Catholic vs Protestant Women | The Bridge

Our Lord says to his disciples, "Whosoever sins you forgive, whosoever sins you retain." I don't know that you could apply that to every Christian everywhere.

Um, and then Hebrews talks greatly about how Jesus is the intercessor, the priest, the bishops and all that. They are the lineage of the apostles. He actually gave this power to his apostles and they passed it on to men in the same way with the laying on of hands.

Why am I to trust that a priest in his fallibility can forgive my sin? Ultimately, that final authority is going to be the scripture in the Christian life.

Um, the first problem I would say with sola scriptura is that it's not scriptural. I don't have to know church history to be saved. And a person that doesn't know church history can still be saved, 'cause everything that God has given to us is in his word. The Bible says, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by history and every word that proceeds to the mouth of God." So the gospel has to be accessible to everyone. There was no Bible for the first 300 years of Christianity. When we speak like this, when we speak like this, we ignore history.

Today on The Bridge, Catholic and Protestant women come together to talk about faith, tradition, and what sets their beliefs apart and what brings them together. Different paths, same foundation. Can they find unity in their faith? Welcome to The Bridge.

Hi, I'm Kalia, and I am a Protestant. My name is Shanasa and I'm Protestant. My name is Roxy and I'm Catholic. I'm Noel and I'm Catholic.

The first prompt is, "Faith alone is enough to be saved." Three, two, one. Okay. Well, anyone can speak. So, I want to reference Abraham. I saw this recently and I thought it was a very interesting perspective and you guys can tell me what you think. Um, in Genesis 11, we're introduced to Abraham. And then in Genesis 12, verse two, Abraham is given like this very vague promise. And he responds with a work. He responds by actually getting up and relocating like God told him. And then in Genesis 12:7, God appears to him and gives him a little bit more detail. He responds with another work. He creates an altar. And then in Genesis 13, verses 14 through the end of the chapter, um, God appears to him a third time and he responds with another work. He creates an altar. But it's not until Genesis 15, verse 6, that he is said to be justified by his faith because it says, "And then Abraham believed God and it was accredited to him as righteousness." Now, that's the first time Abraham ever speaks. All the other encounters that he's had with God, he's just kind of doing what I would say like blind faith. But in Genesis 15:6, he actually responds and he's wrestling with God. God appears to him in a vision. He says, "Greetings, Abraham. I'm your exceedingly great reward." And then Abraham responds and says, "What will you give me seeing as I go childless and the heir of my house is Eleazar of Damascus?" And God, uh, says, "I'm not, I'm not going to leave you hanging. I'm going to give you an heir." And then at that point, it says, "And then Abraham believed God and it was accredited to him as righteousness." So that is kind of like the foundation for our faith as believers. And we see that it wasn't until he kind of wrestled with God and it really was internalized and God obviously saw his heart that that was true and sincere belief that he was considered righteous. It wasn't the works that were done prior to that.

Oh, I think it's a, I, I actually never heard of it from that perspective before and I think that's beautiful. And I think that like what we have to remember in many respects with the Old Testament is that the Old Testament always points to the New and the New Covenant that Jesus Christ, you know, established.

So within Catholicism, we do believe that you are saved through grace by way of faith, but your response to that grace and faith is, quote unquote, work. But it's more complicated than that, right? So grace, as we know, is freely given. It's a free gift. You know, there's no merit to grace. It's a free gift and God wants to give it to us in abundance. But God's grace is not like, he doesn't force it on you. So you have to accept that grace, right? Because that's where our free will comes in. And once you accept that grace, that's what faith is. If you break down the definition of faith, faith is belief that God exists and belief in all that he revealed through scripture, right? And a belief that you will lay your life down, your intellect and your will in order to follow him and to be the light to the world, right? But you can't just say, "I, that's it." That's only half the story. The rest of it comes in the fact that there's a response to that grace. And there's the work is, I think it's been misnomered in a way because if you look at it, the response to that grace is love. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Love God with all your heart, all your strength. So everything that you do comes from that place of love and charity. And I think also, when we talk about the Catholic versus, let's say, the Protestant perspective on this, when we hear the word "work," right? And you're looking at that scripture, what was Paul actually talking about when he was talking about, you know, you're saved by by grace and not saved by faith and not by works? First of all, faith alone is not in the Bible. So we have to be very clear about that. But when you don't look at the context of the Old Testament, the New Testament, what Jesus Christ himself said, you miss things because Paul was talking about the, the, the like Mosaic law as far as like the liturgical laws, the laws of cleanliness. And he extensively like went and told the Gentiles that, look, circumcision is not a thing we have to do anymore. That's not going to, because the Jewish people, that's what they needed for grace. They needed the work. They needed all that. But the new Christians that were coming, these particularly the Gentiles, again, the Jewish people were trying, well, the Judeo-Christians were trying to impose the old law. And he was like, you know what, guys, that's not it. You are saved through your faith, but there is a response to that faith through how you treat so and how you show love and charity. So when you say, when we say "works," that's more what we mean. Not that you can merit grace or earn it because you did XYZ.

Correct. So do you think from what she just said that good works are evidence of genuine faith?

Correct. Yeah. Or are they totally separate?

I would say that our salvation is by grace through faith. They're connected to each other. We can't separate them. Um, but then you guys know in Ephesians 2:8-9, it goes on to say that we were prepared for good works. Jesus Christ prepared us for good works beforehand. So the good works are the evidence of your faith. Um, it's the proof of your faith. It's the fruit of your faith. Even, it reminds me of the parable of the fig tree when Jesus walks up to the fig tree and he curses it because the fig tree had leaves that alluded to it having fruit, but it didn't actually have fruit, which is why he curses it. And so it's very important for the Christian to display some tangible fruit in their lives that signifies their salvation.

So how would you? Oh, did you want to speak?

Well, I was just going to say that, you know, I think that often times it's portrayed or perceived that Catholics think that they're, you know, earning their salvation if they incorporate works at all. And then, first of all, I agree, salvation is a free gift given by God. Anything good that comes out of us is first and foremost attributed to him. And the only thing we can do without him is sin. Turn away from him. Um, but, you know, I think of it, you know, oftentimes this criticism of maybe availing ourselves of the sacraments or having going to confession or what have you. And I think of it as like a father who has a treasury for his children and he says, you know, "Come receive this, this free gift." And then if you squander it, you know, "Just come back and say, I squandered it and I will give you more." And it would be so foolish if that kid went away and said, "I have merited this. I earned it." This is a point of pride for me. You know, all of our understanding of availing ourselves, you know, an act of will to avail ourselves of the grace of God isn't to commend ourselves or to boast about. It really is just more of a reminder of how desperately we need him and how much he is interacting in our lives to keep us close to him.

So how would you Protestants, how would you interpret the Bible verse James 2:17 that says, "Faith without works is dead"?

I would say in that same chapter, James references, um, two, I guess, examples, which is Abraham, how I discussed earlier, and then he references demons. He said, "You believe that there is one God. Well, good for you. Even the demons believe and tremble." So James is not making a statement that your faith is what saves you. He, he goes on to say, like, "You have faith, but I will show you my faith by my works." So I think that statement just on its own may, in a sense, seem like it's purporting that idea, but the entire chapter of James 2 is actually in opposition to the idea that faith, I mean, that works has anything to do directly with our salvation. It's, it's an evidence of our salvation, which is why he said, "Show me your faith, I'll show you my works by my faith by my works," excuse me.

What about, um, when Jesus says, "Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, will go to heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven." Or also, um, you know, that, uh, oh, I'm blanking on the verse. The, oh, "doers of the law." It's not just hearers of the law, it's the doers of the law. It seems that our Lord has bound up and the, and, and Peter and Paul have bound up salvation with acts of the will, not that they're attributable primarily to acts of the will, but that they, that we do have to act. And it, you know, and so, I, my follow-up question might be, do you believe in eternal security? Like, do you think that we can lose our salvation through? Because certainly Christians can sin. Christians can fall away. Christians can commit apostasy.

Um, so we have to be acting rightly.

My view is more nuanced. I believe that you never lose your free will. That's personally what I believe. And, and, um, I think that God keeps us. He never changes his end of the bargain. But I do see scriptures that say like, "The beast has gone back to the world." That doesn't necessarily mean that it's my work in a sense that's sustaining me. I believe that it's this kind of tension that's really hard to put into words. I believe that God is sustaining my salvation. I do also believe that I, like, if I'm married, for example, I would choose every day to love my husband, otherwise the marriage could deteriorate. Not for anything that my husband would do, because let's say my husband is the most faithful, awesome person in the world, but it's his love that prompts me. It's kind of circular that continues to allow me to be faithful. So, I don't know if I answered your question because I feel like it's a lot more nuanced than I can maybe articulate.

I think that it's interesting that, like, you know how this kind of conversation of faith versus work, it's, we're, we're almost on, I, I mean, I, it feels like we're almost on the same line about it. It's like, you're not, we understand, like, you don't merit, you don't merit salvation by just doing things right, because you got a lot of people out there like, you know, "Oh, I'm a holy roller," but, you know, you ain't living like no holy roller, okay? Let's, so it's like, you know, I, I don't think that, you know, we're far off on that. But one of the things like Noel brought up for me that I go back to, because everything that, that, that Paul wrote about, everything that's in the epistles, everything the, the, the apostles did in Acts, like, everything was an echo of Christ and what he already said. And then knowing that Christ was, is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. So even when you read the Old Testament, you read it through the lens of Jesus Christ, because he was there from Genesis in the beginning, right? And John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Right? So, um, in that respect, for me, I think about the times where Jesus actually explicitly said, "You are going to be, your works are important." Where he said, "You are the light of the world. A light cannot be hidden under a bushel, needs to be shown to everyone. You are the light of the world, right? Let your light shine before all, so that way when people see your good works, they give glory to your Father in heaven." When he talks about the, um, uh, the, the, when he talked to the, the, the young rich man who said, "What do I have to do to get to heaven?" He asked that, Jesus, "What do I do to the teacher?" He said, "Okay, basically, follow the Ten Commandments. Don't lie. Don't steal. All that stuff, right?" He said, "I already do all that." So he's like, "Yeah, I already got faith. What else?" Well, Jesus Christ said, "Go ahead and sell all your possessions. Pick up your cross and then follow me." And he walked away because he had many possessions. He saw how hard that was. Which means that again, what Noel pointed out, Jesus said to strive to enter through the narrow gate. Strive to enter through the narrow gate, right? So there is a sense of you having to have an action and a response to the grace and the faith. And I don't think that we're apart on that at all, because, I mean, you'll know them by their fruits. So if you're not producing fruits that show that you are of the, of the Father, you are the light of the world, the salt of the earth, then are we really to trust that you are Christian, that you are in the body of Christ, that you are doing what God asked you to do to, to, to do his will so that way we can see him face to face in eternity?

Yeah. And James 1:27, it says, "True religion is this: to care for the widow and the orphan." So I don't think that you can detach good works or good deeds from the Christian life. I don't really understand where we're differentiating. So hopefully we, we get there. Yeah.

So, um, I, [clears throat] wanted to ask you ladies, how do sacraments like baptism, confession, and the Eucharist fit into the process of salvation for you?

Um, baptismal regeneration. So we believe that original sin is cleansed from us through the sacrament of baptism. God has tied up our salvation with that, but he's not bound by it. So he can, you know, of course, have exceptions. Um, and then, you know, I think the sacraments are a road where in our Lord mercifully says, you know, "Here's a road to be close to me." And if you go off track, if you, you know, you go down a bad road, I'm going to encourage and incentivize you to examine yourself, to do examination of your conscience, to see where I'm straying, where I'm failing in love or generosity, what have you, or giving into temptations. Um, and then bring you back to reconciliation through the sacrament of confession. So, um, in order to kind of remind you to examine yourself, here's the Eucharist. And so, don't receive the Eucharist if you're in a state of mortal sin, if you have through your own acts of will killed off the life of grace within your soul, you have to then reconcile yourself before you can present yourself to communion. So, all these things are prompts in ways that our Lord, I think, very mercifully guides us to avail ourselves of that grace.

Yeah. Thank you. And the next prompt is, "Confession to a priest is necessary for forgiveness of sins." Three, two, one. No. And yes. Okay. Anyone can speak.

Very on-brand responses for us. [laughter]

Yeah. Um, no. I mean, that gets back to where we said, of course, you know, there are ways in which someone on their, on a, in a car ride to confession and, you know, gets killed, that our Lord takes mercy and is merciful. Um, so it's not that there's, it's an absolute, but it is, if we are able to avail ourselves of confession and we know we ought to go, then it is incumbent upon us to avail ourselves of that mercy, otherwise we're not receiving it. Um, and I think, you know, this, the strict scripture passage that this would most be grounded in is in John 20. Our Lord says to his disciples or his apostles, "As I, as the Lord, as God the Father sent me, so I send you." And then he breathes into their nostrils, breathes his own life into them. And he says, "Go forward. You know, whosoever sins you forgive will be forgiven. Whosoever, whosoever sins you retain will be retained in heaven." And the only other time we see God breathing in that manner is when he breathed life into Adam. So I think this is a mirror image of, you know, what was concealed in the Old Testament is now revealed in the New Testament, that our lives are not so much just our lives as creation, but our invitation to live in likeness to him. Not just to be in the imago Dei, but the similitudo Dei. So that we're in his image, but in the life through the life of grace, we become, um, in his likeness. And that's what, um, he's breathing into them and that authority to go forth now and forgive and retain sins.

So I would say that the Protestant and even biblical perspective of John 20:23 is that Jesus is giving the apostles authority because they are alongside him in his earthly mission to forgive sins and he's sending them out similarly to how he sends them out two by two. So they are in a reflection of Jesus who's bodily with them at that time. I don't know that you could apply that to every Christian everywhere. Um, and then Hebrews talks greatly about how Jesus is the intercessor. That the adversary testifies against us, but Jesus intercedes and mediates on our behalf for our faith. So, I, I do think the concept of confession is beautiful and I think that Protestants should probably confess more. Um, but I don't think that it necessarily has to be to a priest. I think it could be a church leader. I think it could be a friend. Um, I think it could be a family member. I think that it should be practiced, but I don't think that it's, it's accurate to say that only the pope can forgive sins.

Well, it's not that the pope only can forgive sins. It's, it is a, um, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is specifically endowed upon the priest. And when you look back, like, how is someone a priest, right? The priests, the bishops, and all that are actually, in, in, in Catholic theology and what we believe, they are the lineage of the apostles because when you see the apostles, what did they do to pass on this to this, this tradition of priests and bishops to other men? They laid hands on them. So Jesus breathed on, he, he anointed first the, the apostles, and then each time they named a bishop, named a priest, it was a laying on of hands. It was a passing on. So sure, I mean, I can go to Noel and be like, "I'm so sorry about what I did," but to have the actual absolution from a man who has laid down his life in persona Christi. So that's the other thing. The priest isn't just like a head leader and this, that, he's someone who has laid his life down in the way that Christ has, stands in person, in the person of Christ. Why? Because when Jesus Christ ascended up, he knew that we would need someone here on earth who would be his bodily symbol. But the other thing that we believe as well, just in that whole area, is that this sacrament is a sacrament. First of all, "sacrament" comes from the word "sacramentum," which is Latin. The core of that is "sak," "sakre," right? And that that root means set apart, holy. So a sacrament is a holy oath that's left for us to receive an abundance, an abundance of grace so that we can truly live in the way that Christ wants us to. And what confession is, is a symbol of his divine mercy. The mercy that Jesus Christ has, that God has for us, that no matter what we do, that our sins can be forgiven. And so many people who, even Catholics who miss that opportunity to take, to take part in such a blessed sacrament that allows you to know that no matter what, God loves you and you are forgiven. It's a powerful, it's a powerful symbol, but it's also, like you said, it is biblical. So you can't, you can't get away from the fact that he actually gave this power to his apostles and they passed it on to men in the same way with the laying on of hands.

In terms of the role the priest is playing during confession, is he forgiving the sins or is he acting as a messenger of God's forgiveness?

God's forgiving, and he is the alter Christus. So he's standing in for God's forgiveness of us.

Okay. And so how is it different for a person to confess their sins to this priest versus confessing it directly to God?

Well, because, um, you know, a sacrament, to Roxy's point, a sacrament is something that symbolizes something, but it also causes the reality of what it symbolizes to come to fruition, to come to true. So we can talk to God and we should, in our prayers, be talking to him about our struggles, our sins, asking for his mercy, praising him. Um, but, you know, reconciliation is something that he instituted for the sake of our own, you know, fleshly personas. You know, we're not just spirits. We are embodied. And so there's something really important about, um, going to someone, speaking aloud, in the humility that requires, say, "I did this, this many times, and now you're going to forgive me." The formality of that, I think, is immensely beneficial to our spiritual life. And I think that our Lord, in his wisdom, knew that we needed a church to kind of dispense those, his, his graces and his mercies through, but originating in him, but to us, but through that kind of familial, embodied interaction.

You go ahead.

I was just going to say, in response to you, that Jesus needs no one to stand in persona Christi because he stands in his own stead, according to scripture. He told us and promised us that he would not leave us as orphans, that he would be with us. And when you reference John 20, my understanding of that verse is that he breathed the Holy Spirit on them. It's not like us that when we come to Christ and we get God's Holy Spirit, um, um, it's a seal. It's a guarantee that we're in Christ. But he breathed the Holy Spirit on them. What does the Holy Spirit do? He gives you discernment. He gives you the understanding of the gospel. So when they go to a person and say, "You, your sins are forgiven," it's not that they are personally absolving it. It's that they're saying, "This person is still in their sins. This person is not still in their sins." They're declaring the truth of what already exists. Not arbitrarily. And I'm not saying that you are saying it arbitrarily, but, um, when man is involved and man is centered, it becomes something that can be arbitrary. But God has given us a sufficient system in himself. So I disagree, uh, fundamentally with the idea of in persona Christi being a biblical teaching because you even see things like Peter, who I know that you regard as the first pope, but you see in first Peter chapter 5, it starts off by him talking to the elders and he flattens the hierarchy by saying, "I'm a fellow elder." He doesn't say anything like, "I'm a pope." In fact, in that same book, he says that God is the chief cornerstone. So you have the supposed rock, which I believe the rock simply meant like, "I'm going to use you to be a foundational piece in the church," which he was, but not that you are going to replace Jesus, who is the ultimate rock. So I feel like there's a lot of, um, inputting things into scripture that elevates man, which isn't biblical to me.

So what was that first verse meaning then?

And, well, first of all, I also say God doesn't need someone to stand in persona Christi. He chose to, to distribute his grace in that way. Um, but what, what does that first verse mean when he says, "Whosoever sins you forgive, whosoever sins you retain?"

Right, that's what I said. So when he breathed the Holy Spirit on them, he gave them the ability to have the Holy Spirit, which previously they didn't have because Jesus Christ was with them. And just like we have the Holy Spirit now as Christians, and we can discern if someone comes up to me and says, "I put my faith in Christ," and but at the same time, maybe they're still living like hell, essentially, I can know in my heart or I can tell them, I've told friends, I'm like, "Girl, you're surrendered. You're still in your sins. You're like, your sins haven't been forgiven because you haven't actually sought out God for that forgiveness. You're not being genuine in your profession." It's the same thing that the apostles could do. It's not me saying like, "I therefore bequeath your forgiveness." That is not biblical and that is actually, I think, antithetical to Christ's superiority and his power.

I don't think so. The thing is that, I mean, this is where we start looking at things where with Protestants, that's unfortunate, is that you get half the story, but you don't get the whole. Not you personally. I don't, I don't want that to come off that way. But it's like,

Okay, so then why, why did Jesus Christ breathe on the apostles, give them this authority, and then they went on to pass this on to other men to lead communities to do the same thing? And this went on for hundreds and hundreds of years, thousands of years, up to this point. It becomes right in ritual, right? But the thing is, is that like you're talking about the Bible, and this, there was no Bible for the first 300 years of Christianity. So everything that passed down was passed down through oral tradition, written scripture, word, and right. And this was a right. It was even, I mean, here's the thing. You can argue some things with scripture alone, but that, and that's where you start getting into trouble of of what happened anthropologically, like what was going on in the culture? What did the early Christians do? What did they believe? Because then you just ignore, not you, but the, the rhetoric ignores a whole swath of history and early church fathers and theologians who died proclaiming these things. The Eucharist, the presence of God, the pope being the, the seed of Peter being the head of their church. They were men who literally died for this. Irenaeus, and like we had Irenaeus, Polycarp, um, Ignatius of Antioch. These three men, all, you know, of himself, direct descendants of John the Apostle, and they wrote about this stuff against heresy. One, it was Irenaeus, I believe, who wrote that. And they wrote, they talked extensively about these things. So for our modern minds to ignore what the early Christians believed is a huge disservice. It's like you only get half of the story and half of the grace and the redemption that Jesus Christ wants to offer when you don't even acknowledge what the early Christians and the early church fathers were doing, what they believed.

Yeah, I'm, I mean, I would respectfully disagree. Um, because I'm not sure in the John 20:23 passage where we're seeing a priest, one priest being given authority to forgive sins. And like I said, Jesus is constantly called the mediator of our sin, called the intercessor of our sins. So I'm not understanding why you can't just go to the mediator, or why you can't go to other people who are endowed with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to discern such things. So, I'm, I'm, I'm just not sure where in scripture you see a specific person being given the ability in that language to forgive other people's sins.

Who gave them the, the, the Holy Spirit? It just, did they just decide to wake up one day and say, "I have the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm going to forgive your..."

No, the Lord gave it to them.

But how do you know?

Because of the scriptures.

But how do you know if it's just somebody saying, "I have the Holy Spirit"?

Oh, you can discern based on their fruit. Yeah. And the way that they live.

I don't agree with that. I don't, because it's just like anybody can get up and say, "I have the Holy Spirit. I have this." But like, look, look at, for instance, like, let's, let's take a little look at some of our biggest prosperity gospel pastors, right?

Million-dollar homes, big old jets, diesel like cars. And but Jesus Christ himself was a pauper who told us to sell everything you have and leave all of your possessions. So that's not a, to me, when I look at that, that's not truly living in the way that Jesus Christ told us to do.

Yeah. Man is fallible.

Right? So you can't just say that someone who randomly says they have the Holy Spirit and then all of a sudden you're pouring all of that trust into them. That's not, and we also don't believe, you know, respectfully, I'm sorry. We also don't believe that that the, that the priest is like Jesus Christ himself. In persona Christi is a completely different concept than that. He is, he is the representation of Christ on earth, passed down through the years through, through, right, through ritual, through tradition, through Jesus Christ himself. And to deny that, it kind of denies what Jesus Christ left for us in order to stay and remain on the path.

I don't necessarily prescribe to apostolic succession because I think that the Holy Spirit leveled the playing field for everybody. And so, everyone is, not everyone. People who accept Christ, I'll make that distinction, and have the Holy Spirit indwelling on the inside of them. So I don't think that any one specific person has a, a specific kind of access to God in a way that other believers in the body don't have access. And man is fallible, like you just mentioned. So why am I to trust that a priest in his fallibility can forgive my sin when again, I could talk to the mediator on my own?

No one in the early church did that.

That's not true. I kind of looked into this and I could, and I could be stand corrected, but I looked into some statements, um, specifically about the papacy of Peter and the names that you list. I think Polycarp did not, they believed Peter when he said, "Act as elders, like, do not lord your position over anyone." Jesus was a servant leader. Their perspective was flattening the hierarchy because that's what Jesus did. So I don't agree with that. I could be wrong. I'm happy to go back and check, but I specifically looked into that and it, it didn't line up with what, what you're saying.

Ignatius of Antioch, one of his last letters before he was, before he was martyred, actually stood and defended the primacy of the seat of Peter, the bishop of Rome, the pope. And also, he also died because he was adamantly about the Eucharist and the presence of body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. So he wrote about that. It was one of his last letters. Like,

But was Peter actively forgiving people of their sin?

Jesus Christ gave, if Jesus Christ,

In the early church, like, do we have documentation in year 70 that was already talking about any Christian who does not avail themselves to the sacrament of confession is leading themselves to despair?

To, to Peter, specific confession.

So I guess I'm just looking for the concept of confessing to one sole person in the scriptures. I'm not seeing that.

Because you're only considering that the, the Bible, which is a book that Torah.

Yeah. You, and that's a Protestant concept because the, what, what happened to the first 300 years before the Catholic Church gave the book, the Bi, the, the world, the Bible?

Well, I would say the New Testament, specifically, but feel free to.

They canonized it and they made it a worldwide thing. There was only one church at that time. It wasn't like the 40,000.

Yeah. It was the universal church. It was the Catholic Church because the, it was the, if you want to go back into the history of of Hippo and you go to Carthage and you go to Ephesus,

They put the books together. But who was the one that like ratified it all? It was the pope. It was in Rome, right? So you can't get away from that fact.

But again, it's like when you say these things, you don't, you're not, not you. And I'm sorry, I have to really change my my wording. When we speak like this, when we speak like this, we ignore history. And when you ignore history, that's almost saying as if like, like Jesus Christ didn't exist. He was a fantasy figure. They didn't really exist, and there was no tradition or anything. There's no history. But we have that. We have that. And for the first 300 years, the Christians did not have that. All they had was what was passed down to them directly from Jesus Christ to the apostles who went out and did what he said to go and spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But there were other things that came with it. There was confession with it. There was a Eucharist. There were other things that came with it. And if you throw out the fact that, um, sola scriptura, a book that came 300 years later, you ignore that important history of what binds us as Christians to Christ.

Hi loves, it's me again, Dr. Michelle Daff. We've really been enjoying producing these meaningful conversations for the Dr. Daff Show. However, they are very costly to produce with our large team, equipment, studio, and cast and everything that goes on behind the scenes. If you've been enjoying these thought-provoking conversations and want to support what we're building here, I would love for you to check out my fragrance brand, Fine Forever. Fine Forever is more than just a fragrance brand. It is a celebration of faith, purpose, and beauty. We currently have three signature scents, each inspired by a unique Bible scripture and has with it its own story and meaning. First, we have 29:11. Inspired by the scripture Jeremiah 29:11. It's a delicate yet vibrant fragrance that combines lush florals with soft, sweet undertones. It is a celebration of gratitude and the blessings that unfold when we walk in faith. Next is Silent Storm. Inspired by Psalm 107:28 and 29, it's a bold, captivating scent that balances strength and serenity. With warm woods and a touch of spice, it's a reminder to find peace and purpose even in life's storms. And lastly, we have Mustard Seed. Inspired by Matthew 17:20, it is a fresh and uplifting fragrance inspired by faith and growth. It opens with a bright citrus and soft florals symbolizing the beauty of small beginnings and the incredible potential within. Every purchase directly supports this show and helps us to keep bringing you meaningful content. So, if you're looking for a signature scent that not only smells amazing, but also carries a message of faith and empowerment, then visit fineforever.com and shop now. Your support means the world to me and I truly believe that these fragrances will bless you as much as they have blessed me.

Okay. And the next prompt is, "Protestants misunderstand what Catholics mean by venerating Mary and the saints." Three, two, one. Do you understand? Okay. Not sure. Okay. Well, you can go ahead and discuss.

Yeah. The only reason I say, um, not sure, is because I think that Protestants have a perspective that Catholics might not articulate themselves. So the Protestant perspective is to bow down to any idol or or graven image or to pray for the intercession of the saints is, uh, is wrong. But I know that you guys perceive it as just having people who are who are more alive than ever in heaven interceding on your behalf. So I just want to make sure that your position gets articulated clearly.

Catholics, how would you explain the difference between veneration and worship to a Protestant?

Veneration is giving honor to them. Worship is traditionally tied up with sacrifice.

So, one friend I have who, when he became Catholic after years of, he was actually studying to be a Protestant pastor, and he said he always thought conflated the attitude of Catholics to the saints and to our Lord until he became Catholic. He's like, "Oh, it's so different." You know, you fall prostrate in front of our Lord. You genuflect to our Lord. You know, there's, your crucifix is the center and the tabernacle. It should be, it is the center of the Mass. It's all about leading up to our Lord's sacrifice and the Eucharist is the source and the summit. Um, it's very different than the way we interact with the saints and to Our Lady, which is one of, um, familial friendship. So in the same way I might ask, "Will you please pray for me?" I might say to a saint, "Will you please pray for me?" or to Our Lady, "Pray to me, pray for me." It's always leading back to our Lord. It's not divisive. It's not like a pie chart where if our Lord doesn't get every minute of attention at all times. It's not like it's like in a family, and when a family gets bigger, there's oftentimes more love to go around, and it's not a jealous love. It's a love that is inclusive of all of those things. So, um, that's my initial thoughts.

When I read, um, James 5:16, it talks about going and presenting yourselves to the elders in your church and letting them lay hands on you so that you may be healed. That to me seems as though the body of Christ is being pointed to who is locally around them. Your elders, your pastor, the leaders in your church, the friends in your church. And the body of Christ locally is supposed to function as that form of accountability and support for you. And I'm not sure why James wouldn't say also present yourselves to the saints for intercession. Why is it so specific to the local context if we're supposed to be interceded for by the saints? And I, I want to say also, you said that it's not an issue of jealousy, but it is because the Bible says that I am a jealous God. So I think, well, I know that scripture does not permit us to pray to saints. It, it allows and specifically commands us to pray directly to God because he's the only one that can change our situation. I understand the concept of, you know, them being alive in the sense that they are in Christ, but I also know that there's a verse that comes to mind when, um, someone is seeking something. He said, "Why seek the dead on behalf of the living?" Um, God is our God. He's a living God, and he's the one that can answer us if we cry out to him. So I don't find that praying to saints is biblical or or...

I'm sorry.

Venerating saints is biblical.

I'm sorry. Um, we believe the same thing, Duke. We, we, we pray to God. But the thing I think, I think there's a misunderstanding of praying to, because then you think that we're praying to a saint in the way that we are or Blessed Mother in the way that we are to God, right? So like, again, like it comes down to a breakdown of, uh, and Noel touched on this beautifully. There's different kinds of prayer. There's latria, which is the prayer that's solely for God, sole worship for God. Then there's dulia and hyperdulia. And that would just be like a veneration of and like an honoring, right? And we see in Revelation, I believe it's chapter 21, where the, where the saints are praying for us in heaven. That that's there, right? So if that's there, then why do we ignore that, but we pay attention to another verse, right? And then the other thing is, like, if you say that we, I, as Christians, as true Christians, we believe, again, like you said, you touched on it. We're alive in Christ. We don't just die and just, poof, we're gone, right? We die and we go off to, hopefully, to glory and then be seated at the right hand of our Father. And if we're alive in Christ, then we can ask for intercession. Like, "Can you pray for me? Can you double and magnify my prayers to the Lord?" I mean, that's kind of what we, what we're doing in a way. Kind of, if I asked you, if I asked, "Can you pray for me?" And like, in many respects, I mean, you touched on something that I haven't heard a lot of Protestants say, that, "Oh, you know, the body of Christ is there if you ask." But a lot of them cut it off like, "You can't have anybody pray for you." Well, then if you ask your pastor or somebody else, it's kind of the same. We don't go, poof, that we're still alive in Christ. So in that respect, that's how. And then just to touch on the veneration of Mary, we wouldn't have Jesus become incarnate without this woman and who she was and what she offered. Her yes to the world, which was a yes that is this, which was the yes that was first of all opposite of Eve, right? So that's why we kind of believe her to be like the new Eve in that way, the new covenant, the ark of the new covenant, Jesus Christ, and what he came for. But it's like, there is a, there is a major respect for the one human being who, when God asked her, "Will you do the most difficult thing that I can ask you?" There wasn't a question out of her sprung a wellspring, her fiat, her yes. And so that teaches us so much as Christians, particularly for women in this culture today, humility, grace, the full trust of God, like, not a questionable trust. And that's hard for us. So we recognize the importance of her in the, in biblical history and in the history of salvation, in the story of salvation, and who she was. We see her not only in Luke in the beginning, we see her in Acts of the Apostles, right there praying next to the apostles at Pentecost. This, she was a woman that they, that they also respected. We see her bequeathed to John, "Behold your mother." If he, if we're talking about everything else in the Bible, we're, that's for us. But when Jesus Christ says, "Behold your mother" to John. Oh, that don't mean me. She ain't my mother. You know, doesn't make sense. And then finally, we see her in Revelation, Revelation 12, who would be the woman crowned, cloaked in the sun with the moon under her feet, pregnant with child, with the, with the seven-headed dragon waiting to devour her child? The child comes out of her, is taken up to the, to the seat of the throne of the Father.

She is kept in a special place in heaven. Her 12-star crown is 12 stars on her head. What woman would that be, if not Mary? So we understand her importance in our faith and truly do, um, venerate her for that.

I just wanted to push back on some things you said. You said Revelation 21 is a picture of praying to the saints. And maybe you can clarify that. I'm a huge fan of Revelation. Um, and so to my knowledge, by the time it gets to Revelation 21, we've already had a rapture. And I don't see, I don't recall anything where saints are praying. I recall in Revelation where the prayers of the saints are ascending. And this is literal human beings here on this earth praying to God, and their prayers ascending like incense. I don't recall anything in scripture that says that there are saints in heaven praying for us.

The prophets, that's it's a >> And again, it comes down to like, how do you, how do you, how do you interpret, right? But because your view is that we can't do that, the Catholic Church is always broken, then that. And maybe, maybe okay, I give you Protestants the grace of saying that, you know, you guys are really good with the with the Bible kind of like memorization on road. So maybe it's not Revelation 21, maybe it's a different chapter that I'm speaking of. But you and I are on the same page there. We see the prayers where the prayers of the people coming up to heaven, right? And we see the prophets praying as well for us. And that's in that intercession. Where do those, where is that instance coming from? It's not just coming from heaven. It's coming from >> Well, that's what I want to push back on. I believe what you might be talking about. I think it's Revelation 8, and it's, it's just simply describing like the sweet-smelling aroma of God's children when we pray. So like, if I started praying right now, it would ascend to God in the form of incense. But it's not saying anything in regards to there are saints that are praying down for us or something like that.

And I also wanted to touch on something that you said about Mary. When you, when you said that, um, when Mary was called, she didn't question or whatever. She was a little confused. She said, "How can this be, for I don't know a man?" She didn't like, when you, not to compare or contrast, but how I mentioned Abraham. Abraham literally was told from a voice in the sky, "Get up and go." And he got up and just went. He didn't ask one question. He didn't say a word. Well, when Mary was told, "Hey, you know, you're going to be with," she was confused. Like, "How can this be? I don't know a man." So, I don't agree with that assessment either. I don't agree. I feel like that is like, it's baking this, um, higher esteem, which I understand. Like, I appreciate the fact that she was willing, and I appreciate the fact that she did such a noble thing. But it's baking this high esteem into the text that's not there because I can say the same thing about Abraham, who really didn't question, whereas Mary was confused and she did question. And so >> Well, I mean, and and what you're, what you're, what you're paring is exactly what Martin Luther and his ilk wanted you to parrot because for, for the, for them to have a faith that they created based off of their grievances with the Catholic Church, they had to demean the things that Catholicism stood for and meant. So that what they wanted, Protestantism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and every other denomination that came after that to even acknowledge what again, early church fathers. And this is where you start getting a little murky. What did the early church fathers say? What did they believe? What was the tradition that was passed down? Once you take that away, and you see again, what you're paring is supposed to be that you're not supposed to believe that because you're Protestant, and they don't. That's that's the, that's the point, right? But she wasn't saying this like, "I know, like, I know no man, like, what's going on?" That's what she, it was just an acknowledgment of the fact that she was betrothed to Joseph. They had not consummated their marriage yet. It wasn't a question of like, "Well, I don't know, how can this be?" It's, it's an acknowledgment of where she is and where her life is. But the, when you, when you read through, when you read through her entire canon, because the things that have, she went and visited Elizabeth. Elizabeth said, "How could it be that the mother of my Lord comes to see me?" You know what I mean? The baby leapt in her womb. "All generations will call me blessed." Like these things that stand out in scripture that hold up that the early church fathers believed and the early Christians believed. Once you take that out and you go off of what Luther and one of all of them wanted to do to take her out of the picture, we're left where we are here with this.

>> It's also the queen mother. The queen mother would have been understood to be a royal role with certain authority. So Solomon gets off his throne and and bows before his mother, not his wife. If his wife comes in, she bows to him. But when the queen mother, that was a very particular role that everyone Christians would have understood at that time as being one of particular significance.

>> Yeah. So, I was just going to say, um, I don't believe that we see in the scriptures this kind of separation and honors between Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdoulia. And a passage that comes to mind is Revelation 19, I believe 10, when John is being given, um, the revelation, the vision from an angel, and he falls face down at the angel, and the angel says, "Don't do that. I'm not God." The angel doesn't say, "You can Dulia me or Hyperdoulia me, but don't Latria me." And so I just don't see that those distinctions in the scriptures. It seems as though God is a very jealous God, and he requires glory only for himself. I will say regarding Mary, I think that the pendulum kind of shifts. Um, Mary does deserve honor and respect. There's a whole prayer, I think in Luke 2, talking about how she's a blessed woman. And so I, I think what's happening is Protestants have a very low view of Mary, and I would argue that Catholics have a very high view of Mary, and we need to meet somewhere in the middle to be biblical. Thank you. And the next prompt is the Bible alone is the ultimate authority. Three, two, one. [laughter] >> Oh, no. And yes. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I'll I'll say that. Um, >> However, whenever I, I have a litmus test to determine what the true gospel is, and if it doesn't line up with this litmus test, and I think it's something that is a, a good test, but I'm probably biased, and it, it's a false gospel. What I do is I say, if I can go to the hospice and share this gospel with someone on their deathbed, then and they can receive it, then it's a true gospel. So if I say, "God wants to bless you," this is the prosperity gospel, and they have two weeks left to live, it's a false gospel. If I go to someone who was on death row, and I say that, it's a false gospel. So in the same vein, if I go to someone and say, "Well, without the history, um, even if you live in this very remote place, without knowing church history, then you're not doing church right." That's a false gospel because everything that God has given to us is in his word. The Bible says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by history and every word that proceeds to the mouth of God." So the gospel has to be accessible to everyone. I'm surprisingly not a history buff. When you started talking about Martin Luther, I told her earlier, like, I'm not, I literally am a simple girl. I read the Bible every year from cover to cover, and that's it. I hardly know who Martin Luther is. I really don't necessarily care because my salvation is not predicated on who he is or what he put on the wall or what. It's literally centered on the words that God has given me that that speaks life to me every single day. I don't have to know church history to be saved, and a person that doesn't know church history can still be saved. So to emphasize this, in my humblest opinion, is a false gospel.

>> I think the scriptures are written with history in mind too. Like, I think all of us understand the validity of the Bible. The Bible isn't just something that was written, but there's history that backs it and aligns with it. And so to say sola scriptura isn't to completely discount history, but to know that the Bible actually has narrative, historical narrative all throughout it, describing what's happening in the world. That's what first and second Chronicles are, and the Kings and Samuel. It's literally telling us what has taken place over a course of time. So it might not include all history, but it includes quite a bit of history for us to to consider. And so when we talk about things like apostolic succession or confession or Eucharist, I think that the Bible being the inspired word of God, second Timothy says, "Every scripture is God-breathed for our building up, for our edification." So when we talk about some of those things, and we can observe them only in history and not in scripture, then that's when we start to question and do the litmus test because it's like, why are these things not self-evident both in the word and in history? I'd start off by saying I admire and really love and am inspired by your love for scripture, and as I often am by, um, my Protestant and evangelical brothers and sisters. Um, the first problem I would say with sola scriptura is that it's not scriptural. It's just nowhere in scripture. And the verse you point to is beautiful in second Timothy 3. Uh, "All scripture is inspired. All scripture is profitable." But it reminds me of, you know, when I'm talking to my kids about trying to get their health on track or something or be live a healthier life. I, you know, I start off by saying, "You got to be hydrated. Like, are you drinking water? Are you drinking sodas? What are you doing? Like, drink water. Drink water." I'm emphasizing it's going to be really good for you. It's going to be profitable for your health. It's going to help you. But that's not all I want them to do. They got to eat some food, too. They got to eat vegetables. They got to get exercise. So, there's, you know, it's it's saying that scripture is necessary, important, beautiful, inspired, not sufficient. It's not enough. We need to be complete. We need, and we need the church that Christ instituted, the sacraments. And, you know, I think that's what the early church again emphasized over and over again, and what we're trying to emphasize now, too. Yeah, sorry.

>> It's okay. I mean, and I, I would like to double down on what Nicole, Nicole, Noel said, that I think that I have a great admiration for, you know, our Protestant brothers and sisters and like, just your knowledge of the scriptures. And I think I, more Catholics should have that. And I, and I do admit, like, having conversations with my Protestant friends was what made me turn to scripture even more, you know? And so I think that like, again, the, the issue comes when you say sola scriptura, that Bible or scripture alone, and it was never like that, you know? So we have to be careful. And you don't have to be a history buff, but to be ignorant of history, like, it just, it just really doesn't give you the true foundation of the totality of the word and how it evolved and what we believe and how the Christian, mere Christianity in general, even if you want to say that the early church was Catholic, if you don't, if you don't want to say that, that's okay. But how did it evolve and what they truly believed and how they lived, I think is also an important look as well. So scripture is first and paramount, of course, but I don't think it's the only thing that we consider. We have tradition as well.

>> So >> And I'll just say to that, like the gap for us is is having the Holy Spirit. So, um, where there's something that may not be clear in scripture, I don't have to look to tradition or history. I can look to God's Holy Spirit that lives on the inside of me to illuminate truth. So again, I think that God's word, if God really is this grand creator and awesome, like it should be of tantamount importance. Like, I'm not saying that you guys don't think that. I'm just saying that it's our go-to. And if there's anything that's lacking, he's not left us without an orphan. He said, "I'm going to leave you the Holy Spirit to teach you, and that's sufficient." Not, it doesn't obviously say, "I'm going to leave you church history because I'm, I'm, I'm admittedly ignorant to it." And I don't think it shapes anything as to how I believe and relate to God. But it leads inevitably to private revelation, so that each individual believer then becomes his or her own pope, magisterium, because good Christians, faithful, I mean, this, the fruit is the, you know, and sola scriptura doesn't work because it can't work because it ends in all the splintering that we see where good, holy people approach the scripture, and there's not, uh, it's not formally, there's not, there's not a specific clarity in it that is does not all that is on on its face prima facie understand leads to one interpretation at all times. Multiple biblical scholars interpret things differently, and so we need an arbiter.

>> And also, oh, I'm sorry. You keep we keep going. >> Yeah, >> I'll just add on it and I'll throw it to you. Um, we see, um, uh, Philip on the road in Acts, right? And he runs into the Ethiopian reading Isaiah, right? And he opens up. He said, "What are you reading?" He says, "I don't know how could I not, how could I know if someone doesn't interpret it for me, right?" And it's just like a beautiful way of just showing it's like when Philip opened up Isaiah for him, opened up Christ for him, he wanted to be baptized like on the spot, and he did, right? Went off and proclaimed the gospel to his people. But it just shows that like there is, there is sort of a, a caution when you're trying to, when you believe in sola scriptura, you're going to open the Bible, you're going to read it. And that book is heavy for a lot of people. And having a guide, not just your own thoughts of the Holy Spirit, but but in our case with with Catholicism, we have the teaching body of the church, the magisterium, where these things were passed on for years and can get to the heart of everything. I think it's a very important thing because private revelation, your own understanding of scripture is very dangerous and has been used in very nefarious ways.

>> Yeah. Can I just clarify? >> Yeah. For Philip thing, I wanted to say something. I, I really want to push back on that because obviously Philip, the Ethiopian eunuch didn't have the Holy Spirit. And you kind of said, like, not just the Holy Spirit. It's kind of a, a deemphasizing of the Holy Spirit, which is God, or at least that's what it sounded like. So that example, I don't think would be the best example because you're talking to a layman that did not have God's Holy Spirit living on the inside of him. It could be assumed that after he was baptized, um, and after he gave his life to Christ, he got God's Holy Spirit. So now the scripture is going to be illuminated, which happens. And so in response to that, there's nothing that is at issue with the foundational things of scripture. I have the Holy Spirit, and I can read it, and I can understand very clearly what it takes to be saved. It's not a complicated thing. And that's the beauty of God. He says he makes the foolish things to confound the wise. Like, he makes it simple. So maybe there's some things like, okay, is this 7,000 or 700? Like we discussed in a previous episode, maybe those things may not be as clear, but they are not the foundation of our faith. Everything that is foundational is clear, and then God continues to speak to us through his Holy Spirit to the things that may not be.

>> Well, we see in the New Testament. I'm sorry. >> Um, I was going to say, and when we say or when I say sola scriptura, I'm not saying that scripture is the only influence. We're saying it's the primary influence. And so, yes, history has implications on the way that we practice our faith. They run alongside one another, but ultimately, that final authority is going to be the scripture in the Christian life. And then I would echo what you said, like, it's not having your own relationship with the Holy Spirit is a good thing, and I want to be clear about that. Like, that's the, having a personal relationship with Jesus is kind of the whole thing, like that he came down and reconciled us to himself. But I would say that also in Christ, in Protestantism, we also default to church leaders when we don't understand something. We also have spiritual mentorship. We also have scholars that we go to to consider what the text is saying. So, it's not just this faith of sitting in a dark room and trying to figure out what the passages mean. And I don't think that was what was meant by sola scriptura really ever.

>> I mean, it's interesting that we have these conversations when it's like, my question was going to be, well, you guys, I'm sure have people that you trust that you go to to interpret. You know, >> You guys can quote me if I'm wrong on the on the citation. I think it's in 2 Thessalonians or 1 Thessalonians 2:15. I'm not sure. >> Yeah. Second Thessalonians. Okay. You know where I'm going, right? "Hold fast to the traditions that we taught you." You know, traditions and script. So, it's it's both. It's not it's not just that it, whether by word or by letter, right? "Hold fast to your traditions that we taught you by word or by letter." Letter. So, I mean, it's it's not just that alone, you know?

>> Thank you. And the next prompt is the sacraments are primarily symbolic acts rather than channels of God's grace. Three, two, one. >> Symbolic acts. >> Primarily >> Primarily symbolic acts >> rather than channels of God's grace. The sacrament >> The symbols point to his grace. No, >> I don't know. I'll let you guys talk so I can understand the concept a little bit more. >> Who wants to share? Um, well, they are, they do symbolize something, but then what they do is they cause this, the thing that they symbolize to become real. So, um, I wouldn't say primarily symbolic. So you would start with, you know, this, I would say, you know, the most distinctive teaching of the Catholic Church that separates us, I think, from others, or separates us from Protestants, is probably the papacy. But the most important teaching is the Eucharist. That is the source and summit of the faith because it is what Christ came in the new covenant to give himself to us and to be in communion with us in a new radical way that was so radical that at the point that he announced it and said over and over again, emphasized it over and over again, he had so many followers walk away from him, and he didn't clarify, he didn't run after them. He said, "Will you two walk away?" Um, and I, the thing I always wonder is how much, I don't know what more, how more, how else he could have been more clear about it, you know? And I think, you know, often times my Protestant brothers and sisters, when they come to the Catholic Church, it's because they start to realize like, "Gosh, I don't know how to get around this. This teaching is so clear. Our Lord wants us to eat his his body and drink his blood." Um, >> Before you go on, >> Is the Eucharist truly the blood and body of Christ, or is it just symbolic? >> It is truly. So the teaching is transubstantiation is under, is based on, you know, or you can understand it through metaphysics, which means that what a thing is is made up of four causes. There's the formal cause, the final cause, the efficient cause, the material cause. Efficient cause is who made it? Formal cause is what's the essence of it? Material cause is what's the matter? It's made up of the material components. And then the, um, uh, final cause is what's the purpose? So, in order to understand what happens with the bread and wine, transubstantiation is that none of the material realities shift. It tastes the same, it looks the same, it feels the same. It's all with a microscope would be the same. But the, the formal cause, the essence of the thing, the substance underlying the thing that makes the thing what it is, is utterly transformed. Oh, thank you for sharing that. And can, for everyone, can one be saved without baptism? >> Oh, can we respond to the truth? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I would say, just from some of my research, the idea of eating a deity is actually, it could be traced back to Greco-Roman paganism, um, where people attempted to eat the flesh of Dionysus. And I think your your question about how could it be more clear is a good question. Um, but when I think of the Last Supper and Jesus saying, "Drink this, this wine. This is the blood of the covenant, and eat my body which is broken for you." The very Last Supper was symbolic because Jesus was sitting with them at the time. And so the bread couldn't have been his body, and the blood, the wine could not have been his actual physical blood. So I think we run into issues there. Um, and I don't think that that communion being symbolic takes away from the weight of what it is. Jesus says, "Do this in remembrance of me." So when we take communion, it's a very emotional, grievous, repentant moment, but it doesn't necessarily implicate that Jesus's body and blood is actually there.

>> I just think that again, it's like, it's really hard to get around. Like, that's that's that's a fair assessment, but it's really, again, it's hard. Protestants never can answer why Jesus went more and more graphic with the word when you break down the translation of the word "eat" that he used, by the point to he used the word "nao" by the end, knowing that the Jewish people at that time had a huge aversion to blood and any meat or any flesh with blood because it was part of their ceremonial laws and all the food laws and all that. And he doubled down, he tripled down, and people walked away, and he didn't run after them. But then who wrote that gospel? John, right? And this is where when you go sola scriptura, it starts to fall apart because it was dangerous to be a Christian in those days. It was highly, you know, all of the apostles except for one were martyred, right? Exception of Judas. We know what happened to him. But and they, and John specifically, again, it comes back to he lived after the resurrection of Christ. He be, he started teaching. He started discipling. And his disciples. It goes down to two specific ones like that I mentioned earlier. And they were proponents for saying that this was real, the presence was real. They were fighting against heresies. They were thwarting all this out. This is in the early church. So it's like even beyond what is there. If you ignore the fact that the early Christians, they came together to break bread every Sabbath. This was real for them. It wasn't a question. And it's like no one in the Protestant circles I've heard yet have explained, except for just brushing it off of, "Well, it was just some symbol." You know what I mean? That that like, how do you get around what he said? And now we doubled down.

>> Yeah. So my interpretation, I would have to do more research on on what the classical Protestant argument is. I would interpret "nao" as him showing the weightiness of what he's going to do on the cross and how it is only through his body and only through his blood that we achieve salvation. Back to your point about sola scriptura, Augustine and Tertullian both wrote about the symbolic nature of Jesus's body. Tertullian says, "There would not be a symbol if there were not first a body. There would not be a symbol of blood if there were not first blood that was shed." And so I saw that there are a lot of Catholic arguments to try and pull from Augustine and Tertullian, but what they don't necessarily consider is that they were fighting the most earliest forms of Gnosticism. And so we have the Gnostics saying Jesus was just a spiritual being. He wasn't really real. He didn't really die. He didn't really resurrect. So when you see some of that hyperliteral language, it's to double down on the fact that Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh on earth, not necessarily to be proponents of of transubstantiation.

>> Totally. They were, well, they were, they were 200 years after the early church fathers like August, uh, Trullian. They were like the second, the third century or so. By >> Right, third or fourth. So now we've already got 300. >> So do you not consider them? >> No, they absolutely do. But what, what you're doing is you're conf, you're in this argument, you're conflating what they've already understood because the ones that I mentioned were from the first century when all of this was taught directly from John, and they were defending it first. So by the time we all we get all the way to Churchulian, we get to Augustine, we get, this was already understood in the body of Christ where they didn't, where you, the way that that we're using symbol today was is rooted again, Protestant Reformation. How do we refute the Catholic Church of what it believes by taking everything >> But they weren't Protestants. I'm saying Julian were not Protestant. No, that's not what I'm saying. >> They didn't contradict church teaching either. >> They didn't contradict any of this. >> But they just contradicted your interpretation that way. >> No, I'm not. I think it's very clear to say, "There would not be a symbol if there were not first a body, and there would not be a symbol of blood if there were not first blood that was shed." I think that's very explicit. And I think that, I mean, yes, you, I, I can concede the argument that they're from the second and third century, but I still think that that's pretty early in church history. And then back to the point about apostolic succession, if they're endowed with the Holy Spirit, why can they not reform? Like, what's the problem with reforming certain teachings if they're not biblical? Cuz they weren't fighting any of that. They were fighting against heresies at that time. They were even paying attention. There was no infighting in this way that we have today because that didn't come from >> But they could be clarifying. It doesn't clarifying something doesn't necessarily have to be a fight. >> True. But I think that what happens is when you look at things through a lens that was not even there, like when you say that, when you, when we look at it from a lens of the Protestant ideal is that it's a symbol. So therefore, when I look at everything I read, I'm only going to see it as a symbol. This wasn't something that they were fighting amongst each other. I mean, Augustine and they were all as Catholic as Catholics could be. They received the body of Christ. >> Saying that Jesus's body and blood was a symbol. >> I was just going to say, it's probably just a practical, maybe even more silly objection, but the idea of saying like, "Make me near" when God is already omnipresent is contradictory. So to say that, "Okay, I take this sacrament and God becomes nearer to me" contradicts his, um, clear statements in scripture that he's everywhere. "Where can I go from your spirit? If I make my bed in the lowest grave, you're there." So I don't agree with that even from a practical standpoint. Um, and also I don't agree that Jesus was physically in the wafer and or in the bread, rather, and physically in the wine cup because he was talking to them. So those are just some practical, I guess, more logical objections that I have to this idea.

>> Not physically, essentially the substance of the thing. >> He said what? >> He, not physically, essentially the substance. The transubstantiation is not a physical change. It's a substantial change. Um, and I'd also say God is everywhere. But yes, but, uh, he became man. So he already set a precedent that, you know, incarnation, I'm going to come be with my people incarnate in an incarnational way. And I think it's beautiful to give, leave the, leave us with the Eucharist to continue that.

>> Thank you. The Protestant Reformation did more harm than good to the church. Three, two, one. >> Okay. >> Shocking. [laughter] >> Hello. Um, well, I, I'll start out by saying, you know, certainly I think it's, it would be impossible to say that, that not agree with that prompt because it was so divisive and so detrimental. I mean, even Luther, after he, you know, stood sola scriptura, "Every Christian is his own pope and council," pope and council, two years later, he was already writing and complaining and saying, "Look, for every person in the church, there's they have a new, you know, head and a new idea of how we should interpret everything and what church they should have started." Anyway, he was already decrying the endless splintering. Um, but I would say that there's been a lot of fruit, I think, that has come. For one thing, I think there was real corruption in the church, and you know, the church came together in a council to correct that, exactly what the, what the reformers were trying to address. So, you know, there's an ancillary good in that way. But one of the biggest fruits I've seen in my own personal life that I have to attribute to the Reformation is that the best, most amazing Catholics I know oftentimes are Protestant converts into the Catholic Church. That you all make the most beautiful, wonderful Catholics because you come with this vibrancy, knowledge of scripture, this passion. And I have seen anecdotally, but I've also heard for years and years and years and even read articles about that there is an interesting asymmetry where the Protestants who become Catholic, they've oftentimes read and studied their way into the Catholic Church. Whereas the Catholics I know who leave the Catholic Church, it's because they were ill-formed, because they have a wound, because somebody, you know, there was some real victimhood that that happened, or maybe they just never really were were encouraged to develop a deep prayer life where they could really know our Lord. And so then they say, "Oh, I can have a personal relationship here. I'll go there." And I understand that instinct. But it is interesting to me that I see, in other words, this is my long way of saying, "I'll see you guys in the Catholic Church. You're one confession away from being in full communion." [laughter] But you guys would make amazing people Catholics. I doubt that will happen.

>> You guys make lovely promises. >> Right. Right. Over. [laughter] We both want each other to cross the tiger. Like, come on. Yeah. >> Yeah. I would I would um second what you said about certain corruptions being being corrected, like indulgences, for instance, because of the Reformation. By the way, happy Reformation Day. Tomorrow is Reformation Day. >> You told me that earlier. I [laughter] know. I'm telling you. I don't know anything about >> I don't celebrate Halloween. I celebrate Reformation Day. >> [laughter] >> Um, but, but yeah, I mean, I think that the divide was was definitely sad. Um, but I think that the divide happened because there wasn't a willingness to reform and correct some of those things. So, yeah. >> But they did reform and correct those things >> later, right? But why didn't they do it when Martin Luther gave them the 95 Theses? Why was there so much? >> Well, because the church is a divine institution and a human institution. There's always going to be corruption, impoverished witnesses in the church, which is actually a testament to the truth of the church because the no church could have sustained this long teaching the correct teachings about the human person, about the Trinity, you know, all these things without having that sort of presence of the Holy Spirit guiding, protecting her teachings.

>> Yeah. I guess I would have liked to see like, in my perfect world, there would have been a collaborative effort, and we would all still be a part of the universal church, and there would be no schism. >> And God wants that. They all may be one. He wants unity. Yeah. >> It's of his nature is to be unified. Absolutely. Anything? >> Yeah. >> No, no, no. I was just going to ask, um, if they're done talking about this, are you gonna open it up for them to just share? >> Yeah. >> Okay. But, but she had something she wants to say. Okay. No, no. >> We can, we can go on then because I, I'll just probably reiterate what she said. So, if you want to go on, that's fine. >> Okay. So, ladies, thank you so much for being here today and sharing. I just want to hear from each of you. There's anything else that you want to share, something that you took away from today, anything that is important to share with our audience, I would love to hear from you.

>> I love how like, I feel like even though we've had our little moments of like, you know, back and forth, I feel that what truly shows that we are sisters in Christ and we are of the body of Christ. Um, is that there's a, there's a respect about. And this doesn't always go that way, okay? We, we've all, we've all been in those kind of situations. But, you know, I, as as someone who was born and raised in the faith, and I have Protestants in my family. Listen, I got a whole sect of my family that's like bishop like Protestant ministers and heads of churches. >> And even my dad, who passed away, who was a Baptist minister. Um, we had a mutual respect for the the fact that we love Christ. And at the end of the day, what we want to do as either Protestants or Christians is to spread that light to all the world and bring others to heaven. And so for me, walking away today, I feel like, you know, I think that there's always a chance for me personally to go deeper and to really look deeper into the scriptures. I really, I really admire and respect you for your knowledge of that. And to say that you don't have to be a history buff, and but that's what brought me in a deeper understanding of my faith and for so many people, that truth, that element of truth, that virtual truth brings them in. But I, I feel like I've learned from you guys and and inspired to go deeper from your presence. And then feel like for Noel and I, that, you know, we, we love our faith and we're, we're here to always share it. And that's just kind of, you know, I feel like it was a great conversation. I thank you everyone for that.

>> Thank you. Yeah, it was really refreshing. And I mean, I love all the history stuff, so it was cool to like, not have to argue about the historic. [laughter] It was really good to talk with you guys. Yeah.

>> I was going to say, I appreciate you guys' brilliance. You guys are brilliant, and um, it just comes out so succinctly, and I thank you. Thank you, guys.

>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll reiterate the same thing. I feel far more sisterly with you than I feel any division. Um, and it reminds me actually of, of just even talking about these things, how important it is to be able to disagree well, that we are, we have an impoverished understanding of how to disagree well in our society today. So, this is important. This show is important. Um, and it reminds me of my husband, who grew up evangelical. When he came to the church, he said, you know, the funny thing is, I've been a Protestant, and I never understood what I was protesting. So, thank you for your willingness to hear what Catholic ideas are, because oftentimes there's non-interest in it. Um, and I've, I, you know, I remember he echoed sort of John Henry Newman, who gave his life. He became a Catholic. He was the Queen's theologian. He became a Catholic and was martyred for it. And he said, "What were doubts became difficulties." And I think that often times the things that are, we often misunderstand about the Catholic Church, or so many misunderstand, seem like they are alarming or scary, but once we understand them, then they become more like, you know, not something to doubt, but something that maybe it's just an obstacle, and maybe we need to think more about, pray more about. So, anyway, I appreciate you guys and respect you endlessly. So, thanks for for doing this.

>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, ladies, and to you watching at home, thank you for listening to [music] this episode. Please leave us a comment. Let us know your thoughts and how you felt about the things that we talked about here today. [music] And until next time, bye-bye. >> Bye. >> Thank you, ladies. >> We did it.