What is the Catholic Magisterium and is it Biblical? (w/ Michael Lofton) 

They really are great for deep dives

@@GospelSimplicity you should invite suan sonna on if you haven’t already

I saw Michael Lofton on Pints w Aquinas channel. I learned a lot, got good clarification, but this is EXACTLY what is needed. This is clarity! I cannot thank both gentlemen enough. I will be directing others to this video. . What a most relevant and desperately needed service you have both provided. God bless you both.

Thanks for sharing!

Modernist!

Beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1930 and concluding with the wholesale embrace of the pill in the decade that followed its release, most Protestants moved away from agreement with the Catholic Church on this moral issue and never looked back - Protestants, acceptance of contraception has created unintended consequences-cohabitation and a growing acceptance of same-sex marriage - and also led to the acceptance of abortion. Most Protestant churches discourage divorce except as a last resort, but do not actually prohibit it through church doctrine. Pope Paul VI was right.

Pretty sure Humanae Vitae is ordinary magisterium but as far as I’m concerned everything in it is correct

@@jebbush2527 yes its ordinary. In fact it's the pope explaining something in the ordinary and universal magisterium, aka making explicit something taught by all bishops in communion throughout the ages

We discuss the Marian developments alot on R&T

@@ReasonandTheology I'll definitely check it out!

Glad you enjoyed it!

@@nicolentwiga7049 Hi ! Please refer to the following link which contains the writings of the Early Church Fathers showing what the early Church believed in. Please check it out. Marian beliefs and Purgatory are in there. They are not later inventions staycatholic.com/early-church-fathers/

Nicole read the Bible. I understand your struggles with the Marian doctrine. Such the pepetua virginity of Mary and her been born sinless. I know the Bible and I use a Catholic one do not answer those questions. But think of it this way weather she stay a Virgin or not the rest of her life after Jesus was born. It does not matter. She was chosen by God as a vessel for him to be born in this earth. Her spirit is present with his son in heaven along with the appostles and those saints (people who live a life in faith and obidience to Christ). Mary and the saint interced in prayers for you and me. When you read the book of hebrew in the Bible talks about the cloud of witness in heave. This cloud of withness referr to Mary and the saints I mention above. In the book of revelation you read how the take our prayers to God and the saint of heaven present them to him. About purgatory you will not find in the New testament any place specifically call purgatory. In the old testament it was understood that the place of darkness in some instant was purgatory. Jesus and the disciple talk more of heaven and hell. I would advice to focus on loving Jesus, the Saints to help you live a faithful and moral life that is pleasing to God. Always growing in grace with the power of the Holy Spirit. Do not be afraid not of all will ever be perfect human completely sinless. At any time we can felt but when we confess our sins and turn back to Jesus, he is there to forgive us and continue to guide us. If you walk into another religion you will find sin and fallen people in the same way you find in the Catholic church. Do not abandon the faith. Believe other religion traditions sometimes can not be directly be find. Many people will give you a gospel with out holy traditions. They present you a gospel full of worldly traditions in many instant. Pray a ask our Savior Jesus to help you understand the gospel and what it is his mothers role and the saints in helping us in our prayers and walk with God. I will be praying for you my sisters in Christ. God Bless You!

I've listened to Fr. Josiah as well when coming back to the Church from protestantism. I enjoyed the Orthodox perspective. He mentioned only two reasons why he couldn't go Roman Catholic. #1 Filoquoy, #2 Papal Authority. I think the reality is Papal Authority is "the" #1 issue for Protestants and Orthodox. My opinion... I too love the Catholic faith!

@@m4641 My brother!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Wow, thank you so much!

Thanks! I think you’ll really enjoy it

@@GospelSimplicity i hope one day perhaps you can consider doing a topic "The history of the bible". Will be great if can invite both a Catholic/Protestant scholar eg Ryan Reeves

@@jeremiahong248 The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables, recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age, until writing was invented, and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down.. ''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years. Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these. This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna. The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil, but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.'' ..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet. That was the old Testament!

@@briendoyle4680 To the fools, the Bible is just a fairy tale.

@@briendoyle4680, science has been around since before humans discovered how to create fire. According to the Oxford dictionary science is: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Just because humans hadn't developed a written language is irrelevant. Things happened before there were paintings on the walls of caves. Regarding God, by saying, "that humans invented him", are you denying the existence of God? If you are, I posit that it is not possible to make a definitive statement regarding the existence of a transcendent being.

Haha, sometimes the job of an interviewer is to just get out of the way!

Thank you!

Wow! Thank you!

Glad you enjoyed it!

It’s helpful

Glad it was helpful!

@@GospelSimplicity I think you know more about the Catholic faith than some Catholics do! Thank you for your openness and for doing these kinds of videos.

It’s certainly a lot. I had to listen multiple times. My pleasure!

True!

I think you’ll love it!

Thanks!

I'm so glad you're enjoying my content! If you're at Moody next year, be sure to come say hi!

@@GospelSimplicity will do! Keep up the great work!

Glad you enjoyed it! I'd be open to that!

Wow! So much information! I’m definitely going to have to watch this a few more times! Thank you Austin for bringing these people to the for front to learn from! God bless your work!

Awesome, thank you!

Thanks for the recommendation!

Thanks for the recommendation!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks!

Hope you enjoy it!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words! I certainly have. I love teaching

Hope you enjoy it!

Haha, I love Michael’s appreciation for nuance

Thanks!

He knocked this one out of the park. Really bright guy

Glad you thought so!

That’s a nice definition

Actually, it is the authority given to the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, through Christ's Vicar on Earth, Saint Peter. Pax Christi!

Glad you liked it!

I think the RU-vid algorithm just made me stumble upon them. If you go on my homepage, I have some of my influences listed

Thanks so much!

We’ll just pretend like I was going for that😂

This whole channel is somewhat of a "cyber-monastic cell"... The best thing is: Austin styles himself as a "neophyte", in the same boat with the rest of us, not as a didactic/teacher, but a fellow student. That is what makes this channel different and very VERY special.

My pleasure!

Hope you enjoy it!

😂

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks

100% biblical. You sure about that?

@@thomashess6211 Yup

@@thomashess6211 As a matter of fact, the canon of scripture was put together by Catholics

@@RGTomoenage11 The old testament was already there. The letters of the new testament had been gathered together by the time the Roman state run religion showed up 400 yrs later. The CC takes responsibility for the bible, which is just another one of their many claims. Thats all the CC has , is claims.It claims only catholics get to heaven. It claims missing a mass church service is a mortal sin. Those two right there ought to be enough to tell you its just a scam.

Exporting it now!

Haha, I love the glass half-full mentality!

Thanks!

Thanks! I’d be open to that

I just wanted to mention a few more Catholics that are just as knowledgeable as Michael Lofton. Those people are Erick Ybarra and William Albrecth. They are both on Reason and Theology a lot.

It would be cool to have them on your channel as well.

Interviewing William tomorrow!

Awesome

My pleasure!

Interesting! I’m not familiar but I can look into it and perhaps ask in a future interview

@@GospelSimplicity Awesome! Thanks, Austin!

@@GospelSimplicity UPDATE: the dead sea scrolls apparently do have the "key(s)" language. So it's in there and the Masoretic Text, but not the Septuagint. Odd. However, I feel better now haha.

Thanks!

That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks!

I agreed they can't be repeated and go hand in hand. But oral tradition is not God breathed. Scripture is. Oral tradition is harder to identify. Scripture isn't. Characters like these make scripture the first place to consult when we ask if something is part of the deposit of faith. Then oral tradition.

@@ReasonandTheology Hi ! Sacred Traditions from AD 33 to AD 400 are part of divine revelation. They are on par with scriptures. Oral teachings is part of the Sacred Traditions and is GOD BREATHED as well. Why ? John 21 :25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. 2 Thessolonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you,whether by word of mouth or by letter 1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. Not all traditions are Sacred and on par with scriptures. Anything after AD 400 the time of the Early Church Fathers is excluded. The Apostolic Fathers were taught the Apostles and their disciples like Timothy and Mark. They knew what Christ taught which were not written down. The letters that epistles were written to address certain issues in various local churches and not meant to be a set of instruction manual. So there are teachings by Jesus not written down and hence form part of the oral teachings. What are the oral teachings then ? The set of beliefs of the early Church fathers staycatholic.com/early-church-fathers/ This is why Catholics aren't Sola and SoLO scriptural ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mTBud-9Vlzo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-elINGUpOcTo.html

@Brian Farley I am distinguishing between oral tradition that was codified aka scripture and oral tradition that remains oral. The latter is not god breathed but is revealed by the apostles and guided and infallible.

@Brian Farley bc scripture itself records instances in which god revealed things to prophets and spoke by them yet we would not contend they were god breathed otherwise we would have them in the canon.

@M R you clearly don't understand my position as you are contesting something I don't maintain.

Hope you enjoy it!

@@GospelSimplicity Lofton is one of the better Roman apologists, insofar as arguments are concerned. I've already told you my problems with him, which are not academic problems but character ones.

That would seem preferable

@@GospelSimplicity Dear friend, thanks for your answer. So then my question is: Why this is not the case? God and anybody who is in the teaching business should be concerned with clarity. If you are teaching and people don't understand it then clearly you are in the wrong business. I have additional question, please. Let's say christian theologians representing diverse denominations are sitting around the table, say 100 scholars, and they argue whose understanding of the Scripture is correct. Who would act as the arbiter in this argument and wouldn't it be more honest, on the part of the arguing theologians, to simply summon God to resolve the dispute? How come none of them, in the heat of the discussion, ever turns to God to clarify the whole issue for them, aren't they concerned about the truth of their teachings? Kind regards.

@@walterseliga9676 I'm no scholar at all, but from my understanding, the magisterium now DOES establish beforehand if the teaching is ordinary or extraordinary. I believe his point about going to the pope for clarification is when having to look back on previous teachings before such clarification was established. The teaching on papal infallibility was only established at the 1st Vatican council in 1869-70. It is still required that papal teaching prior to this clarification be sifted through to determine which ones are deemed to come from the extraordinary magisterium. However, now, when the Pope is speaking from extraordinary magisterium, it is definitely explicit. This, somewhat, raised another question though. When the pope declares that it is extraordinary, I assume that declaration is not extraordinary. Therefore, does that mean a future pope can decide otherwise later?

@@billyg898 Dear Billy. I am no scholar either. I simply reacted to what was being said. My understading was that dr. Lofton, who is supposed to know, was not so sure which is which and hence my question. A few hours ago I watched for a while a 3 days old video of his "Identifying the ordinary and universal magisterium with dr. Welch." To me the whole concept of "teaching about the mind of God" is empty, making no sense whatsoever. I wonder how you would approach my question directed to Gospel Simplicity in my second post above, the one with 100 theologians representing different denominations, sitting around the table and arguing fiercely about who is right. Your last observation about the teachings of the future popes is exacly the same as mine. I can demonstrate that it is another empty concept that makes no sense. I am off to bed, different time zone. I'll see you tomorrow. Kind regards.

From you questions, my friend, first I’d say that hard explanations never come effortlessly. To that point I would try the best I can (I will try to respond in parts), starting with the conceptual core on the very nature of the _magisterium._ For a fact, it means - technically - the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church He constituted and gathered around the Twelve Apostles, as heirs of the twelve tribes of Israel, to all eternity, being Peter their leader (in God’s providential ways) and the only one who assertively can (but not every time he will in fact and necessarily) speak on behalf of the whole apostolic collegiate. Catholics believe the Church received a command (insofar it received a charismatical divine protection by Jesus, the builder and the Head of the Church) to maintain the integrity and integrality of the “depositum fidei”, which means a perpetual assistance from the Holy Spirit to not refrain the Church from truth and unity in its solid collectiveness, gathered around the bishops and the successor of Peter. That teaching authority can be of two different kinds. Moreover, under some specific circunstances it will (or will not) have the charismatic ecclesial protection we call infallibility. The 2 (two) kinds or types of magisterium are: *1)* *ordinary magisterium,* exercised continuously by the bishops and the popes (ex: through encyclicals and other general types of documents and means), by which the Church is assisted and guided but not necessarily and "a priori" prevented from formal error by the charismatic guarantee of infallibility. But even so, the ordinary teaching must be revered by the faithful in terms of will and reason because it still has the generical assistance of the Holy Spirit that comes from the spiritual dimension of the apostolic embodiment that by faith we understand to be the continuation and historical extension of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space. Nevertheless, the fact that they are not immune from error does not mean that they are equivocal, since antiquity and uninterrupted continuity should be recognizable, being them some criteria to differ from a mere theological opinion given by the hierarchy. At last, the ordinary magisterium becomes infallible - and then the faithful needs to give the supernatural assent of faith, not mereley the reverent assent of will and reason - whenever the pope and all the episcopal collegiate dispersed throughout the world (meaning universally, never only regionally) agree to issue a definitive and authoritative sentence on the matters of faith and morals that is applicable to the whole Church. *2)* *extraordinary magisterium,* implemented by solemn and formal judgments and not through the simple disperse collegiality and continuity, under specific situations - ex: heresies, disbelief, ecclesiastical crisis or practical necessities, theological controversies, doctrinal uncertainties and so forth -, meaning the supreme teaching authority exercised by the Pope or the entire episcopal collegiate gathered in an Ecumenical (universal) Council, in full communion with the Pope, to specifically handle the situations and circumstances that made it be. It is infallible when it comes to judgments concerning faith and morals (so-called dogmatic judgments), being its teachings immutable and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These dogmatic judgments - which may not contain new revelations but maybe novel formulas to express what was already inside the deposit of faith, both implicitly or explicitly, insofar as the Church understands to achieve the propitious discernment - are expressed either in a positive proclamation, as in some sort of command of integral assent of faith, or in a (doctrinal) "anathema", meaning the express condemnation as wrong teaching, having maybe the format of decrees, papal bulls, dogmatic constitutions and others.

Thanks!

This actually made me laugh out loud. I love it!😂

Fair critiques!

The apostles appointed bishops through the laying on of hands. Those bishops appointed others by the laying on of hands. Those other bishops appointed others by the laying of hands and so on and so forth. Fast forward to 2021 we still continue to appoint new bishops by the laying on of hands. This is what’s called apostolic succession. You can trace a bishops laying on of hands all the way back to the original apostles.

@@footballtraininganddevelop1522 I get that is why there are so many. But if the arguments the the pope is Peter's successor succe they should also demonstrate that the other apostles have successors who should fulfill similar roles to the pope but not be in charge.

@@williamkeller5541 they do. The other apostles would’ve been considered bishops or overseers of the church. That’s the role of bishops. The difference with Peter and his successors is that Peter was named leader of the apostles (the church). That’s why the pope is called the successor of Peter, because he is the the overall leader/overseer of the church. Hope that makes sense

@@footballtraininganddevelop1522 It kind of makes sense but why aren't there specific offices for the other 11 apostles like there are for Peter?

For the same reason Jesus and the apostles didn't. God has chosen to allow things to develop in time rather than immediately and at once. I prefer the latter but God sees the wisdom in the former, so I yield to his wisdom. Because 12 bishops would have a very hard time shepherding 1.3 billion Catholics. It would be impossible.

No. They are real books.

Wow!!!!

It is a beautiful background (and collection!)

@@ReasonandTheology Can you recommend any books that are helpful in understanding the magisterium?

@@JAWesquire373 I like magisterium by Sullivan and dulles has one by the same name.

Really enjoyed having him on

​@@GospelSimplicityBy the way: It is great that you take the time to reply to our comments. It makes the video's seem very conversational.

@@stephenchelius7461 it’s my pleasure!

This is true

Is there a particular point you're referencing?

The assumption of Mary is not a revelation from the Magisterium. The basis of the assumption is Scripture (using typology in Revelations 12 and other passages), and the Apostolic Tradition (there is early testimony of this doctrine). The pronuntiation of the Magisterium didn't gave new doctrine, but gave an official postulation on how Scripture and Tradition should be interpreted.

Ah, sorry about that. I let youtube set it automatically. It's fixed now!

@@GospelSimplicity Not your fault. Great interview and subject. Sometimes hard to connect thoughts.

@@GospelSimplicity thank you for fixing that. I’m all for earning some income but I’ve ditched many a channel for over doing it with the ads. 👍🏼😃

Please install uBlock Origin extension in your browser and never be bothered by ads ever again.

@@lefooo Or not, and help support content creators like me :)

Great channel

Hey JC, I'm not sure that asking if something is biblical necessarily presupposes a sola scriptura foundation, but I know exactly what you mean because some may look at it that way. I guess it's complicated, too complicated for a RU-vid comment feed lol! God bless you!

@@DesignEcologies not necessarily. I've been reading the church fathers for a while in full context, and while my views have been changed to accepting belief in baptismal regeneration, literal presence of the Lords supper, and worship on Sunday, im not convinced by the papacy. I've seen some so called quotes as a defense being turned upside down by the context. I can admit the idea of apostolic succession as having some legitimacy, however at best the eastern orthodox church seems to be more in harmony with Peter's role, as first among equals. Im currently Lutheran as a result of my findings. The Roman papacy as understood from the dark ages and today seems to be a rather large stretch. The papacy seems to be more of a development over time. I can certainly see Peter having a primacy, and confessional Lutheranism does not necessarily see that as a problem, but Peter's authority in comparison to modern Rome seemed to be quite a bit more limited. I have more to read of course in the church fathers, but i feel in my research catholic apologists are not always 100 percent honest. I will not accept isolated quotes from the Fathers by catholic apologists anymore, without the full context, and more preferably the whole document from which it is quoted from. Im sure i will get bombarded with plenty of reasons why im wrong. But believe me when I say there isn't a single argument that anyone can make that i haven't already heard. Looking at history as a whole, the good, the bad, and ugly, im not convinced.

@@leeenk6932 - You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However I hope you will continue to keep an open mind. IMHO, Lutheranism has the same or worse problem in that there are no verses that directly and explicitly teach Sola Scriptura. There are far more verses that teach the primacy of St. Peter as head of the apostles. From a Catholic perspective it’s not a huge leap to think that the biblical model is one that would be passed on to future generations of Christians. 😇🙏🏽

"Is it Biblical" is a question which presupposes the existence and authority of the Scripture. I have yet to meet a protestant who can tell me which books are in the Bible without citing anything but the Bible. The very idea of Scripture assumes magisterial authority.

Fides quaerens intellectum

So you have all the answers I see

What does that look like practically? Couldn't we all say we're interpreting Scripture through Christ?

The apostle Paul calls it the Christ mystery. What does it look like? An emphasize on trust rather than certainty, a move beyond rules into wisdom, being able to rely on experience instead of doctrinal statements, whether in traditional or scriptural form. It’s not a rejection of tradition or scripture, though it may seem like it. It’s radical inclusion. It’s embodied love. It’s Jesus Christ, and it’s Christ in you.

@@trupela that Jesus was Risen was a certainty worthy of doubt were it not for evidence to the contrary

Consider this image of the universal Christ. We are like aeolian harps. After tuning, the harp is put outside to be played by the wind. This is an image that Owen Barfield used to describe the way in which we participate in God. Our tuning, which we also participate in, is an image of becoming oriented properly in and to reality. Becoming properly tuned is what this life is primarily about. I think this is where our structures and hierarchies and sacraments and liturgies are vital. But we don’t play ‘ourselves’. God plays us. The wind is a fitting image of Gods spirit. One might call that spirit love. We are played, as it were, not as individuals, or as detached humanity, but as an entire symphony, as God’s good creation, heaven and earth. If we have ears to hear, perhaps we may discern a few notes today.

If the Roman church wasn't around the Orthodox Catholic Church would be still who gave us Scripture.

@@LadyMaria Actually the Roman Church exists since St Peter became the first bishop of Roman (Pope). But the Catholic Church is the Church founded and promised by Jesus, not just the roman one.

Israel. New York. Texas and Louisiana.

@Theodorthere is a difference between defense and one-sided psuedo propaganda. This is just my opinion of course. Not looking to start an argument

Yes. Why focus on the issues that are less controversial ? Papacy is the one with the most burden of proof. And yes I find EO utterly inconsistent even beyond Protestantism in some ways.

@@ReasonandTheology It appears that you'd rather have someone believe in Papal Supremacy over and above someone believing in the real prescence in the Eucharist

@@George-ur8ow yes the Orthodox have the Eucharist and in many ways are closer to RC. But the point is it is utterly inconsistent to point me to the first 7 councils and the fathers of the first millenium as an EO and then not affirm what they taught about primacy and worse consider it heresy. The protestant are more consistent here. Lastly, just bc a particular community or person believes in the real presence does not mean they receive it's grace. Orthodox have a valid eucharist but EO arent necessarily receiving its grace due to schism. If an EO is invincibly ignorant and only a material schismatic then maybe they receive the grace (only God knows) but the matter of schism is automatically a general impediment for receiving the graces of the sacraments. So simply saying someone believes in the Eucharist doesn't really mean a whole lot when they are in schism. Hence my position.

@@ReasonandTheology "Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, but are not receiving it's grace due to the schism" in other words, the Eucharist is only effective if one adheres to and is subject to Papal Supremacy, thus the Orthodox are partaking of the Eucharist in vain (unless they do so ignorantly)? If so, it appears you are essentially saying "Why bother with the Liturgy, it is only worth it if you recognize and assent to Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ and his infallibility Ex Cathedra" I missed part of the interview yesterday. Did you address Pope Honorius or the Donation of Constantine?

Sola scriptura is debunked by scripture itself! 2 Thes. 2:15 Paul instructs the church to hold fast to what he taught them, by either word or epistle. Also, there is a verse in 1 Cor. where Paul refutes sola scriptura, but I don't remember chapter/verse. Sorry. Just read the whole epistle :)

@@GrislyAtoms12 exactly that was my point :D i don't have denomination but at least i know i'm not gonna go with protestant one XD Because it not fit well with bible

@@EnderElohim I am going with Roman Catholic!

@@GrislyAtoms12 well pray for me too than ^^ not sure about catholic or orthodox right now and almost feels like same

@@EnderElohim How many services have you been to, either Catholic or Orthodox? To me, they are vastly different in style. I could not relate well to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, with its endless chanting and a Capella singing. However, with Catholic mass I was instantly smitten. Going to mass should be joyful, but the idea of spending the rest of my life sitting through Divine Liturgies which confused me more than anything else, made my choice easy. If you do go to Catholic mass, it is important that you NOT take the Eucharist bread and wine. Instead, cross your arms across your chest and receive a verbal blessing instead. Also, try to get a copy of the book "Didache". The Catholic mass is the original church service taught by the Apostles themselves. Protestantism is a very recent change to Christianity, comparatively speaking.

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the recommendations

Thats absurd. Scriptures is a source of truths of faith. Why should the Catholic Church that compiled and canonized the Bible gets rid of its book to persuade of its authority. Really the absurd thing is to use a liturgy book of an apostolic Church trying to persuade people that this book is a manual of an alien and a thousand year later church

@@Fasolislithuan You've missed the point of the assertion. That being, Rome seeks to establish it's teaching authority from the Scriptures, which puts Rome in the awkward position of appealing to the authority of God's Word to assert its supremacy. This, quite obviously, places Scripture as the sole Rule and Norm for Doctrine and Life. Again, unwittingly admitted by Rome herself in her appeal to the Scripture for its so-thought assertion of supremacy. "By so doing she denies in fact what she maintains in theory."

@@marcuswilliams7448 First, Rome is a City not the Catholic Church. Second, the authority of the Catholic Church is from Jesus not from the Scriptures. Christ established his only Church upon Peter, the Rock. Christ not even mentioned any Word of the necessity of writing his teachings, rather He established an authority to teach his commandments and It was an apostolic Church not a book. Third, the only people that argue his authority is scriptural are protestants, who denied the authority from apostolic sucession. Its understandable because they came a thousand year later than the Catholic Church defined the biblical canon.

In other words, what you are saying is: if the Catholic Church does not believe “sola scriptura”, then she should not be allowed to use Sacred Scriptures to show that her authority comes from Jesus. And that means either you are a Protestant or your are not allowed to use the Bible. There is a really bad argument made there.

That's interesting to hear that perspective

@@GospelSimplicity Thanks Austin! To explain further the Orthodox perspective, I think it really comes down to the nature of Bishops. In our view, and we would assert the early Church canons support this view, is that Bishops are all fundamentally equal. So yes, we have Archbishops and Patriarchs, but these are simply adminstrative offices. They remain a Bishop like all other Bishops. There is no further ordination or grace imparted on those higher adminstrative ranks. To be a Bishop, means to be the leader of all the Priests, Deacons, and laity, of your particular diocese. No Bishop, not even a Patriarch, can meddle in the affairs of another Bishop's diocese. St Ignatius of Antioch says "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.". This means that wherever the faithful are gathered around their Bishops, there is the fullness of the Church. This is why one Bishop cannot correct another Bishop. Additionally, individual Bishops have never been understood to be preserved from error in any context. The human aspect of the Church can always be wrong, the divine aspect of the Church is infallible. We believe that divine aspect is expressed through councils and scripture, not one person by themselves. So we would agree that Peter had a special place amongst the apostles, and we would affirm that the Pope is the first amongst equals, but we would reject Papal infallibility and supremacy as defined in Vatican 1, as it aims to change what is fundamentally means to be a Bishop. Love your videos by the way! God bless.

thanks

In due time. I’ve already done two Lutheran videos and I’d like to represent some other Protestant denominations

@@GospelSimplicity Thank God! No more Catholic videos! Lol.

I felt he explained it well, but I also felt the Catholic Church should be able to do a lot better job not making it so complicated

@@GospelSimplicity That’s a very fair comment. I indeed had to study deeply to come to the conclusion it isn’t really “that” complicated, so you got my point, hehe. But I think it is the best the Church can feed our intellects with. And she indeed gives that best, in my opinion, in all formal definitions and documents we actually have, for better or worse. The real job to catalogue all of this, what in fact we want (so to make things the clearest), must be the work of theologians and professors of theology but not necessarily another official doctrinal “production” of the Church: a catalogue of content or something like that.

Elias, let me try to explain it. The _magisterium_ means - technically - the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church He constituted and gathered around the Twelve Apostles, as heirs of the twelve tribes of Israel, to all eternity, being Peter their leader (in God’s providential ways) and the only one who assertively can (but not every time he will in fact and necessarily) speak on behalf of the whole apostolic collegiate. Catholics believe the Church received a command (insofar it received a charismatical divine protection by Jesus, the builder and the Head of the Church) to maintain the integrity and integrality of the “depositum fidei”, which means a perpetual assistance from the Holy Spirit to not refrain the Church from truth and unity in its solid collectiveness, gathered around the successors of the apostles (bishops) in communion with the successor of Peter (the pope, a bishop that has some specific order of duties and responsabilities concerning the universal church). That teaching authority can be of two different kinds. Moreover, under some specific circunstances it will (or will not) have the charismatic ecclesial protection we call infallibility. The 2 (two) kinds or types of magisterium are: *1)* *ordinary magisterium,* exercised continuously by the bishops and the popes (ex: through encyclicals and other general types of documents and means), by which the Church is assisted and guided but not necessarily and "a priori" prevented from formal error by the charismatic guarantee of infallibility. But even so, the ordinary teaching must be revered by the faithful in terms of will and reason because it still has the generical assistance of the Holy Spirit that comes from the spiritual dimension of the apostolic embodiment that by faith we understand to be the continuation and historical extension of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space. Nevertheless, the fact that they are not immune from error does not mean that they are equivocal, since antiquity and uninterrupted continuity should be recognizable, being them some criteria to differ from a mere theological opinion given by the hierarchy. At last, the ordinary magisterium becomes infallible - and then the faithful needs to give the supernatural assent of faith, not mereley the reverent assent of will and reason - whenever the pope and all the episcopal collegiate dispersed throughout the world (meaning universally, never only regionally) agree to issue a definitive and authoritative sentence on the matters of faith and morals that is applicable to the whole Church. *2)* *extraordinary magisterium,* implemented by solemn and formal judgments and not through the simple disperse collegiality and continuity, under specific situations - ex: heresies, disbelief, ecclesiastical crisis or practical necessities, theological controversies, doctrinal uncertainties, pastoral demands and so forth -, meaning the supreme teaching authority exercised by the Pope or the entire episcopal collegiate gathered in an Ecumenical (universal) Council, in full communion with the Pope, to specifically handle the situations and circumstances that made it be. It is infallible when it comes to judgments concerning faith and morals (so-called dogmatic judgments), being its teachings immutable and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These dogmatic judgments - which may not contain new revelations but maybe novel formulas to express what was already inside the deposit of faith, both implicitly or explicitly, insofar as the Church understands to achieve the propitious discernment - are expressed either in a positive proclamation, as in some sort of command of integral assent of faith, or in a (doctrinal) "anathema", meaning the express condemnation as wrong teaching (heresy), having maybe the format of decrees, papal bulls, dogmatic constitutions and others.

Notice that we CANNOT and should not draw a direct relation between infallibility (the highest level of theological certainty meaning not only the generical ecclesial guidance but the specific charismatic protection from error) and what we know as the “extraordinary magisterium”. They are not ambivalent concepts. This confusion is very common though. Infallibility is a whole other topic but it necessarily has to do - concomitantly - with doctrine of faith and morals and with universality (and we add to that some more specific details that wouldn’t matter much here by now). That means we can have non-infallible or infallible ordinary teachings; and we can have non-infallible or infallible extraordinary teachings. We could exemplify some cases: *(a.1)* As a non-infallible *‘ordinary magisterium’* teaching, we can point the disciplinary mandatory celibacy for presbyters (priests) in the West. The earliest formal definition came in the regional Council of Elvira in 304 AD, being the custom even more ancient (according to some historiographical registers) and it is held to be historically observed uninterruptedly. It is not a doctrinal issue nor it is universal, consequently it does not hold any sort of conceptual infallibility, but it demands the reverent assent of reason and will. *(a.2)* As infallible *‘ordinary magisterium’* teachings - that has the need to be universally held by the bishops and the popes altogether and historically considered -, we can say the immorality of directly taking an innocent human life and all other non-dogmatic moral issues on sexuality (like the condemnation of contraception, abortion or ‘in vitro’ fertilization taken to be intrinsically immoral, for example). Both Pope St. John XXIII’s 1961 encyclical “Mater et Magistra” or Pope’s St. Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” are (in those concerning parts) good examples of sentences that were made definitive, expressing the understandings of the universal collegiate of bishops, thus regognized as infallible (requiring the supernatural assent of faith), inside what is understood to be the ordinary and universal magisterium. *(b.1.[1])* As a non-infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teaching by a Pope, we can say the “Apostolicae Curae” papal bull issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, in which he analyzed the specific situation of the Anglicans and solemned declared, since it was understood and formally defined they are outside of legitimate apostolic succession, all of their ordinations to be null and void. It is for sure an universal recognition of the Catholic Church in its totality by the hand of the Petrine authority, but it does not concern to doctrines of faith and morals, therefore it does not hold to the predicative conditions of infallibility. That should only require the assent of reason and will. *(b.1.[2])* As non-infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by Ecumenical Councils in full communion with the pope, we can say the solemn definition of canonical privileges for churches or the assignment of any honorific titles given to churches after Rome, like in some canons of Nicea (325 AD) or Chalcedon (451 AD), as in regard of specific ecclesiastical necessities of the time. Therefore that only requires the assent of reason and will whenever it is demanded. Apart from that, we should not even classify as non-infallible “teachings” (but simply as ecclesiastical governance decision concerning to territorial organization, no teaching at all) any of those canons of Ecumenical Councils that merely defined metropolitan/ archepiscopal status of jurisdiction for larger and more important cities over the smaller dioceses, since it does not entail any sort of magisterial matter. *(b.2.[1])* As infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by the pope (rare cases), what we generically call “ex cathedra”, we can say the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX or the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. It is not a prerequisite but in both cases the popes have consulted the universal collegiate of bishops on these matters and constituted theological commissions to study and analyze the doctrines. It requires not the typical assent of reason and will but the supernatural assent of faith, being infallible solemn dogmas. *(b.2.[2])* At last, as infallible *‘extraordinary magisterium’* teachings by Ecumenical Councils in full communion with the popes, we can say the dogmatic definition of the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the consubstantiality with the Father (in Nicea, 325 AD), the divine nature of the Holy Spirit (in First Constantinople, 381 AD) or the dogmatic definition of the Christological union of two natures, both perfectly human and perfectly divine, in one person (in First Ephesus, 431 AD, and Chalcedon, 451 AD), every single one of them issued under grave controversies and serious spreading of heresies on those times. Those solemn judgments demand the supernatural assent of faith since we are dealing with infallible matter. I hoped that helped you, my friend!

@@brunot2481 Thanks for the detailed examples, and so great to know how much you know about your church! What I meant was to say was that Lofton didn't quite have an answer to how one really determines what defines a teaching as Magesterial, and which are approved as fallible/infallible. He essentially said it's a gray area debated by many theologians, which is fine, but it helps to make the point that some of us Orthodox make saying that even with a Pope as the ultimate source of authority in the West, you end up with a very similar situation of ending up in gray areas on what is ultimately dogmatic or not if it's not specifically written in the canons of an ecumenical council. This is a situation Catholics criticize the Orthodox for being under but it seems to me like the Catholic church ends up in a similar scenario but with a couple of extra steps. IDK if that made sense or not.

Does Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 actually line up from the Catholic perspective? It should be noted that Orthodoxy has a different reading for Isaiah 22:22: "I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him." Note, there is no mention of keys, and no mention of "what he opens no one can shut, and what he closes no one can open". This Catholic translation relies on the Masoretic text (compiled from 7th to 10th century AD), the Orthodox Study Bible uses the Greek Septuagint (compiled from 3rd to 2nd century, BC). In other words, if Catholics were to apply Isaiah 22:22 from the Septuagint in the OSB to Matthew 16:19 to justify the monarchical supreme papacy, they wouldn’t have much to stand on...and this is just one point amongst many against such an intepretation of Isaiah from the Catholic perspective - an additional major point is that this "scriptural proof" has been argued for only a very short time, only after claims of Infallibility were made.

@@George-ur8ow no,no your over thinking it. It’s the entire chapter. Keep reading. Don’t just hunt and peck what you see fit, it doesn’t work that way. Brant Pitre’s breakdown on the papacy is what you should find on RU-vid. Type ‘pitre papacy’ he and Scott Hahn are our worlds greatest Bible scholars. Stick with the best my friend. Good luck on your journey

@@cotaryan3740 I am the one overthinking it? The irony. The latter portion of Isaiah 22 is a prophecy specifically about Eliakim, a finance minister, and his later fall as well. Your interpretation so out of the bounds of historical interpretation - this reading of the text only emerged in the 20th century. It appears to me that Catholics are entering into Protestant methods - self interpreting the texts so they fit their own narrative, rather than how the texts have been interpreted for the prior 1900 years.

@@George-ur8ow did you watch the video yet George? Ironically you failed

Thanks