Some Thoughts on Protestant Scholasticism (clip) 

Outstanding work, brother. I have been looking for great Catholic books for Lutherans specifically. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Lutherans seem to be more sophisticated than most protestants, and they require a different angle of apologetics.

Thank you for this. As a protestant pastor on my way out of the Dutch Reformed Church into the Catholic Church, I must confess that Dordt and most of protestant's anti-Catholicism is all straw man arguments and indeed it is going in with a meat cleaver as you said. O man, the things I was taught - and not taught, in seminary, is so limited, one-sided, non-truths, fast-and-loose, and not even engaging the true dogmatics of Catholicism. Take for example the Dutch Reformed Confession the "Heidelbergse Kattegismus" The Heidelberg Confession in Question and Answer 80 on what they say the Mass and Eucharist are. When you do your homework you would find that Catholicism does not believe that which the Heidelberg Confession says it does - and these protestants write this document after the Council of Trent - but not once do they even quote Trent or engage Trent - they just ignored Trent, and when you read Trent you find that Catholicism does not say what Protestants still today believe wrongfully, Catholicism believes. Coming from the Reformed Tradition I can now say after reading Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers, Protestantism is a vast empty space where you can believe what you want when ever you want to... God bless you.

I completely agree. When i was protestant, i just parroted a lot of what i read from the calvinist and Lutheran scholars i read. After learning what catholicism taught and going back to read the arguments of the protestants again, i was so disappointed at the level of argumentation.

Could you do a video on Dietrich of Freiberg criticisms of Aquinas?

Have you read any of the Lutheran Gerhard Muller? He is the leading Lutheran scholastic.

Hello, could you help me with a question? I am a Brazilian who is trying to choose between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. As the topic of the papacy is one of the most historically complex, I am studying the Filioque. In one of your arguments in the video "scripture and Filioque", you say that Economics reflects theology. You were saying that as the son sends the Holy Spirit, this serves as evidence for the Filioque, because, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost." Now, there is a case in which the Holy Spirit sends the Son Isaiah 48:16 "Come near me to hear this: from the beginning, I never spoke in secret, since the thing existed, I am there. (And now the Lord God with his Spirit sends me)." So, does the Holy Spirit sending the son also fit into the same logic? Does the "son come from the Holy Spirit"?

Johann Gerhard was the chief Lutheran scholastic against Bellarmine iirc. I know a lot of classical Prots quite like him