authority and according to canon law, unable to judge the Pope who is the supreme church head. Any claims against Papal infallibility are always problematic. A Protestant Christian who believes in the infallibility of the biblical text also has a similar problem comparably worse than Papal infallibility. The biblical text in the Protestant world is a stand alone infallible document without reference to any infallible tradition, or infallible church with an infallible binding authority. The text itself may always be subject to scrutiny over the value of each verse and each word compared to other ways of knowing through history and science. Many problems associated with the biblical text remain presently unresolved and possibly permanently irresolvable. The real or apparent biblical errors make affirming the bible infallibility a near impossible task to perform with a high degree of certainty, and yet many Protestants insist the bible is infallible. Belief in the infallible bible is in practice impossible to prove and necessitates a belief system excluding invalidation.
@Onlyafool172
Ай бұрын
Dude, who wrote this, go make a blog omg
@silveriorebelo2920
Ай бұрын
bla bla bla bla - thank you for feigning to dialogue... how can a text be infallible when its meaning depends on its interpretation?? absurd protestant logic
@thomasfolio7931
29 күн бұрын
Cardinal Manning was a contemporary of John Henry Cardinal Newman. Manning like Newman was an Anglican priest, who converted to the Catholic Church, and was among those who were elevated to Episcopal Sees in England prior to the First Vatican Council. Among the primary reasons for his coming into communion with the Holy See was the court case of Gorehan, and Anglican clergyman with a decidedly Calvinist viewpoint. Gorehan's teachings on baptism were decided by a secular court, as Anglicanism had become so mixed with the secular government that Anglican clergy were jailed for such actions as wearing vestments, putting candles on the altar, or anything that looked or sounded to Roman. Secular and Rationalist teachings had become rampant, and Anti-Roman myths such as the Pope could never sin, or err were being taught as Catholic teachings among the Protestants of England. So much of Manning's efforts were to educate non-Catholics on authentic Catholic teachings. Like Newman, he is frequently quoted out of context, or when he re-states his former beliefs then presents the Catholic positions, many Protestant writers quote his former beliefs as the Catholic position. A good example of this is Boettner who quotes Cardinal Newman with the statement "The Papacy was an invention of the Middle Ages....and this is a Cardinal of the R.C.C." What Boettner omits is that Cardinal Newman wrote "I used to believe that the Papacy was an Invention of the Middle Ages, (Until I studied the history of the Church." These tactics distort what was really written by Manning and Newman which falsify what they really wrote.
@treydean7997
Ай бұрын
Protestant here. I just heard you compare papal infallibility to the virgin birth, Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, etc. The problem we have is not taking things in faith that can’t be logically sought out to its end-like looking at Jesus or the Eucharist under a microscope and finding divine substance, as you mentioned in the video. I love taking scriptural truths on faith: I love the Trinity, although I’ve never fully grasped HOW three persons can be distinct in one unchangeable God. I love the incarnation of Christ, although I don’t understand HOW the God without body, parts, or passions, can put on flesh and grow in wisdom. I love the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I love the virgin birth…I love all of these and take them on faith, even when I can’t erase the mystery of them. Protestants can fully embrace mystery and faith in the truth. But the reason why we can is because we’re told these things in scripture. Rome latches on to Matthew 16 and other verses and says “see, it’s right here, the pope is infallible”…and that’s just not what our Lord is telling Peter, the Church. So no I don’t think it’s fair to say, “hey Protestant, you just need to believe by faith, and not by logic and reason, because you’ll never find it with your reason.” We aren’t believing in Papal Infallibility because it’s just not there to believe by faith. It’s asserted by Rome, but never by Christ, Himself.
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
Perhaps your approach is much closer to the Catholic method than what Dr. Cooper seemed to suggest was the Catholic position. Nevertheless, your approach is sound. Of course, I can’t see why Matthew 16 doesn’t point in the direction of Catholic teaching on papal infallibility. Could you help me out and explain how you tackle this passage? Thanks so much for commenting and engaging with me on this.
@treydean7997
Ай бұрын
@@ChristopherPlance “Point in the direction” of an assertion…I think that’s where my issue with the claim lies. I can sit there and listen to your video on how Mormons don’t have the keys and nod my head in agreement when you make the case that just because Paul teaches against falling away doesn’t mean that he’s expecting an apostasy. At that point (of claiming an apostasy of the church and losing the keys) things have been blown out of proportion. And people believe it because they hold multiple assumed pre-conditions. I feel the same about Matthew 16 and Papal infallibility. The reason I don’t think it “points in that direction” is because so much baggage (pre-conditional assumptions) is being poured into the text by Rome about Peter’s role, the role of his successors, and what binding/loosing entails under a fully formed church institution under a Papacy, with the charism of infallibility. In other words, those conclusions seem like it’s blowing the original intention of Christ’s words out of proportion. So, I don’t see those things in Scripture or in the early church fathers. Scripture ultimately shapes my assumptions that I bring to that text. So I feel quite comfortable not reading those things into that text.
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
@@treydean7997 but you do believe that Matthew 16:19-20 does have some sort of interpretation, right? I’m curious to know what you think that is?
@treydean7997
Ай бұрын
@@ChristopherPlance I go to Matthew 18 to help fill in details, since Matthew 16 doesn’t go into much detail about what He means by binding and loosing. In chapter 18, it’s in Christ’s teaching to the apostles about sin: to not cause the “little ones” to sin, to not be the source of temptation or fall into sins yourself, then finally the binding and loosing comes in at the teaching on when someone sins against you. Same paragraph as the “if two or three are gathered” verse. The point is that there are Christians who are following Christ’s commands to practice church discipline in a certain way, and they have the authority of God to follow all the way through with an unrepentant sinner and bind them from the church, essentially treating them as a non-Christian, as He says to treat them like a tax collector. This command is given not just to Peter but to the Apostles, and the meaning, I believe, can be extrapolated to all Christians who preach the gospel, as we essentially declare through the preaching of the gospel that those who are unrepentant sinners and don’t trust in Christ as Lord are not forgiven, and those that do, are forgiven.
@dynamic9016
Ай бұрын
Thanks much for this video.
@lawrencestanley8989
Ай бұрын
"Binding and Loosing" is about the gospel, judgment, and church discipline. When we say to someone: “If you believe, your sins will be loosed” then we are in agreement with heaven. And if we say to someone: “If you don’t believe, then you are bound in your sins” then we are in agreement with heaven. Christians can authoritatively declare what is acceptable to God or forbidden by Him because they have His Word. Christians do not determine what is right or wrong, forgiven or unforgiven. Rather, on the basis of God’s own Word, they recognize and proclaim what God has already determined to be right or wrong, forgiven or unforgiven. When they judge on the basis of God’s Word, they can be certain their judgment corresponds with the judgment of heaven. The practical application of what Jesus meant occurs in Matthew 18 in the context of church discipline.
@thelonelysponge5029
Ай бұрын
So Catholicism isn’t intellectually compelling to Cooper because of a belief of Catholic Answers and a Cardinal? I don’t think Cooper is intellectually compelling either 😅
@Big_Steve11
Ай бұрын
tell em Prince Harry
@MrGoodwell
Ай бұрын
I don't even understand, given that he mentioned Cardinal Saint Newman, why he's using this guy's epistemology to define Catholicism when Cardinal Saint Newman is the golden standard on doctrinal development.
@wesleybasener9705
Ай бұрын
He sees Newman as being a deviation from historic Roman Catholic theology
@westernkselite524
Ай бұрын
He then makes mention of Newman and handmaid's and strawman him as well.
@cactoidjim1477
Ай бұрын
It's like saying, "Modern Science is not *intellectually compelling* to me, because we can't just look at the arguments! I mean, no one will even *publish* my paper on Phrenology, Spontaneous Generation, or measuring the Flux of Aether!"
@PInk77W1
Ай бұрын
“It can’t be challenged” Meanwhile he’s challenging it
@Adam-ue2ig
Ай бұрын
The point is they say it can't be challenged not that it can't be.
@aussierob7177
Ай бұрын
Peter was made shepherd of the whole flock. The Pope is shepherd of the whole flock. Dr Cooper does not understand the papacy. Because he is not a member of the Catholic Church (Body of Christ) established by Christ in 33 AD he will never understand why Sola Scriptura is wrong.
@ShinAkuma204
Ай бұрын
The argument is that Jesus **did not** establish the papacy. Therefore you can't lean on "Heaven in error". And your response is precisely the criticism Jordan is making.
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
Thanks so much for responding. How so? If you don’t mind explaining more. I’m trying to grasp your point. Thanks
@ShinAkuma204
Ай бұрын
@@ChristopherPlance The rock that Jesus built his church on is him, not Peter. Some also believe that John 21:18 isn't just a prophecy of Peter's death, but also a prophecy of the false church. Dressing Peter as the first pope. I cannot say if these interpretations are true or not, but if one believes they are, you can't appeal to Matthew 16 if the interpretation of those you are trying to convince is in opposition to your position.
@EmberBright2077
Ай бұрын
@@ShinAkuma204 It seems pretty clear cut when Jesus says, "you are Rock, and on this rock I shall build my Church". Especially when He uses the language of a prime minister figure in Isaiah: Matthew 16:19: \\ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. \\ Isaiah 22:20-24: // In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. //
@krzy1446
Ай бұрын
How would you refute the mormon historical claims if they are mysteries of faith to them? I don't disagree with you, just trying for a wholistic picture
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
Thanks so much for engaging and listening in. Could you explain what Mormons argue about the mysteries of their faith?
@Kitiwake
Ай бұрын
Did he say "Roman" Catholics? Why do protestants say that? 🙄
@bethanyann1060
Ай бұрын
Because Lutherans sometimes like to refer to themselves as “Evangelical Catholics”. I used to be one.
@cerickNY
Ай бұрын
"Catholic" is in the creed, i.e. lowercase c "catholic", referring to the universality of Christ's Church, so lots of Protestants are not quick to abandon the label of "catholic". Depending on their view of the RCC, calling those in communion with the Pope "Roman Catholics" calls out the distinction they see between all members of the universal church and those who are either in fatal error in clinging to or else have a weird but ultimately trivial loyalty to the Bishop of Rome.
@barelyprotestant5365
Ай бұрын
Rome itself calls its entire communion "Roman Catholic" at times; even in the Council of Trent. We use the term "Catholic"; in fact, our argument is literally that we are more Catholic than the Pope.
@EmberBright2077
Ай бұрын
@@cerickNY At the time the Creed was written, the Catholic Church was understood as a singular institution with authority, not a vague abstract collection of believers.
@EmberBright2077
Ай бұрын
@@barelyprotestant5365 You can't just identify as being Catholic though. Anglo Catholics as Catholic in the same way Mormons are Christians.
@barelyprotestant5365
Ай бұрын
I recommend actually studying Cardinal Manning when making a video like this. Asserting you're not sure that Dr Cooper is representing Manning correctly while having no direct interaction with the cardinal's work doesn't look good. You're literally abandoning argumentation for Papism, and opting for Fideism. Please explain how your "defense" of Papism is anything other than Fideism. Also, you're simply in error. Your "argumentation" is abominable to St Thomas Aquinas.
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
Hi brother! Thanks for responding. Could you explain what you mean by Fideism? Thanks so much
@barelyprotestant5365
Ай бұрын
@@ChristopherPlance Fideism is the belief that reason is not needed for faith. You give a nod to the idea that Faith and reason are to go together (As St Thomas Aquinas would affirm), but you end up simply moving to Fideism with your reaction to Dr Cooper. Also, I just noticed after re-listening to the beginning of your video: you claim that Cardinal Manning does not necessarily represent, among other things, Vatican I. The problem is that he literally helped write Pastor Aeternus. I say this not out of hatred for Papism; my brother, the person I love more than pretty much anyone in the world, is a Papist. I say this to encourage you to be more rigorous in your YT videos: please do more research when preparing. It really shows that you did not do much homework on the topics of Cardinal Manning, Vatican I, Papal Infallibility, etc. I want Papists to give good, strong arguments for their system rather than merely satisfying the base.
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
@@barelyprotestant5365 okay, thanks so much for your encouragement! However, there are still several issues going on here with what you are suggesting. We can’t tackle them all here, of course. But clarity is still needed on what precisely you are getting at. Are you saying that there is a rational demonstration for the dogma of papal infallibility? And that this is consistent with Catholic theology? Thanks for your time.
@barelyprotestant5365
Ай бұрын
@@ChristopherPlance I do not believe that Papal Infallibility is part of Catholic Theology; how it is defined in Pastor Aeternus, it CANNOT be consistent with Catholic Theology. I do not believe there is a rational demonstration of the dogma, as I do not consider it a dogma but an heresy; not one that will necessarily damn one to hell, but an heresy nonetheless.
@ChristopherPlance
Ай бұрын
@@barelyprotestant5365 sorry I should have made my question more clear. SHOULD there be a rational demonstration for papal infallibility? My question is asking about your theological method, not your current theological convictions. But I’m assuming, since you said that you don’t believe that there is a rational demonstration BECAUSE it is not a dogma, that you do hold to the idea that there should be a rational demonstration of the mysteries of faith in general and papal infallibility in particular?
Пікірлер: 57