Joe Heschmeyer examines Protestant critiques of papal authority and the problem of personal interpretation. Get more Shameless Popery on Patreon! / shamelesspopery Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com: www.catholic.c...
Is there any Saint particularly appealing to you right now? May a lending hand through the intercession of Saints help you through this time. I pray you remain close to God through your grief brother. You are not alone.
I'm just about to pray a rosary and I had an undeniable urge to tap on Joe first so it could register in my phone to come back to it later and your comment was first on the on the thumbnail so I'll pray for you Nicholas and all others with grief and sadness today... God loves you man 🙏🏽🙏🏾🙏🏻 it'll get better.
Thank you so much for this information! I reverted to Catholicism after spending ten years as a Protestant and this topic comes up talking with my Protestant friends. God bless you!
Did you get a load of Joe's statement: "Catholicism doesn't teach additional revelation." What does he mean, "Catholicism doesn't teach additional revelation"?????? How did all the theology about Mary come about? That stuff is no mere "interpretation" of prior revelation. I mean, cite one apostle who taught about Mary's assumption into heaven. You can't do it. Catholicism adds to the revelation of God all the time. And she absolves herself of her sin with the wave of a hand saying, "Peter was the first pope." That is the key justification for all her error.
I have been a Baptist for more than 40 years. As I read the Church Fathers I realized that they were not Baptists. They were Catholic. So I became a Catholic. I regret that it took me so long.
Excellent content…. I use this argument frequently, i was so happy to see Joe covering it as well. His argument is way better than mine but i’d like to add that the bible says “if he will not listen to the church, let him be a gentile and tax collector” and “submit to your elders for they keep watch over your souls” When Luther was excommunicated for not submitting to his elders and treated as a gentile and tax collector. He deviates from scripture. Instead of reconciling to THE faith, he starts a new faith. Instead of submitting to an elder he becomes his own. Instead of accepting his station as a gentile and tax collector, he becomes the church. This is the guy who basically invented sola scrip and look what a mess of scripture he made just to attain the position. His legacy is simple: scripture is your authority if it agrees with you, it can be reinterpreted or ignored if it doesnt. Therefore scripture is not the authority but your own interpretation of it. That makes YOU the authority. You decide which Jesus is the right one, you decide which interpretation of scripture is best, you decide when to leave a church if theyve gone too far, you can even start your own church. You, you, you and scripture is anything but about elevating yourself. Scripture talks about the authority of the church being greater than the authority of the individual over and over again. Joe is right, its all about individualism and you know who loves to elevate the self. The pride, ego, and elevation of self over obedience and submission? Satan. Luther’s own admission is that he had constant attacks from satan all his life…. What if sola scriptura was satan’s ultimate trick? Submit to the bible but only the parts that you already agree with and listen to nobody who disagrees, listen only to pastors who have the same interpretation? That sounds exactly what scripture was warning us about.
Woah! Lot of eyebrow raising truth in this comment!😯 And very well put. Mr. Joe Hashmayer, has helped my faith in Catholicism. I have come to terms with my reckless choices in the past and understanding that God works in all of us, it like.. we walk and start going the wrong way and He gently guides us back. 😌 Edit: Heschmeyer 🙏🏻
Couldn't agree more and hence the exhortation on the times ahead which i guess we are in as is whereby people ain't tolerating sound doctrine and accurate instruction [that challenges them with God’s truth]; but wanting to have their ears tickled [with something pleasing], they will accumulate for themselves [many] teachers [one after another, chosen] to satisfy their own desires and to support the errors they hold"
I see Protestantism as a version of "non serviam." Instead of "I will not serve" it's "I will not submit to the authority of the church." As PBXVI called it, "radical individualism." Pray for our separated brethren.
I am not in the catholic church because I agree with it. I agree with it because I'm in it. The Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church. And for a few years I was going to Church and disagreeing with it, but out of obedience to God and the Holy Spirit I stayed, humbled myself that I did not know enough, and kept studying. After a while I understood why yhe Church was right in each topic and now I agree with it. But First I was inside the Church and only after I agreed with it.
@Anthony-fk2zu. Well, that’s all nice and everything, but the deeper I get into history, the farther and farther and farther I get from Catholicism. And that’s from reading the early church fathers and reading/listening to Catholic theologians and pundits. What is it in history that led you to where you are now?
Excellent arguments. We still have no power after Helene smashed through but listening to this in my car with a good cup of coffee and the air conditioner running I’m having a pretty good day so far. Thanks for helping us better understand and defend our faith and helping me start another difficult day on a very positive note. 🙏😊
@@lzcontrol LOL! Now I'm wondering how that tract about things like Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity, the eucharist, etc. would look with his yellow journalism approach as an actual believer.
I would caution not to go too far in the opposite direction, God absolutely willed for scripture to be written, and He was happy to inspire certain authors to write infallibly. We have three pillars: Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium. We need all three.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM catholics claim the canon is theirs but forget that it is inspired unlike tradition and the magisterium is doing a bad impression of Mr Biden
28:24 I did not become Catholic because I agree with everything the churches teaches. for instance, in the beginning I didn't see anything wrong with IVF or condoms and other forms of birth control. I had to be obedient to the church while I learned the nuanced reasons for the teaching. once I learned why the church said IVF and birth control is wrong it became easier to be obedient to that teaching. now I'm fully obedient to all Catholic teachings.
Amen the same way with me…. I converted 2 years ago and i couldnt understand how my vasectomy was evil. My wife and i had 2 kids and one of them is a special needs child. They became extremely difficult to deal with, we both lost good jobs and i could only imagine a 3rd child being the straw that would break our family. So i got the vasectomy…. Fast forward 3 years and i call catholic answers. I said i believe in the church but im having a hard tjme accepting repentance for that. Carlo B sent me a book called inseparable, changed the way i viewed the vasectomy and the theology of the body in general. Some doctrines hit so close to home theyre difficult to accept. I also thought i had to get it reversed to become catholic so that was a big relief. I do regret it and wish i could have another child now, life changed so much when i converted that i cant imagine anything breaking our family let alone another child. Insane what the protestant mindset is vs the catholic one.
I've been a Catholic my entire life and I still struggle with some Church teachings like the current church position on the death penalty. I assent to the Church's teaching because She is from God, but I just don't understand how the Church gets to that conclusion.
From belief comes understanding not vice versa, which is why obedience is so important! As children, we don’t always understand our parents, who typically are acting in our best interest, likewise with the teachings of mother Church!
@@TheCatholicNerd Yeah that one took me about a week of study to accept. It’s like first and foremost we respect life and god’s position. God makes the choice when a person’s walk with him is over….. i look at a guy like Dahmer who almost everyone agrees deserved to be executed for his crimes. In prison he heard the message of the gospel for the first time, repented, proclaimed the name of christ, explained how he was involved in demonic rituals, and then after his baptism, he was killed by another inmate who said “all i could think of is i have to kill him” Dahmer didnt do anything directly to provoke the man, his reputation was known but the men didnt speak or know each other. Perhaps JD was lying to everyone, perhaps he was telling the truth, only god can judge the heart, and in the same measure, i think only he has the right to say when a man’s life should be over. No matter how horrible of a sinner he is in our eyes, by all rights….. imagine the christians caught Paul before his conversion. He murdered christians with zeal, did he deserve the death penalty for that? The way ive come to accept the church’s stance is as a society, we no longer have to kill these people if they are considered a threat to society. If it’s about numbers, then whats the value of a human life? When are criminals too much of an economic burden that it’s more humane to play god and just kill them? I just feel like it’s not our place to execute men but to evangelize them. Even the worst people imaginable….. i think about matthew 25 and the least of these. Ever since this topic became more mainstream, its got me thinking a lot more about it and have seriously felt the calling to visit prisoners.
doesn't it upset you that catholicism doesn't follow the basics in Christianity? one who doesn't at least teach God's Ten Commandments is only proving it doesn't know God, love Christ nor walk in Truth -- such is catholicism.
J.C Ryle: “The early fathers were wrong, the reformers were wrong, later Calvinists were wrong. . As for me? Well.. Just heed me and you’ll be alright…” -Every Protestant Reformer Ever
From my own experience: when I converted from atheism, I was politically a pretty radical libertarian. As I studied the Faith, I eventually concluded that this position was incompatible with Catholicism. So I changed my political position. I don't think it would have gone that way if I had become a Protestant of some variety - either I would have found a denomination compatible with my existing beliefs up front, I would have changed denominations upon reaching that conclusion, or I would have just lived with the contradiction.
Libertarian politics isn’t incompatible with Catholicism. See Tom Woods, Stephanie Slade, and others for how the Catholic faith is compatible with libertarianism.
I think your experience illustrates Joe's point very well! Putting one's trust in the authority of the Church (as the authority of Christ) is not the same as being one's own interpreter. Yes, I must use my own reason and judgment in both cases. It isn't "blind" obedience. But using my reason to decide for myself what's true and false is not the same as using my reason to submit to an external authority. One of the great theological truths is that God is something outside ourselves and something that transcends ourselves, and that this God has revealed himself. This unavoidably implies that we must look outside ourselves to this God and submit ourselves to what he has said. The protestant model is inconsistent with this. It has the written Word as an external authority, which is great. But without an external final interpretive authority, the self fills that role by default. And it leaves it's followers in a fragmented mess (personally and corporately).
I was once debating a Pentecostal girl about 1 Tim 2:12 where St. Paul was clearly saying that he didn’t permit women to teach, have authority over men, and to remain silent. Her response to this verse was that he only said that because there was an issue in the Corinth Church where women were acting out of place so it was totally circumstantial. I asked her where in scripture it says that and she said it doesn’t say that but it was something that was apparently “believed” during that time. I then asked her why she didn’t believe in the real presence then since that was also something that was believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. She stayed quiet… Fast forward and she now rejects certain epistles from St. Paul and claims they’re forgeries
Straight up had someone say in response to St. Paul on homosexuality that he is "not Jesus, and Jesus says nothing about it" and said she can ignore him.
Listen to video on History for athesits titled Was Paul a sexists, you will learn quickly that interpretations of this women was right on the money. You simply need non bible document that was also writen by paul as a source that is not in the bible and wlala you see that paul when put in proper context did not say it at all. Also buy atleast one book from professional scholar like Hidden history of women ordination by gary macy you will be surprised.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw Jesus affirmed traditional marriage. People saying "Jesus said nothing about it" are saying "he didn't say this specific combination of words" and are being dishonest.
Personal interpretation implies that I can, all on my own without knowing context geography history language and the Jewish culture and Torah, can figure it all out without any help. The amount of pride needed is outrageous. Some things in the Bible are simple to understand but there is depth to all of it beyond me. I struggle with pride, I want to know everything. Fortunately He gave me the understanding that faking it is not the thing. I try to never fake it when it comes to faith.
I totally agree, personal interpretation displays incredible arrogance in that one is the most knowledgeable and important regarding the Bible. It is exemplified first by luther when he rewrites the Bible by removing books that had been used since the Latin Vulgate and luther through his "influences" leads many away from the Church and in many cases to atheism.
Tell me where i am wrong. My pastor taught for over 50 years. Most weeks 7 times per week 6 days per week. He taught from greek and hebrew. He gave chapter and verse quotations and we looked them up. If i thought he was wrong, i'd check the concordance, look at other commentaries ( catholic and protestant) and then would conclude we disagreed. I never brought it up. He was sent for his work and i mine. Your man Joe has some good thinking sometimes. I do not need the rcc, christian catholics are my brothers, rcc is a trainwreck
@@johornbuckle5272 i'd say it's like a house, we start with a foundation of Truth, of stone. when we see how catholicism teaches contrary God's Commandments, it's clear that you're correct. God's church abides by all Ten -- Matt 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, yet they mysteriously teach contrary Ex 20:8-11.
@@tony1685 Please no one be fooled by this false teaching. Search for the Shameless Popery video on Seventh Day Adventists and learn to avoid false prophets and false teachers. God bless!
@@johornbuckle5272 Where you and your pastor are wrong is in thinking that Christianity is reducible to ones personal interpretation of Scripture, that every individual is somehow a stand-alone authority who can override the Church established by Christ.
Excellent teaching! I came into the Catholic church because of authority when the Christian denomination I was a part of started changing definitions of what was sinful (or not) by voting on it. It was also logic that convinced me the Catholic church teaching is true. The Holy Spirit must lead the Church into all truth and the Holy Spirit is not double minded. Thanks be to God!
My mom left Catholocism for Mormonism way back in the 70s as a kid. We left Mormonism a few years back (thanks be to God) and I've eventually found my way to Catholocism but she has been all over the place from Baptist to 'bible alone nondenom' to rapture on X date wacky groups, to Pentecostal and now she believes religion is evil and she follows some female prophets in South America. It's incredible how ludicrously false they are but my mom sees anything and everything as proof of their sanctity. Don't ever fall for these wolves, brothers and sisters. Their charisma and study of scripture isn't infallible and if anything just proves how much they are like the Pharisees.
I have a slightly related problem, my mother has been a Catholic but has recently talked about wacky conspiracy theories like that Francis has been replaced with an actor, flirting with new age beliefs, etc, she stopped going to mass and began telling me she hears from angels. This has severely damaged her relationship with my brother (who she thinks somehow voodoo cursed her) and to an extent myself as well. I’m inclined to think it’s paranoid schizophrenia, I can’t reach her, her friends can’t reach her, it’s tough. Please pray for her.
True - the problem is obedience, not understanding. Someone once said (I paraphrase) - "it's not the parts of the bible I don't understand that I have a problem with, it's the parts I DO understand.
Anyone who rejects history and 2000 years of theological development for their own interpretation falls in the left part of the Dunning-Kruger effect graph (high confidence, low knowledge). The hubris it takes to believe you can properly discern the faith alone is is astounding.
Thank you, Joe. The issues & arguments you bring up are exactly why I found myself having to reject "Sola Scriptura" to which I had held vehemently for 40+ years. The Lord made it clear to me that my primary issue was submission to authority. Though for decades I would have said, "I submit to the authority of Holy Scripture," it became clear to me that I was only "submitting" to my interpretation of Scripture, which is not true submission in any real way. I had to admit that true submission is ceding one's will to an authority before (not after) arriving at intellectual agreement with that authority. I had to submit my desire to interpret Scripture in my preferred way to the Church that our Lord left on earth to lead and guide his people into all truth. What has stunned me recently is the many claims that I hear from evangelicals that they "don't interpret" Scripture. The actually claim that their understanding of Scripture goes through no filter at all in their own minds - that when they read Scripture, the meaning is clear to them and arrives in their minds purely without any of their own prejudices having any influence. Of course, they can't explain how to resolve differences of "conviction" without claiming that the difference is "non-essential" or that the other person is not truly listening to the Holy Spirit. The third option is one that they tacitly live with but would be completely unacceptable if it were stated plainly: "The Holy Spirit has different 'truths' for different people." I don't claim that anyone overtly makes that claim but, in practical terms, that is how they have to operate unless they simply reject fellowship with everyone whose Scriptural convictions are one iota different their theirs. Grace & peace.
I often argue the point that every protestant is their own arbiter of truth in the Scriptures. I bring this up because I know we have the Church to settle matters.
@@jonathanw1106 Jesus literally tells us to go to the church to settle disputes. So, yes, using a "third-party" (in this case, the institution Christ told us to go to for disputes) is better.
@Anonymousduck161 whelp my last comment got deleted but what I had quoted was Matthew 18 15 which clearly says that the disputes Jesus was talking about are interpersonal. Classic catholic taking a bible text that clearly says one thing and twisting it to say another... there's a verse somewhere about that
@@jonathanw1106When did you last try to interpret the Constitution rather than leaving it to SCOTUS as the unifying authoritative interpreter! Without which, Protestantism has inflected upon itself confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, caused by personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
One of the things I am happy about in the journey into Catholicism is having to lower the burden of being my own Pope, having to feel bad about not understanding scripture or being tossed here and there because I am choosing what to believe and what not to believe. Now I have come to know about the Church fathers and their teachings, which has been of tremendous help.
Bryan Cross's objection is terribly wrong because when I was becoming Catholic, my interpretation did not closely confirm to the Church’s interpretation of scrupture. That conformity came later. The realization that the Catholic Church was the Church Jesus founded and the early Christians sounding incredibly Catholic is why I became Catholic. I still had hurdles to overcome with the Church's interpretation of some essential teachings on the Eucharist and Mary etc.
Dr. Cross would agree with you. He is an ex-Reformed theologian who became Catholic back in the early 2000’s. What Joe put up on the screen was Cross’s articulation of the Protestant argument
It could be argued that while you struggled with understanding how certain doctrines of the church (and to an extent every single doctrine the church has ever taught) aligned with your interpretation of scripture, your personal interpretation was still led by the motives of credibility to at least affirm that the Catholic Church is the true church. After that, everything else followed.
Praise to God Almighty!!!!'m favoured, $140k every 3weeks! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America 🇺🇸❤️❤️❤️❤️
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US amd abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Personal interpretation is inevitable; the difference is how we respond to our personal interpretations. Protestants must applaud those who follow their personal interpretations out of their former churches. They can disagree on the interpretation, but they cannot fault someone for following their divergent interpretation out of communion. To the contrary, if a Catholic follows their divergent personal interpretation out of the Church, their fellow Catholics disagree with them BOTH on their interpretation AND in their decision to break communion. Catholics can privately hold disagreements, but they publicly accept the interpretive bounds established by the Church and remain in communion. In this regard, Protestants function like an activist group whereas Catholics function like a family. When activists disagree, they (eventually) separate into different groups. When family disagrees, the family stays together and patiently works through their disagreements.
@@johornbuckle5272 "You follow men at all costs instead of your saviour" Just out of curiosity, which leaders do you obey per Hebrews 13:17? Do you submit to their authority? Do you believe obedience means "only when you agree"?
If you hold to sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of scripture, then your personal interpretation of scripture not only can dictate all aspects of your theology, but it necessarily MUST be the sole arbiter of your theology.
There are 24 cultural Catholic rites including the Western or Latin rite all in uni9n with Rome! Beats the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of Protestant sects caused by personal interpretation which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
My feelings on this can be summarized in two points: Any denomination worth its salt can trace its doctrine back to the early Church. The truth is not guaranteed to be with the largest denomination. As a Lutheran I find your videos thoughtful and well articulated, and even if I don't always agree with your conclusions, they push me to consider things more fully. Keep up the good work!
Agreed, Truth doesn’t necessarily come from the institution with the biggest number of members. However, Jesus est His One True Church Mt 16:18-19 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & codified your bible in 382, happens to be the Church with the biggest membership & at 2000 yrs, is the longest existing institution, proof of her divine origin!
Some authorities in the Church make me wonder about other religions/denominations. Almost immediately, I am reminded of who founded this Church, especially after looking into others'ever changing colorful doctrines. Nothing gives you the strength, security and peace the Catholic Church does. The daily battering she goes through, even within it's own authority. Yet, her doctrine doesn't change, only reaffirmed.
I used my personal interpretation to determine this is the true video that Joe uploaded. Therefore I place my full comment on this video, knowing it is the actual video Joe posted.
The pope said that different religions are all finding God in a different language (I paraphrase, but I’m not way off). That is not infallible. That is asinine. I would genuinely want to hear a video on this and how that’s ok.
When Jesus began His ministry and sent the Apostles out to preach the good news, which is more likely? That Jesus gave them carte blanche to interpret OT Scripture and Jesus' teachings how they wanted? Or that Jesus brought them together and made sure they were all teaching the same thing based on His authority? I would guess everyone would answer option 2, because Jesus would not want to be misunderstood more than He already was. So why is today's world okay with the idea of different denominations that all have their different interpretations of Scripture? I could honestly understand if we only had two Churches: Catholic (including Orthodox) and Lutheran, especially if the Lutheran Church had elected its own pope that was inline with their thinking. But I can't fathom how we are to think it's okay to have so many Churches teaching so many different things.
"The problem isn't that we are like sheep. The problem is that Christ calls us to be like sheep." 🔥🔥🔥❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 This episode is definitely my favorite of favorites. Hopefully this is a sample of a future book project. Hopefully Shameless Popery takes some of the best episodes and converts them to a text format that can be published as a book of essays. Keep slaying those dragons. ⚔👍👍
Brilliant mate, I’ll use some of this for precise clarification, been doing Catholic apologetics for 40 years now, and you’ve made very clear points I can use.
Contrary doctrine is not just found outside of the Roman Catholic Church, it is found historically inside the Catholic Church. You all still fight among yourselves over doctrine.
Great video - answers many of my questions. Some groups I wish had been included: believers who weren't blessed like Timothy by being born into the faith; believers who have strong subjective faith but struggle with doubt because of atrocities committed against their ancestors by the Catholic Church; believers who have subjective faith and find it challenging to trust/join the existing branches of Christianity and so trust God will make their situation right on the day of his coming. I have also sometimes wondered, perhaps if St. Paul can serve as a stand-in for Christian evangelization, we can glimpse how the "invisible" church can assume multiple forms. He says he became all things to all men in order to win them to Christ. He talks about not wanting to know anything but Christ and him crucified. He uses different approaches to evangelize people while keeping the essential Gospel intact. So maybe the Baptist church is Jesus' way of reaching that one group Catholicism could never reach; perhaps the Methodist church is Christ's hand reaching out to that one group who would otherwise not grasp it, etc. Jesus himself didn't use the same method to win souls. He didn't take a one-size fits all approach, did he? Look at the way he won people through parables, others through healing, others through convicting like the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well, etc. He even won the Canaanite woman by initially rejecting her. Look at how he wins Zacchaeus. Also, aren't there biblical examples of people having strong and even weak personal subjective faith and it being sufficient for salvation? For example, the Ephesus Dozen come to mind. Another example is the unknown group of men casting out demons in Jesus' name and Jesus advising his disciples against opposing those who are working for him. I also know about an OT example - Naaman the leper who God heals by bathing in the Jordan. The Bible says Naaman expresses before Elisha a sort of anticipatory prayer for forgiveness, that God may forgive him when he returns to his master and he worships God in a pagan place of worship (2 Ki. 5.17-18). The video is thought-provoking. Thanks for that.
@@Ruudes1483 you're quoting a movie, nice exegesis. "Live long and prosper" that's really helpful, try this quote," he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life in him"
@@joseperez8862 I’m Catholic. I was just pointing out that the original comment is a quote from a movie, specifically The Big Lebowski. I assume he was playing off the topic of the video, personal interpretation, which could also be called “an opinion”.
As one who came to the Catholic Church after 40 years a Baptist, I can tell you there were many doctrines I had to accept as a matter of faith in the church, rather than seeing them in scripture. I later came to understand scriptural support for these doctrines, but I had to ignore my own discomforts and trust that the church Jesus established had the authority to declare these doctrines.
Well said, with humility which is what is required to obtain understanding. Prideful seeking of understanding before believing doesn’t work! Believe & you will understand!
As always, it is not either/or, it is both/and. Scripture and Tradition, Faith and Works, Faith and Reason, Eucharist and Re-presentation, Memorial and Thanksgiving, Sacrifice and Worship, etc., etc.! GOD bless you always, all of you in Catholic Answers!
I absolutely hate the "sheep going over the hill" argument. They never think, maybe going over the hill is the right thing to do? The types of people that use that argument tend to just be contrarians doing no level of thinking for themselves, they just do the opposite of what people do. They don't go over the hill just to spite the sheep going over the hill, not because they did any thinking of their own. It turns out only one option is true and right, and its probably not the one you make up when you rely all on your own mired and limited thinking. Maybe let your reasoning do the job instead.
Quite right! If all of the sheep are going in a specific direction, and you decide to go in the opposite direction, it sounds like you're the lost sheep of the parable going astray (Luke 15:1-7). It's bizarre and arrogant to assume that the flock is going astray, and you're the one sheep going the right way.
@@shamelesspoperyI can’t tell you how many times I have been grateful to God for giving me the fortitude to NOT follow the herd - especially with regard to the last 4 years. My family has benefited enormously.
@@famemolto Which herd did you go against? The herd of modern secular society? The herd of degenerate corporates? The herd of disobedient 'Bible-only' sheep? The FLOCK being talked here is the group of sheep that obeys Jesus Christ and the authority of the shepherds selected by God the Holy Spirit himself, Acts 20:28.
8:31 How about Galatians 1:8? That does say "be more skeptical of the apostles" since Paul is telling them to not trust anyone UNLESS they fulfill some criteria
Putting so much emphasis on personal interpretation and ignoring historical interpretation shows the prideful nature of a person. 2 Peter 3:16 warned about this, and it is totally ignored.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw What historical consensus? Modern historians and bible experts that are catholic, protestant, etc did demolish many old interpretations, 1 such example is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 did paul really state that women should me silent in the church? what about extra bibilical evidence from modern consensus that developed over decades that state otherwise? Please watch video on this topic on channel called history for atheists named was paul a sexist? You will be surprised and then below their video you will see link to his academic article where he shows that many modern scholars came to similair conclusion. Also read up on other Catholic and i remind you CATHOLIC historians that posit the same thing for example look for academic book called hidden history of women ordination created by Gary Macy ( Catholic ). He simply cites hundreds of documents of early catholic church that were writen between 500 ce and 1100 ce. God bless.
@@vtaylor21 Is truth revealed by majority opinion? What if most people from the past were in error on some passages? you can't answer this question without using argument from authority that is a logical fallacy. Your arguments need to show why person A-Z was right and that's also a personal intrepretaion of not only Scripture but also history and i doubt that many Catholics are profesional historians to decide what specific saint really had in mind, When profesionals spent many years just to understand few passages from thomas aquinas alone.
I recently came across your channel and it's become my go to for understanding Roman Catholic teachings. Thanks for doing this. I'm not convinced yet, but I plan to keep watching. Determining precisely what that objective faith is seems to be the task at hand.
Great stuff, Joe, as always. A Latinist's quibble: to think of "fides quae" as the Faith we believe, Latin syntax demands it be phrased passively: the faith which is believed. Now, Augustine's Latin is really good, and fidēs quā crēditur (lit. "faith by which it is believed) IS best rendered "the faith by which one believes" or "we believe," where the mediopassive is used impersonally. But fidēs quae crēditur is truly passive, and divorced from its verb makes no sense as "the faith we believe." Quibbles aside, thank you for this exploration of intellectual submission.
Apparently, according to the Protestant logic, the person who decides "I want to go to school so that people can teach me how to do astrophysics" is in the same epistemic boat as the person who makes RU-vid videos arguing that the Earth is flat.
When my first pastor was alive he taught 7 times per week, 6 days per week. I accepted nearly all his teaching. If i thought he had it wrong, i thought okay and moved on. He read greek and hebrew and taught scripture from those languages. We looked up scriptures he quoted and checked lexicons and other commentaries. If i reject true teaching thats on me. I lose blessing and gain discipline. There is no incentive for me to twist scripture.
Excellent talk. In discussions with Protestants, it is important that we not fall into tit-for-tat polemics, but a dialogue with a common objective - discerning Truth. That however, must not lead us into the other, even worse form of discourse; the trap of wanting to get along so much that we descend into a posture of equivalence, which breeds relativistic valuation of alternative points of view. Catholicism embodies the objective Truth not discovered by men, but directly revealed and taught by Christ. If one is arguing about Christian tenets, one cannot, in sincerity, surrender ground on that fact.
Re: "Rome" as a pejorative, I have been very bothered by the Protestant tendency to call it the "Roman catholic" church or just simply "Rome" since it necessarily inserts a certain level of fundamental disrespect into the conversation. But your point about it really changed my perspective! I hope going forward I'll be less bothered by it.
Its also a dishonest claim, as prior to 1054, the Western Catholic Church was united with the Eastern Catholic Church. Post schism, the Western Catholic Church remained united with parts of the Eastern Catholic Church. The Catholic Church currently consists of 1 Western Rite Catholic church and 23 Eastern Rite Catholic churches.
@29:20 Listener #1 refuses to acknowledge there is "the boat of Jesus". Listener #2 Discovers "the boat of Jesus" and summits by entering the boat. #1 is still outside the boat #2 is inside the boat. The instrumental means (reason) is the same but the end result is different. It is in the discovery that #1 and #2 part ways. #1 his reason is his only authority, #2 his reason now summits to THE authority. I also think that Protestants and Catholics use the term "authority" differently, don't you?
No entity from family to corporates & govt can survive without hierarchy & unifying authority, hence Protestantism is unsustainable with personal interpretation causing confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23. Whilst wrongly anti Papacy, Protestants, without such hierarchy & authority end up each as their own mini pope! The many “truths” of Protestantism has caused the modern scourge of relativism & wokeism resulting in contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, Transgenderism etc. Protestantism is a huge disaster! SCOTUS exists to interpret the Constitution, can you imagine the chaos without it! Jesus in His genius est His One True Church with hierarchy & unifying authoritative interpreter guided by the Holy Spirit with the authority to bind & loose Mt 16:18-19 Mt 18:18. The CC has never officially taught error in faith & morals in 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of her divine origin!
Like 2 minutes in and this already resonates. This exact thing happened to me as a Presbyterian who revered St Augustine. How did I relate to him? How did I relate to others after him who shared his views?
Excellent topic; it’s more or less what brought me to considering and converting to Rome 😉. I’m a few weeks into OCIA and trying not to wish the year away to get to Easter quicker.
A very early church father (and Apostle) named John wrote amazing things in his letter to the Church. And he was confident those who read it, who were truly in Christ, would understand it. The rest would gather for themselves teachers to tickle their ears (as Paul warned would happen). The God-inspired letter from John in a common English translation reads: But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true-it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.(1 John 2:27) While this is clear in its context (and very easy to understand), there's an underlying pre-requisite for this to be fully practical within a local expression of the body of Christ (i.e. the local Church) and especially between neighboring congregations. The love of God MUST rule in hearts for us to remain in fellowship with Christ. When His love is not ruling, which is quite often, Protestants have reverted in their religious practices by replacing (Holy Spirit) with (Bible) and they will argue "but the Bible speaks the same as the Holy Spirit and therefore they are the same". But that's not true! And Catholics have reverted in practice by replacing (Holy Spirit) with (Church). And they will argue "but the Church speaks the same as the Holy Spirit and therefore they are the same". Also not true! [As a quick experiment, pick your term and falsley swap it into John's letter and you'll see what I mean.] Our unity issues are fundamentally an idolatry issue. Huge swaths of Christians have replaced the 3rd Person of the Trinity with an entity they esteem more in their hearts and are being taught daily by the wrong entity. Brothers and Sisters walk in the Spirit. Submit to the Triune God and be taught by His Spirit. Love one another and help your fellow believer who has fallen into this form of idolatry. (After 22 years as a Catholic, and 22 years as a Protestant - I've observed this idolatry as one of the most pervasive - second only to idolatry of self)
And when or where does one receive the Holy Spirit? Was it not through Christ's Church that the newly baptized received God's Seal? The Church is the rebuttal to the Bible alone belief standard because through her, we receive the Sacraments to be of the Spirit. And being in the Spirit is what St John is teaching us because in that time many antichrists were coming out of the Church who denied the Truth of Jesus Christ. As you can see, the Church was still present then and is present now. The Bible was not present then and is present now.
@Misael-Hernandez I'm definitely not an expert. (And I'm sorry this got longer than I intended) We can probably agree there are many functions of the Holy Spirit. Sealing us & enabling our eternal security is definitely one of His many roles. Convicting us of sin during regeneration and empowering us throughout sanctification (like fruit of the Spirit) are other important roles. As for "when and where" - those are interesting questions! I did a quick look at what Jesus Himself and His Apostles ( the earliest church fathers) recorded when inspired by God to write His revealed truth. Jesus described the Spirit's gracious work in making someone new (and producing spiritual life) as follows... Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ [8] The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” bible.com/bible/59/jhn.3.5-8.ESV So even Jesus Himself suggests not knowing where the Spirit comes from or where He goes. So locating specifically WHERE the Holy Spirit is making someone new doesn't seem to be part of Jesus' new covenant ideas or commands, but more the opposite ... not knowing. It was also a topic when our Lord revealed the new covenant Way to the woman at the well. He explained it would no longer be "where" but more importantly "how" and "why" we can commune with God. John 4:21-26 ESV [21] Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. [22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. [23] But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” [25] The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” [26] Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” bible.com/bible/59/jhn.4.21-26.ESV So the "where" is pretty magnificent! The Holy Spirit is omni-present. And when born again, we become "the temple of the Holy Spirit". Praise be to God! As for "When". It's as soon as possible, even TODAY! The day that an unbeliever is regenerated can be now. The Holy Spirit's work is not relegated for a specific day or time, and could happen even now between you and Lord! If you agree with God about His Son and your need for Him to be right with God. 2 Corinthians 6:2-3 ESV [2] For he says, “In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. [3] We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, bible.com/bible/59/2co.6.2-3.ESV So my answer to your "when/where" is actually quite different from your answer. Religious structures and systems that focus on specific holy buildings or locations were out with old covenant. And scheduling with the right holy people in order to receive the Holy Spirit for regeneration - are additions to the way demonstrated and taught by the original Christians and Christ.
@@mattnelms2522 your dilemma is that you don't have the Church of Christ to base your interpretation on and I do. The wind nobody knows where it comes from and where it is going, but God does. The Spirit no one knows where it comes from or where it is going but God does and reveals it to His Church and, who received the Holy Spirit? Everyone whom the Apostles laid their hands on! Or are you saying that you know the magic formula for the Holy Spirit? How have you received the Holy Spirit? I received it at my Confirmation through my Bishop, a Successor of the Apostles, after being born of water at my Baptism, this formula has been used since Jesus' time, to worship The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.(1Cor.19:16-18) So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord(1 Cor 11:27) The Truth We therefore worship in Spirit and Truth,
@Misael-Hernandez unfortunately, much like my original comment suggests, your love for the Church comes across stronger than your love for the Holy Spirit. Just a caution. The formulaic methods you prescribe for "when and where" you pass on your faith? Like lining up to receive the Holy Spirit at certain ceremonially-based ages? It sounds a lot more like an artifact of Judiasm (much like a lot of Catholicism). This is not the church described in Acts. If you read all of Acts you find people and even Jewish priests simply hearing the gospel and being saved. We do see examples of follow-up laying on of hands to receive additional spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit. But it is not a prescribed regenerative formula as you allude to. The presence of the Lord in The Supper that He instituted is truly a mystery of the faith. And I align to that taught by the Lord, and consistent with the Holy Spirit's explanations inspired in Scripture. But I DO NOT put my faith and trust in the additional traditions added over the 2000 years ... special garments worn correctly by a ceremonially cleansed priest saying the right combination of words/prayers with a particular timing of a bell and strange controversies over directly into the mouth or into the hand. Craziness! These are layers and layers of law and mediation (red tape) added to Jesus' table for WORLDLY purposes. The simplicity of communing with our Lord around His body and blood is a gift. Not taken lightly. But not intended to separate brother from brother. And not meant to re-institute the need of a human priest to gain some fuller access to my High Priest, Christ Jesus. But how clever a re-institution of human mediators required to access God's grace. (Power, money, and political partnering? all natural outcomes of a religious system "of" the world)
@@mattnelms2522 yeah, it does indeed sound like a mixed salad what you say. You make it sound complicated what is truly as simple as getting up from bed and going to Mass. It's not like I have to dress the priest. Of course anyone can pray to God at any moment and point. But Jesus still built his Church! Matthew 16:18. Christ still required Baptism, and Confirmation to be valid! The Church in Acts 10 still gathered to discuss matters of faith and morals! It's not as complicated as we make it ought to be.
There is a newer Protestant channel, believe the gentleman's name is Javier. He did a 3+ hour video trying to debunk you, Joe. The comments were a bunch of support of him as exoected. I don't get it. It seemed he was doing whatever he accused you of. This video is a timely reaponse on accident. The ability to settle the matter between christians is the point, not that I settle it perfectly. His video strengthened my Catholic faith but it may be a cool video to sift through and respond.
Mr. Heschmeyer, Also I have learned from Dr. Bergsma…. That the it is very important what particular Bible is read, specifically because there are Bibles that are more accommodating to Protestants than others….
Another instructive video, Joe. Clear, factual, sensible. But would protestants believe? We must continue to pray that God would lift the veil that blindfolds them? Or is it pride?
With Pints with Aquinas, there used to be a Marco Polo group for protestants considering Catholicism. Is there anything else like that available nowadays?
I knew a guy who actually gouged out his right eye in the middle of a sermon on "...if your right eye offends you..." Very important to know when to take something litterally or figuratively.
Thanks, Joe. I have a long line of every ilk of Protestantism since the 1600s except for one Irish line. My predominant upbringing for 35 years was Baptist/Presbyterian. I so appreciate your videos. I came to Catholicism in 2022 in my 50s, after studying with NTWright and other conservative anglicans. I’m a direct descendant of Margaret Fox “mother of Quakerism”. The Blessed Mother hasn’t been a problem for me! While I disagree with women in authority I found the deep honor and veneration for women and the Blessed Mother, easy. My Question: My Mennonite ancestors were the first in 1688 to object to slavery. As were most Quakers. My other Protestant ancestors were slave owners. I’d like to know the Catholic position on slavery and their practice. I’m aware Catholic Florida seemed to shelter escaped slaves. I’m interested not in a social perspective but from a theological practice. 🙏🙏. Did some mainline Protestantism have a link to slavery? My Mennonite/Quakers were deeply opposed. My Anglican ancestors were very much for the plantation industry in VA with some notable (blackballed) exceptions. It reminds me of the topic of abortion and how we view the sanctity of life. Until recently Catholics and some protestants were clear. What of the position on slavery?
You might like the book: "TWISTED UNTO DESTRUCTION, How 'Bible Alone' Theology Made the World a Worse Place" By Donald J. Johnson. Published by Catholic Answers Press. It covers the first recorded slave ship from Africa in 1619, and how the Bible was used to justify the slave trade. The author is a former Evangelical Protestant.
@@alhilford2345how the Bible was perverted* to justify the slave trade. I think its worth clarifying that the Bible was perverted (Bible sections being deleted etc) by slave owners so they could justify their heinous practices.
Hi Tammy, there is a good article, 'Did the Church Ever Support Slavery?' by Steve Weidenkopf on Catholic Answers. This should give you a good starting point on your excellent question.
So true. Naturally man wants to follow a leader only if they agree with him. “Catholics are not-repeat not-to exercise a private judgment over Catholic faith and morals which would lead them, in matters subject to interpretation, to evade the responsibility of obeying their legitimate ecclesiastical superiors.” - Jeffrey Mirus Ph.D
Ryle leaves out the obvious question that must be asked from his own reasoning: if Ryle himself would then be in major error as well. If not, what made him different?
THANK YOU for uploading this This was a very popular thought in my mind lately When people go off sola scriptura being the ultimate authority (it doesn’t mean only authority as Protestants claim) they REALLY mean their personal interpretation is the ultimate authority
@@gardengirlmary yeah. I think it’s pretty simple. Since the Protestant branch doesn’t get together and figure out matters but only go off scripture and not church history Ancient heresies come up And new churches of constantly popping up. New denominations popping up. I’m not gonna exaggerate it’s 40k denominations cuz that’s not true but it’s a lot
@johnnyvo2494 that's a common characiture. I know this is a RC forum so I don't expect people who comment to have much understanding of a Protestant point of view. I think there are a lot of RC... is believer a word used .... would you say RC believer? Anyway I know there are a lot of Protestants and RCs who probably do have many things in common. The most important being our faith in Jesus and that He is our Savior. I am trying to understand th RC point of view. In the past, there has been a lot of contempt. But I wish you well johnnyvo
The beauty of the internet is all the best minds from the past and present can connect to interpret. The internet is a million times better than the Library of Alexandria. The problem is we as humans are not objective and have so many biases and emotions. We even try to use those emotions to make people feel they don't have the resources to objectively interpret. Even AI interprets differently according to programming and the way we ask questions. God bless us all who search The Way.
The catholic argument isn't that we follow the early church so we're correct. We do but that's not the argument. Those who say they follow the early christians are the closest to the early christians while not themselves being the early chrsitians. Us catholics claim WE ARE the early chrisitans, orthodox follow what we taught. And seeing as Jesus started the catholic church, all Christian denominations follows catholic saints and catholic pope. The aposltes are catholic and Peter is the pope. Hopefully that makes sence.
I was taught to make Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity. These Acts are us moving our own wills. The Content Of Faith is the Catholic propositions which our minds hold. We love as good that which we know as true. I feel the objective/subjective terms are true but needlessly "smart." Good video, thanks.
At the risk of slinging proof-texts, I've never seen a Protestant argument on this issue that isn't refuted by 2 Pt 3:16. They make take offense to the idea that they are among the "ignorant and unstable" who "distort the Scriptures to their own destruction" (so might we, for that matter) but they can't disprove it--not for themselves, and certainly not for everyone else, as would have to be the case for their theories to be true.
The argument that Catholics and Protestants are in the same interpretive position also proves too much. In a very broad understanding, every proposition and every experience is necessarily viewed through my own personal interpretation. In other words, we can not step out of ourselves and use someone else's faculty of reason or see the world through their subjective experience. However, if you push this to the extreme, you end up with Solipsism and Subjectivism.
Right. Whether you believe in Scriptural inspiration and inerrancy or not, your belief is not ITSELF inerrant and divinely inspired (at least in the same sense that Scripture is). You could have mistaken beliefs about a divinely inspired and inerrant object. That doesn't put you on the same footing as someone who rejects inerrancy/inspiration. It's weird to me how many people can recognize this point and not see that this is the same false equivalency being used against the infallibility/personal interpretation argument.
One thing that this discussion misses is that most people throughout history stay in the religion in which they are born. We are not blank slates but grow up in a community and religous background which shapes our understanding. Those born in Christian households usually submit to their parents' and faith community's beleifs. The question for all Christians is why does the Holy Spirit seem to be working to bring people to salvation in multiple denominations. If there truely is only one correct church, why doesn't God limit himself to only those Christians?
In Galatians, as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius both say, it was anither Apostle, of the 72, named Kepha, not Simon Peter. Normally Paul preferred the Aramaic for Peter, never using the Greek translation, byt in this lettee there are two men called Kepha in Aramaic, but the one rebuked wasnt given this name the same way, and his name was never in Greek. Paul speaks differently of the two, ysing his receiving the right hand of fellowship from the one for authority to correct the other. Luke makes it impossible for Peter to have ever yet seen Antioch. Peter, unlike all popes to follow, needed to start the apostolate perfectly as the standard set forth at the beginning.
