Catholic vs. Protestant - 2016-08-14 - Andrew

Author Recorded Sunday August 14th, 2016

There are 31 episodes in the Versus:Protestant series.


Andrew is a scholar and a gentleman. I was referred to him by the pastor of a local Church21 congregation. We talked over lunch and so the sound quality isn't great. My voice was hoarse from arguing with atheists at Skeptics in the Pub the night before.


Catholic vs. Protestant - 2016-08-14 - Andrew

Author Recorded August 14th, 2016

audio


video

transcript
These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
hi I'm Andrew and you're listening to Catholic vs. Protestant want you just start by telling us a little bit about yourself who you are what you believe in why I grew up in Ontario like you in a Protestant family I grew up in the Presbyterian Church there and pretty much have been part of it my whole life but in high school I encountered the fake my Protestant faith i would say in a general way more deeply by reading apologetics works especially by CS lewis and then i branched out from there to other fingers for me i was raised in the fake i went to Sunday school things like that but it became more a bigger part of my life when it became not just something that was part of my culture you would say but but intellectually part of my way of approaching life did you undergo a dramatic conversion as an idol people ask that questions like when did you become a Christian sometimes and it's hard for me to tell if part of me thinks that I was raised one and God got hold of me when I was very young but you could look at it that it was that moment when things became more serious intellectually perhaps that I became your Christian there was nothing more dramatic than that although there have been you know points in life when the faith has been very let's say emotionally significant but that's not where it started for me it's started with the mind and then moved out from there are you in agreement with the doctrines of the denomination that you follow for the most part it's a reformed baptist charismatic denomination mostly in agreement though I'm not technically a Baptist I'd be okay with ujin baptism yeah so I'm mostly in agreement with them enough that I feel happy cooperating with them in their their life it's not a deal breaker that your one personal doctrine doesn't align with not on that issue no I regard that as a more of a secondary matter where I can agree to disagree with them at least for the time you have no children that's not practically relevant to me do you believe that all the Protestant churches are equally valid ah no there's a lot of churches that could be classified as Protestants in a sociological sense where I think some of them wouldn't even be recognizably christian by 1st century standards did you get an example where I come from in Ontario there was one clergy person at a mainline congregation who was on record as being an atheist at that point I'm not sure how what you are classified as occurring this is some basic you know beliefs I think that Christians have to hold you to be fishing one of them being theism and a few hundred things there's definitely a varieties in the process the world were you is the Trinity essential vehicle yes I would say I think it's possible someone could be confused about that doctrine and be a Christian but I would want to attend a church that was clear about that and agree with it do you think that Muslims will be a good Christian no they're not a Christian I would say that's why is it because of the Trinity I think the basic reason is Islam their view of history kind of rewrites what the basic Christian you would be and so you end up having a God who does who's identified by very different set of actions so there's been debate you know throughout history in the Middle Ages and now whether Muslims Christians and Jews in any sense worship the same God in some sense perhaps they do but the story of God is so radically different that I think it's best to say that it's another religion would embracing the Trinity necessarily turn a Muslim into a question I'm not an expert on Islam so I'll be careful when I say but from my perspective they're also like to be a view about what happened in the life of Jesus beyond simply his eternal status as the second person of the Trinity that they would be necessary to accept to be a Christian like that he was incarnate and he had a ministry and he died in rose again for our sins and ascended into heaven so there's some versions of Islam where they deny he died right they say it was an illusion so I think there again you deny something pretty basic to the Christian faith at that point is it important to you that price has two natures came in and divine yes is it important to you that he has two wills even in the van yes so are these deal breakers in terms of labeling someone a Christian for you I think people could be confused about the subjects and be Christians I'm talking about someone who is confronted with those facts of Christianity yeah and rejects them so knowingly rejects those doctrines yeah I would say that if you fully understood the implications of what you were saying and you accepted them you end up denying that Jesus was human or something like that if you deny that he has a human nature and human will and if you're explicitly denying that he has a human nature that he was man then yeah that again cuts at the heart of the Christian story I think pretty pretty directly I wonder what would it take for you to become a Catholic what are the deal breakers why are you not a Catholic the most fundamental one would be eventually before the interview with all ready for the Protestants have the slogan of Sola scriptura the scriptures are the only infallible real of famous is what a slogan basically means and I would need to see why I should trust the Magisterium as having the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it speaks ex cathedra to be infallible and further why I should regard some aspects of church tradition as as infallible or incorrigible simply because it's his church tradition and then the second part would be the other major Protestant issue which is justification I think if you look at the scriptures on their own terms something like Luther's doctrine maybe not exactly what he said but pretty close is in Paul in other places and I think insofar as the church at Trent rejected those doctrines of essentially rejected scripture on the way in which we are safe have you read the joint declaration I did a while ago I don't say I recall at all I'm aren't impressed I was not I think the only way that that became a joint declaration is because both sides were equivocating and as far as I know ratzinger or the Pope I don't know what he was at the time they didn't accept that as authoritative anyway like they weren't bonding themselves to that declaration could be mistaken on that but but in principle the the basic idea is it works is used two different ways by Paul and faith is used two different ways by Paul and when you understand that and you look at the different combinations and permutations of his use of those words right we can come to a common ground yeah i mean i do agree that the Scriptures use those terms in different ways but I don't think Trent's doctrine can be squared with what scripture says not materiality the question I have for you as a Protestant is where do you think the Bible came from if not from the Catholic Church explain that to me yeah so the Old Testament came from the prophets that's how the Hebrew people knew about what Scripture was prior to Jesus the prophets spoke and then wrote it down in books and put it in the temple and here the ER including Moses as a problem yeah Moses perhaps the first not exactly Abraham and others before him but the preeminent beginning of the cannon could be Moses and then the ones after him and then after Jesus he appointed apostles and they basically performed the same function as as the Prophet so people recognize their authority immediately and if as spokespersons and ambassadors forgot like the prophets were how would you describe the process of putting a stamp of authority on the official canon of the Scriptures sure how many years did it take and how many councils the depends what you mean like if by the term canonization you mean the process by which say the whole Roman Empire's worth of churches all came to the same opinion on the contents of the Canon then that took centuries if you mean the process by which these books became divinely authoritative that happened as soon as the Apostles put their pens down of course Lee know what I'm after is the process by which the church sat down and said this is part of the canon this is not there are many many writings that were rejected that was the Holy Spirit guiding us into all truth that's part of that process you'd agree you're using the language of John the Holy Spirit guiding us in the truth but I think in context that promises to the Apostles not to the whole church not to the successors of the Apostles no not in the sense of the following bishops we're no longer guided into all truth we are in a secondary sense than not in the same way that they were in a text so is the Bible Canon truly the set of divinely inspired whoops I think it is yeah and so is it primary or secondary guidance of the holy spirit that brought that about or is it just sheer luck no it's not luck there reasons and I think the most fundamental reason that Christians acknowledge those books as authoritative was because of their apostolic origin or in the Old Testament case the prophetic origin of the herbs they were looking for marks and when they found them they acknowledge the authority of those books now the disputed books in some cases they would dispute that they were authored by apostolic authors revelation for example was one that was disputed for a while but the people who didn't think it was canonical also didn't think it was by the Apostle John the ones who did think it was they included an indicator today most Christians accept revelation I know that some of the Eastern Orthodox communions have varying lists but as far as I know Catholics and Protestants both agree that that's in the canon so how would you describe Luther's reduction of the set of books so the great thing about being a Protestant is you're not tied to agreeing with particular theologians so I think he was mistaken in his kind of rash comments about James for example but he also did translate James and included in his version of the Bible so he was given to not cool-headed moments what do you think of his personal Christianity's morality and his he he's a flawed human being I think he did get the heart of the gospel but his personal character left something to be desired like how do you feel about his decision to marry even though I took a vow to about almighty to yeah that's it that's a tough question I think I mean part of the argument the the Protestants would make is that such a vow is invalid because it's promising something that can't be promised by even being perpetual celibacy so I tend to find that persuasive but sometimes I think I'm not sure have you looked at the lives of the Catholic saints not all many of them like I've read Augusta like that there is heroic virtue and there is chastity it really it's a real thing yeah oh I know people have the gift like Paul talks about it but the question of whether someone can decide beforehand whether they have it to make a promise do you think that someone can decide to become a priest you mean in the Catholic fence or yeah like Luther did was that a job for him oh I see what you mean was there a calling or is it just a job my view is essentially the offices of the church are there for the benefit of the church and they're ultimately there's something God wants to be there but particular clerics are authorized by their own congregations ultimately that's where they get their office from not necessarily some other bishop who preceded them so I think if a bunch of people became Christians in like a prison camp and they decided to appoint someone over them that person is validly their elder as is anyone what do you think of the priesthood in general in a days since Luther's there's no priesthood in the Protestant of domination some of the mainline churches will call their pastors priests did they consider it a sacrament of Holy Orders like the church does no crossies don't consider ordination so they don't have sacramental priesthood how do you feel about that is it something that you hunger for no you don't feel you don't feel like you're missing out by not having sacramental priesthood sacramental confession no I don't the Protestant is marriage is the Protestants marriage sacramental no it's not they would consider it an order of creation not a particularly ecclesial institution is it safe to say that you promised so generally speaking would have one two or maybe three sacraments the traditional number is to baptism in the Lord's Supper and that's it because they're dominical for the only to the Lord explicitly gave that's why the number lets you let's talk a little bit about the Real Presence John 6 yeah yeah yeah I don't think he's talking about the Eucharist there he's talking about himself so I guess we're talking abstract Lee about the passage that would be my general opinion we could look at at verse by verse but with just the idea you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood yeah I think we do that by faith when we trust in him we're doing that essentially when you say that you have the two sacraments and one of them is the Lord's Supper you don't see a disconnect between your symbolic Lord's Supper and the Catholic Church is real fulfillment of Johnson there's a disconnect between the process and the Catholic practice for sure you don't see your take on the Lord's Supper as somehow compromised or watered down no I don't how then do you see the Catholic version juiced up and on steroids yeah I think the danger of the Catholic view is that you end up substituting for God a piece of bread and a glass of wine that's been the traditional Protestant criticism of the Catholic practice if it were true would you become happen if what were true if the real presence is true we need to come up halfway no it would still be the question of the authority I mean it would be one less reason not to be again you you would not hunger for Jesus Christ if you believe that it was Jesus by his body blood soul and divinity in what looks like bread and wine yeah you would not want to go to that I would still think i could get Jesus by faith so I wouldn't join the Catholic Church which has other issues simply to get something I also get by faith yeah if time travel was possible and you were transported back to Jesus day and you were told that he was in the next room you think he'd make the effort to go and see him sure yeah because his physical presence is something special well because like I talked to him firstly yeah yeah it's a different sort of presence than you have now in your Protestant yeah if it were true then yeah it would be different than what I have now so you would get something out of that contact that physical contact with the Eucharist if it's true I don't know because all of the things that make it look like Jesus are gone so it's it's a unexperienced resins essentially what is the role of faith in your Christianity it's the foundation of it I think do you see everything that you believe no of course not so what I just want to get to the heart of faith because when I go to the Eucharist it's an exercise of faith it's not an emotional experience it's not a conversation with Jesus although you're free to its it is a communion so there is an exchange or persons there but the notion of faith is central and there are Eucharistic miracle we're like lanciano in italy where it is actually blood have you looked at the eko sweet miracles in it no I know there were bleeding hosts in the Middle Ages and things like that are you interested to go into a de lis and see not really no are you skeptical yeah I would be skeptical what if non Christian Scientists had no explanation for the fact that this actually is flesh and blood they'd still be other possible explanations besides Catholicism being true what if the host that is bleeding and is on display has been there for years years and years and years yeah I'm either a scientific experiment yeah I'm not saying it has to be a scientific experiment it could be after yeah so do you view the Catholic Church is the of Babylon like so many do I think the Catholic Church is mixed even the reformers who had very strong words so the the Catholic Church would admit this there are Christians within it there are real believers that's fundamental do you think I'm crystal I'm not sure I mean your character is jovial and kind and you express your face but then I don't know much about the rest of your life so what could you look to it would be hard for me to judge by the fruits yeah yeah so I'd want to give you the benefit of the doubt it seems like there's some fruit there but I think you're mistaken on something's obviously I watched a video you read Agustin it had a very powerful impact on you and he was catholic so you took on his religion i arbitrarily chose Christianity and for me Christianity is the policy okay there's no doubt about that if there's no doubt about that I know the history of the church and I know the Reformation and I'm not impressed by that I need I need authority I need infallibility I don't want a man-made religion perhaps you could talk about infallibility from your perspective yeah you have the infallible Bible right I say the church gave us I don't quite understand if you agreed with me on that or not that the church gave us the level depends what you mean by that yeah I think the church in the sense of the believers through the ages who lived around the time you know the Roman Empire after Jesus were the first ones to have these books and they as human beings recognized they are apostolic and agreed with them and we they passed them on physically to us you know by copying them and commending them to us and we've accepted it so in a sense in the same way that we get Caesar's Gallic Wars from from people writing and passing it on we get it from the previous church and in a way more than that they've commended it to us as you beings and so is there an infallible authority that tells you that the Bible is infallible you mean an institution no I mean an authority whether it's God Almighty or whether it's the church in my case it's the church just the authors of Scripture themselves and got behind them are the authorities for me when you ask yourself how do I know that the Bible is infallible source of Christian truth you ask the authors of Scripture yeah basically what you're saying is that sola scriptura is in the Bible it is in a way yes solar Scripture is yeah in Scripture can you please elaborate so I think the authorization of Scripture is taught by Scripture in the way that I explained it so that the prophets and the apostles were inspired and that gave us these books so the authority of Scripture is taught by Scripture it's self-evident which books belong to account we don't need it we don't need an infallible church to put the stamp of approval long the cannons you know it's self-evident it takes historical work like in the earliest days there be the Apostle Paul there and he would hand you the letter that's how you knew was from him now it's like we have to at least consider the possibility that something has gone wrong historically but I think there's sufficient evidence on a historical level to know that these were apostolic quotes i believe clement of rome had writings that were considered i'm just wondering who made the decision to exclude that writing or another writing that was considered and how how you trust the infallibility of that decision or was it an infallible decision I don't yeah I think one run Protestant teacher in recent days has said that we have a fallible list of infallible books that's accurate okay that's your position yeah we have a fallible list of infallible books yeah now I'd have to say that's more specifically accurate with regards to the New Testament because Jesus himself commended the old testament to us we authorized it in services yeah so that's been a sample of avoidance yeah now that brings up an interesting point I as a Catholic and taught by the church that God is a primary author of Scripture that the writers are human and they were inspired and that there is no error in the Bible is inerrant he's at a broadly Protestant position as well traditionally so yes there are Protestants who don't yes oh yes as individuals or as churches as the notion okay you believe in the inerrancy the level yes I do have a question for you you know there's two contemporary Catholic views on the relationship between traditional Scripture this is a the pardon pardon view and in the all right so newman thought that's not all doctrine just found explicitly in the original texts but that sometimes there's just a kernel of it and develops over time the other view older was like there's no development they were both present from the beginning some of it was written some of it wasn't so which one do you think you would fall into the church allows debate on there okay yeah the church allows debate the church is working on it so so from a biased point of view historically i would say that cardinal newman view developed because it became obvious that catholics couldn't historically defend the presence of some of their doctrines in the earliest level of the church so like the bodily assumption of mary need at Immaculate Conception they're not if you read like the second century text you know climate and ignatius those aren't there they come in the fourth century things like that as a response to this i would say from a bias point of view Newman said well okay there there there hinted at but they aren't explicitly there what this amounts to is him saying like there's something analogous to it in the earliest Church but the problem with that perspective is like anything is to some degree analogous to anything so it's an uncontrolled kind of rise to history I'm with you on favoring yeah the other view okay uh that's not to say that the Lord doesn't work in asturias ways and that we were just generally feeble-minded okay and when God shows us in heaven when he opens up the scriptures to us wow you just say oh that's how it works so that was the role Mary oh that was you know it's hubris to say anything else you know really it d are you satisfied with your intellectual comprehension of religious roots I'm not no no of course I have room to grow yeah it's more but I content being added later if any one of the dogmas of the Catholic Church is not an eternal truth from about almighty then I will become a Jew and no longer a Christian I will abandon Chrysler so here here I'd want to put a division between you know the Bible in the church obviously and that's what we're my questions going is basically like is it conceivable to you that Paul might have taught something in Romans that's contradicted by later tradition about justification know why is it a conceivable the Bible is inerrant she Paul's a saint mm-hmm I trust Paul mm-hmm I trust the Bible mm-hmm I trust the Catholic Church if there's an inconsistency or a contradiction there then i will leave Christianity what's your basis for thinking that the Magisterium has the same level of authority as Paul price on present-day Magisterium or earlier ageism in the church yeah it's a continuous Magisterium that's the living Church I don't know if you're aware that Saint Augustine said we don't need the Bible and he also said I would not believe in the Bible without the authority of the temperature yeah that I've read that passage if there's something to that the living breathing Magisterium has always been with us and Jesus said I will not leave you orphans and I will lead you into all truth but like if I'm right you have independent reason to accept Scripture regardless of what later bishops or the council say that's not what I Augustine said Augustine said he wouldn't accept Scripture I know but by the authority of the church but I guessing could be wrong too he was wrong about things the reason that i'm quoting augustine on that one point and not on places where he air is because the church gives the stamp of approval on that point the church does say that the church gave us the Bible the Bible is inerrant and the Bible is part of the sacred deposit of faith along with sacred tradition the basis of my Christianity is God the Father that's the top down approach to religion but the bottom up approach is the Saints I have trust and love for an admiration for all of the great Catholic saints sure and I trust them and they open up scripture I'm not a saint I'm not I don't have that level of wisdom and knowledge to go to the Bible directly i need the church I need the Saints if you put me in charge of a new Protestant denomination and I just interpreted the Bible my bed would be full of women and have poisoned kool-aid at the end of it you know the helicopters surrounding my camp I think that be priests of your miss reading in Scripture yeah it does happen but I know myself I don't lean on my own understanding do you know yeah don't you have to lean on the Saints too don't you um in a secondary way like I put myself in community on purpose with other Christians so that I'm open to correction but are you impressed with the sanctity and the holiness and the wisdom of the Christians in a few around me I'm not I think it's a mixture and it'll always be that way until the end sometimes I'm very unimpressed by Christians and how they behaving sometimes I'm very impressed by how they behave and I see that the same thing in my own life sometimes I not impressed with my own behavior have you been impressed with a Christian that you've met in real life such that you put them on par with the st. Augustine or a saint thomas aquinas store well i mean part of what's why we remember agustín and acquaintances because of their intellects i'm not sure i met someone alive today maybe one person i know who i would say is as bright as those two but obviously they're extremely exceptional people okay what about a saint joseph just a quiet humble man oh yeah i know lots of people like him I mean obviously historically not a significant but in terms of having humility sure yeah I know humble christian people that's powerful yeah do they open up the scripture to you yeah I've had you know Bible studies and Sunday School classes with those who are all in do some some things that can be seen more clearly when you've had experience with walking with God you can you can have a notional knowledge of things from reading Scripture but it becomes more concrete when you've lived through it so that's something I can gain from people we've got department I want to ask something a little bit different tangential sure there are many many many many really popular Catholics today in the media and in the New Evangelization that came from Protestantism spot on Peter grief he decree yeah there's a whole host of them and they're exciting their their biblical the fresh and there they don't take some policies and for granted the way most yeah they're converted to it yeah yeah what do you see when you look at these examples I think a lot of these guys are really bright I especially have appreciated crieff than Beckwith also for their philosophical work I just think they're mistaken about soteriology and their biblical view of Scripture and things like that okay soteriology is like justification and things like that doctrine of salvation okay yeah I thought you're talking about one of the end times called eschatology eschatology is there anything interesting to talk about insurance eschatology eschatology I mean that's one of those things where I think they're definitely distinct news I'm not sure with the Catholic Church again coming of course it's coming yeah has to be yeah once you're coming too much Apostles Creed what's your oh do you abide by the Apostles Creed depending on the the one cause about descending into hell how that's interpreted but yes I say it in church on occasions what's your interpretation of descending event um I'm not exactly sure what it meant but you're unhappy with some interpretation so what are the ones you're comfortable with well no actually I mean one of the uses that it means he went into the grape and I fine with that one I'm also okay with idea that he preached to the the spirits you know it's my interpretation of that passage and they get second Peter so in that sense I'm okay with that too there's a famous icon where Jesus is pulling out a mini the harrowing of hell yeah the idea yeah i think i read a while back a lot of literature on an early church eschatology and they think if it's understood that the saints before Jesus had a distinct experience in the afterlife from the nonsense invite Saints I mean Christians not in the technical sense of the Catholic Church then I could allow there's something like that like you went to the underworld and brought them up but they weren't indiscriminately experiencing the same thing it's like the store the parable about Lazarus and the hand eyes something like that sure yeah i think that the Church teaches that we are in the end times the church age is the end times yeah I think that I'm comfortable with that I think that's the Catholic position but I'm not exactly sure one the only thing I know is that we don't know the hour and a day I agree yeah that that's one thing that's for sure are there any other questions uniform did you get the answer to your question about why I I probably the trick i say the way you answered it is like psychologically in your own experience why you continue to trust them from my point of view it's like the Catholic view is like it goes God Jesus apostles successors to the Apostles but the connection between apostles and their successors I don't think is there in the sense of the Catholic Church thinks it is evening it's fiction the way Clement of Rome was I think players there's a succession of bishops but they don't hold the opposite of a possible nor do they have the authority via possible they have a type of authority but it's a limited infallible one fallible and fellow gotta see her there yeah so yeah I mean it's a question of history for my point of view like what did the apostles do did they pass on their own level of authority or did that in with them do you remember in the Bible yeah when they replace Judas yes yeah doesn't that tell you something yeah they preserve the number of the twelve but we don't have a 12 a group of 12 anymore so I think that office is ceased in that sense okay see it was just to complete the 12 and then when they died yeah cuz I mean we don't have a set of 12 anymore nor do we have a single apostle to the Gentiles person like all you want to see a one-to-one correlation with well I mean if I if I'm to believe that their level of authority is passed on I want to see evidence of that and I don't see it I think the early church recognized the Apostles are unique and that's how they recognize the Canon of Scripture and the fact that every Bishop wasn't adding their sermons to the canon of scripture shows us that they're not on the same level as the apostles were for one piece of evidence the early church included books in the in Scripture because they're apostolic but we don't see them including just like the sermons of any random bishop in the canon just because they're vicious like so the church is the mystical body of Christ and it is the pillar and ground of truth all right that's on the Nexus yes yes but the reason that I'm confident that the Catholic Church is divine and divinely protected me divinely guided is because of the unwavering dogmatic tradition if you look at the Reformers if you look at the introduction of compromise if you look at henry the eighth with divorce and then what follows from that look at where we are today in anglican church would Henry the Eighth the predictive at would Luther predicted well I can tell you actually that Luther was very disgusted revolted by people embracing Christians of his Bey embracing his teaching which was to interpret for themselves he was disgusted with the interpretations of those machines around well he definitely had a problem with the end of a fests and groups like that ugly and the m-man zwingli and and the calvess like I said Luther was particularly strong headed if anyone deviated from his view at all he kind of regarded them as an enemy so if we look at a Lutheran today with a Lutheran believes today and what Luther himself not yeah I would go so far as to say that you cannot find anyone today who believes what Luther believe on his deathbed you will not find one do you mean on every single issue yes maybe I mean that doesn't matter like you may say well you know Henry the Eighth wanted an heir so you want to divorce therefore it wasn't a big deal but look at where the enkarans are today hey sure I don't actually accept that is correct I think there has been changed in views over the years within the Catholic Church yeah I mean you can compare Church bodies are different opinions on things but I'm talking about dogma so you're restricting it to a certain class of issues of course I mean the Pope do you think that I trust the Pope and I believe everything that comes out of his mouth probably no no I don't because you seem to be more traditional type exactly no it's not because he's left I don't trust any hope as a man I trust the office of Cobras it be infallible alpha so if we're defining you know the field of things that have continued in terms of dr. like we're not saying every issue has to be continuous but on certain core issues there's a there's a line there's a hierarchy of truth even within even within dogmatic proclamations there's a there's a hierarchy so I would say the Protestant view of apostolic succession is that the succession is in doctrine to a large degree if you look through history you can find people who agree with the basic gospel throughout history sometimes it's fewer than other times but there is a kind of succession but it's not an institutional hierarchical passed on by the laying on of hands from Bishop to Bishop do you think that divorce is Christian I think it can be in some circumstances okay not likely but there can be reasons for it ever valid okay I'm just wondering what what change in doctrine would you consider major the things that are clear and repeated and regarded as in most important a scripture are like the basic gospel something like the Apostle to read the idea of the Trinity what did Jesus say both of us in Matthew he adds this exception clause about cornea which Protestants have regarded as adultery so that that would allow for a valley divorce I think that's that is the traditional Protestant view I think it's probably most likely to be correct and then Paul as a so-called Paul I'm privileged in first Corinthians 7 i think is another valid grounds for divorce which is abandonment essentially so I think when someone strikes at the very heart of the marriage relationship like in those two ways it could be permissible not mandated you don't you don't see a strength in the Catholic Church's dogmatic no I don't it doesn't give me a reason to trust the institution per se partly because I don't have a problem saying some of those people were Christian like I think Thomas for example so deep do you think that it's possible in principle that the Catholic Church could define a dogma that contradicts another dog yes because i think the catholic church is a human institution that can make mistakes so sure so can you explain to me why that hasn't happened yet understand years particularly with the with the bad popes your Catholics have different views and once themselves over what things have been real you know remain infallible so he's Vatican to for example supposed to be there was no dogmatic teaching ok so then Vice by some standards of her there's been like two pronouncements in all of history that are papal X cathedrals there's more to follow ability than ex cathedra statements sure there are dogmas that were not x 54 definitions so then I'd have to know like the criterion by which these were decided upon why these would fit into the category is infallible that isn't because these Cathedral the criteria are the same criteria that you gave for what you want you adhere to it's the unbroken tradition since that's what yeah that's not why I believe in those doctrines I believe in them because it's apostolic yeah not because it's been passed on per se it's that initial drift that's unchanging whether it gets passed on or not right yeah but you'll be forgotten or you don't see you don't see the consistency in the Catholic tradition of carrying on the teachings of the Apostles I mean it isn't in the sense of like well when one church when one Pope chief is a heresy he's excommunicated and so is sort of wiped out of the chain so by that definition you're eliminating all the people who disagree it doesn't seem remarkable to need it when you have a mechanism for removing people who don't disagree that everyone agrees it's the true Scott are gonna no true Scotsman fallacy I I something like that I guess I could come up with human reasons while old institution would continue to teach at the same doctrine it doesn't mean i'll believe in it for that reason alone I believe in the Apostle for more than that reason okay because they they were appointed by Christ who died and rose again things things like that I think if people search the Scriptures they'll find the truth if they do it with sincerity and humility and they're willing to experience pain to find the truth the pain of loss of their own previous opinions or whatever that might mean I trust the spirit works through that so I would say the same to you or anyone else search the Scriptures yourself see we do find if you like it will do if you think it's will you got some questions lesbian hotel all you gotta do is all you got to hotel all you gotta do is all you got to do is

transcript2
These ReWatch transcripts are also generated automatically and are therefore sometimes improperly unformatted and replete with errors.