0:01 Recently, Redeem Zoomer made a video
0:04 about 14 alleged contradictions in the
0:05 historical teachings of the Catholic
0:07 Church. So, in today's episode, we're
0:09 going to go through them and view them
0:11 in light of what I consider to be Redeem
0:13 Zoomer's two main arguments against
0:15 Catholicism. But before I do that, I
0:17 want to say two things. First, I want to
0:20 give a big thanks to Redeem Zoomer or RZ
0:22 from here on out, who reviewed this
0:23 script to make sure that I understood
0:26 his arguments before offering my reply.
0:28 And second, I want to address a gut
0:31 feeling some Protestants have when they
0:33 see rebuttals like this one put out
0:34 online. I feel like some of them have
0:37 this train of thought. Wow, it took 10
0:39 Catholic apologists to respond to some
0:41 guy who likes Minecraft. They're in
0:44 total panic damage control mode. If
0:45 that's what Catholics have to do, then
0:47 this really shows how flimsy their
0:49 position is. The fact that many Catholic
0:51 apologists might respond to a Redeem
0:53 Zoomer video or a Gavin Ortland video
0:55 does not mean those videos are a silver
0:58 bullet against Catholicism. A dozen
1:00 Christian apologists might respond to an
1:02 Alex Okconor video. But Protestants
1:03 agree it's annoying when atheists say
1:05 that the mere number of Christian
1:07 apologists responding to an atheist
1:09 means that Christian apologists are in
1:11 some kind of panicked damage control
1:13 mode. I've created videos that multiple
1:15 Protestant apologists have responded to,
1:17 but I would never want Catholics to
1:20 triumphily say this fact alone proves
1:22 I've refuted Protestantism. These kinds
1:24 of videos only show that someone created
1:26 content that has gotten a lot of views.
1:28 And so, it will be prudent to respond to
1:30 the errors or alleged errors in that
1:33 content. That's all. On the other hand,
1:35 I've noticed some Catholics say that RZ
1:37 is acting in bad faith because he
1:39 recently said that Catholic arguments
1:41 are bad or super weak or that Catholic
1:45 apologists engage in sophisticated cope.
1:47 But many Catholics think the same way
1:49 about Protestantism without thinking
1:52 that they are acting in bad faith. So
1:55 why can't RZ do the same thing? RZ is
1:57 wrong about stuff, but if you're a
1:59 Catholic, just point out where he's
2:01 wrong and no need to get emotional about
2:04 it. When someone criticizes our faith,
2:07 we should offer a competent defense, not
2:10 an emotionally defensive reaction. The
2:12 latter isn't helpful reassurance to
2:13 Catholics, and it's not impressive to
2:15 non-atholics who are still on the fence
2:18 about whether Catholicism is the church
2:20 Jesus Christ established. All right, now
2:21 let's get into the heart of RZ's
2:24 argument. Essentially, he makes two
2:26 different arguments in his video. One
2:28 argument is that the Catholic Church has
2:31 made contradictory, infallibly defined
2:33 statements of doctrine. If this ever
2:36 happened, it would falsify Catholicism's
2:38 claim to having infallible teaching
2:40 authority and make the church's claim to
2:42 having a divine origin extremely
2:44 suspect. This is similar to atheistic
2:47 and Muslim arguments against scripture
2:48 which say that the Bible contains
2:51 contradictions and so the text is not
2:53 inherent or it's not divinely protected
2:55 from error. Therefore, we should be
2:57 skeptical of the Bible's divine origin.
2:59 So, you could call this the logical
3:01 argument against Catholicism. The
3:03 Catholic Church has infallibly decreed
3:05 doctrine X at one time and infallibly
3:08 decreed doctrine not X at another time.
3:10 Therefore, the Catholic Church is not
3:11 infallible because it contradicted
3:13 itself. However, in order to make the
3:15 logical argument against Catholicism,
3:17 you'd have to show that the two
3:20 statements were indeed both infallibly
3:22 defined to be true because a
3:25 non-infallible teaching could be in
3:27 error. And that fact alone would not
3:30 falsify Catholicism. The second argument
3:31 is that the Catholic Church has made
3:34 contradictory noninfallibly defined
3:36 statements of doctrine or practice. It's
3:39 ordinary teaching. In other words, the
3:40 church has changed these ordinary
3:43 teachings or practices over time. If
3:46 these changes do not involve infallibly
3:49 defined doctrine, then any single
3:51 instance of such a change would not
3:53 falsify Catholicism because there's no
3:55 divine promise that these changes or
3:56 teachings would be without error.
3:59 However, frequent examples of such
4:01 changes might make us skeptical of
4:03 Catholicism's trustworthiness or its
4:06 ability to preserve doctrine. This
4:08 collection of evidence would provide a
4:10 more probabilistic argument against
4:12 Catholicism than a strictly logical
4:15 argument. So call this second argument
4:17 of RZ's the evidential argument against
4:20 Catholicism. These two arguments
4:23 parallel when atheists make logical and
4:25 evidential arguments from evil against
4:27 the existence of God. The logical
4:29 argument from evil says that only one
4:32 instance of evil is necessary to falsify
4:34 theism because God and evil cannot
4:37 logically coexist. Likewise, the logical
4:40 argument against Catholicism says that
4:42 only one instance of infallible
4:44 contradictory teachings is needed to
4:47 falsify Catholicism because
4:49 contradictory infallible teachings and
4:52 the Catholic Church cannot coexist. In
4:53 contrast, the evidential argument from
4:56 evil says that while God and some evil
4:59 can coexist, the sheer amount of evil in
5:00 the world should make us skeptical God
5:04 exists. Likewise, RZ's evidential
5:06 argument against Catholicism says that
5:09 while changing non-infallible doctrines
5:12 can coexist with Catholicism, the sheer
5:14 number of these changes should make us
5:15 skeptical of the Catholic Church's
5:17 divine authority. And as I'll show
5:20 later, however, this evidential argument
5:22 opens the door for critiquing
5:24 Protestantism on this issue because
5:26 Protestants have also changed their
5:28 teachings. For example, in our previous
5:29 discussion, I pointed out that the
5:31 Westminster confession that
5:34 Presbyterians rely on has changed its
5:35 teaching on the Pope being the
5:38 antichrist, which is why Redeem Zoomer
5:40 only considers the later version of the
5:43 Westminster Confession to be inherent.
5:45 which means that earlier Westminster
5:47 confessions contained errors. So you're
5:50 saying that the revision that happened
5:53 in 1789 in the American church, that's
5:54 the one you consider to be inarent
5:57 because it improved upon the earlier one.
5:57 one.
5:58 >> Yes, I think the church has the
6:00 authority to revise its statements
6:01 because the church is fallible. So even
6:04 if RZ were correct about Catholicism
6:06 changing its non- infallibly defined
6:09 teachings, that would not justify
6:11 abandoning Catholicism because
6:13 Protestants do the same thing. But as
6:15 I'll show, they do it to a much larger
6:18 and much more severe degree that truly
6:20 compromises important doctrines. But as
6:22 I said, I'll save that for later. What I
6:24 want to do right now is go through these
6:27 alleged contradictions from RZ's video
6:30 and show that they do not involve two
6:32 infallible teachings and contradiction
6:34 and so they do not support the logical
6:37 argument against Catholicism. I'll also
6:39 show that we can understand these to be
6:41 authentic developments of doctrine and
6:42 so they don't support the evidential
6:44 argument against Catholicism. And when
6:46 it comes to the logical argument, keep
6:48 in mind that not everything a pope or an
6:51 ecumenical council says is an infallibly
6:53 defined teaching, but only what they say
6:55 under certain specific conditions, like
6:57 the pope speaking ex cathedral or an
6:59 ecumenical council solemnly defining
7:02 doctrine. And in the case of the second
7:04 Vatican council, theologians agree it
7:06 did not make any infallible
7:08 declarations. So it cannot be used in
7:10 any logical argument from contradiction
7:13 against Catholicism. RZ said in his
7:15 video that Cardinal Dolan and Francis
7:17 Sullivan say Vatican 2 is infallible,
7:19 but I haven't found any record of these
7:21 men saying this. In addition, I'm going
7:23 to present evidence, as I said before,
7:25 that these cases of alleged doctrinal
7:27 change can be explained as being
7:29 authentic development of doctrine, and
7:31 so they do not support RZ's evidential
7:34 argument against Catholicism. But I am
7:35 going to offer this disclaimer before
7:37 going forward. Many of these issues
7:39 would require an entire video of their
7:41 own to address. So, I won't be able to
7:44 comprehensively or exhaustively address
7:46 each of these topics. But if you'd like
7:47 to help us create more videos to be able
7:50 to do that, hit the subscribe button and
7:52 support us at trenhornpodcast.com.
7:54 My goal instead is to point you in the
7:56 right direction when it comes to
7:58 resolving these difficulties. So, let's
8:00 take a look at them. Number one, no
8:02 salvation outside the church. I'm also
8:04 going to subsume point number four on
8:06 the saving nature of Protestant baptism
8:07 into this point because they have a fair
8:09 amount of overlap. When it comes to no
8:12 salvation outside the church, RZ's first
8:14 source, Unum Sanctum, probably contains
8:16 an infallible declaration that those who
8:18 do not submit to the Roman pontiff
8:20 cannot be saved. The papable bull cane
8:23 domino given at the council of Florence
8:25 may also be an exercise in infallibility
8:27 when it says that pagans, Jews,
8:29 heretics, and schismatics cannot become
8:31 participants in eternal life. However,
8:33 the modern documents RZ cites are not
8:35 infallible in nature. Those documents
8:36 include the Second Vatican Council,
8:38 which as I said did not teach anything
8:41 infallibly, and the Roman martyology,
8:43 which records 21 non-atholic Coptic
8:45 martyrs who were beheaded by Muslim
8:48 terrorists in 2015. Papal canonizations
8:50 are generally considered acts of
8:52 infallibility. But Pope Francis did not
8:55 formally canonize the Coptic martyrs.
8:57 The Roman martyology contains martyed
8:59 saints, but it also lists martyed
9:01 blesseds and martyed individuals. It is
9:04 not an infallible declaration that
9:05 someone is in heaven like a papal
9:08 canonization. And so it cannot be used
9:10 in a strictly logical argument against
9:12 Catholicism. The Council of Florence
9:14 says that martyrdom does not undo the
9:17 sin of schism if one chooses to remain
9:19 outside the church. However, if someone
9:21 is only incidentally a non-atholic and
9:23 dies a martyr because they did not
9:26 resist the Catholic Church in bad faith,
9:28 it's possible they may be saved. Pope
9:30 Francis included the Coptic martyrs in
9:32 the Roman martyology as a show of unity
9:34 with the Coptic Church, which is why he
9:36 did this with the consent of the head of
9:39 the Coptic Church and not as an official
9:40 teaching about the salvation of
9:42 non-atholics. But through acts like
9:43 these and statements in the second
9:46 Vatican Council, did the Catholic Church
9:48 change its teaching or fail to uphold
9:51 older infallible teachings on salvation?
9:53 No. Because what has developed since
9:55 then is recognizing there is a
9:57 difference between defining the
9:59 objective means of salvation and
10:01 acknowledging that God can save a person
10:03 through extraordinary means as long as
10:06 that person does not sinfully reject the
10:08 objective means of salvation, such as if
10:10 they acted out of a kind of ignorance.
10:12 This has been noted throughout church
10:15 history. And in 1863, Pope Pius the 9th
10:17 said the following. Because God knows,
10:18 searches, and clearly understands the
10:20 minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of
10:23 all, his supreme kindness and clemency
10:25 do not permit anyone at all who is not
10:27 guilty of deliberate sin to suffer
10:29 eternal punishments. Also well known is
10:32 the Catholic teaching that no one can be
10:34 saved outside the Catholic Church.
10:36 Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by
10:39 those who oppose the authority and
10:41 statements of the same church and are
10:43 stubbornly separated from the unity of
10:45 the church. End quote. This is a huge
10:47 topic. I've already addressed my
10:48 previous reply to Redeem Zoomer, which
10:50 I'll link below. I'd also recommend this
10:52 video from Christian Wagner on the
10:54 subject and this article from Eric Ibara
10:56 on Canante Dominu, both of which I'll
10:58 link in the description. RZ also takes
10:59 issue with the idea that the only people
11:02 condemned for non-belief are those who
11:04 know Catholicism is true and still
11:06 reject it. He says this stretches
11:08 invincible ignorance because as he says
11:10 >> who in their right mind would know
11:12 something is true and necessary for
11:13 salvation and still reject it.
11:15 >> Well, we can ask the same question of
11:17 those who know certain actions are
11:20 necessary for salvation and still commit
11:22 grave sins. People apparently in their
11:24 right mind do that every day. That means
11:26 the group of people who know Catholicism
11:28 is true and still reject it should not
11:31 be ridiculed as an absurd hypothetical.
11:33 However, RZ does make a good point about
11:35 invincible ignorance. Traditionally,
11:37 this referred to people who are ignorant
11:39 of correct doctrine and could not
11:42 overcome their ignorance on their own.
11:44 Vincible ignorance on the other hand is
11:46 quite common. And there are many people
11:48 who hear the voice of conscience telling
11:50 them to learn more about Jesus Christ or
11:52 learn more about his church and then
11:54 they don't listen to that voice because
11:56 they know deep down it would be too too
11:59 hard or too risky to follow and they'd
12:01 rather not do anything and just remain
12:03 in ignorance. Vatican 2 even says that
12:06 salvation is a mere possibility for
12:08 non-atholics, not a probability, and
12:10 says the following. But often men
12:12 deceived by the evil one have become
12:14 vain in their reasonings and have
12:16 exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
12:18 serving the creature rather than the
12:20 creator. Or some there are who living
12:22 and dying in this world without God are
12:25 exposed to final despair. Wherefore to
12:26 promote the glory of God and procure the
12:28 salvation of all of these and mindful of
12:30 the command of the Lord preach the
12:32 gospel to every creature, the church
12:34 fosters the missions with care and
12:36 attention. Contradiction number two
12:37 refers to the alleged contradiction
12:39 between the authority of the pope and
12:41 the authority of ecumenical councils,
12:42 especially in regard to things like the
12:44 Western schism where there was a dispute
12:46 about the identity of the true pope.
12:48 I'll refer you to Cathodox's video on
12:50 this subject for a complete breakdown of
12:52 the issue, but I just want to address
12:54 one part of RZ's reply. In his original
12:56 video, he claimed that the Vatican took
12:59 an insanely high view of papal authority
13:01 through the pope basically acting like a
13:03 Star Wars villain. The main issue
13:04 debated at the council was the
13:06 infallibility of the pope. Most members
13:08 of the council supported it, but to
13:11 varying degrees. In frustration, Pope
13:13 Pius the 9th in a Darth Cidious manner
13:15 declared, "I am the church," and
13:17 pressured all the bishops who didn't
13:19 support his infallibility to leave. With
13:21 the more moderate bishops gone, the
13:23 council took a radical ultramontinist
13:25 position. This makes it sound like Pope
13:27 Pius the 9inth took out his lightsaber
13:29 and cut down the bishop standing in his
13:31 way of declaring him being infallible.
13:33 But that's not what happened. Even if
13:34 such a scenario would be pretty awesome
13:36 if it did happen. In this article
13:38 summarizing John Omali's history of
13:40 Vatican 1, it says that because of the
13:42 encroaching war between France and
13:44 Germany, quote, bishops had begun
13:46 drifting home. So that Ali tells us
13:48 before the final vote in July, nearly a
13:50 quarter of them were gone. Some left out
13:52 of frustration, some to escape the war,
13:54 but most did so to avoid a divisive
13:57 non-placet vote on the final document.
14:00 These bishops were called inopportune
14:02 because most of them did not disagree
14:04 with the dogma of papal infallibility.
14:06 They just considered such an infallible
14:09 declaration to be inopportune and more
14:10 harmful to the cause of Christian
14:12 accuminism. The majority of the council
14:14 always favored the proposal. So it would
14:16 have passed regardless. Finally, the
14:18 claim that Pope Pius the 9th said, "I am
14:21 the tradition or I am the church is
14:23 incredibly suspect as it only comes from
14:25 second and third-hand accounts which
14:27 contradict each other." As early as
14:30 1872, the Roman periodical lascivica
14:32 called out this propaganda, saying the
14:34 following. Yet the imprudence of this
14:36 singular narrator grows to the utmost
14:38 when without citing writings or
14:40 witnesses, he attributes heretical
14:42 concepts and insulate propositions to
14:44 some bishops. To Cardinal Guedi, who was
14:46 challenging papal infallibility with
14:48 tradition, he angrily replied, "I am
14:50 tradition. I will make you profess your
14:52 faith again. a slander full of
14:55 foolishness for it attributes incredible
14:57 ignorance to a most learned cardinal and
14:59 places on the lips of a wa most wise and
15:01 humble pope words intoxicated with
15:03 falsehood and arrogance. The most
15:05 prominent account describing this
15:07 alleged exchange is from Ignes
15:09 Vandalinger a German theologian who was
15:12 a fierce critic of Pope Pius who later
15:13 went on to be a formative influence of
15:15 the schismatic old Catholic church.
15:17 Number three, second Nika and veneration
15:19 of icons. I have a long discussion of
15:21 this issue in my response to Gavin
15:23 Ortland, so I'm not going to rehash all
15:25 of those points here, but I will refer
15:26 our viewers also to a book published
15:28 last year by Michael Garton that
15:30 questions assumptions about the lack of
15:32 veneration of sacred images prior to the
15:34 Council of Nika, especially because of
15:37 overlooked archaeological evidence. RZ
15:38 even admits this isn't his strongest
15:41 argument because it does not involve two
15:43 contradictory magisterial statements. At
15:45 best, second Nika is wrong about the
15:47 apostolic origins of icon veneration.
15:49 But even if you believe sacred images
15:51 came about later in church history, that
15:53 can be a legitimate doctrinal
15:55 development. RZ says believing icon
15:57 veneration developed centuries after the
15:59 apostles constitutes denying second
16:01 Nika. But not everything said in
16:03 ecumenical council becomes enduring
16:05 doctrine or dogma. RZ says however
16:07 Catholics cannot do this because second
16:10 Nika relies on icon veneration coming
16:12 from the apostles to justify the
16:14 practice. But the specific anathema RZ
16:16 quotes in his video only says it
16:18 condemns the claim that making of images
16:21 is a diabolical invention and not a
16:23 tradition of our holy fathers which
16:24 doesn't say anything about icons going
16:26 all the way back to the apostles and
16:28 images were a tradition going back to
16:30 the petristic age as can be seen in St.
16:32 Basel the Great's homaly on St. Baram
16:34 where he tells painters adorned by your
16:37 art the mutilated figure of this officer
16:39 of our army. As I show in my previous
16:40 episode on the matter, the early church
16:43 fathers did not oppose icons by citing
16:45 the second commandment. They opposed it
16:46 through different philosophical
16:48 arguments that other fathers disputed.
16:50 By the time we get to the second council
16:52 of Nika, the church saw the need of
16:54 intervening and restricting those
16:56 Christians who would tell other
16:57 Christians paying respect to a sacred
17:00 person through a sacred image is sinful.
17:01 For a complete breakdown of this issue
17:03 of icon veneration in Catholic doctrine,
17:05 see the video by Swansana that I've
17:07 linked below. Number five, has
17:09 confession always been private? RZ says
17:11 that the current catechism and the
17:12 Council of Trent contradict each other
17:14 because Trent infallibly teaches that
17:17 the following statement is false. The
17:19 manner of confessing secretly to a
17:21 priest alone, which the church hath ever
17:23 observed from the beginning, and doth
17:25 observe, is alien from the institution
17:28 and command of Christ, and is a human
17:30 invention. However, paragraph 1447 of
17:32 the catechism says in the early church
17:35 that for some sins, quote, penitence had
17:37 to do public penance for their sins,
17:38 often for years before receiving
17:40 reconciliation. It then says that since
17:43 the early middle ages, the sacrament has
17:44 been performed in secret between
17:47 penitant and priest. Now, this cannot be
17:48 used for the logical argument against
17:50 Catholicism because the catechism is not
17:52 infallible. Moreover, in these
17:54 discussions, people often confuse public
17:57 acts of penance or sorrow for sin with
18:00 public confession of the sins
18:02 themselves. In fact, I have been guilty
18:04 of spreading the common myth that
18:06 confession of sins in the early church
18:08 was done publicly before the
18:12 congregation. Mayopa mayopa meopa. I now
18:14 see that there is very little evidence
18:16 for this position. The first century
18:19 document the dedicay says in the church
18:20 you shall acknowledge your
18:22 transgressions. But that doesn't mean a
18:25 person must confess his sins out loud to
18:27 all the people in the church. Catholics
18:29 still go to church for private
18:31 confession. And the evidence shows
18:32 private confession existed long before
18:35 the 7th century. St. Augustine talks
18:37 about not wanting to publicly disclose
18:39 that a person is a grave sinner by
18:41 turning them away from communion. But
18:42 this would not be necessary if
18:44 confession of sins was already done in
18:46 public. And so everybody knew each
18:48 other's sins. That's why Hubard in his
18:50 thesis on this issue says the following.
18:52 There appears to be no evidence
18:54 whatsoever in Augustine's writings to
18:55 indicate that an individual's sins were
18:58 read out in public. The evidence from
19:00 writers like Cyprien in the 3rd century
19:01 suggests that there was a long tradition
19:04 of seeking out priests alone and not
19:06 priests with the entire congregation for
19:09 the salutary medicine of confession. The
19:12 catechism may simply be an error here.
19:14 Or it may just be a sloppy way of saying
19:17 that the assignment of penences which
19:19 was done publicly without acknowledging
19:21 the nature of the sins requiring the
19:23 penance that that became private by the
19:25 early middle ages and is not about the
19:27 confession of sins themselves. Either
19:29 way, this is just a development in how
19:31 the sacrament is celebrated, not a
19:33 change in the essential form of the
19:35 sacrament instituted by Christ who said
19:36 that the apostles had the power to
19:39 forgive and retain sins. Such an
19:41 instruction would entail that sins must
19:43 be confessed to the apostles so they
19:45 could decide if they should forgive a
19:47 truly contrite person or retain the sins
19:49 of a person who isn't truly sorry for
19:51 what they've done. Number six, is the
19:53 death penalty immoral? RZ says the main
19:55 problem here is that older sources like
19:57 the Catechism of the Council of Trent
19:59 say the death penalty is good, whereas
20:01 the current catechism says it is bad
20:03 because it is an attack on human dignity
20:06 and so it is now inadmissible. Like the
20:07 previous argument, this one cannot be
20:09 used for the logical argument against
20:10 Catholicism because it involves a
20:12 non-infallible teaching in the
20:14 catechism. It could be a case that Pope
20:16 Francis is making a prudential judgment
20:18 about the death penalty that can be
20:21 rejected after careful consideration or
20:23 he was issuing a doctrinal teaching that
20:25 falls into the rare category of
20:27 doctrinal errors committed by a pope.
20:29 Don and Veritatus says the following.
20:30 When it comes to the question of
20:32 interventions in the credential order,
20:34 it could happen that some magisterial
20:36 documents might not be free from all
20:38 deficiencies. Bishops and their advisers
20:40 have not always taken into immediate
20:42 consideration every aspect or the entire
20:44 complexity of a question. But it would
20:46 be contrary to the truth if proceeding
20:48 from some particular cases, one were to
20:50 conclude that the church's magisterium
20:52 can be habitually mistaken in its
20:54 credential judgments or that it does not
20:56 enjoy divine assistance in the integral
20:58 exercise of its mission. So the
20:59 catechism's teaching could be a mistaken
21:01 credential judgment or it could be a
21:04 rare mistaken case of doctrine just like
21:05 a pope in the middle ages who was
21:07 mistaken about the botific vision and
21:08 had to be corrected on that later.
21:10 Though these errors are rare and far
21:13 between which is why in some cases of
21:15 non infallibly defined doctrine a person
21:17 could privately struggle with this
21:19 doctrine. They just couldn't publicly
21:21 dissent from it. I'll leave a link in
21:22 the description below with an article
21:24 from Jimmy Aken describing how someone
21:26 who doesn't accept the church's teaching
21:28 on the death penalty could respond to
21:29 their feelings about the issue. But
21:30 there is another option for addressing
21:32 this difficulty. One could see this part
21:34 of the catechism as an authentic
21:36 development of the doctrine regarding
21:39 the death penalty. RZ says the catechism
21:41 teaches the death penalty is inherently
21:43 immoral. But the catechism doesn't use
21:45 that language or call the death penalty
21:46 intrinsically evil. The catechism
21:48 basically says the death penalty is bad
21:51 and so we should not use it anymore even
21:52 if different social conditions in the
21:55 past justified its use. The death
21:57 penalty was never a part of God's plan
22:00 from creation for human beings. So there
22:02 will always be something deficient about
22:04 it given that it came into the world to
22:06 help human beings respond to the effects
22:08 of sin. However, RZ says that if the
22:10 morality of an act can change because of
22:12 changing social circumstances, then that
22:14 opens the floodgates for liberals to
22:16 change Christian teaching on things like
22:19 sexuality. But sexuality was a direct
22:22 part of God's plan for humanity from the
22:23 beginning of creation. It was written
22:25 into our very being. This is why core
22:27 doctrines on sexuality like the manwoman
22:30 nature of marriage cannot change.
22:32 However, other doctrines that relate to
22:34 things that do change over time, like
22:36 the way society might be particularly
22:38 organized, these things can develop over
22:41 time. To make an analogy, debt slavery
22:43 was never part of God's plan for human
22:45 beings. Yet, the Bible contains passages
22:48 like slaves obey your masters. And some
22:50 church fathers taught that debt slavery
22:52 was part of God's plan for regulating
22:54 human inequalities brought about by sin.
22:56 And even though though this institution
22:58 was once considered good or useful
22:59 throughout a long part of church
23:01 history, it can no longer be tolerated
23:04 by Catholics in the modern world. This
23:05 same kind of thinking can also be
23:07 applied to the death penalty, which was
23:10 once meed out for all kinds of crimes,
23:11 even things like theft, which we no
23:13 longer consider to warrant capital
23:16 punishment. And because Protestants must
23:17 explain how the biblical teaching on
23:20 slavery developed so that what was once
23:22 considered admissible for Christians is
23:25 now at the very least inadmissible. They
23:27 should be able to see how Catholics can
23:29 chart a similar trajectory in the
23:31 church's views on the death penalty.
23:32 Obviously, a lot more can be said on
23:34 this subject, and I can hear several
23:36 objections already being raised to me
23:38 comparing the death penalty to death
23:40 slavery. That's why I'm going to address
23:43 this in a longer episode dedicated just
23:44 to the issue of the death penalty. And
23:46 I'm going to continue on with RZ's
23:48 contradictions. And I'll note later in
23:51 this episode why even if you think the
23:52 change in the teaching on the death
23:55 penalty is an error on the Catholic
23:57 Church's part. That does not open the
23:59 door for Protestantism to become a
24:01 viable alternative. Number seven,
24:04 worship with non-atholics. In Mortalia
24:06 Manimos, Pope Pius the 11th criticized
24:08 people who call themselves pan-hs and
24:10 wanted all believers to be united into
24:12 one invisible church rather than be
24:13 united within the visible Catholic
24:16 Church that Christ established. RZ calls
24:18 Mortalia Animos quote a clear and
24:20 uncompromising rejection of the
24:22 ecumenical movement. But that's not
24:24 true. In his book, Ecumenical
24:26 Associations, James Oliver says, "Pope
24:29 Pius the 11th, quote, both welcome the
24:31 separated brethren and clearly stated
24:33 what was and was not possible for
24:35 Catholics regarding dialogue with
24:37 non-atholic Christians concerning
24:39 theological differences and unity.
24:41 Catholics cannot pray with non-atholics
24:44 in an active sense that affirms their
24:46 deficient worship. But we can pray with
24:48 non-atholics in another sense, namely in
24:50 the sense of praying in their presence
24:53 or passively worshiping alongside them.
24:56 St. Alfonsus Lori said the following. It
24:57 is not permitted to be present at the
25:00 sacred rights of infidels and heretics
25:02 in such a way that you would be judged
25:05 to be in communion with them. Pisc 11's
25:07 encyclical contains various disciplinary
25:09 judgments about accuminism. But these
25:11 disciplinary judgments can change and be
25:14 abregated by later popes just as popes
25:16 have changed how long one must fast
25:17 before receiving the eucharist over the
25:20 course of church history. In 1949 with
25:22 permission from Pope Pius I 12th the
25:23 congregation of the doctrine of the
25:25 faith released a document on accuminism
25:27 that outlined when it was and was not
25:30 appropriate. So this is not some radical
25:32 postvatican 2 development. Here's a part
25:34 of the 1949 instruction. The previous
25:36 permission of the holy sea special for
25:38 each case is always required. And in the
25:40 petition asking for it, it must also be
25:42 stated what are the questions to be
25:44 treated and who the speakers are to be.
25:45 Although in all these meetings and
25:47 conferences, any communication
25:49 whatsoever in worship must be avoided.
25:51 Yet the recitation in common of the
25:53 Lord's prayer or of some prayer approved
25:55 by the Catholic Church is not forbidden
25:56 for opening or closing the said
25:58 meetings. So we see accuminism was not
26:00 universally condemned. It was instead
26:02 regulated. and how it is regulated can
26:04 change over time as long as one does not
26:07 directly sanction taking part in false
26:09 acts of worship like offering sacrifice
26:11 to a false god. Number eight, the issue
26:13 of usery. Usuzery or charging interest
26:15 on loans involves the teachings of the
26:18 second lateran council which RZ says is
26:20 infallible. However, second lateran
26:22 never made an infallible declaration on
26:24 usery. John Nunan, who's written the
26:25 most famous study in the history of
26:27 usery and church teaching, admits that
26:29 there have never been any infallible
26:31 declarations saying that charging
26:34 interest on loans is always immoral,
26:35 only long-standing teachings and
26:37 practice in the early church. The only
26:40 related infallible teaching would be the
26:42 fifth lattering council's infallible
26:44 decree that the mounts of piety, a kind
26:46 of charitable medieval pawn shop where
26:48 one could borrow money, did not
26:51 constitute the sin of usery. The Bible
26:52 and church history never treat lending
26:54 money at interest as being intrinsically
26:56 evil or something that can never be done
26:58 under any circumstance. For example, the
26:59 Bible does not allow Christians to
27:02 commit adultery with unbelievers rather
27:04 than believers. It universally outlaws
27:06 adultery. However, it did allow
27:08 believers to engage in practices that
27:10 caused harm and it limited the harm that
27:12 was caused over time. This can be seen
27:14 in the Old Testament saying an Israelite
27:17 could not buy other Israelites as slaves
27:20 or make other Israelites de facto slaves
27:22 by lending money to them. However, an
27:23 Israelite could buy slaves from
27:26 foreigners and he could lend money to
27:27 foreigners. In the writings of the
27:29 church fathers, usery was primarily
27:31 condemned because it harmed the poor.
27:33 St. Basil and St. Ambrose described
27:34 usery leading to children being sold
27:37 into slavery or people unaliviving
27:38 themselves in despair over debts they
27:40 could not pay. The second lateran
27:43 council condemned usery because of the
27:45 ferocious greed of user but it did not
27:47 do so because it was a principle of
27:49 justice or say that it was intrinsically
27:52 wrong. Nunan who used the change in the
27:54 teaching on usery to try and argue the
27:55 church should change his teaching on
27:58 contraception admits that the church
28:00 since the middle ages has had the same
28:02 teaching on lending money. It's just
28:04 been applied in different ways. He
28:06 writes the following usery. The act of
28:08 taking profit on a loan without a just
28:11 title is sinful. What is a just title?
28:12 What is technically to be treated as a
28:15 loan are matters of debate, positive
28:17 law, and changing evolution. The
28:18 development of these points is great,
28:21 but the pure and narrow dogma is the
28:23 same today as in 1200. In other words,
28:25 through most of modern church history,
28:27 it was assumed money lending harmed the
28:30 poor. And so, loans were presumed evil
28:31 unless they could be proven to have a
28:34 justifiable reason or a just title.
28:36 However, as modern economies changed,
28:38 this presumption also changed until we
28:40 get to the modern era where money
28:43 lending is presumed to be good unless
28:44 there's evidence to show in a particular
28:46 case that it's bad, like high interest
28:48 rates. Catholic philosopher Christopher
28:50 Quesor says this would be on par with
28:53 the church teaching that surgery is evil
28:55 in the Middle Ages because it was so
28:56 dangerous. However, the church would
28:58 then allow surgery in the modern age
29:00 because now it's become relatively safe.
29:02 I'd recommend the article linked below
29:04 by Dr. Quazor for more complete
29:05 discussion of this issue. Number nine,
29:08 communion under both kinds. This alleged
29:09 contradiction deals with the practice of
29:12 offering either the body of Christ under
29:14 the form of bread or the blood of Christ
29:16 under the form of wine to communicates
29:18 and not both of them at the same time.
29:20 RZ admits this is not an infallible
29:23 contradiction. So it can't be used in a
29:25 logical argument against Catholicism.
29:27 The church does infallibly teach that it
29:30 is not necessary to receive Christ under
29:32 the form of bread and the form of wine
29:34 in order to receive the sacrament of the
29:36 Eucharist. And this teaching has not
29:38 been contradicted. Instead, this
29:39 objection would be part of RZ's
29:41 evidential argument because he claims
29:43 this shows the Catholic Church has not
29:45 retained important apostolic traditions.
29:47 But even early Protestants recognized
29:49 that one could fully receive Christ
29:51 through communion in one kind. The
29:53 reformed theologian Francis Turitan
29:54 said, "Although both signs are not
29:57 received, they do not cease to be made
29:59 partakers of the whole thing signified,
30:02 which is indivisible." 1 Corinthians
30:04 11:27 refers to people who eat the bread
30:07 or drink the blood unworthily, which
30:10 implies some may do one or the other and
30:11 still receive the full blessings when
30:13 this is done reverently or a full
30:15 punishment when it's done without
30:16 reverence. For more complete treatment
30:18 of this issue, see the YouTube channel
30:21 Sense 33 AD and their video on this
30:22 subject linked below. And be sure to
30:24 check out the rest of his channel
30:25 because he has really solid apologetic
30:27 content that goes beyond the typical
30:29 surface level answers and objections.
30:31 Numbers 10 and 11 deal with the Pope's
30:33 temporal authority and papal supremacy
30:34 in the first millennium. First,
30:36 Protestants and Catholics would agree
30:39 that no earthly power can be an ultimate
30:41 authority. Romans 13 says the state only
30:43 has power because of God's design. That
30:45 means the civil state must be
30:47 subordinate to God. It follows from this
30:49 that the state must be subordinate to
30:51 the church of the living God. And if the
30:54 church has a supreme pastor, the state
30:56 must be subordinate to that pastor, i.e.
30:58 the pope. But that does not mean the
31:00 church should dictate everything the
31:03 state does or on the other extreme that
31:05 the church should have no involvement in
31:07 the running of the state whatsoever.
31:08 Throughout the history of Christryendom,
31:11 the pope acquired and lost power as the
31:13 ruler of particular lands and peoples.
31:14 Even today, the pope is a particular
31:16 ruler and head of state, albeit the
31:18 smallest country on earth. Over time,
31:20 the understanding of the pope's temporal
31:22 authority or the authority over powers
31:24 in this world in contrast to his
31:27 spiritual authority, this has changed as
31:28 can be seen in the work of the Catholic
31:30 theologian Francisco Suarez in the 16th
31:33 century. Just because temporal power
31:36 often coincided with papal authority
31:38 does not mean temporal power is an
31:40 essential part of the papal office. Don
31:42 and Veritatus says the following. The
31:44 theologian knows that some judgments of
31:46 the magisterium could be justified of
31:48 the time in which they were made because
31:49 while the pronouncements contain true
31:51 assertions and others which were not
31:54 sure, both types were inextricably
31:56 connected. only time has permitted
31:58 discernment and after deeper study the
32:01 attainment of true doctrinal progress.
32:03 Contradiction number 11 details more
32:04 with the pope's supreme spiritual
32:06 authority which is an essential part of
32:08 the papal office. The contradiction
32:10 claims to be between Vatican 1's
32:12 assertion about the antiquity of this
32:14 authority and a recent Vatican document
32:17 on the papacy and accuminism. But this
32:18 does not form a logical argument against
32:20 Catholicism because neither of these
32:23 statements was infallibly defined. The
32:25 recent Vatican document outright says in
32:27 it that quote, "It is a study document
32:29 that does not claim to exhaust the
32:31 subject nor to summarize the Catholic
32:33 magisterium on it." The Vatican 1
32:35 statement on the Pope's authority being
32:37 known in every age isn't an infallible
32:39 teaching either. In fact, this passage
32:42 which RZ cited in his video was not a
32:44 bombastic declaration from 1870, the
32:46 year when the council was held. Instead,
32:48 it was a quote from the papal legot
32:50 Philip at the council of Ephesus in the
32:53 year 431, which provides evidence that
32:55 Vatican 1 is indeed correct and that the
32:57 pope's primacy was known in the early
32:59 church. If you want the complete
33:01 treatment of evidence for the papacy in
33:02 the first millennium, I recommend Eric
33:05 Ibara's book, The Papacy, Revisiting the
33:07 Debate between Catholics and Orthodox.
33:08 Number 12, giving communion to the
33:11 divorced and remarried. This, like the
33:13 others, does not involve any logical
33:15 contradictions because at most one
33:17 chapter or even just one footnote of
33:19 Pope Francis's exhortation of Morris
33:21 latitia is an error. Specifically, it is
33:23 the material dealing with couples in
33:25 invalid marriages being able to receive
33:28 communion under some circumstances. The
33:29 document does not contradict the
33:32 infallible teaching that remarage after
33:34 divorce involves a sin of adultery. It
33:36 simply raises the issue of whether some
33:38 couples in these kinds of unions are not
33:40 fully culpable for their sinful sexual
33:42 relations and so they could still
33:44 receive communion. The idea that someone
33:46 is not fully culpable for his or her
33:48 sins has been known all throughout
33:50 church history, which means that not all
33:53 grave acts are mortal sins. To be in
33:55 mortal sin, a person must also have full
33:57 knowledge and fully consent to a grave
34:00 act. And an understanding of grave sin
34:02 and moral acts can develop over time. To
34:04 give you an example, the church once
34:07 refused funerals for people who died by
34:09 being unalived because they were
34:11 considered manifest grave sinners. But
34:13 we now know that unaliving while still
34:16 being a grave act is not automatically a
34:18 mortal sin because a person might not be
34:20 culpable for the sin due to something
34:23 like a mental illness. In those cases, a
34:25 person does not have full knowledge or
34:27 they don't have full consent. But that
34:29 would not eliminate the category of
34:32 mortally sinful unaliving as someone
34:34 might commit this act out of a malicious
34:36 desire for others to imitate him or to
34:38 escape rightful punishment in this life.
34:40 Likewise, there could be cases where a
34:43 spouse in an invalid marriage feels
34:45 compelled to have sexual relations and
34:47 she cannot leave the situation. So, her
34:49 culpability for this act or his
34:50 culpability for this act would be
34:52 diminished because the person lacks full
34:54 consent. If you want more on the
34:56 subject, I recommend Pedro Gabriel's
34:59 book, The Orthodoxy of Amoris Latitzia.
35:01 Now, it's fair one could argue that
35:03 Amoris Latitzia, even if it's true in
35:06 principle for a tiny minority of cases,
35:08 gives ammunition to people who would
35:11 excuse sin for a large number of cases
35:13 rather than accompany the truly
35:14 repentant who are in difficult
35:16 situations. And that would be a
35:19 prudential judgment, not a dogmatic fact
35:22 against the truth of Catholicism. But
35:24 keep in mind that Amoris Latitzia warns
35:26 against views that would generalize a
35:27 willful neglect of the moral law just
35:29 because of a few exceptional cases where
35:31 a person lacks culpability. It says the
35:34 following. A lukewarm attitude, any kind
35:36 of relativism or an undue reticence in
35:38 proposing that ideal would be a lack of
35:41 fidelity to the gospel and also of love
35:42 on the part of the church for young
35:44 people themselves. To show understanding
35:47 in the face of exceptional situations
35:49 never implies dimming the light of the
35:51 fuller ideal or proposing less than what
35:54 Jesus offers to the human being. Number
35:56 13, religious liberty. This alleged
35:58 contradiction involves the syllabus of
36:00 errors, the encyclical libertas and
36:01 Vatican 2 on the question religious
36:03 liberty, none of which are infallible
36:05 documents. So once again, the logical
36:07 argument can't move forward. Past
36:09 condemnations of religious liberty were
36:12 focused on the idea that error has no
36:14 rights and religion should not be viewed
36:16 through an indifference lens which sees
36:18 all faith as containing the same paths
36:20 to reach God. But that does not preclude
36:22 the church from defending a concept of
36:25 religious liberty that recognizes people
36:28 have rights and so the state should not
36:30 infringe on their right to worship God
36:32 in a way that coerces them to belong to
36:34 the true religion. The 2 Vatican Council
36:37 even said, "The truth cannot impose
36:39 itself except by virtue of its own
36:41 truth, as it makes its entrance into the
36:44 mind at once, quietly, and with power."
36:46 Religious freedom, in turn, which men
36:47 demand is necessary to fulfill their
36:49 duty to worship God, has to do with
36:52 immunity from coercion in civil society.
36:54 Therefore, it leaves untouched
36:56 traditional Catholic doctrine on the
36:58 moral duty of men and societies toward
37:00 the true religion and toward the one
37:02 church of Christ. For more on this
37:03 subject, check out this article at
37:05 catholic.com. Finally, RZ says that
37:07 changes in the mass being in the
37:09 vernacular rather than Latin are not a
37:11 dogmatic contradiction. So, that was his
37:13 14th contradiction. I'm not going to
37:14 ignore it because obviously the church
37:16 has the authority to decide what are the
37:18 non-essential elements of the liturgy
37:20 that can change, which includes the
37:22 language the liturgy is celebrated in.
37:24 Now, as I said before, there's no way I
37:26 could comprehensively address all the
37:28 issues RZ raised while keeping this
37:30 episode to a manageable length, even
37:32 though it's already much longer than my
37:34 normal episodes. It's just a lot easier
37:36 to make an objection than to answer an
37:38 objection. But hopefully in the future,
37:39 I'll address some of these topics in
37:41 their own episodes. I do hope you've
37:43 seen that the examples RZ chose do not
37:45 furnish a solid logical argument against
37:47 Catholicism because there's no case of
37:49 two infallible teachings directly
37:51 contradicting each other. We aren't even
37:53 talking about explaining away alleged
37:55 contradictions as Christians must often
37:57 do when defending scripture. We're just
37:59 saying that in basically all of these
38:01 cases and the sources that are cited,
38:03 they aren't infallibly defined teachings
38:06 at all. So any errors in them would not
38:08 refute Catholicism. And we've also seen
38:10 there's good reason to believe that
38:12 these are not even errors. They are
38:14 byproducts of authentic doctrinal
38:17 development. Now RZ might object that
38:19 this is all very convenient. Whenever a
38:20 teaching gives the Catholic Church
38:23 trouble, just say it isn't infallible.
38:25 But notice that RZ never gave a criteria
38:28 for determining when a consiliar or
38:30 papal decree is infallible. And he
38:31 admits throughout his video, it's
38:33 possible some of these statements are
38:35 not infallible in nature. So he doesn't
38:37 have any grounds to say a Catholic who
38:39 denies these statements are infallible
38:41 is being arbitrary. Instead, a Catholic
38:43 can say the church has various
38:45 well-agreed upon methods to determine
38:46 the presence of infallible teachings and
38:48 magisterial documents like the presence
38:50 of language saying something is being
38:52 defined. The code of canon law is also
38:54 clear that quote, "No doctrine is
38:57 understood as defined infallibly unless
38:59 this is manifestly evident." For more on
39:00 that issue, see my colleague Jimmy
39:03 Aken's book, Teaching with Authority.
39:05 So, there is not a strong logical
39:07 argument against Catholicism. and the
39:08 evidential argument is undermined by
39:10 explanations that show these changes are
39:12 the result of authentic doctrinal
39:14 development. This would be similar to a
39:16 theist who says that there is no good
39:18 logical argument from evil and seemingly
39:20 gratuitous evils are not actually
39:22 gratuitous because their purpose in
39:24 promoting the good can be explained. But
39:26 to continue the analogy a bit further, a
39:28 theist could also say, "Look, even if
39:30 you don't accept my explanations for why
39:33 God allows certain evils, that wouldn't
39:35 show atheism is true, because theism is
39:37 still better at explaining evil in the
39:40 world around us than atheism." Likewise,
39:43 even if you don't accept my previous
39:44 explanations for these apparent
39:47 doctrinal changes, that would not show
39:49 Protestantism were true. That's because
39:51 Catholicism is still better at
39:52 safeguarding doctrine than
39:55 Protestantism. I can make this argument
39:58 because once RZ criticized Catholicism
40:01 for changing noninfallible teachings, he
40:03 opened the door to comparing it to
40:06 Protestantism on this same question and
40:09 seeing which one is at least better at
40:11 safeguarding revelation. Protestants
40:13 believe the church is an authoritative
40:16 fallible institution whereas Catholics
40:18 believe the church can act infallibly
40:20 but it does not always act infallibly.
40:22 Catholics cannot falsify Protestantism
40:24 through any single instance of doctrinal
40:26 change because Protestants could just
40:28 say their church and their confessions
40:31 are not infallible. However, RZ's
40:32 argument about the total number of
40:35 changes in noninfallible teaching,
40:38 making Catholicism less likely to be
40:41 true also applies to Protestantism
40:42 because Protestantism also gives
40:44 non-infallible teachings that, as we saw
40:47 earlier in this episode, RZ admits can
40:49 change over time or could be an error.
40:51 And this shows that these ecclesial
40:53 communities are not reliable sources of
40:55 sound doctrine. Or at least they are
40:57 much less reliable than Catholicism. And
40:59 that's all the Catholic needs to prove.
41:01 For example, RZ says that Catholic
41:03 distinctions about infallible doctrine
41:05 are not foolproof. As Catholic
41:06 theologians disagree about which
41:09 doctrines have been infallibly defined,
41:10 while Protestants agree there are at
41:13 least 66 infallible books in the Bible.
41:14 Protestants may not have an infallible
41:17 canon list for scripture, but Catholics
41:18 don't have an infallible infallible
41:20 doctrine list either. So, it doesn't
41:22 matter. But I think the best way to
41:25 answer critiques like these is through a
41:29 best rather than an only paradigm.
41:31 Saying that only the Catholic Church is
41:33 free from doctrinal confusion is not
41:35 true. It's a bad apologetic. Instead,
41:37 one can make the more modest and
41:39 defensible claim that Catholicism is the
41:42 best or it has the least doctrinal
41:44 confusion. This can be seen in its
41:45 representatives of the Catholic
41:48 magisterium being more in agreement
41:50 about which doctrines are essential to
41:52 the faith than the members of what you
41:54 might call the Protestant magisterium,
41:56 pastors and theologians being in
41:58 agreement on what constitute essential
42:00 doctrine. We also must remember that
42:02 classical Protestants like RZ reject
42:05 what they call solo scriptor or the
42:07 claim that the church has no authority
42:09 and the Bible is the only authority.
42:10 This is why classical Protestants
42:13 subscribe to creeds and confessions like
42:14 the London Baptist confession or the
42:16 Westminster confession that RZ follows
42:18 or at least the later version of it
42:20 which he says is without error but not
42:22 divinely protected from error. So a
42:24 Catholic can make this counterargument.
42:26 Catholicism is the most trustworthy
42:28 guide to doctrine because even if you
42:30 believe it has aired regarding some
42:32 non-infallible teachings in the past,
42:34 Protestantism has made more errors on
42:36 more important doctrines and so it is
42:39 less likely to be true than Catholicism.
42:41 Remember RZ's evidential argument only
42:43 deals with probabilities. So all the
42:45 Catholic must do is show that
42:47 Protestantism has a higher probability
42:50 of being false than Catholicism. Not
42:52 that Catholicism is free from any
42:53 difficulties that would lower its
42:55 probability of being true. And some of
42:57 the issues that RZ brought up also cut
43:00 against the probability Protestantism is
43:01 true. For example, if you fault
43:03 Catholicism for changing the
43:06 pre-medieval non-infallible teaching on
43:08 usery found in the early church fathers,
43:10 then you have to fault Protestants for
43:12 doing the same thing because they in
43:13 general do not think lending money at
43:15 interest is sinful. If you fault
43:18 Catholics for changing the premedieval
43:20 non-infallible teaching on the
43:22 permissibility of executing heretics,
43:24 then you have to fault Protestants for
43:26 doing the same thing. Since most modern
43:28 Protestants say that this should no
43:31 longer be done or it's inadmissible, if
43:32 you will, even though the Protestant
43:34 reformers were fine with it, as can be
43:36 seen in Philip Melenthon's desire to
43:38 execute Anabaptists and John Calvin's
43:39 execution of the heretic Michael
43:42 Cervadus. And similar to changes in the
43:43 teaching on the death penalty, the
43:45 Protestant reformers generally accepted
43:47 the morality of slavery. And many
43:49 Protestants argued that even racial
43:51 slavery was part of God's plan for
43:54 humanity as can be seen in books like a
43:56 Bible defense of slavery. The Catholic
43:58 Church's teaching on slavery also had to
44:00 develop during this period. But my point
44:03 is that by RZ's standard, Protestantism
44:06 also was not reliable regarding what
44:07 Christians ought to believe on this
44:09 moral issue. However, there are many
44:12 cases where Protestants have changed
44:13 their teaching on doctrines while
44:15 Catholics have retained the apostolic
44:17 tradition on these matters. In my
44:18 episode on pro-choice Protestantism, for
44:20 example, I showed that even many
44:22 conservative denominations and
44:24 conservative figures like Billy Graham
44:26 accepted the morality of abortion in
44:29 some respect during the 1960s and 1970s
44:30 and didn't repent of this error until
44:32 the 80s and '90s, even though the
44:33 Catholic Church always condemned
44:36 abortion. They were so outspoken and
44:37 consistent on this matter that
44:38 Protestants in the United States said
44:41 that opposition to abortion was a quote
44:43 Catholic issue. Moreover, many
44:44 Protestant denominations affirm
44:47 so-called same-sex marriage and ordain
44:49 female pastors. But the Catholic Church
44:51 does not do this. It has safeguarded
44:53 apostolic tradition. RZ's own
44:55 denomination, the Presbyterian Church
44:57 USA, where he is studying to be a
45:00 pastor, is pro- homosexuality and
45:02 so-called same-sex marriage, is pro-le
45:03 abortion and does not think that
45:06 abortion is a sin, and ordain so-called
45:09 female pastors. Now RZ says that
45:11 Christians should not abandon churches
45:13 like this but work to reform them. A
45:16 movement he calls operation reconista.
45:17 But this still shows that these
45:19 Protestant ecclesial communities are
45:22 very very fallible in nature much more
45:25 so than Catholicism. However, even the
45:26 most conservative Protestant
45:29 denominations and the Eastern Orthodox
45:30 have changed their teachings on
45:32 important issues like the permissibility
45:34 of contraception or the permissibility
45:36 of remarage after divorce. The Catholic
45:38 Church, in contrast, has retained its
45:40 condemnation of these sins and is the
45:42 only major church to do so. Protestant
45:44 denominations also demonstrate their
45:47 fallibility by failing to condemn or in
45:49 some cases embracing modern evils like
45:51 in featuralization or renting out wombs
45:53 through gestational surrogacy. Even
45:54 though the Catholic Church has
45:57 repudiated these evils, we also have no
45:59 idea if Protestants have maintained the
46:00 apostolic traditions regarding many
46:03 other important issues. For example, RZ
46:05 objects to the Catholic Church seeming
46:07 to change its teaching on who can be
46:09 saved. But Protestants don't even agree
46:11 on this teaching. RZ himself has said
46:14 that anyone without exception who never
46:17 hears the gospel, even through no fault
46:19 of his own, because the person never met
46:22 a Christian, is lost. But many many
46:24 Protestants disagree with this harsh
46:26 form of exclusivism, which would say
46:28 that a 9-year-old Native American girl
46:29 who reached the age of moral
46:31 accountability is definitely burning in
46:33 hell because she was born before
46:34 Christian missionaries arrived to her
46:37 people. Protestantism's disagreements
46:39 also concern important issues like the
46:41 mode of baptism or who can be baptized.
46:43 In contrast, the Catholic churches, both
46:45 East and West, agree on the conditions
46:47 for the validity and lysity of the
46:48 sacraments, even if they have different
46:50 liturgical practices. They do not
46:52 consider, for example, a Catholic who is
46:54 baptized as an infant with pouring to
46:57 have an invalid baptism in comparison to
46:59 an adult undergoing full immersion. Both
47:01 forms of baptism are valid. So, if
47:03 you're a Catholic and RZ's video shook
47:05 you by bringing up instances where the
47:07 Catholic Church seemed to change
47:09 non-fallible teaching, remember that the
47:11 grass is not greener on the other side.
47:14 Ask yourself which theological framework
47:17 has the fewest number of difficulties
47:18 instead of jumping ship at the first
47:20 sign of difficulties. And remember, at
47:22 the end of the day, our belief in the
47:24 faith does not rest on the ability to
47:26 answer every single argument raised
47:28 against it. Most Protestants admit they
47:31 cannot personally explain every alleged
47:32 contradiction in scripture that atheists
47:34 might present to them. But their
47:36 conviction scripture is true trumps
47:38 those arguments and shows the
47:40 contradictions are only apparent and not
47:42 real. Likewise, Catholics can rest in
47:43 their knowledge of the church being the
47:46 pillar and foundation of truth. The
47:48 authority that explains why we even have
47:50 a Bible that constitutes diverse human
47:52 writings and we can know these writings
47:53 are sacred scripture and that they have
47:55 divine authority and that all of this is
47:57 the best explanation for the Christian
47:59 faith. Even if, like many other aspects
48:02 of the faith, difficulties will remain
48:04 in our understanding of it until the
48:06 Lord comes again in glory. Thank you all
48:07 so much for watching and don't forget to
48:09 check out the links below to go deeper
