Erick, I beg you, can you do some sort of inside look at how you research? The depth and breadth of the citations of your videos is always amazing, I want to imitate it in my own projects but can't 😭
I seriously feel like the more Gavin attacks the church, the more i learn about it from these comprehensive rebuttals. I feel like Gavin can’t possibly still have the same opinions he did a year ago unless be just ignores everything. I dont think so, i seriously think he’s avoiding debating william albrecht for this very reason. He’d be shredded in cross examination
Excellent presentation, Erick! I thought you did an amazing job bringing in primary sources and deftly using secondary sources, not Catholic, to demonstrate that your interpretation of primary sources was on target. Also, I thoroughly enjoyed the randomization of your pronunciation of names and places. It was very entertaining! Bravo!
Hey Erick, would you be open to allowing your viewers to suggest a guest for an interview? I believe there is someone whom you absolutely must have on your channel. Could I contact you via email? Great video as per usual
Great job Erick and Suan. But why did all the non-Catholics you mentioned did not joined the Catholic Church if they confirmed papal infallibility and other views?
@uldisarbidans6, I know you were asking Erick and Susan, but I hope you don’t mind me throwing my two cents in. I am a brand new convert from Prot/evangelical and I would want you to know that some prots or evangelicals will tell one to their face “they don’t care what any of the church fathers said or did” they don’t care bc the lies are so buried in their heart - they can’t see thru them. The pride is off the chart due to that as well. They can even succeed on something and still believe that the Catholic Church is of the devil. 😢 demonic fear also keeps others from coming in. 🙏🏻 they are experts at mental gymnastics. 💔
The sources say that Rome BELIEVED it its own supremacy since the beginning. They did not say they themselves believe in such infallibility. This is what this video is about. Was the Second Vatican Council congruent with previous Catholic thought, or was it an invention.
@@krkenheimerWell, even Karol Wojtyla, in his 1988 Ecclesia Dei (no.5, I believe) said V2 contained many new things, which haven't been shown to be connected to Tradition. Even the V2 popes acknowledge it is not consistent...
Erick great discussion. Many area of agreement and some minor disagreement. Would be great if you are able to do zoom with Glenn Guadalupe and me whenever you are available.
Excellent. Always E. I have a basic question which is basic and probably elementary. How does Peter’s death in Rome make Rome the Holy See? Some say Antioch may have more primacy? I know you may draw a heavy sigh I just need a solid logic that my pedestrian mind understands.
In Church History, "genetic" doctrines impressed in the Bible are "expressed" by "epigenetic" historical facts and circunstances, both being controlled by the same Master Designer, God. That's the case with papal infallibility.
Pope Vigilius was supporting heretical Three Chapters and after 6 months, being excommunicated by 5th Ecumenical Council, he repented, admitted his error, condemned mentioned heretical document and was consequently received back into the fold of the Church. That is telling us much about relations between Pope and Council as well as about the "infallibility" of the Popes.
@@krkenheimer I do not care what he says about it. I can find a papers related to the Pope Vigilius' case on New Advent website and read everything myself. Do not need some guy to digest it for me. What I wrote is precisely what happened. There is a letter of repenting Pope Vigilius with his own words admits: "one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth". He further says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. "We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defense of the three chapters." That was Pope who recognized his error and nobody can deny what is evident in black on white.
@@johnnyd2383 If you do not care what he says and dont want to watch the video, why are you commenting here? What a bizarre thing to do. He responds to the issue in the video. If you have specific problems with his response, then ok, but at least see his position.
What did you think of the response video Gavin made to the original video? Did you find that this video was sufficiently engaged, are you planning on engaging Gavin further on this?
It's impossible to take Ortlund seriously after watching presentations like this. Quoting secondary sources is lazy and a good way to ignore/neglect the mountain of primary source evidence you provide.
What historical sources are true. Historical research is never unbiased or agreed amongst historians themselves. Waste of time not seeing the old responses to keep the image of the true church.
