This Will END ALL of Protestantism | Documentary

One of the most important tasks of the apologist is honesty. To speak deceptively or dishonestly about another religion, however false it is, is manifestly immoral and should be condemned by all Christians, no matter their background. Yet, how often do we fail in this task by omission, by not studying as closely as we should? Maybe we don't intend to lie or to be dishonest, but we fail by not putting as much work in as we should. One of the central goals of this video is to not fall into these vices. We hope to accurately and thoroughly refute the errors of the Protestants doing our due diligence. Thank you for listening and enjoy the video.

A common experience of Catholics entering into the internet religious discussion space is having weird interactions with certain odd Protestants that you have never interacted with in real life. Growing up, your vision of Protestantism looked less like this and more like this. When you think about Protestants and Protestantism, you probably think of people like Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. Your archetypes for Protestants are basically the ones with lesbian bishops, the ones with crazy pastors who speak in tongues, the really intense ones who yell a lot from rural areas, and the ones with really big churches who make a lot of money and have rock music at their church.

But when you are online, you often interact with a completely different archetype. Often you will hear about this different archetype from someone like Redeem Zoomer who has assured us that he totally does not have a lesbian pastor. These individuals call themselves classical Protestants. They claim to follow the teaching of the original reformers and their disciples along with the various different confessional documents that they wrote. They say that they believe in many things that may not seem very Protestant to you, like the importance of the sacraments, liturgical worship, and the reading of the church fathers.

The reason for this weird disconnect in your brain between these things and Protestantism has to do with the history of Protestantism itself. In the early days of Protestantism, there were the reformers like Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther. Then over the next hundred years or so, there was a time period where their students in the schools they established taught the doctrine of the reformers, explained it, and defended it. This is sometimes called the period of confessionalization or even Protestant scholasticism.

This short-lived Protestant orthodoxy soon collapsed into a shell of its former self. In Switzerland, the collapse began in the early 1700s with the dismantling of the binding power of the Helvetic Consensus. The onslaught of rationalism and pietism swept through both the Continental Reformed and the German Lutheran. In England, things were much, much worse. After the English Civil War, the uniqueness of the English Reformation was lost and sects within the nation began to multiply as restrictions on them were loosened. Latitudinarianism took over the English Protestants and eventually things as basic as the binding force of Nicene Orthodoxy, the correctness of the Athanasian creed, and even the efficacy of baptism were questioned. So by the time American Protestantism was established, it basically had no chance since it was completely pluralistic to begin with and filled with offshoot sects that resembled classical Protestantism very little.

Yet it got even worse and then somehow even worse after that. First, there were great awakenings or religious revivals that swept through America and basically caused the type of religious mania that many moderns associate with the charismatic movement. Second, from this a number of different really, really weird sects began to crop up on the heels of these, including groups like the Mormons and the Adventists. Third, the Pentecostal movement swept through Protestantism in the early 20th century. Fourth, as the final nail in the coffin, liberalism completely took over the mainline denominations in the United States and led to the schism of the fundamentalists from the mainline denominations. Fifth, there was a religious revival led by the evangelicals in the United States that happened in the second half of the 20th century. A really good read about this is Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity.

This is why your understanding of Protestantism basically has three flavors. One, the gay kind, which comes from the capture of the mainline denominations by the liberals. Two, the really intense kind, that comes from the splitting off of the mainline denominations by the fundamentalists. Third, the mega-church kind, which either comes in the flavor of really boomerish or with rock music, smoke machines, and coffee, depending on their origins. Yet for almost nobody does the image of traditional confessional Protestantism come to mind. So it can often be very difficult to communicate with them, understanding how they differ from what you normally experience.

This is where two Dutch Catholic bishops from the 17th century help us: Adrian and Peter van Valckenburg. The goal of these brothers was simple. They wanted to dive deeply into the classical Protestant authors themselves and answer two questions. One, are the classical Protestant views actually different from what is acceptable in Catholicism? Or is there a mere difference in words? Two, if so, how can we refute what they affirm rather than a straw man of their doctrine?

In order to achieve this goal, they wrote A Compendium of Particular Controversies. This compendium provides a brief description of 73 different controversies with Protestants and gives their take on whether they are actually church-dividing issues or if their views may actually be allowed in Catholicism. In this video, I will look at almost all of these one by one so we can get a better picture of where Catholics and classical Protestants actually differ. But before we begin, three notes.

First, I do not necessarily agree with all the critiques of the Protestants or the descriptions given by the Van Valckenburg brothers. At times in this video, I will simply be repeating what they say without any gloss. Second, the Van Valckenburg brothers will often go into arguments from scripture against the Protestant views where there is disagreement. I'm not going to repeat most of their arguments since this would make this video absolutely massive. Rather, I'm just going to summarize what they say to give the big picture of the differences between the two groups. Third, from here on out, I will simply be using the word Protestant to describe the classical Protestants.

Issue One: The Foundation of Faith. The first point is the foundation of faith. Do Catholics and Protestants actually differ on why we believe what we believe? According to the Van Valckenburg brothers, this is a point of agreement. Catholics and Protestants agree that the motive for our belief is found in the fact that God has revealed something and he can neither deceive nor be deceived, called the formal motive of belief. We also agree in what is believed, that is the articles of faith contained in the various creeds of the church, which is known as the material object of belief.

Issue Two: The Rule of Faith. Distinct from the question of the foundation of faith is the question of the rule of faith. While we all agree that the objects of faith are believed on the authority of God revealing, there must be a second question that is asked. The reason for this second question is simple. We do not immediately receive revelation from God like the apostles and prophets, but receive it through various different messengers called divine legates, who are those messengers who are able to, in virtue of their own authority, speak on behalf of God and bind us to believe something. This is called a rule of faith. Protestants and Catholics agree that scripture is a rule of faith. What distinguishes us is the question of whether scripture alone is the rule of faith or whether there are other rules of faith outside of scripture today. Catholics teach that both the magisterium and sacred tradition are rules of faith outside of scripture.

Issue Three: The Canon of Scripture. Among early Lutherans, there was a category of books called the *antilegomena*, which included various books in the New Testament, including James, Jude, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Hebrews, and Revelation. These were relegated to a second class among canonical books by the early Lutherans, although later Lutherans attempted to soften the blow. I go over this more in detail in my video titled "How Protestants Destroy the New Testament." Yet the more important difference obviously concerns the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, which the Catholics accept, the Protestants do not.

Issue Four: On Traditions. We must distinguish between two types of traditions: apostolic and ecclesiastical. This comes from the distinction of the apostles as both communicating the revelation of God and as pastors of the church. Hence, sometimes they said things speaking on behalf of God, demanding faith. And at other times they might have said or did things not intending to speak on behalf of God and not demanding faith, but as simply the pastors of the church. As an example of this, there were two traditions from the apostles as to the celebration of Easter. These were established in the apostles functioning as pastors of the church, and hence could result in different practices. These are known as ecclesiastical traditions. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that ecclesiastical traditions should be received. So this leaves the other type of tradition, apostolic. Do Protestants affirm the reality of divine apostolic traditions? Yes. They affirm that the apostles taught not only by writing but also by word of mouth. Do Protestants affirm that there are traditions such as those outside of what is contained in scripture? Also yes. Azorius teaches, "I do not doubt that certain traditions were instituted and handed down in the church by the apostles without being written, although not all of them have reached us." Some of these traditions, which in the words of the Van Valckenburg brothers, "can probably be derived from holy scripture but cannot be necessarily proven by any arguments," include the baptism of infants, the rebaptism of heretics, the form of baptism, worship on Sunday, and many others.

So where does the difference lie? Protestant authors will often say that this lies in the acknowledgment of the necessity of traditions. But this does not work, for Catholic authors commonly teach that "sacred scripture, whether explicitly or implicitly, contains in its entirety whatever is necessary for all unto salvation." The Van Valckenburg brothers state that this difference lies in the role of sacred tradition. "The entire difficulty comes down to this: Should what is necessary for all be determined by the private interpretations and conclusions of individuals from sacred scripture, or rather by apostolic tradition received by the churches, preserved within the churches, and proposed through general councils and the universal practice of the church?"

Issue Five: On the Perfection of Sacred Scripture. Protestants often accuse Catholics of denying the perfection of sacred scripture by affirming the necessity of the magisterium and sacred tradition. Yet this is an unfair criticism. As George Khodr writes, "Sacred scripture does not contain in express words or equivalent terms, in an evident and necessary sense, everything that is necessary for all unto salvation." Hence, it is not so much a question of whether there is something that must be present in order to draw out such conclusions and clearly set forth such doctrine, but the question is, what is this medium? Is it the private judgment of the individual, or is it the authority of sacred tradition and the magisterium?

Now before we continue, I need to clarify something for you. This is not about whether plain or clear statements can be given the assent to faith. Obviously, if that weren't the case, it would require some sort of infinite regress. Rather, according to the Van Valckenburg brothers, a distinct medium, whether the authority of the church or private judgment, is only required on those issues that are not explicit and clear. Hence, the Protestant would be forced to either admit that the argument is not a straw man or deny the common position of Protestant authors that there are doctrines necessary for salvation which are not expressly stated in scripture. I go more into this in a set of notes on my Substack called "Solar Scriptures Black Box," linked in the description below.

Issue Six: On the Judge of Controversies. There's a distinction between the judge and the law. The judge is the one who definitively interprets and presents the sense of the law in this or that circumstance. Hence, to call scripture the "sole judge of controversies" is a quite strange way of speaking, since scripture is not the judge but the law to be judged in controversies. Yet the Wallenroch brothers state, "It is well known to everyone that a law is one thing and a judge is another. Those who say that scripture alone is the judge of controversies confuse the law and the judge, unless by judge they mean a norm and rule. And in this sense, Catholics accept this proposition in a sound way, since holy scripture, whether explicitly or implicitly, contains all things necessary for our salvation."

The Catholic states that the sole principle judge in controversies is the Holy Spirit. Yet, as evident from the Gospels and Acts, the Spirit of Truth guides the church into all truth. Hence, they are able to mark their judgment with "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." Thus, while it is the Spirit who judges, the Spirit expresses this judgment through the supreme authority of the church. On the other hand, the Protestants distinguish between three different kinds of judgment. "The first is the judgment of discernment, which belongs to each individual for testing the spirits and distinguishing them, as well as for determining what agrees with holy scripture and what contradicts it. The second is the judgment of definitive and supreme authority, which belongs to the Holy Spirit alone, whose role it is to interpret his own words. The third is a mixed judgment combining discernment with non-supreme authority, to which the faithful voluntarily submit, namely the judgment of individuals being subject to the judgment of the community and the synods."

Here it is clear that the Protestant notion comes very close to the Catholic notion, although they contradict themselves on this point. The first two points are conceded. There is an accepted sense of private judgment whereby we test the spirits. Further, we affirm, as said above, that the principal judge ultimately is the Holy Spirit. Yet the third point is where there's confusion. The Protestant both affirms that those who do not adhere to the mixed judgments are anathema and excommunicated from their church, as is evident from their synods. Yet they also affirm that "their synodal judgments do not bind to anyone's conscience, and that each individual is free to examine them according to scripture."

Issue Seven: On the Perpetuity of the Visible Church. Catholics and Protestants both distinguish the visible church, made up of a certain visible society, from the assembly of the elect within the visible church. The invisible is said to be within the visible, since both the Catholics and Protestants say that it is necessary for the elect to join the visible church in order to be saved. Further, it is agreed that the visible church and the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments will continue unto the end of the world. Yet Catholics deny that such is the case in the Protestant view, since in many cases there were various doctrines preached universally or quasi-universally that Protestants would hold as contrary to the faith.

Issue Eight: The Freedom of the Church from Errors. Protestants and Catholics both teach that particular churches can err in their judgments. Hence, it is obvious that the Protestants would logically hold that their churches can err, since they all assert that their communions are particular churches. When it comes to the universal church, Protestants make a distinction that Catholics do not. Protestants state that the church can err in non-fundamental articles of the faith, but not in fundamental articles of the faith. Yet, this distinction between non-fundamental articles of the faith and fundamental articles of the faith is absurd. Obviously, Catholics can see that there are non-fundamentals and fundamentals, but we do not distinguish between non-fundamental articles of the faith and fundamental articles of the faith. As Franklin explains in Thesis 23 of his *Tractatus de Fide*, the reason on account of which we believe objects of the faith is the authority of God revealing, abstracted from the necessity or greater dignity of the object of belief. We believe that Isaac is the father of Jacob and that God is a Trinity on account of the same authority. Even though the latter is obviously more important than the former, it makes no sense to distinguish between non-fundamental things believed by faith and those fundamental things believed by faith, since both are motivated by the same authority, God revealing. And the rejection of these articles involves equally a rejection of the formal motive of faith. Hence the traditional axiom of theologians that to reject one article of faith is to reject them all, since rejecting an article of faith involves rejecting the formal motive whereby they are all believed. Hence they approach the doctrine of the church in affirming the ineffectability of the universal church in certain matters, but departs from it on two points: one, in affirming the defectability of the church in certain other matters of faith, and two, in denying that the universal church is able to come together and judge as a body in an ecumenical council, but that this can only be expressed by universal consensus of the faithful.

Issue Nine: On the Ministers of the Church. On the ministers of the church, there's a great diversity within classical Protestantism. The Anglicans have bishops, priests, and deacons. In other groups, the bishops are replaced by superintendents or inspectors. Further, some refuse the title priests to presbyters and prefer to call them elders. Additionally, some distinguish between teaching and preaching elders, while others add on other offices like the office of doctor.

Issue Ten. There is an agreement between Protestants and Catholics that both the remission and punishment of sin are remitted by the merit of Christ. Protestants teach that sins are remitted and covered in this life but not completely removed, properly speaking. As to when this complete removal happens, there is not complete agreement between Protestants. Some hold that this absolution happens at the final judgment. Yet, there is an obvious difficulty due to the fact that most affirm that the souls of the just enter into the beatific vision immediately upon death. Hence, if absolution was held for the final judgment, then such souls would either be outside of heaven until then, or they would be in heaven with sins that have not been absolved. This leads to either an absolution being asserted at the particular judgment, or the idea that there is some sort of soul sleep until the final judgment in order to avoid purgatory. On the other hand, Catholics teach that there must be a purgatory after this life in order that both the stain of sin be removed and that any remaining temporal punishment due to sin be paid.

Issue Eleven: On Prayers for the Dead. The Protestants generally concede that the Jews and early Christians said prayers for the dead. Hence, there are some who permit the practice in a qualified sense, while others strongly oppose it.

Issue Twelve: On the Veneration of Saints. The Van Valckenburgs state that there shouldn't be any controversy on this point as long as we are careful to argue about things rather than words. We both agree that saints should be honored, but the Protestants demand that this honor be called civil, leaving what they call religious honor to God alone. Yet, it is clear that this distinction is not to the point at hand. For something could be said to be an act of religion in two ways: either immediately, in so far as it serves God in himself, or immediately, in so far as it serves God in his creatures. For example, St. James said that "pure and undefiled religion consists of visiting widows and orphans." Here, St. James does not obviously believe that the immediate object eliciting the acts are humans, but that the object of the act are humans under the direction of God commanding. Hence, we should not dispute over the mere name. It is obvious that we do not honor the saints on purely civil grounds for their natural talents, but truly honor them for the gifts of grace given to them, that is for religious motives. Hence, the only thing to discuss from here on out are the supposed excesses committed by Catholics when it comes to the veneration of the saints.

Issue Thirteen: On the Intercession of the Saints. Protestants and Catholics both affirm that we are able to intercede for one another and ask for one another's intercession in this life. Further, they acknowledge that the saints in heaven generally pray for the church. Yet, they deny that the saints could be particularly invoked for our needs by those on earth.

Issue Fourteen: Relics. This one may surprise many of you, but classical Protestants and Catholics commonly taught that there was a certain honor due to relics. While Protestants frequently accused Catholics of excesses and superstition in the way in which relics were used, just as we mentioned above in the veneration of the saints, they did not in principle deny that they ought to be venerated and treated with honor.

Issue Fifteen: On the Sacraments. Generally, there are quite a few points of agreement between Catholics and Protestant authors on the sacraments in general. We agree that the sacraments are visible signs of an invisible grace. We agree that only God can institute sacraments. We agree that all the sacraments of the new law were instituted by Christ. We agree that a promise of grace is joined to the administration of the sacraments. The point of disagreement, or at least supposed disagreement, is not as to whether there is a certain effect to the sacraments, but how this effect occurs. Protestants generally deny that the sacraments work *ex opere operato*. Yet in their articulations of their doctrine, they often approach very closely to the Catholic teaching. They state that the sacraments act as instruments whereby the sacramental grace is given to us. They deny that the sacraments are physical causes of grace. But this is not the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but only a school position that is more or less probable. Hence, the Van Valckenburgs say that this difference is only one of terminology. "The Protestants can easily judge that there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that merits reprehension which they themselves do not hold." Yet, there are points about sacramental efficacy that must be specifically treated when considering baptism. For while the instrumentality may sound quite similar, it is clear that the extent of sacramental grace is commonly limited, even for those who place no obstacle in the way of grace.

Issue Sixteen: On the Number of the Sacraments. There's not a single answer to the number of the sacraments found among Protestants, giving anywhere between two and seven sacraments, although most land on either two or three sacraments.

Issue Seventeen: On Baptism. First, on the necessity of baptism, there's very general agreement. We agree that those adults who refuse baptism cannot be saved. Further, we agree that those adults who are not baptized by no fault of their own can be baptized by desire or by blood. Further, we generally agree that there is a necessity of precept that infants be baptized. Yet there has classically been dispute on the question of the necessity of baptism for infants as a necessity of means, formulated in another way: Can unbaptized babies be saved? *Prima facie*, it seems like there is disagreement on this point. Catholic authors traditionally stated no, while Protestant authors stated yes, some stating this for all infants, others restricting this to those infants who are children of the covenant, that is, the children of those within the church. Yet it seems that this is partially a dispute over words. For the Reformed have classically taught that not only are they not certain with the certainty of faith that unbaptized infants of those within the church are saved, but have even stated clearly that they do not have this certainty about baptized infants of those within the church. Yeah, on that second point, it's pretty bad. Hence, any statement positively speaking of God giving them grace must simply be speaking of a certain probability that God could work outside of the order of his sacraments rather than a complete certainty which is held by many Catholics to this day. Yet, it must obviously be denied that we do not have the certainty of faith that all baptized infants will be saved, which in my opinion is insane. Yet even to this point, there are many later Reformed theologians who depart from their earlier divines on this point and hold to our position in agreement. Second, on the minister of baptism, there's a difference between certain Protestants and others. Certain of the Reformed held that only those legitimately called to ministry could validly baptize. Hence, it was disputed whether baptism by non-elders, by those in heretical communion, by laymen, or by women were actually valid.

Issue Eighteen: On Confirmation. Here there's a great deal of diversity. Some not practicing confirmation, others practicing it, yet denying that it is truly and properly a sacrament.

Issue Nineteen: On Penance. Here there's also a great deal of diversity. Protestants and Catholics both agree that penance in general is necessary for salvation. Further, such penance was recognized as being accompanied by some sort of absolution. Further, the confession of sins was also practiced, whether publicly and generally, or privately and particularly, whether before the congregation for scandalous offenses, to individuals offended, to God, or to the pastors for correction and admonition. Yet there are two areas of disagreement. The first, less clear than the second. First, generally Protestant authors will hold that the absolution is declarative, although they will sometimes speak of it as efficacious for the remission of sins. Second, on the issue of satisfaction, there is a clear divide. Protestants and Catholics agree that there is generally a satisfaction done to our neighbor who has been offended by our sin, and that the satisfaction of eternal punishment must be solely and exclusively sought from the merits of Christ alone. Beyond this, "voluntary afflictions undertaken out of love of God, and by faith working through charity, strengthened by the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, placate the anger and obtain from his mercy the remission of these temporal punishments." While most Protestants would decry this position, it is not entirely clear that their own position does not agree with this, at least implicitly. The Van Valckenburg brothers point out that the Protestants often institute public penances in order to turn away the wrath of God punishing a certain people. Hence, a certain town suffering from a plague might institute a fast in order to turn away the wrath of God afflicting the people. Clearly, such an act is considered a voluntary work done in order to turn away the wrath of God in inflicting certain temporal punishments against a people. How is this at all different from the Catholic notion of satisfaction?

Issue Twenty: On the Eucharist. Here there are a number of different issues and a great degree of diversity on each. First, on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All agreed that this presence is not carnal. Some held that such presence of Christ was purely symbolic, although this was generally denied. The Reformed distinguished between three types of eating: the carnal, the spiritual, and the sacramental. They denied the carnal eating of Christ whereby his flesh was eaten in its own proper species. Yet they affirm the spiritual eating of Christ, whereby Christ is spiritually communicated to them, and the sacramental eating of Christ, whereby they receive the sign of Christ in the eating of the bread, in the drinking of the wine. Yet we ought not to imagine that this is purely receptionist, that is, that they teach merely that Christ is received in the supper as we would receive him by any other means, but that it is also virtualist, that is, that there is a certain hidden power given in the consecration whereby Christ is received through the sacrament. At this point, there is no disagreement between Catholic and Protestant authors. Yet, when considering the particular mode whereby this occurs, there's disagreement. For the Reformed authors teach two things repugnant to Catholic authors: One, they deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby we define that hidden virtue as the substance of the body and blood of Christ. And two, they deny that the conjunction endures outside of the use of the sacrament in the liturgy, whereby Catholics obviously view the presence as permanent. The Van Valckenburgs even assert that the Protestant notion that the unworthy do not eat Christ in the sacrament can be given an orthodox interpretation, as long as the eating is simply denied of the spiritual eating while it is affirmed of the sacramental eating.

Further, when we reach the question of the sacrifice of the Mass, while there is significant agreement, there's also fundamental disagreement. Both Protestants and Catholics affirm that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Further, Protestant authors affirm that this is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of supplication, that it unites us to the sacrifice of Christ, and that it applies the remission of sins. Further, we agree that there is one proper sacrifice with one proper victim and one proper priest. Yet, we disagree on whether the sacrifice is truly propitiatory, which becomes especially clear on the effects of the sacrifice of the Mass on the faithful departed.

Beyond these issues, there are two other famous controversies concerning the Eucharist: the adoration of the Eucharist and the lawfulness of communion under one kind. As to the adoration of the Eucharist, Protestants will frequently accuse us of adoring bread and wine. But it is untrue that we give the absolute adoration due to God alone to the outward species of bread and wine, but only to Christ present in the sacrament. It seems that the Protestant objections almost entirely rest on misunderstanding what we say here or in attacking this or that school position not necessary for Catholics to hold to. As to communion in one kind, Protestants commonly hold that communion of both kinds is of divine precept. Some of these make exception in extraordinary cases. This can hardly be coherently held alongside their assertion that it is of an immutable divine precept. Further, the Protestants hold with us that the entire Christ is contained in either species. Hence, there is no theological reason necessitating their position.

Issue Twenty-One: Extreme Unction. Protestants deny that extreme unction is a sacrament, but they occasionally practice it as a non-sacramental rite, denying that it is a unique rite instituted by Christ for the communication of grace as an instrument. Yet the text of James 5 clearly implies the opposite, in so far as the remission of sins is promised in the rite, which can only happen by grace.

Issue Twenty-Two: On Holy Orders. The case of holy orders is interesting. Often Protestants will affirm that it is an outward rite established by Christ for the giving of grace, which is exactly how Catholics define sacraments. But then they will deny that it is a sacrament since it is not common to the entire Christian people.

Issue Twenty-Three: Matrimony. Protestants deny that matrimony is a sacrament. In the same regard, we could also discuss the indissolubility of marriage, which the Protestants generally deny.

Issue Twenty-Four: On the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sins. Here we agree on three points: First, not all sins are equal. Second, the justified sometimes fall into mortal sin. Third, all sins with which the reprobate die are punished with eternal punishment. Catholics hold that there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin on the basis of the punishment with which it is due: either eternal punishment, as all mortal sins, or temporal punishment, as all venial sins for those in a state of grace. The foundation for this distinction is that venial sin by its very nature does not destroy charity, whereas mortal sin by its very nature does destroy charity. Here we can actually see a great degree of agreement between Protestant and Catholic authors. For when the Protestant authors say that all sins are mortal in the reprobate, if they intend to signify that they are all punished with eternal punishment, then we would have no problem. Further, when Protestant authors say that venial sins are not imputed in the just, if they simply mean that God does not punish these by taking away grace from the person despite the offense against God, then this is permitted within Catholicism.

Issue Twenty-Five: On God as the Cause of Sin. Despite some claims to the contrary, Protestants and Catholics commonly agree that God is not the cause of sin. The Protestants commonly side with the position taken by the Thomists. Whether earlier Protestants taught the opposite is not a dispute worth having for those interested in unity. Hence, the Van Valckenburg brothers state, "Modern Protestants explain themselves in such a way that they follow entirely the opinion of the Thomists. Nothing therefore remains here from which they could raise a dispute against the Catholic Church, nor for which Catholics should reproach them on account of certain individuals, harsher opinions, or errors."

Issue Twenty-Six: On Original Sin. On original sin, we agree that original sin is a true and proper sin derived from Adam to all by generation. Further, we agree that the guilt of original sin obligates one to eternal damnation. Yet there is a very significant controversy surrounding the issue of concupiscence. The Van Valckenburg brothers note the diversity of expression that is consistently present among Protestant theologians. They state that if one holds that the formal element of original sin is removed by baptism, that is, the aversion of the mind towards God, while only the material element remains, then one is able to remain in line with Catholic teaching. For that which only has the material element of something is not properly that thing. Hence, if only the material element of original sin remains, then it will not properly be sin. There's much, much more to be said here, especially about concupiscence. I wrote about this in my Substack article titled "St. Thomas and the Sinfulness of Concupiscence."

Issue Twenty-Seven: On Grace. The Protestants generally concede the general divisions of grace given by Catholic theologians, that is, between gratuitously giving graces, sanctifying grace, actual grace, etc. Yet there is a significant controversy concerning sufficient grace. Some explicitly deny it. Others affirm it but state that their view is different from the Catholic view. And still others state that their view is compatible with certain Catholic views but not with other Catholic views. It is too complex an issue to adjudicate here. But the Van Valckenburg brothers state, "Since some Protestants follow the teaching of the Thomists, and others that of Suarez and Vasquez, there's no great need to labor over it here." As to the basic points at play, St. Robert Bellarmine lists three points: One, when we speak of the universal offer of God's grace, we do not mean that God sits back and waits for someone to accept it, but also that he truly precedes every desire for an invocation of his grace. Two, we deny that the universality of sufficient grace means that all are given equal sufficient graces. Three, if God were to refuse sufficient grace to all men, there would be no injustice. In order to further illustrate, we need to clarify that when we assert that all are given sufficient graces, we do not affirm that all are given the interior graces that immediately prepare one for the assent of faith. Rather, we say that there is general illuminations given to all men, whereby if they were to cooperate with them and petition God for greater graces, he would give them to him, not by any necessity or law, but out of liberality.

Issue Twenty-Eight: Predestination and Reprobation. On this point, I want to quote the Van Valckenburg's treatment entirely, since this is something I've said for years, which many were very upset about. He writes, "On the issue of predestination, reprobation, the Reformed of this time commonly follow the Thomists and Bellarmine, nor ought we to scrupulously investigate what they formally thought. Why then do they dispute with us now if they agree with some Catholic doctor?"

Issue Twenty-Nine: On Free Will. As to the reality of free will, they basically say the same thing. "It is required for free will that all things antecedently required for the act being posited, it can act or not act, so that with these same prerequisites in place, there stands in free will at once the faculty and power by which it can act if it wills or not act if it wills. If Protestants admit with the Thomists a special and determining concurrence of God in the action of free will, they're not on that account to be reproved as though they denied free will. For the Thomists likewise teach such a concurrence of God and yet defend the liberty of the will. Whether the first Protestants thought or spoke otherwise, we do not need to investigate here. It suffices for us that this time Protestants hold regarding free will what Catholic authors do." Further on the compatibility of their view of efficacious grace and free will, they say, "Therefore, there is no necessity now to investigate what Calvin or others formerly thought. It is enough that now they think and speak with Catholic doctors. Others among the Protestants follow other Catholic doctors. They will find here no reason why they should abstain from communion with the Catholic Church."

Issue Thirty: On Justification. Both Protestants and Catholics agree that the term justification can be used in three senses: the infusion of inherent justice, the increase of inherent justice, and the declaration of someone as just in a forensic sense. Hence, it is incorrect to accuse Protestants of stating that justification is a legal fiction, since they affirm that justice is infused within us. The question may be asked as to our justice before God. Catholics enumerate the causes of this justification so that the final cause is the glory of God. The primary efficient cause is God. The efficient cause by way of merit is the passion of Christ. The material cause is either the will, if we consider inherent justice, or the entire man, if we are considering the justice as given and imputed to men, and the formal cause as the inherent justice which is given to us in the application of this by God to us as a certain condition of the formal cause. Commonly, Protestant authors will emphasize that this justice is somehow imperfect. Yet it is unclear what they exactly mean by this. If we are speaking about the justice in itself that is infused, the virtues which are included with it, such are not stained by vice but are true virtues. Yet if we speak of man as a whole, it is obvious that we have many vices, especially concupiscence. Here it is common for Protestant authors to confuse two things: the inherent justice whereby we are made just, and the works which flow from justice. These are to be kept distinct. Otherwise, each one of the works that flow from us are somehow stained in so far as we have concupiscence. Yet, that does not mean that the inherent justice considered in itself is stained. Due to this imperfection, they frequently say that besides the inherent justice given to us, we need an imputed justice. If Protestants were to say that this is the case in so far as we need Christ in order to be the meritorious cause of our inherent justice, whereby God is apt to give us justice, or that Christ is the true satisfaction for our sins, so that God, pleased by the sacrifice of his Son, chooses not to impute the punishment due to our sin, then it would not be objectionable. For by the imputation of justice in the forensic sense, Catholic authors understand nothing but the act of God in justifying on the part of God. Hence, just as grace can be either taken in the sense of the gratuitousness on the part of God, or the gift which flows from this gratuity, so also can the justification of the ungodly either be taken as the act of God intending to communicate the merits of Christ in virtue of his passion and the actual communication, or the actual communication itself. These mutually imply one another.

As St. Thomas states, "According to the common manner of speech, grace can either be taken for anyone's love, as we are accustomed to say that the soldier is in the good graces of the king, or is taken for any gift freely bestowed. The second depends on the first, since one bestows something on another gratis from the love wherewith he receives him in his good graces." St. Thomas goes on to argue that in God, unlike in creatures, there's a mutual implication to these two senses of grace. While the creature's love comes from them being drawn to some good, the love of God is productive, so that goodness flows from his love and not vice versa. In the same vein, the Van Valckenburgs argue, "It must be observed that while to justify, taken in a merely forensic sense, does not immediately indicate anything but the action of God justifying, but when taken in its complete latitude, it indicates the justice of Christ given to us, which is the terminus and proper effect of forensic justification."

In conclusion, there were many other issues that I could have included here and much more detail that I could have included to each issue. But my intention wasn't to provide a systematic treatment of every single issue dividing classical Protestants and Roman Catholics. Rather, my intention was to expose everyone to an awesome author, the Van Valckenburg brothers. Before I go, do not forget that I'm nearing the end of my end-of-year fundraiser. Please go to chrisbywagner.com/donate to give a monthly pledge or one-time donation.

One of the easiest things for us to lose sight of in the internet apologetic sphere is the spiritual significance of the doctrines that we debate. It is very easy for us to argue and debate and refute our opponents on certain doctrines without stepping back and thinking about how these doctrines contribute to the plan of salvation. How God revealed these things and gave these gifts so that we may come to know and love him. This reflection is not a new one, but one constantly repeated by the masters of the spiritual life. As an example, Thomas à Kempis in his *Imitation of Christ* wrote to students of theology in the age of high scholasticism: "What does it profit thee to enter into deep discussion concerning the Holy Trinity, if thou lack humility, and be thus displeasing to the Trinity? For verily, it is not deep words that make a man holy and upright. It is a good life which maketh a man dear to God. I'd rather feel contrition than be skillful in the definition thereof."

But there are other doctrines where this is a bit more difficult to apply. One of the ones where I believe that this has been least reflected on is Catholic magisteriology. Most Catholics think of the magisterium of the church as a useful tool or maybe as a psychological crutch to get over their own religious anxiety. But how does the magisterium of the church allow for great and pure sacrifices to ascend to God for his own glorification? In order to draw out this application, we need to cover three authors: St. Thomas Aquinas, Matus Joseph Shaban, and the First Vatican Council.

In order to understand this application, we first need to consider what religion is in the first place. Religion is a part of justice. Just like in the piety and obedience we have to our parents, we render them what is due in justice. So also in worship do we render to God what is due to him in justice. This is the highest form of justice. For while we have obligations to ourselves, our family, our neighbors, etc., none of these obligations are as great as the obligation that we have to God. Our obligation to God is based on the most fundamental and primordial basis. God created us and sustains us at every moment. Thus, everything we have, are, and can do is owed to God. To give or to render something to God is an act of worship. Specifically, when we offer something to God, it is uniquely a sacrifice. Since sacrifices concern giving to another in acknowledgment of their total or entire ownership of that thing. This is why in the old covenant sacrifices were slaughtered and then burnt or consumed. These bulls and goats were dedicated entirely to God. Therefore, it had to be destroyed; it could not be shared with another.

Now, we have many things that we can dedicate or give to God. Some people dedicate their time to God. Others dedicate their money to God. At Mass, Christ is offered to God. Yet when we look at all of those things which we offer to God, the more sublime it is, the more worthy the sacrifice. The Eucharist is the greatest sacrifice to God because it is really and truly his Son who is infinitely precious in those acts of love made on the cross. Yet if we can look to ourselves, what are those great sacrifices we can make to God? Traditionally, three categories of goods were distinguished: goods of possession, goods of the body, and goods of the soul. This actually forms the basis of the three evangelical counsels. Poverty gives up for God the goods of possession. Chastity gives up the goods of the body. The greatest of these three sacrifices is obedience because it is the very sacrifice of that which is more noble and precious than both the goods of possession and the goods of the body. In obedience, one sacrifices his will.

On a related note, this actually forms much of the basis behind St. Thérèse's "little way." St. Thérèse sacrificed to God her own will daily and in a million small ways, which is much more precious than if she sacrificed the goods of the body in bodily penances. As St. Paul states, "If I give away all that I have and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing." To give away all one has is to give the goods of possession, and to deliver the body to be burned is to give up the goods of the body. But don't we have these in common with rational animals? So neither of these sacrifices are of value unless they are joined with love, which is the perfection of the will. Those goods of the soul which distinguish us from irrational animals. Yet we can go further than this. According to the school of St. Thomas, simply speaking, the intellect is an even

more noble good than the will. Therefore, there must be an even more sublime sacrifice of the intellect to God. This sacrifice of the intellect to God is called faith, which according to the Council of Trent, quote, is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification. End quote.

St. Thomas succinctly lays out this line of reasoning in his commentary on Galatians. Quote, justice consists in paying a debt. Now, man is indebted to God and to himself and to his neighbor, but it is on account of God that he owes something to himself and to his neighbor. Therefore, the highest form of justice is to render to God what is God's. Now whatever is in man is from God, namely intellect and will and the body itself, albeit according to a certain order, because the lower is ordained to the higher and external things to internal, namely to the good of the soul. Furthermore, the highest thing in man is his mind. Therefore, the first element of justice in a man is that a man's mind be subjected to God, and this is done by faith. Therefore, in all things it must be said that God is the first principle in justice and that whoever gives to God, namely the greatest thing that lies in him by submitting the mind to him, such a one is fully just end quote.

So, what does this have to do with the magisterium? The magisterium was set up by our Lord Jesus Christ so that men might believe in him and have eternal life. Therefore, in the Gospels, Christ commisss his apostles and other ministers to preach his gospel. In order to facilitate this, he gave them promises, various different gifts to preserve them from error, authority to judge others, and certain signs in order to authenticate that they are from God. All of this was meant to be ordered towards bringing about what St. Paul calls the quote obedience of faith among the nations. So what the magisterium does is that it preserves among the people of God that pure and universal sacrifice of the intellect by faith which is the first and fundamental root of our entire justice which we render to God what is due to him.

In the old covenant we saw that there was a certain law of offering of sacrifices. There were complex laws surrounding these sacrifices to ensure that what was being brought forward for the sake of God was pure and without blemish. Therefore, when there was a degradation of Israel in the offering of blemish sacrifices, God sent the prophets to call them back to the observances of the law. Therefore, the prophet Malachi said, quote, "Oh priests who despise my name, you say, how have we despised thy name? By offering polluted food upon my altar, and you say, how have we polluted it? By thinking that the Lord's table may be despised when you offer blind animals and sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor. Will he be pleased with you or show you favor? Says the Lord of Hosts. End quote. God established the extraordinary ministry of the prophets to continually call Israel back to the purity of their worship of God, back to the laws which had been given unto them.

Today, we do not have the extraordinary ministry of prophets to call us back to the law of sacrifice, the purity of our sacrifice of faith. What is to keep the sacrifice unblenmished and untarnished from the filth of error? Christ gave us the ministry of the apostles to keep the sacrifice unblenmished. It is a ministry that does not merely span the decades upon which they were on earth, but is under a perpetual promise with perpetual gifts to keep alive the purity of the sacrifice due to God by faith until the end of time. This is why Shaban highlighted that the establishment of the magisterium of the church is not something that was done for us but for himself. God wished to fulfill what was owed to him in justice. Therefore, he established the aposttoate to retain the purity of those sacrifices offered in the act of faith. He writes, quote, "In accord with this idea of revelation, the originator thereof owes it to himself to make effective arrangements for its universal and constant propagation, and indeed in such a way that revelation is not merely constantly and universally grasped by men in a perfect way as a principle of supernatural divine knowledge of faith, but that revelation also in turn can grasp men as a law of a supernatural obedience of faith appropriate to the majesty of God. That is that men can be obliged to recognize revelation and to submit to it. In other words, the propagation of revelation must in keeping with its dignity and its purposes be so provided for on God's part that both the full sure and communal possession and enjoyment of the truth offered in it is made possible and guaranteed to men and also the full uniform and universal homage due to God himself and to his truth which is to be achieved through the recognition of his revelation can in fact reach him. End quote.

In conclusion, our greatest act of justice consists in the offering of that which is greatest and most noble within us. Now, this is the sacrifice of the intellect which is had by faith. It is for this reason of honoring and glorifying God, fulfilling what is called God's majestic right of faith that the magisterium was established.

It is often said by many Protestant apologists that the Council of Trent anmatized the gospel. But this statement is far from the truth. Protestant RC Sproul in his video, Roman Catholic view of justification, part two, Luther and the Reformation says, "But not all the way. There's some of those uh cannons that are right on the mark and they do clearly anathematize the reformation doctrine of justification by faith." Now, here's the significance of that. If the reformation uh articulation of the biblical doctrine of justification is correct and I of course believe it is to anathematize it is to anathematize the gospel. Late Protestant Vodie Bakam in the video vodka, the world, the flesh, and the devil says >> that men are justified either by the imputation of righteousness of the righteousness of Christ alone or by the remission of sins alone to the exclusion of the grace and love that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and is inherent in them. or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema. And finally, if anyone says that the guilt is remitted to every penitent sinner after the grace of justification has been received and that the debt of eternal punishment is so blotted out that there remains no debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the next in purgatory before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened. Let him be anathema. They do not preach the same gospel. >> Protestant YouTube apologist needed God.net in his video fiery discussion with Torah observer says >> so any of the ecumenical councils of which the council of Trent was one they anathematized the gospel there by saying that if you believe in faith alone you're anathema. So it doesn't matter if the code of can law says oh look there can be Christians within uh other churches it's still like for example if anyone says that baptism is optional that is not necessary for salvation let him be anathema >> in this video I intend to explain canon 9 of session six of Trent which many Protestants claim anatomize the gospel next I will defend the canon by presenting arguments from reason scripture and the fathers. Lastly, I will present various Protestant and reformed theologians and confessions who are either in agreement or in disagreement with us.

Protestants commonly assert that the Council of Trent denies that we are justified by faith alone. Canon 9 of session six says quote if anyone saith that by faith alone the impious is justified and such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will let him be anathema. Now faith in this cannon is taken for the act of faith rather than the habit. The act of faith is an act of the intellect attention is taken for the exclusion of that which the rest of the canon mentions. That is those other things by which man is prepared and disposed in order to obtain the grace of justification. To cooperate here is taken from man consenting to the motions of God by which he does not place any further impediments to the reception of grace and by which he receives more helps to be further disposed and prepared for justifying grace. Necessary here is taken in a restrictive sense. It's meant as directed towards adults whom God has decreed that those who enjoy the use of their reason and will such that they can be moved by grace are to be prepared and disposed to receive justifying grace. Prepared here is taken as St. Thomas to be turned to God so that one may receive his grace. A disposition is the aptitude or proportion of a subject to receive something. It is a kind of readiness or suitability to receive a new form or perfection. For any matter to receive a new form, it must both be positively and negatively disposed. A negative disposition is removal of an obstacle to receiving a form. For example, not soaking wood in water in order to burn it and in our case, not sinning. A positive disposition is the making of a subject more fit to receive a form. For example, warming wax so that it is pliable to receive a stamp or in our case, faith, hope, charity, and repentance so that man is suitable to receive sanctifying grace. The acts of faith, hope, love, and the other similar acts are considered moral dispositions, which are conditions that according to divine ordinance must preede the remission of sins and the gift of habitual justice in us, without which God does not want or usually confer those benefits on man. One must note that there is disagreement amongst Roman Catholics on whether the dispositions ought to only be considered as conditions without which man receives the remission of sins and justifying grace, whether they can also be considered in some sense efficient and meritorious causes. Also note that man does not have these dispositions by his own natural power but rather he passively receives them from the motions of the Holy Spirit. Often times these dispositions are either received over time. For example, a catechum going through catechesus first ascends to the gospel and then later receives the other virtues or acts or they are received all at once in the cases of miraculous conversions with the example of St. Paul's conversion. It should lastly be noted that the phrase faith alone is not utterly repugnant to Roman Catholic theology. In fact, many of our theologians frequently use the phrase. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on First Timothy says, quote, "Therefore, the hope of justification must not be placed in them, that is the moral precepts, but in faith alone. We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law." Romans 3:28. Faith alone justifies can be taken in terms of the exclusion of any preceding works that is moral, ceremonial and the like but not to the exclusion of the dispositions or acts because the act of faith is the first act which is the beginning of man's justice before the reception of the other acts as said above it and shall be further explained and shown later in this video. Faith alone justifies can be taken in terms of formed faith that is fetus for mata which designates a composite habit or several acts taken together. Very often when faith is used by St. Paul he's referring to the faith that is formed by charity that is the faith that is made efficacious or living or the presence of the habit or act of love. St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Romans 1 says quote hence the act of faith will be perfect if the will is perfected by the habit of charity intellect by the habit of faith but not if the habit of charity is lacking. Consequently faith formed by charity is a virtue but not unformed faith. More will be said on this throughout the video as we treat the fathers sacred scripture and the reformed. For a video that slightly covers this, check out the distingu video titled Pope says quote faith alone is true. If and so when we deny that faith alone justifies or apprehends the righteousness of Christ, we are denied that a lone faith justifies that is faith by its own sole pure formality. One that is logically prior to the reception of the other acts such as hope and charity.

Chapter 6 of session 6 explains man's preparation for justification in this way. quote, "Now they adults are disposed unto the under the sad justification when excited and assisted by divine grace. Conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised. And this especially that God justifies the impious by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. And when understanding themselves to be sinners, they by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, whereby they are profitably agitated to consider the mercy of God are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake. and they begin to love him as the fountain of all justice and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation to it by the penitence which must be performed before baptism. Lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God concerning this disposition, it is written, "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him." and be of good faith, son. Thy sins are forgiven thee. And the fear of the Lord driveth out sin. And do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. You shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Finally, prepare your hearts unto the Lord. And so if I were to paraphrase canon 9 of session six of Trent, I would put it this way. Quote, "If anyone says that by the act of faith alone a sinner receives justification to the exclusions of the acts of hope and charity is that they were not necessary preconditions to further dispose man, let him be anathema.

Now on to the places in sacred scripture where in the dispositions other than faith are considered conditions or causes for the reception of grace. Luke 7:47-50 says quote wherefore I say to thee many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much but to whom less is forgiven he loveth less. And he said to her, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" And he said to the woman, "Thy faith hath made thee safe. Go in peace." Notice love here is taken as the cause of the remission of sins, which is the negative aspect of the justification of the impas. Also note that Christ enumerates faith as a cause in verse 50. Now one might object. love here should be taken as an effect such that Christ is simply saying that her love is evidence that her sins are forgiven. But I respond on the contrary Pope St. Gregory the Great says in his homaly 33, quote, "What, my brothers, do we believe love to be if not fire? And what is guilt if not rust?" Hence, it is now said, "Her many sins are forgiven because she loved much." And as if it were said openly, love burns away completely the rust of sin, because it burns intensely through the fire of love. For the rest of sin is consumed all the more the more the sinner's heart is burned up by the great fire of charity. John 16:27 says, quote, "For the father himself loveth you because you have loved me and have believed that I came out from God." Again, just as we saw in Luke 7, love taken together with faith is taken as the cause of the love one receives from the father. And this love one receives is his grace and the conferral of those gifts or benefits that is the remission of sins and divine acceptance in Christ. Next we have 1 Corinthians 13:2 which states and if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge and if I should have all faith so that I can remove mountains and have not charity I am nothing. St. Paul clearly shows here that one could have all faith, even the faith that justifies, and that if it is without love, he would be nothing. Love then is required in the believer to be justified. One might object, but St. Paul is not talking about the virtue of faith, rather the faith of miracles. For he says, "So I could remove mountains." Yet I respond, this would make Paul equivocate on the usage of the term faith. For in the very end of this chapter, 11 verses later, he enumerates faith with the other virtues, saying, quote, "And now there remain faith, hope, and charity. These three, but the greatest of these is charity." Next, we have 1 John 3:14, which says, quote, "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death." Here, St. John gives both an epistemic principle and a causitive principle. That is, we can know that we are justified from our love and also that without love we remain in sin. And again, one might object. John is referring to the love by which one loves his brother, not the love by which he loves God. I reply, the love by which one loves his brother is the same love by which one loves God. The difference is in the object. As scripture says, he that hath the substance of this world and shall see his brother in need and shall shut up his bowels from him. How doth the charity of God abide in him? Next we have Romans 8:24. It states, "For we are saved by hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For when a man seeth, what doth he hope for?" Next, we have 1 John 3:2-3, which states, "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God, and they have not appeared, what shall we be? We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like to him because we shall see him as he is. And everyone that hath this hope in him sanctifyth himself as he also is holy. How much clearer are these verses. Acts 2:38 says, "But Peter said to them, do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Clearly here, repentance and baptism are enumerated as causes or conditions for the remission of sins. Notice also that repentance comes prior to baptism in this verse. And lastly, Acts 3:19 says, "Be penitent, therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out." As we have seen, sacred scripture enumerates love, hope, and repentance as causes or conditions of justification along with faith. And there are many, many more verses that I could have used, but we must press on.

Now onto verses that Protestants typically cite that support that faith alone is the condition or cause of justification and that the other virtues/ acts are excluded. The Protestants typically reference the epistle to the Romans as a key text against the Roman Catholic position on solid. The following verses are among the most common ones. Romans 3:28, free account of man to be justified by faith without the works of the law. Romans 4:5, "But to him that workketh not, yet believeth in him that justifith the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God." Romans 13:8, "Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law." And one might say, "See here, Puta, firstly St. Paul in Romans 3:28 says that we are justified by faith to the exclusion of any other works, but hope, love, and repentance are works. Therefore, these are excluded." Secondly, Buddha St. Paul in Romans 4:5 clearly shows that the one who works isn't justified. Rather, it is the one who believes. And lastly, St. Paul says that love fulfills the law, but that which fulfills the law is a work of the law. Therefore, charity is a work of the law. Well, I respond firstly, this reading of Romans 3:28 assumes that by the phrase works of the law, St. Paul means absolutely every work other than faith. This includes not only those works which perceive faith but those which follow upon faith. But I said that St. Paul understands works of the law to refer not only to the Mosaic law but also to the moral law that is the works of nature. These works of nature are works that man performs by his own natural power. That is those works man does before faith and grace. This will be clearly shown when we cover Romans 4. But for now this reading of the phrase is evidenced by the fact that St. Paul was addressing both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews thought that their observance of the Mosaic law brought them the gospel while the Gentiles thought that their natural knowledge of God and their strict observance of the natural law gave them a share in the gospel privileges. Also recall what we said earlier that faith often designates a composite habit or several acts taken together. For St. Paul says in Galatians 5:6, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that workketh by charity." And St. James says in James 2:26, "For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." This understanding is not unique to Roman Catholics. In fact, many of the reformed understand faith this way. French reformed theologian Louis LeBlanc in his theological thesis says quote however most often in scripture and ecclesiastical writers faith is designated as a composite of several acts or habits including sincere love for God and arted desire for his grace and the trust by which we seek refuge in God and rest in his favor. This is what we typically call living, saving and justifying faith, which Paul refers to as faith working through love. In which the Roman school calls formed faith for faith understood in this way, the subject is not the mind alone but also the will which acts to love God, desire his grace and trust in him. Next we have English non-conformist Richard Baxter in his Methodist theologia where he says quote hence abuser along with certain scholastics was willing to accept the distinction between unformed and formed or faith formed by charity. I'll reread that. Next we have English non-conformists Richard Baxter and his Methodist theologia which says quote hence Buucer along with certain scholastics was willing to accept the distinction between unformed faith and faith formed by charity for by charity and love they understand the wills delight or consent without which the ascent of the intellect though truly ascent is not a spiritual or moral good and therefore it is neither a condition of the divine covenant nor pleasing or acceptable to God nor sufficient for the reception of justification. This isn't just seen amongst Roman Catholics and the reformed but it is also seen in amongst the fathers. St. John in his letter 82 to the says quote charity is the mother of all virtues. In the apostles words about faith, hope and charity are like the three-fold cord which is not quickly broken. We believe, we hope, and through our faith and hope. We are joined together in the bond of charity. St. St. Leo the Great in his sermon 83 chapter 4 says, "Let him seek in the depths of his mind charity itself, the mother of all virtues." St. Ambrose in his commentary on Romans 14:5 says, quote, "Charity, which is the mother of all virtues?" St. Jerome in his commentary in Galatians 5:22-23 says, quote, "What should hold first place among the fruits of the spirit besides love? For without it the rest of the virtues are not reckoned virtues. And from love all good things are born. It does after all occupy first place in both the law and the gospel. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Say Bernard Clairvo in his sermon of the canacle sermon 24 says quote the death of faith is the departure of love. Do you believe in Christ? Do the works of Christ so that your faith will live. Love will animate your faith. Deeds will reveal it.

Now, owing to the argument that the Protestants make from Romans 4:5. Again, Romans 4:5 says, "But to him that workketh not, yet believeth in him that justify the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of God." Now, these works that St. Paul mentions here are those works that exclude grace and faith. This is not only supported by the occasion of the epistle, as I have already said, but this is also supported by the text itself. Let's take a look at chapter 4 verse 1. It says, quote, "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" Now, the word flesh here ought to be taken for the works performed by his natural strength, that is those works without grace and faith, so as to mean the same as works in the in verse two, which says, quote, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." The particle four would make it very probable that the apostle was referring to the same thing in both verses. Verse two suggests that the kind of works that St. Paul excludes are those works which would cause man to glory in himself rather than from God or in God. From this it is clear that St. Paul's referring to works without grace. For no one can be impious enough to assert that the works done in grace and faith would not give us cause to glory in God or in the sight of God. Since the grace of God would be the chief principle in their performance. Verse four also supports this reading of works. It reads quote not now to him that workketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt. Clearly these works are those which man has from his natural power. Since if man were to work in grace, a reward would be reckoned according to grace and not debt. As St. Augustine says in his letter 194, quote, "What merit then does a man being have before grace so that by the merit he may receive grace? Since only grace produces in us every good merit of ours, and since when God crowns our merits, he only crowns his own gifts." This reading of St. Paul's usage of works is supported by both the reformed and the fathers. Let's first take a look at some of the reformed authors. French Reformed theologian Louis LeBlanc in his theological thesis says quote for by the works of the law the apostle means such observance of the law that excludes the necessity of divine grace and for which reward is to be given according to obligation not according to grace. Scottish Caroline Divine and William Forbes in his work on justification book one chapter 4 says quote the works which are excluded from the matter of justification and salvation are the works of the law of nature and the mosaic law not merely the ceremonial law but also the moral law done by Gentiles or Jews before and without the faith and grace of Christ solely by the powers of free will which those who performed them imputed to themselves and not to the grace of Christ and on account of which They the Jews especially thought though falsely that they merit a justification and salvation but not the works that are done from faith and the special concurrence of the grace of Christ. Next we have Richard Baxter in his treatis on justifying righteousness page 218 where he says quote he St. Paul speaks of works as competitors with Christ and not as subordinate to him. For the question that Paul debates is whether we are justified by the works of the law or by the righteousness of Christ received by faith where he principally in his question opposes works and Christ as in point of merit and faith is but collaterally put in opposition. He also speaks against works justifying meritoriously not denying works as conditions of the continuence of a free given righteousness. This I could bring multitudes of our divines that affirm that the apostles speaking against justification by works, means and point of merit. St. Augustine supports this reading in his faith and works chapter 14. He says, quote, "The law entered in that sin might abound, but where sin abounded, grace abounded more." This statement is true in the sense that those who received the law, relying arrogantly on their own strength and failing to seek divine assistance through proper faith to overcome their sinful desires became burdened with more numerous and graver sins by transgressing the law. Therefore, when the apostle says he considers a man to be justified by faith without works of the law, he does not do this so that works of righteousness should be despised after faith has been received and professed, but so that each person may know he can be justified through faith even if works of the law have not proceeded for they follow the justified person. They do not perceive the one to be justified.

Someone might object. Well, Puda, verse three says, quote, "For what saith the scripture," Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. And Puta, at that time that the words here are quoted, that are used, Abraham was already justified, as we seen from Genesis 12 and from St. Paul to the Hebrews in chapter 11. And so Paul is not only excluding works prior to initial justification, but works after that is second justification. And I respond that while it is true that at this time Abraham was already justified, this does not harm our reading of the text. For St. Paul here is making an a4eriori argument. He's proving that in Abraham's second justification, that is that the increase of justice did not come from works done without grace. Then how much more that is a foreriori did Abraham not become just from his injustice by those same works?

Now unto Romans 13:8, it says, quote, "Owe no man anything but to love one another. He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law." This verse is brought up by a prominent Lutheran apologist Dr. Jordan B. Cooper. And this reasoning that he follows can be found in the likes of Lutheran theologian Philip Meen and German Protestant David Pereas. Dr. Cooper in his video titled Does Romans 13 disprove justification by faith alone? provides a syllogism that is supported by this text. It states premise one, works of the law are fulfilled by love. Premise two, we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. Conclusion, we are justified apart from our love. Now, this argument falls to a parody. It's simply a category error. If the word law here is to be taken for works of the law, then we can make a similar argument which leads to absurd conclusions. For example, we know that the law is fulfilled by or in Christ as Matthew 5:17 and Romans 10:4 state. And so we can construct a similar argument. Premise one, works of the law are fulfilled by Christ. Premise two, we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Conclusion, we are justified apart from Christ. And clearly this argument is absurd. Now, someone might object and say that clearly love is a work of the law because love is commanded in the law as seen in Deuteronomy 6:5, which states, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength." But this objection is to no avail. For if love were a part of the works of the law, simply because it is commanded in the law, then faith would equally be considered a work of the law. for faith just as love is commanded in the law which in fact is seen just one verse prior to Deuteronomy 6:5 or Deuteronomy 6:4 says quote here O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord funnily enough this revelation makes a positive argument for our stance but just as Paul distinguishes faith from the law we too can distinguish love from it this is further seen in 1 John chapter 3 which states and this is his commandment that we should believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ and love one another as he hath given commandment unto us. And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us by the spirit which he hath given us. Here both faith and love are taken together as commandments. And these commandments are such that without them or well without fulfilling them one does not remain in Christ. Let me repeat that last statement here. Both faith and love are taken together as commandments. And these commandments are such that without fulfilling them one does not remain in Christ. One additional reason why love excluded from the law is that St. Paul in Romans tells us that the law of works is what the Gentiles observe by nature. We see this in Romans 2:14. And the Gentiles do not do by nature what love requires. And so the law of works in Romans excludes faith also excludes charity since they occur together as under the law in Deuteronomy 6 and 1 John 3. I will leave you with one last response given by Roman Catholic theologians Adrien and Peter Wallenberg where in their tract and justification chapter 75 they say quote paray as heirs in wanting charity or the love of God and neighbor to be a work of the law for that precept you shall love the Lord your God is proper to the covenant of grace and the eternal covenant that commandment is indeed written in the law but it is not part of the legal covenant therefore it must be considered that this commandment is written in the law so that men might be led through the legal covenant to the covenant of grace. But it should by no means be said that the love of God and neighbor itself is a work of the legal covenant.

Next, Protestants like to use Ephesians 2 8-9. It states, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God, not of works that no man may glory." See here, Puta, St. Paul excludes man's works from his justification. For he said that no man may glory and man can find room to glory if not the entire work of justification is attributed to God alone and so Ephesians 28-9 is a clear passage for solid but this reading is to no avail. St. Paul first begins by stating that we were saved that is initially justified through faith. Now this faith is either taken as the composite habit or act of faith. If faith is taken as a composite habit, then this faith saves us as to our formal justice. If faith is taken as the act, then this faith saves us as to the foundation of our justice by which all other acts and habits depend. Taken in both ways, faith is certainly not of ourselves since faith itself is a grace. When St. Paul says that we are saved not of works, he clearly opposes this to what he said prior that is to faith. And so those works which he is concerned here are those that are outside of faith. Hence the opposition. No man can glory in himself about a work done in faith since God is the chief principle in his work. And so it is even more clear that this verse is in reference to initial justification which is completely gratuitous to which no merits on our part actual or foreseen could give a claim. For any other verse like in Galatians or in the Gospels that seems to support a contrary notion of solid espoused here, simply apply the same readings of those texts as I have already given above.

Now that we've taken a look at some arguments from sacred scripture, let's turn to the fathers of the church. St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Ephesians chapter 14 says quote therefore no diabolical thought will deceive you if like Paul you have perfect faith and charity in Christ for these are the beginning and the end the beginning of life is faith and however is charity whenever these two come together as one they make a man of God perfect origin in his commentary on Romans 4 says I consider faith to be the first beginnings and the very foundations of salvation hope is certainly the progress and increase of the building however love is the perfection and columnation of the entire work. That is why love is said to be greater than everything else. St. Augustine in his sermon 158 says, quote, "Man begins with faith. What belongs to faith? To believe. But even this faith must be distinguished from that of unclean spirits. What belongs to faith? To believe. If you merely believe yet live without hope or do not have love, even the demons believe and tremble. Therefore, first distinguish your faith from the faith of demons. How do you distinguish it? The demons said it in fear. Peter said it in love. Add then to faith hope. Or what is hope if not some confidence of a good conscience? And add to hope charity. St. Augustine in his letter 194 says, quote, "One is set free not merely by the forgiveness of sins, but also first by the infusion of faith and fear of God and by the satellic gift of love for prayer and its practice until God heals all our illness redeems our life from corruption and crows us in compassion and mercy." St. Augustine on the Trinity book 15apter 18 says, quote, "There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It that is love alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal predition. Other gifts to you are given by the Holy Spirit but without love they profit nothing. How great a good then is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal life. But love or charity itself brings that man to the kingdom. So that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love. Since faith without love can indeed exist but cannot profit. And by that gift, what else can properly be understood except love which brings to God and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God. Turning to St. Ambrose in his exposition on the Gospel of Luke, he says, quote, "Peter grieved and wept because he had aired as a man. I do not find what he said. I find that he wept. I read of his tears. I do not read of his justification. But what cannot be defended can be washed away. Let tears wash away the sin that shame prevents the voice from confessing. Good are tears that wash away guilt. St. Ambrose epistle to simplicus says quote the apostle has taught me that beyond this freedom there is freedom of being a slave. When I was free he says I made myself a servant to all that I might gain the more. What lies beyond that freedom except to have the spirit of grace to have charity. Freedom makes us free before man. Charity makes one a friend before God. Clement of Alexandria in his stamata book 2 chapter 6 says quote and in truth faith is discovered by us to be the first movement toward salvation after which fear and hope and repentance advancing in company with temperance and patience leads us to love and knowledge.

Now onto the quotes many Protestants use as affirming what they mean by solid. They first cite origin in his commentary in Romans 3 where he quote he that is the apostle is saying that the justification of faith alone suffices so that the one who only believes is justified even if he has not accomplished a single work. But by faith alone here origin is contrasting faith with any previous external works. This is evidenced by his usage of the examples of the thief on the thief on the cross and in the magdaline. If the reading were that one that Protestant supposed then origin would be contradicting himself in his same commentary for he says one chapter prior quote let them hear that God pays back to each one not on account of his nature but on account of his works. In the second place let believers be edified so as to not entertain the thought that because they believe this alone can suffice for them. On the contrary, they should know that God's righteous judgment pays back to each one according to his own works. Next, they turn to St. Hillary from his commentary on Matthew chapter 8 where he says, quote, "It disturbed the scribes that sin is forgiven by a man where they saw only a man in Jesus Christ and that he forgave sin for which the law was not able to grant absolution since faith alone justifies." But by faith alone, St. Hillary does not mean to the exclusion of the other virtues or acts but rather to the exclusion of the law which does not justify. Then they bring up St. Basil where in his homaly on humility he says quote now this is to perfect and consumate glory in God not to exalt in one's own justice but recognizing oneself as lacking true justice to be justified by faith alone in Christ. Now St. Basil here by alone means to the exclusion of works done without faith. For he opposes truth with justice man has from himself. As Philippians 3:9 says, quote, "And may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, that which is of faith of Jesus Christ, which is of God, justice, and faith." Next, they attest to Pope St. Clements the first epistle to the Corinthians wherein he says quote and we too being called by his will in Christ Jesus are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart but by faith through which from the beginning Almighty God has justified all men to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Now this quote does not exclude those virtues or dispositions mentioned earlier. nor does it exclude works done after one is justified. St. Clement is referring to our initial justification. Now, one might object by saying since Clement excludes those works wrought in holiness of heart, the initial justification reading of this text is impossible. For such works are done by those who are already justified. And now I respond. The exclusion of those works done by the regenerate pertains to initial justification in so far as those works would not be a foreseen cause of the granting of such grace. Just as man is not predestined because God foresees what man may do with his grace. This is seen in Titus 3:5 which says not by the works of justice which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the labor of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost. Now many other quotes from the father such as from St. Ambrose, St. John and St. Augustine can be explained by the various readings above.

Now that we heard from the fathers, there are several arguments from reason that conclude that man is not justified by faith alone. Taken in the Protestant sense. Firstly, if a person is reconciled to God, then that person is made a friend of God. Charity is this friendship between man and God. Therefore, man cannot be reconciled to God unless he has charity. This argument is given by Cardinal Kajitan and is on faith and works chapter 4 wherein he says quote it is intolerable that one's sins would be forgiven before charity is infused in the person forgiven as the following will convincingly show an enemy cannot be made a friend unless he have the aptitude of friendship. A friend devoid of the quality of friendship would be incomprehensible just as something white is incomprehensible without whiteness. But when the unrighteous man is made righteous through Christ, an enemy of God is transformed into a friend of God, as the apostle says in Romans 5:10, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son. Reconciliation makes the reconciled person a friend. Hence, it is impossible and incomprehensible that a sinner be justified in the absence of friendship toward God. Charity is differential between man and God. Being both man's love a friendship toward God and God towards man. God is love and he who abides in love abides in God and God in him. 1 John 4:16. We read in the same epistle, "We love God because he first loved us." 4:19. Since friendship consists in mutual love, the forgiveness of sins takes place essentially through charity. Hence what we call the righteousness of faith is identical with charity. We speak of the righteousness of faith since by it a person is righteous before God conformable to the divine realities and deeds in which we believe. The sense appetite are subject to the will to right reason and right reason is subject to God in conformity to what we accept in faith about him and about our heavenly homeland. We call the same thing charity since

It also involves the love of friendship toward the God who is granting us citizenship in the heavenly homeland. Philippians 3:20 says our citizenship is in heaven. And Ephesians 2:19 says, "You are no longer guests and strangers, but citizens with the saints and members of God's household." Also in the Song of Songs, "My beloved is mine and I am his."

Now, a possible objection one could make to this argument is by taking a particular reading of Romans 5:10, which says again, "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more now that we are reconciled shall we be saved by his life." Therefore, we can conclude from this that we are reconciled prior to the reception of charity.

Now, I respond that this objection fails on two points. Firstly, if the assumed reading were true, this would equally apply to faith. But we know that we aren't reconciled until we have faith. Therefore, such a response is absurd. Secondly, this as an objection takes the term reconciled in an equivocal sense, failing to distinguish. One can refer to the acquisition of the means and the application thereof. Christ reconciled us to God while we were enemies in so far as through his passion he satisfied for our sins and obtained the emittance of men to eternal life. Christ is also said to reconcile us to God by making us friends through the bestowing of those benefits, i.e., remission of sins and acceptance. For the very next verse says, "and not only so but also we glory in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received reconciliation." And so in one sense we are reconciled while we were enemies, and another we are reconciled where we are made friends.

The idea that charity proceeds to forgiveness of sins is a common opinion amongst the reformed, as we shall later see. If the reading of 5:10 were to be taken for the second sense explained, then justification at the cross would be true, making man just while still an enemy, and thus his sins are remitted, or that is before his sins are remitted, which is absurd. We see this distinction made in discussions on limited atonement and hypothetical universalism. For example, some use Colossians 2:13-14 as support that our sins were forgiven at the cross. It says, "And you being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken it out the way, having nailed it to the cross." But we know that this reading is absurd. Rather, this is referring to the removal of the legal obstacles so that the benefits can be applied.

The next argument is from the Spanish Dominican theologian Domingo Soto in his work on nature and grace, book 22, arguing that the three movements, faith, hope, and love, are necessary for conversion. He says, "God requires faith from us so that both by the hope for what he promises us and especially for the sake of his infinite goodness, which he discloses to us, we might love him dearly. First, because all knowledge of an honest good is ordered to the love of that good. In addition, the definition of faith as the knowledge of things to be hoped for shows that it exists for the sake of hope and the love of God. Therefore, unless hope and charity follow, faith does not suffice for salvation." What supports this argument is that aversion from God is chiefly from an effect of the will, and we are twisted in our souls toward creatures, as with one who turns his face away from the sun. Conversion, therefore, which refers to the contrary movement of our will toward God, who draws us, though we freely come to him, should be the contrary movement of the will toward God, whether we are being reconciled from original sin alone or from actual sins. For we contract original sin through the aversion of Adam. Luther and others fail to observe that conversion marks a movement whereby we move away from earthly things toward God. Unless one is born to God by hope and love, he does not, by believing in him, convert to God with his whole soul. Yet one cannot be infused with grace before being converted.

The last argument is an argument from analogy. Grace by the fathers is often compared to the light of the sun. Now, no one receives the light of the sun upon his face except by turning himself toward it. So, in like manner, no one receives the grace of God unless he converts or turns toward God. This movement of conversion is the dispositions and preparations for grace, which consists in the acts of faith, hope, and charity. And since faith is the perfection of the intellect by which one is converted, and charity and hope is the perfection of the will whereby one is converted, as shown in the prior argument, then charity and hope are required alongside faith. You can find St. Thomas make a similar argument in the Summa, first part of the second part, question 109, article 6. One must note that because no one can turn, prepare, or convert on his own, a help from God that consists in the movement of man's soul inwardly is required to convert us to himself, albeit with our consent, so that he might infuse grace.

Now on to Protestant agreement and disagreement. Clearly, the earlier Lutherans disagree with Roman Catholics and some of the reformed on this issue. For Philip Melanchthon, in his Apology of the Augsburg Confession, states, "Lastly, it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men who are under eternal wrath merit the remission of sins by an act of love which springs from their mind, since it is impossible to love God, lest the remission of sins be apprehended first by faith. For the heart truly feeling that God is angry cannot love God unless he has been shown to be reconciled." Martin Luther, in his Commentary on Galatians, chapter 2, says, "For the Papists say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of our salvation, but it justifieth not except to be furnished with charity. This is not the truth of the gospel, but falsehood and dissimulation." And later he says, "We must conclude with Paul, by faith alone, not by faith formed by charity, are we justified. Therefore, the power of justifying is not to be attributed to that grace-giving form, but to faith which grasps and possesses Christ the Savior himself in the heart. This faith without and before charity justifies."

Now, in Martin Chemnitz, one can see an admittance of preparation and disposition to grace. But he says that Trent hides behind these words by implicitly affirming that the acts are meritorious causes. In Examination on the Council of Trent, he says, "If they would not set up in those preparations merits or worthiness on account of which we might be justified, we could easily come to an agreement on the term preparation rightly understood according to scripture." But as we have said earlier, there is and was no consensus amongst Roman Catholics about the manner in which the acts justified, whether as simply conditions or as formal, efficient, and meritorious causes. Roman Catholic theologians, the Wallenberg brothers, in their treatise on justification, chapter 75, say, "The question therefore whether the dispositions that precede justification merit the grace of justification congruously and thus concur as meritorious causes to obtain this grace is not of Catholic faith, for neither the Council of Trent nor any other general council has defined that question. The negative opinion is held among others by Alvarez." Hence, Protestants, and among them Gerhard, gravely err when they attribute the affirmative opinion to the Catholic Church and oppose that opinion with the arguments which Catholics actually use to defend the negative.

French reformed theologian Louis Le Blanc is in agreement with the Wallenberg brothers. For he says in his theological thesis, "What some of the pontifical theologians say that certain good works merit congruously the remission of sins and the gift of righteousness is their particular opinion, as we have already indicated, but not the common doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church."

Moving on to the reformers who actually agree with Roman Catholics on the topic of dispositions and preparations for justifying grace. French reformed theologian Louis LeBlanc, in his theological thesis, chapter "Justified by Faith," explanation number 54, says, "But when the theologians of the Roman school affirmed that we are justified not by faith alone, but also by works, their meaning is this: that not only the act of believing strictly considered, but also many other acts, such as fear of divine judgment, sorrow for sin, detestation, the resolve for a new life, the hope of obtaining mercy from God, and the love and affection for God arising from this hope, whatever else of this kind there may be, are moral dispositions, conditions which, according to the order established by God, must precede in us the remission of sins and the inward renewal by the Holy Spirit, without which God does not usually bestow that grace upon us. Furthermore, together with faith, the other virtues constitute true righteousness, in which the faithful in scripture are called holy and just, in which also God will approve in his judgment and will reward with eternal life on the last day." Both of these points, as is clear from what has been said above, are conceded by Roman or by reformed theologians. So much so that up to this point, the dispute would seem to be about words only and not about the thing itself.

English non-conformist Richard Baxter, in his treatise on justifying righteousness, page 279, says, "Christ presents love and the gospel as being of the same necessity, that is, of faith." Objection: Love and all obedience are indeed presented as necessary, but not as necessary for justification; they flow from justifying faith, but are not properly parts of it. Reply: John 16:27 and John 14:21 make love the prior condition of God's love and of Christ's love towards a person, and that love goes together with forgiveness, being the love for reconciliation, and reconciliation includes forgiveness. At the very least, you will never be able to show from scripture that obtaining God's love and obtaining forgiveness and reconciliation do not have the same conditions.

Next, we have John Davenant in his treatise on justification, chapter 20, wherein he says, "Some good works are necessary to justification as concurrent or preliminary conditions, although they are not necessary as efficient or meritorious causes. Among these good works, I reckon those internal ones, which, though they do not meet the eye of man, are highly regarded by God, such as to mourn over, to detest sin, to submit humbly to God, to flee to the mercy of God, to place hope in Christ the mediator, to resolve on a new life, and other such things. So, for the obtaining of justification, they are required, certain acts either preliminary or concurring, and yet we do not obtain justification by their efficacy or merit, by the grace of God commiserating and helping us."

Next, we turn to the Synod of Dort. The British delegates in the Acts of the Synod of Dort concerning the third and fourth articles say, "It is certain that some acts, such as acknowledgment of sin, sorrow, contrition, etc., precede the conversion of a person being regenerate, as he is prepared by the ministry of the law and gospel to receive grace. But just as in natural generation there are many preceding dispositions that precede formation, so also in the spiritual, through many preceding actions of grace, one reaches spiritual birth." The Dutch churches, excuse me, in the Acts of the Synod of Dort concerning the third and fourth articles says, "A man can prepare and dispose himself to the first conversion by meditating on the word of God, grieving over past sins, and desiring grace. But I add, all these things proceed from that common grace of preaching and illumination." Lastly, the Genevan theologians in the Acts of the Synod of Dort concerning the third and fourth articles says, "The saving sense of sin, combined with thirst for remedy, good hope, softened heart, hatred of sin, and flight to God, are effects of the hidden work of the Holy Spirit, gradually preparing and drawing a person to the grace of justification and regeneration."

To conclude, as we have seen, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent did not anatomize the gospel, but rather condemned a specific formulation of faith alone that excludes the necessity of the other moral dispositions from the justification of an adult. The necessity of the other moral dispositions as preceding the justification of an adult was evidenced by sacred scripture, the church fathers, and reason. Many of the reformed actually agree with us on this point, as seen in Louis LeBlanc, Richard Baxter, John Davenant, and the delegates at the Synod of Dort. So whenever you hear someone say that Trent condemned faith alone, show them this video. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. And God bless.

Many within modern reformed apologetics appear very distant from their own tradition. Even those pursuing a return are marred by a lack of theological rigor and troubling imprecision. As a result, many are led to assume not only that their tradition holds the views that they take to be orthodox, but also mistakenly believe that their traditions are at odds with Roman Catholic teaching. Miles, from the YouTube channel Canon and Creed, recently released a video titled "Justified by Faith and Works: A Forgotten Protestant Doctrine," wherein he attempts to challenge Protestant misconceptions regarding the necessity of good works by drawing on reformed theologians and then executing James chapter 2. Now, while I applaud the attempt by Miles in combating these misconceptions within his own tradition, I do think he, in this video, falls within the camp of those I mentioned earlier, those who are pursuing a return, but sadly fall short. In this video, I aim at doing four things. Firstly, I aim to show that the historic reform position on the necessity of good works is not a cause for separation with Roman Catholics. This will include a crude survey of the various Roman opinions on this issue. Secondly, I aim to show that Miles was inaccurate on the summation of the reformers on the necessity of good works. Thirdly, I aim at providing the Roman Catholic reading of James 2, which of course is the correct reading. And lastly, I aim to provide various reform authors who align with our reading of James 2, which further shows that the separation on this matter is not as justified as many assume.

Now, Miles begins by saying, "Now, this is going to shell shock some of you, but historic Protestant theology does indeed teach that good works are necessary for salvation. Yes, the same Protestant theology that upholds and affirms justification by faith alone. And this isn't because works earn anything, but because they demonstrate something. And this clarification really is the heart of the matter. So, let's get our terms straight. Necessity does not mean merit. Evidence is not earning, and vindication is not justification in Paul's legal sense." By this statement, Miles is affirming two things that must be addressed. The first is that the reformed deny that good works earn anything, that is, merit from God. Secondly, that good works only exist to demonstrate one is just before men, that is, that good works are only necessary by presence because a truly justified person who has a living faith would produce good works, otherwise, his faith would not be a true one. Now, while it may be easier to refute the latter by first refuting the former, for the sake of simplicity, we will first show that the reformers explicitly deny that works are only necessary by presence or to demonstrate one's living faith before men.

The first reformer who denies such an attribution is Scottish Anglican divine William Forbes. In his work on justification, book 4, chapter 1, he says, "Many Protestants admit not only the necessity of the presence of good works in the believer, but also of their efficiency, so long as by efficiency is not understood any proper merit or intrinsic power and worth of the works themselves in obtaining salvation, but only a kind of causality or efficiency of a secondary, lesser, and inferior order and rank, and always subordinated to divine grace and faith. For they believe that good works are necessarily required in those who are justified and being saved, not only as signs and effects of true and living faith, but also as a kind of way to salvation, or as a cause without which salvation cannot be obtained, or as a condition which, if not fulfilled, no adult person to whom the opportunity to do good is granted can attain eternal salvation. Indeed, to yield nothing which truth itself does not compel one to admit. They consider good works to be a cause of salvation in their own manner and place, assisting and efficient, not only for not impeding salvation, or for retaining and preserving it, or even for completing it, as some say, though not fully enough, but also for attaining it. Yet all this without any merit properly so-called." How much clearer is that here, Miles? How William Forbes explicitly rejects such an attribution.

The next reformer who denies such an attribution is French reformed theologian Louis LeBlanc, wherein citing Pereas as in agreement with him, he says in his theological thesis, "However, those who wrote against Bellarmine, such as Pereas in the cited book, complained that Bellarmine either did not understand or did not faithfully report the doctrine of the Protestants. In this part, 'It is false,' he says, 'that we say works are necessarily only by necessity of presence, and that good works have no relation at all to salvation, not even as conditions.' This, I say, is false." And later on, LeBlanc says, "Good works are not simply a condition assumed in those who are to obtain eternal life, but they are the way that leads to it and the means ordained by God through which one certainly and effectively arrives at eternal happiness."

Not only do the reformed deny that good works are only necessary by presence, but they explicitly attribute, as William Forbes said before, a kind of causality to works. John Calvin, in his Institutes, book 3, chapter 14, says, "In these things, there is nothing that hinders the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But whence is that? Namely, those whom in his mercy he has destined to the inherence of eternal life, he by his ordinary dispensation leads into the possession of it by good works. What proceeds in the order of dispensation, he calls the cause of what follows. For this reason, he sometimes ascribes life everlasting to good works, not that we are to refer it to them that we receive it, but he makes the first grace, which is the step to the following one, in a certain way the cause of it, because those whom he has chosen, he justifies, that finally he may glorify them." German Dutch Roman Straw Forstas, in his Antibellaminus, page 628, says, "To prevent further slanders, we openly confess that good works are not only a kind of path preceding salvation as a goal proposed to us, but also a kind of cause of salvation in their own way, assisting or efficient." English Puritan William Ames, in his Medulla Theologica, book 2, chapter 1, says, "Our obedience, though it is not the principle or meritorious cause of eternal life, yet is a cause in some way, ministering, aiding, and promoting towards the possession of this life."

Now that we've seen that the reformed not only deny that good works are necessary only by presence, but also affirm that they possess a kind of causality, it is now time to address Miles's earlier claim that the reformers teach that good works do not earn anything. Before laying out the various opinions on the view of the merit of good works and providing quotes from the reformers, let's quickly examine the meaning of this word merit. As Cardinal Cajetan and others say, merit is said of a voluntary work, whether interior or external, to which by right a payment or reward is due. Now, since there is no right or obligation properly speaking between God and man, such that the work creates an obligation of strict justice on God to give the reward, this right or justice must be understood in a loose or analogical manner. Cardinal Cajetan, in his On Faith and Works, explains this looser kind of right between man and God, wherein he says, "Even such a weakened right between master and slave is not absolutely speaking found between man and God, because absolutely speaking, man's every voluntary good action is due to God. In fact, the more and the better a man's interior and outward works, so much more does he owe to God, since it is God who works in us, both to will and to complete our every action. This weakened right is found between man and God by reason of the divine ordination, but which God ordained our works to be meritorious before himself. When man merits anything before God, God never becomes man's debtor, but rather his own. An agreement is presupposed between God and man on some matter, as among men when a master makes a pact of some kind with his slave. In this case, a right can arise between master and slave. Thus, if God deems to make a pact with man, a right can arise between man and God with reference to the matter of the agreement. Keep in mind though, that to whatever extent there is a pact between God and man concerning a reward, still God never falls into our debt, but is only in debt to himself. For in view of the agreement made, there is due to our works the reward of which was agreed. God does not thereby become indebted to us regarding this reward, but rather indebted to his own prior determination for which he deemed to enter a pact with us."

This quote from Cardinal Cajetan is a good segue into the various opinions on the view of the merit of good works. Now, each of the following opinions requires two conditions for the notion of true merit before God: it requires the dignity of the work itself and the right to the reward. The dignity of the work concerns whether or not the work is worthy of some reward. While the right to the reward concerns whether the work creates some kind of right by which God is bound to give the reward. The first of the four opinions holds that the dignity of the work does not in itself, even though it proceeds from one in grace, merit eternal life, but rather the entire dignity proceeds from the liberality of God, completing the good works of the just according to his promise and conferring dignity or value on them concerning their right to the reward. This first opinion holds that God is not strictly obligated to render the reward, but from the liberal promise of God, eternal life is to be rendered. The second opinion holds that the dignity of the work comes from the quality of the work itself, in so far as it proceeds from man in grace and from God's acceptance through Christ's merits. As to the right to the reward, the second opinion holds the same as the first: that is, God is not strictly obligated to render the reward, but from the liberal promise of God, eternal life is to be rendered. The third opinion holds that the dignity of the work comes entirely from the work itself, in so far as it proceeds from a man justified and in grace. Yet, of course, it requires for its completion the right to the reward, which is the same as the first two opinions: that is, from the liberal promise of God. The fourth and last opinion holds that the work of the just merits eternal life independently from acceptance and favor, which is contrary to the first three positions, and independently from the divine pact and promise. Now, the first opinion is often attributed to the Scotists. The second and third opinions are often attributed to the Thomists and some of the Jesuits, and no one holds the fourth opinion since it entails that God owes man a reward on the basis of strict justice.

Now, for a more thorough understanding of the merit of good works, I suggest you check out Christian Wagner's playlist on meritum de condignitate on his channel. As we see, contra, the various opinions teach in a loose sense that man does merit from God, but it is not enough to simply provide a survey of the opinions. We must show whether any of the reformed actually hold to them. Now, most reformed theologians, from the likes of Martin Bucer, John Davenant, Louis LeBlanc, Martin Chemnitz, and many others, would fall into the camp of the first position above. Early reformer Martin Bucer, contrary to Miles, says, "Indeed, we do not deny that we are also justified by works, as St. James said, for God repays each person according to their works. And it is not those who hear the law, but those who do it, who will be justified. But this justification of ours, that is, the final adjudication and bestowal of eternal life, arises from and depends upon justification by faith, for which good works themselves also come and have this quality that, although they are worth nothing of themselves, they merit eternal life for us. Therefore, since God holds us among his children through faith alone, he deems our works performed through his Spirit to be so valuable and deems to reward them with such great recompense." Martin Chemnitz, in his Examination on the Council of Trent, also says, contrary to Miles, "Good works in the reconciled are pleasing to God for the sake of the mediator and receive rewards, bodily and spiritual, as well in this life as after, all owing, however, to the free promise of God, not because he has become indebted to us on account of the perfection and worth of our works, and taken in this sense, our divines make no difficulty in using the word merit as it has been employed by the fathers." John Davenant, in his treatise on justification, found in the abridged version, chapter 21, says, "The point in debate, therefore, is not whether the reward of eternal life is given to good works, but whether it is given on account of that proportion and equality which the works themselves possess, answerable to so great a reward, or whether it is owing to the liberality of God, who has assigned to the works of believers a reward far more excellent than the works themselves, and also from the mercy of God, who will not requite their evil works with the punishment of death eternal, and in short, from the faithfulness of God, who to those who believe, repent, and walk in the newness of life, according to their measure of grace, has promised for the sake of the mediator and freely bestows life eternal in the appointed time." And lastly, French reformed theologian Louis LeBlanc, in his theological thesis, in the chapter on the relation of good works to eternal life, part one, says, "Furthermore, although there is a certain congruence between the good works of the faithful and the eternal life and glory that God rewards them with, for which the faithful are said to be worthy of eternal life in scripture, it should not be thought that eternal life is due to their good works in themselves and by strict right. If we have any right to eternal life through our works, it is founded on the gratuitous promise of God, who in his immense goodness has declared in his word that he wills to reward our services, however weak and meager, with eternal life and glory, even though without any injustice, he could neither give nor promise such a great and magnificent reward to our works."

But one may respond or ask, "Well, Buddha, why do so many confessions and theologians deny that man merits anything from God?" Well, I would respond that many of the reformed deny that man merits anything from God. They take merit in the strict sense rather than the loose sense, usually attributing the word merit to the fourth opinion that we stated before. We have now seen that the reformed do actually affirm that man does earn something from God, though man does not merit the reward strictly, but rather through grace.

Miles, in attempts to support his claim that the reformers teach that good works are done to demonstrate one's living faith for others, cites many reformed authors. We will examine a few of the quotes here. "The works don't earn anything but are fitting in a life transformed by grace." Yet, in this same work, Vermigli says that works are causes of justification and righteousness. He also says that God rewards the faithful from their works. He says in the Propositions of Peter Martyr, "We must not utterly deny that the works of the law are in some sense causes of our righteousness and salvation. We must deny that they are the principle or complete cause of these blessings. God's mercy is in truth the chief and true cause of our justification." And again, he says, "We grant that a man is justified by works, but this as to inherent righteousness, and as to the rewards, having it been obtained of God, a good and holy life." And lastly, "Those who are worthy of something, it is fitting that they receive it, and to those for whom something is rightly and reasonably fitting, they must be judged worthy of it."

Miles then summarizes a quote by Zanchi. Looking at another Italian reformer, Jerome Zanchi, he explains that the reformed believe in and distinguish between two kinds of righteousness: the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is what justifies us before God, and inherent righteousness, which shows we are being sanctified. The former saves, and the latter grows. But Zanchi thinks that good works are not only necessary by presence but also as a means. For he says in his On the Nature of God, chapter 2, "We do not absolutely deny that good works are a cause of salvation, namely an instrumental rather than an efficient one." And by efficient, he means principal efficient. Good works are an instrumental cause of the possession of eternal life, for through them, as through means and through a legitimate path, God leads us into the possession of eternal life.

Next, Miles summarizes this quote by John Davenant by saying, "In his treatise on justification, John Davenant states that justification before God rests upon faith alone, but good works are required of those who are already justified as a testament of gratitude to God." Well, first, I want to address the quote on the screen and then Miles's summarization of this quote. When Davenant says that good works too are required of man already justified, not for placing them in a state of justification or to entitle them to eternal life, he is simply saying that good works do not justify man in terms of first justification, not final. And while it may be true that good works are required as a testament of gratitude to God, Davenant, in that same quote, in the end, explains that good works are also necessary as a means. Even more, in his treatise, Davenant says, "Good works are necessary on the ground of the end proposed by them, and that not only of the supreme end, but also of many subordinate ends, which ends no one can attain without the cultivation of good works and the avoiding of bad ones. First, then, we are bound to refer all our actions to the glory of God as the supreme end. But God is glorified by our good works, while his glory is obscured, as far as we are concerned, by bad and wicked works. This end, therefore, being proposed, good works are the means necessary to be employed by us. Besides, we ought to regard eternal life as our goal and end, but this goal is never reached except in the way of good works. It being understood, then, that we are seeking the kingdom of heaven, we must necessarily enter upon the way which leads to the kingdom of heaven, the way of good works."

Miles then summarizes the thought of Martin Bucer by saying, "But he also recognized that scripture uses the word justification in more than one sense. In another, secondary sense, justification can refer to the visible vindication of the believer's faith, what Bucer called the justification of the pious. This isn't a second path to salvation, but the necessary outworking of the first sanctification as evidence that the believer has been truly justified." Martin Bucer not only thinks that justification can be used in a vindicative sense, but also to denote the increase in justice. Nevertheless, Bucer, in the Acts of the Dordrecht Colloquy, says, "If the holy fathers or others by the word merit understand the doing of good works out of faith in the grace of God, works to which God has promised and will render a reward, and if any by merits understand good works done out of faith in Christ, to which God has promised a reward, and at the same time confess that these works in themselves, as they are good, that is, as done from grace, nevertheless can in no way at all merit any reward from God condignly, that is, in the strict sense, in which since indeed the holy fathers called the good works of the saints merits, then as far as both the name and the thing itself are concerned, we will have no dispute with them, nor will we object if anyone wishes to cause such works meritorious."

Now, the merit and necessity of good works are not only found in the reformed theologians but also their confessions. The Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 16, says, "For we teach that God gives a rich reward to those who do good works. However, we do not ascribe this reward, which the Lord gives, to the merit of the man who receives it, but to the goodness, generosity, and truthfulness of God, who promises and gives it, and who, although he owes nothing to anyone, nevertheless promises that he will give a reward to his faithful worshippers. Meanwhile, he also gives them that they may honor him." The Westminster Confession of Faith says, "Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him, not as though they were in this life who holy, unblameable, and unreprovable in God's sight, but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections." The Hungarian Confession, 1562, says, "A reward in eternal life is attributed to the works of the elect, but relatively with respect to Christ and the Holy Spirit, who performs good works by faith in the righteousness of Christ." The Bohemian Confession, 1573, says, "We ought to perform and exercise ourselves in good works for the promises of this life, as well as also for the reward of eternal life, of which mention is made very often and at large in the holy scripture. And that by faith in Christ, we may have a more abundant entrance to the attaining of those rewards into the eternal kingdom of heaven, as St. Peter testifies."

Now, from what has been said above, we now see that the nature of merit and the necessity of good works are not matters of controversy between Protestants and Roman Catholics. For these opinions are debated amongst Roman Catholics, which does not endanger the Catholic faith, for nothing can be controversial unless it pertains to Catholic doctrine.

Now, moving on to Miles's next section of his video. He says that St. James's aim is not to show what justifies, but who is justified, not what faith does, but what true faith is. James begins in verse 14 by comparing two types of faith, living and dead. But what many miss is that his aim is not to show what justifies, but who is justified, not what faith does, but what true faith is. Miles here assumes that the two are mutually exclusive when they are in fact not. But before diving into the text, a clarification about a double usage of the word justification. First justification, also called justification of the impious, is the translation of man from a state of sin or guilt to a state of grace or justice. It is the infusion of sanctifying grace in man and the remission of his sins. Second justification, also called the justification of the pious, is the progress, increase, and completion of the justice man has already received, and also consists in the forgiveness of man's venial sins. Both justices are true justice before God. This distinction is admitted by the reformed. Scottish Caroline Divine William Forbes, in his work on justification, book 4, chapter 6, says, "Second justification also must necessarily be recognized and admitted, which consists in the progress, increase, and completion, according to the state of pilgrimage, of the justice given at the first, and the forgiveness of those sins in which the just daily fall." English theologian Richard Field, in his On the Church, book 3, says, "Stapleton asserts, according to the opinion of the Protestants, that 'neither the exercise of virtues nor obedience to the commandments has any value toward the second justification, and that is toward the increase, veance, progress, and perfection of righteousness.' But this is a slander, for they, the Protestants, hold that the second justification consists of two parts, namely, the daily progress in doing well, by which inherent righteousness is more and more perfected, and the daily remission of the sinful defects which are found in our actions." German Dutch Remus, in Escolia, says, "What is the justification of a man before God, except the reception of that man into his grace and friendship? Therefore, the more this grace and friendship grows, the more justification itself and does usually grow day by day. But this grace grows in proportion to the increase of faith. Therefore, so does that justification. Now, faith grows with works and is perfected by works, as we have already heard from the apostle. Therefore, the more good works increase in advance, the more justification itself is perfected in the soul of man, indeed also before God."

Now that we see that the reformed do affirm this distinction between justification of the impious, which is first justification, and justification of the pious, which is second justification, we can now dive into the text in James 2:14. St. James says, "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?" Now, does anyone seriously consider that the word "save" here refers to the external manifestation of faith rather than man's standing before God? And if "save" here refers to one's standing before God, one could infer that the word "justified" throughout the chapter refers to true justification before God, lest we render St. James's entire argument incoherent. In James 2:20, St. James says, "But what thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" If St. James here meant only the external manifestation of faith, he would not have called faith dead. Rather, he would have called it hidden. For when he calls it dead, he shows that it is not a true justifying faith which concerns one's standing before God. In James 2:21-22, St. James says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seeest thou that faith did cooperate with his works? And by works faith was made perfect." It is clear he is talking about one's standing before God, because from this, Abraham was justified by the act of offering his son. But what did this act do? Well, it made his faith perfect. The perfection of faith here clearly refers to its increase in growth, for habits or virtues are made perfect by their various acts. For when one has the habit of cooking and cooks more, he perfects this habit. And so likewise with the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Therefore, he is not merely talking about the external manifestation of faith before men, but about the perfection of faith by good works, that is, second justification, which concerns one's standing before God. If his faith wasn't truly perfected by his works, was it merely vindicated perfect by them?

In James 2:24, St. James says, "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?" Now, if "justified" here would be taken as vindicated or externally manifested, then we would have to reason that one could see another's faith by faith itself, since St. James is rebutting the idea that one is justified, that is, according to Miles, vindicated by faith alone. But this is absurd, for faith itself is internal to man, residing in his intellect and will, and thus cannot be seen by others, and thus renders the vindicative reading incoherent.

In James 2:25, St. James says, "And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?" Now, there are two readings of this verse that both suggest that "justified" here ought to be taken as one's standing before God. The first reading is that Rahab, before receiving and sending out of the spies, was not yet justified. And so St. James is talking about Rahab's first and second justification. This is suggested by both St. James and St. Paul calling Rahab a harlot. So, the word "works" in this verse refers to those works under the motion of grace that dispose Rahab for her first justification, which is not merited condignly, but only congruously. This seems to be the opinion of the fathers. Feel free to check out my blog post on first and second justification linked below. And so we can reason this way: when St. James is speaking about second justification, he uses the example of Rahab's first justification to prove a fortiori that a righteous person becomes more righteous by works and not by faith alone. For if Rahab, once a harlot, was made righteous by works and not by faith alone, then it is more evident that a righteous person grows in righteousness through works. And so we will have the necessity of works both in the first and second justification: in the one case as dispositions, in the other case as concurring and meritorious causes.

The second reading is that Rahab was already justified before receiving and sending out the spies. And so St. James is speaking directly about her second justification. This is evidenced by the narrative itself of Joshua 2:9-11, which attests that Rahab had already heard of the power and miracles of the God of the Jews, and due to her manner of expression, it suggests that she had already believed and thus was already justified before the spies' arrival. She was then called a harlot either because she retained the name, just as Simon is called the leper and Matthew the tax collector, or because "harlot" could also signify hostess or innkeeper. This may be the better reading because Rahab was eventually married to the prince of Judah, which makes it unlikely that he would have married an actual harlot. From this, we can reason this way: since Rahab, already justified, is said to have been justified by the works of receiving the spies and sending them off, like Abraham, it must be referring to an increase in justice, that is, second justification. And so the apparent contradiction between St. James and St. Paul is resolved. For St. James is referring to second justification, and thus works after faith and grace, while St. Paul is referring to first or initial justification, and thus works prior to faith and grace. This is also the testimony of the fathers, but I will cite just a few below.

St. Augustine, in his 83 Different Questions, question 78, says, "Wherefore, the statements of the two apostles, Paul and James, are not contrary to one another, when the one says that a man is justified by faith without works, and the other says that faith without works is vain. For the former is speaking of the works which precede faith, whereas the latter of those which follow on faith, just as even Paul himself indicates in many places." St. Bede, in his commentary on James, says, "For when James recalls those good works of Abraham which accompany his faith, he shows well enough that the Apostle Paul did not so teach by the example of Abraham that a man is justified by faith without works, to the extent that if someone were to believe, he would have no obligation to perform good works, but rather that so no one should think he has come to the gift of justification which is in faith by the merit of his former good deeds. In this matter, the Jews wished to set themselves above the Gentiles who believed in Christ because they said they had come to evangelical grace by the merits of the good works which are in the law. And so many of those who believed were scandalized that the grace of Christ was being given to uncircumcised Gentiles. Hence, the Apostle Paul says that a man can be justified by faith without works, that is to say, previous works. For how can one who has been justified by faith act otherwise than justly?"

Lastly, in James 2:26, St. James says, "For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." St. James here is describing what a justified faith is, in contrast to the dead faith, as he says in verses 17 and 20. Roman Catholics call justifying faith the formed faith, that is, faith formed by love. Throughout the sacred scripture, the term "works" can either refer to external or internal works. For example, the virtues of faith and love are the internal works of God, as our Savior says in John 6:29. Also, any act of faith or love flows principally from the virtue they correspond to. When I give alms, this act of charity flows from the habit or virtue of charity or love. And in these two ways, the word "work" can be used. James here uses "works" to refer to the first, that is, the virtue of charity, which is internal. We know this because he likens

The soul to the body. But the soul is the external form of the body, making it alive as its vivifying principle.

So too, as James points out, works, that is the virtue of charity, the principle from which good works flow, is the form of faith, making a dead faith to be alive and thereby making us just. You can read how the fathers attest to this in my blog post I mentioned before.

Now, many of the reformed object to this notion of faith, and they usually argue against this in two similar ways. The first argument is that dead faith is not faith. This is what the word "dead" suggests. For a dead man is not a man.

Now, Spanish Dominican theologian Domingo de Soto, in his work on nature and grace, book 2A, 7, responds to this argument by saying, "James does not relate faith to charity as a man to his soul, but rather as the body to the soul. He does not say, 'as a man,' but 'as a body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.' Both a man and his body live through the soul. A man lives through the soul as a form which is part of himself. The body lives through the soul as something which comes to it externally."

Therefore, because God, who is as it were the soul of our spiritual life, dwells in us through charity. For God is charity, and the one who remains in charity remains in God, and God in him. When charity is expunged, man too remains spiritually dead, as well as his faith. Nevertheless, just as the body apart from the soul retains its integral essence, so too, apart from charity, does faith have its own essence, substance, and propriety, which is ascent to what God has said.

The second argument, which is similar to the first, is from the Italian reformed scholastic theologian Francis Turretin and his Institutes of Ecclesiastical Theology. He says, "But this opinion feeds for mata rest upon a doubly false foundation. The first is that there is any true unformed faith, for since form gives being to a thing, it is absurd to say that there isn't an unformed faith."

But I respond that faith is "unformed" not absolutely, but relatively, as to charity that it was united with, as the body is unformed relatively to the soul it was united with.

One might also be surprised to find out that many of the reformed actually agree with Roman Catholics that justifying faith is faith that is formed by love. Here are a few.

French reformed theologian Louis Le Blanc, in his theological thesis on faith, part two, says, "Conversely, reformed theologians disapprove of the Roman school terminology of dead faith as unformed faith and living faith as formed faith, as if charity were the form of faith. By this, Roman theologians mean not that charity is the internal, proper form that constitutes the essence of faith—something reformers rightly find absurd—but an external form that adds effectiveness and scientific value to faith, which is merely a terminological, not a substantial issue."

Again, he says, "However, most often in scripture and in ecclesiastical writers, faith is designated as a composite of several acts or habits, including sincere love for God, and ordered desire for his grace, and the trust by which we seek refuge in God and rest in his favor. This is what we typically call living, saving, and justifying faith, which Paul refers to as faith working through love, and which the Roman school calls formed faith. For faith understood in this way, the subject is not the mind alone, but also the will, which acts to love God, desire his grace, and trust in him."

English non-conformist Richard Baxter, in his Methodist theologian, says, "Hence Bucer, along with certain scholastics, was willing to accept the distinction between unformed faith and faith formed by charity, for by charity or love they understand the will's delight or consent, without which the ascent of the intellect, though truly ascent, is not a spiritual or moral good, and therefore it is neither a condition of the divine covenant, nor pleasing or acceptable to God, nor sufficient for the reception of justification."

Now, Miles cites Westminster Divine Thomas Manton and Martin Kmetz, who essentially take his reading of James. He then claims that the Lutheran exegesis is aligned with the reformed on this point. This is affirmed by the Lutherans as well. Martin Kmetz, for example, explains that James uses the word "justify" to mean demonstrating that faith is genuine through your works, not before God, but before others. In other words, the Lutheran exegesis also aligns with the reformed at this point.

Miles then again summarizes James' intent. In other words, James's point here is diagnostic, which is why he says a person is justified by works, not to earn salvation, but to evidence it before others. So, in that sense, you could call it a second or double justification: a vindication before others that one doesn't just talk the talk, but walks the walk.

Now, while it is true that some of the reformed have a vindicative reading of James 2, others agree with Roman Catholics that James 2 is an example of justification of the pious, that is, second justification, and this is a justification that is before God.

Firstly, Scottish Caroline Divine William Forbes, in his work on justification, book 4, chapter 6, says about James 2, "Of this second justification, the scriptures speak in St. James, where it is said that Abraham was justified by offering up his son, though he had been justified long before." And a little later, he says, "As for the passage in James chapter 2, for which is justification by works of faith, both the first and the second is most clearly proven, as we will shortly say."

Many Protestants respond that the term "justification" in James must be understood as referring to the demonstration of righteousness before men, not to true justification before God, so that James does not appear to directly contradict Paul. But this is false, as it's plainly evident from the entire flow and context of the apostle's argument.

German reformed theologian Johannes Piscator, agreeing with William Forbes, says in his commentary on James, "It is not necessary for us to say that to be justified here is the same as to be declared justified before men. It is clear that James is speaking about the justification of Abraham before God, both from the question he poses, which he confirms by the example of Abraham, and from that passage in Genesis 15, which he cites concerning Abraham's justification. But that passage is without controversy to be understood as referring to justification before God, as is evident from the epistle to the Romans."

The British theologian Corvinus on justification says, "Concerning these works of the Spirit and of faith, both those which in repentance proceed justification through the operation of prevenient grace, and those which are performed in justification itself, and those which follow justification, the Apostle James has rightly said, 'You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.' Now, if perhaps you should raise the question as to what it means that we say these works which faith through charity performs after justification follow justification, and yet with James we also declare that by these same works a man is justified, we answer: a man is not justified in such a way as to mean that once justified, as it were, in a single moment, he is no longer has any need of further justification. On the contrary, he who has been justified by the gratuitous remission of sins and the imparting of the Spirit thereafter, has need of a continual and perpetual increase of justification until, being freed from this body, he is glorified in eternal life."

The Remonstrants in their Apology, chapter 10, says, "Nor do the censors avoid this thrust when they say, after their usual manner, that this passage of St. James is to be understood of the declaration of justification. For, besides many other things, the very words in which it is denied that man is justified by faith only, show that this is a false interpretation. For who in that age could have been so mad as to wish to contend with the apostle that a man is justified, that it is declared just by faith alone? Since faith, in so far as it is assurance and distinct from the works of piety, is only in the heart of man."

In closing, though I again commend Miles for attempting to reach a wider audience who very often believe various misconceptions about the reformed, he ultimately suffers from the same imposition that has plagued much of the modern reformed apologetic sphere. The testimonies of the reformers themselves and their own confessions clearly show that the necessity of good works is not merely necessary by presence, but also by means and causality. Not only this, but that the good works of the faithful do actually earn or merit salvation before God, though in a loose and analogical sense. This ultimately shows that there is not a cause of disagreement between the reformed and Roman Catholics on this particular matter. Nor is there a controversial disagreement between the two on the reading of James 2. I again commend Miles's treatment on this matter because it reflects a genuine desire to recover the richness of his tradition. This video does not suppose that there aren't real disagreements, but that maybe the disagreements aren't as big as we once thought. Maybe unification is possible yet.

In the end, all must submit to Rome. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. And God bless.

When we speak of our justification, we almost always think of the cross. We know that Christ's passion merited for us grace upon grace, made satisfaction to the Father to wipe away our debt, and redeemed us by removing our guilt. However, what's hardly ever discussed is the saving power that the resurrection of Christ has, even though the New Testament speaks of it quite often.

In Romans 4: "Faith will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."

In 1 Peter 3: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Note here that Christ is said to have been raised for our justification, and that baptism saves us through his resurrection. How then did Christ's resurrection bring about our justification? Before we explain, it would be worth noting some passages in the New Testament in which our justification is compared with Christ's resurrection.

In Romans 6: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried with him therefore by baptism in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like this, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him, in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him."

Here, St. Paul draws an analogy between the justification of the impious and Christ's resurrection. This is why theologians often call the first justification the resurrection of the soul, since having gone from dead in sin to alive by sanctifying grace, the soul experiences a sort of resurrection. Thus, St. Paul says that we "walk in the newness of life," just as Christ was raised from the dead.

St. Bruno the Carthusian comments: "Here he begins to speak of the two-fold resurrection: the first by which, according to the soul, we are justified in baptism, which baptism Christ consecrated for us in his death, pouring forth the water of remission from his side, intimating that we ought to die together with him in baptism, so that just as he, having once died, did not return to the works of the old man, so also we, once justified in baptism, killing there all the oldness of sin and the soul rising again, for there it rises again having been justified, should preserve that resurrection of the soul, walking in newness of life. For if we preserve the resurrection of the soul in justice, we shall surely have with Christ the future resurrection of the body and incorruption."

St. Paul repeats this idea in Colossians 2: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead."

Here, St. Paul affirms that in baptism, our soul is raised through faith, just as God also raised Christ from the dead. How then does Christ's resurrection justify us? Here it would help to cover the different types of causality. First, the meritorious cause is that on which an entitlement or reward is due. Second, the material cause is that out of which something is made. Third, the formal cause is that which makes something to be what it is. Fourth, the efficient cause is that which brings about the effect. A principal efficient cause is able to produce the effect immediately. Whereas an instrumental efficient cause is used by the principal efficient cause, but it is not able to in itself produce the effect. And finally, the final cause is that for which something is done.

Thus, following the Council of Trent and Catholic theologians, the causes of justification are as follows: The meritorious cause is Christ himself in his passion, by which he merited justification for us. The material causes of justification are the dispositions required for justification. The formal cause of justification is "the justice of God, not that whereby he himself is just, but that whereby he makes us just." The principal efficient cause, that is, the cause that brings it about, is God himself. And the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism. And the final cause is for the glory of God and Jesus Christ and life everlasting.

But so far, we have not mentioned the resurrection of Christ. We cannot be justified by his resurrection in the same way that we are justified by his passion, that is, meritoriously, for one could not merit after this life. As St. Thomas says, Christ's resurrection was not meritorious because "when Christ rose, he was no longer a wayfarer and consequently not in a state of merit."

How then is it a cause of our being made just? The answer is twofold. It is both an efficient cause and an exemplary cause. First, we will briefly cover how it's an efficient cause. Cornelius a Lapide says, "As St. Thomas teaches, the resurrection of Christ's humanity is an instrument of his divinity affecting our justification. An instrument, I say, not a physical one, as some suppose, for the resurrection which took place many centuries ago, how could it now physically act, influence, and operate? But a moral instrument, because God ordained Christ's resurrection for our justification, and decreed that we should not be justified except after it, and as it were through it, just as a king who promises subjects certain privileges gives them only after the coronation of his son, and as it were by that coronation." And in this sense, John 7:39 says, "The Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified." In other words, the resurrected Christ is God's moral instrument chosen to give grace to humanity. In Christ's resurrection, God the Father crowns his son victorious, sharing gifts with all the world.

More importantly for this video, however, we will cover how the resurrection of Christ is an exemplary cause of our justification. An exemplary cause is the preconceived form that exists in the mind of an intelligent agent, rather than being what makes a thing be what it is, like an intrinsic formal cause. The exemplary cause is that according to which something is. Here's an example. Let's say I only have one wooden chair in my house, and I want to make a second one just like it to seat more people. The efficient cause is myself as the principal efficient cause, and my tools are the instrumental causes. The material cause is the wood that I use to make this second chair. The intrinsic formal cause is the form that I give to the wood to make it a chair. The final cause is to display this chair in my house or to have other people sit down on it. And the exemplary cause here is the first chair in my house, whose form serves as the model according to which I shape the second chair.

Thus, though some theologians reduce exemplary cause to being a sort of final cause, it is more properly considered an extrinsic formal cause which, as mentioned, pre-exists as a form in the mind of the agent. In justification, Christ himself, and especially his death and resurrection, is the exemplar. Hence why St. Paul explains justification as being conformed to the image of Christ Jesus.

"For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined, he also called, and those whom he called, he also justified."

Here, it is important to remember that justification is a sort of motion. In initial justification, or the justification of the impious, the stain of sin is blotted out by the infusion of sanctifying grace. And in this sense, we die to sin and are made alive unto God. Here, God brings about a motion in us from unjust to just, from a state of sin to a state of grace. And even though three days elapsed in between Christ's death and resurrection, we must remember that the two events are united in that one event can only be properly understood in light of the other. The same is the case for our justification, for our being made just.

As Father Domingo de Soto says, "The exemplary cause of our justification is the justification of Christ in as much as he is man. He was the prime exemplar who received the grace of God not by way of merit but by virtue of the union, so that a man might be the natural son of God. We receive grace and glory by a certain degree of conformity to this grace, and we are thereby adopted as sons. Consequently, we die with him in baptism and are buried with him in the likeness of his death and burial. And we will likewise rise in the likeness of his resurrection. As Paul says, 'If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection.' In Philippians 3, Paul says, 'He will reform the body of our loneliness made like to the body of his glory.' All of this bespeaks exemplary causality. Christ's grace is thus the exemplar of our own, and likewise with respect to glory."

Make sure to leave a like, a comment, and share this video with others if you enjoyed. If you are not already subscribed, then go ahead and subscribe and turn on notifications to be alerted for future videos. I hope you enjoyed and God bless you.

The blessed apostle St. Paul writes to St. Timothy that Jesus Christ came to this world to save sinners. There is no question as to who falls into this category of sinners, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. A deeper question to be answered is: what is it that Christ's crucifixion saves us from? And how is it that the death of Christ saves us?

First, the humanity of Christ and his crucifixion saves us instrumentally. And through it, Christ pays the infinite debt of our sins, merits abundant graces for us, opens the gates of heaven, and compels us to seek our salvation in him. Now, obviously, there are an infinite number of graces that flow forth from Christ that we could spend hours talking about. But in this short video, we will simply cover these four.

To begin with, we must understand the instrumentality of Christ's passion in securing our salvation. Understanding causality here would help. Efficient causes, which directly bring about an effect, can be either principal or instrumental. The former has power in and of itself, and the latter only has efficacy because it is used by the former. Thus, God and his divinity is the principal cause of our salvation. The incarnation and passion of Christ were thus not absolutely necessary in order for us to be saved.

St. Augustine says in On the Trinity, book 13: "We assert that the way whereby God ordained to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the divine dignity. But let us also show that other possible means were not lacking on God's part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate."

However, God the Son assumed human flesh in the incarnation and therefore worked instrumentally through his human nature, like a painter uses a paintbrush, to procure salvation for the human race. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, "all that Christ does in the flesh operates instrumentally in virtue of his godhead for the salvation of men." God himself is thus our savior in the crucifixion and uses his human nature instrumentally so that the divine person can do what he would otherwise be unable of doing: suffering and dying. His body therefore "was for him not a limitation but an instrument," according to St. Athanasius.

With this in mind, we can answer what it means for Christ to die for our sins. Sin offends God, turns us away from his love, according to the catechism, and requires atonement. Now, according to St. Thomas, atonement requires that the offender offers something that the offended loves equally or more than he detested the offense. However, is it sufficient for God to simply grant us the gifts of faith, hope, and love? Again, after all, is faith not the righteousness of God according to Philippians 3:9? In reality, although we are made just by faith, no amount of righteousness can ever pay the infinite debt of even one mortal sin.

For our sake, says St. Paul, Christ was sacrificed for our sins in order that we may "become the righteousness of God." Only the sacrifice of the God-man, which is of infinite dignity, is "not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race," according to St. Thomas. This is because the dignity of his humanity is not like any other human person, like you or me, but is rather of "infinite worth due to the divine person assuming it." St. Athanasius expresses the same by saying that only Christ, because he was God, was "worthy to suffer on behalf of all." In other words, Christ was able to suffer because of the instrumentality of his human nature, but his suffering was of infinite value because of his divine nature, therefore paying it all on behalf of the human race.

Furthermore, Christ's passion does not only atone for our sins, "but also merited justifying grace" for us, according to St. Thomas. In fact, by presenting his sacrifice, his own blood, to his Father on high, according to Hebrews 9, Christ also merited what are called actual and charismatic graces. This is why he instructs his disciples to stay in Jerusalem until he sends the Holy Spirit after his ascension in Luke 24:49. The presence of the Holy Spirit in both leading us in our actions and granting the church charisms and spiritual gifts was thus merited by Christ's passion. These graces themselves save us instrumentally. Actual graces move us to act and be well disposed for better graces, such as a sinner being moved to repentance and seeking reconciliation. And charismatic graces confirm the gospel message and excite faith in Christ and his church, where salvation itself is found, such as we see on Pentecost. In this way, then, does Christ's passion save us through actual and charismatic graces.

It's also the case for sacramental grace. As St. Thomas teaches, along with the universal Catholic tradition, the sacraments derive their efficacy from the passion of Christ. This means that Christ's sacrifice was more than sufficient to merit the sanctifying grace that is infused at each baptism or confession. The Trident Council likewise teaches that Christ merited by his passion grace for Christian spouses in order to elevate matrimony to a sacrament of the new law. Saint Paul's teaching to the Corinthians is thus vindicated: "All that we have, we have received, and we have no reason to boast."

Thus far, though, none of the benefits spoken of allow entrance into heaven. Even the Old Testament saints had their sins forgiven and died in a state of sanctifying grace, but went to Abraham's bosom and only entered heaven after the passion. This is because the bearing of heaven was applied to all of Adam's descendants, and the righteousness of the fathers was not enough to pay the penalty, according to St. Thomas. This was paid by none other than Christ himself, as St. Thomas teaches. He offered his body "on behalf of all and then made through it a path to heaven."

According to St. Athanasius, Christ's death also saves us through other accidental means. Although it was not absolutely necessary for Christ to become man and suffer, St. Thomas teaches that doing so, besides achieving what has already been discussed, also draws us towards him indirectly. First, by looking at the cross, a man can see the intensity of God's love for him and thereby be moved to seek and love God more, which is of course salutary. Now, man could obviously not see this before the incarnation. Christ also sets forth an example to us for the moral and spiritual life, and as St. Athanasius says, as a good teacher with his pupils, in this way, by imitating Christ, man may work justice and merit salvation by grace. The third indirect reason given by St. Thomas is that man, looking to the cross, sees and understands the horrible gravity of sin and is moved to avoid it all the more.

To conclude this short video, the cross procured every aspect of our salvation. It paid the infinite debt we could not pay. It merited all sorts of graces for us. It opened the gates of heaven, and it serves as an exhortation for repentance and loving God. Though the cross certainly achieves many more things, these four are essential to understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. I recommend you go and read more in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, third part, questions 46-49. If you enjoyed this video, please make sure to leave a like, subscribe, and share with others. I hope you have a great rest of your Lent. May God bless you and may our Lady be with you.

In this video, I'm going to be addressing the question of whether St. Augustine taught and held to sola scriptura. So, in this video, I'm going to do four things. First, we have to define what sola scriptura actually means. What is a rule of faith and what is the Catholic paradigm? Next, given that Catholic paradigm, we're going to answer some commonly brought forth passages from St. Augustine that actually don't contradict the Catholic paradigm and are perfectly in line with it. Third, given the Catholic paradigm, I'm going to demonstrate that it exists in St. Augustine, which would obviously contradict sola scriptura. And finally, I'm going to answer a couple of objections.

So, we have to define first and foremost what is sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the rule of faith. You might hear many modern Protestant apologists say that sola scriptura only means that it's the only infallible rule of faith. But this totally abandons and departs from the traditional understanding of the issue. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of scripture as the rule of faith and life. In chapter 33, it says that councils and senates have erred since the apostles' times, so they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice. So this is singular again. You see in the Westminster Larger Catechism, it says that scripture is the "only rule of faith and obedience." The Helvetic Confession of 1536 says, "We know of no other rule of faith but holy scripture." The Helvetic Consensus says, "This is the sole and complete rule of faith and practice." So clearly, traditionally, it means that this is the only rule of faith. The Lutheran Formula of Concord says that scripture is the "only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test, all dogma shall and must be discerned and judged." And William Whitaker, who's an Anglican, says, "For it is to be held undoubtingly that the revealed and written word of God is the sole rule of faith."

So what modern Protestant apologists often do is that they qualify it with, "Well, it's the only infallible rule of faith, but we can have other rules of faith." But this actually departs from the traditional understanding of what is a rule of faith. Traditionally, the reason that Protestant confessions, Protestant theologians, and I could go on and on quoting as I already did, say that scripture alone is the rule of faith is because a rule of faith traditionally understood is that which is able to bind the conscience in and of itself. A rule of faith is able to produce the ascent of faith and demand the ascent of faith in and of itself and without having to appeal to any other authority.

So, Johann Gerhard, the Lutheran scholastic, says, "If traditions agree with scripture, we receive them, but if they disagree, we rightly reject them." And I mean, in a sense, all Catholics would say that if something contradicts scripture, we obviously have to reject it. But what's important here is that everything else has to be compared with scripture, has to be tested by scripture. Gerhard, for example, also says, "We do not reject the practice of the church, the opinions of the fathers, or the decrees of councils, provided that they take their strength from scripture." So you see very clearly, scripture is the only rule of faith, the only thing that can actually bind the conscience. And you can accept what the church fathers say, you can accept what councils say. They have authority, but you're not resting your faith in them. They are only true because they are agreeing with scripture, pretty much.

Another important thing here is that scripture is not only the only rule of faith, but it's also what's called the ratio credendi. So, the ratio credendi, in Latin, is what the reason that we believe, the reason for believing, right? So for Protestants, scripture is the only reason that you believe. You don't have faith through the magisterium or through sacred tradition like in Catholics, right? Because these authorities, although they are true authorities, they are only reflecting or they should be reflecting and propagating what is already contained in scripture. So that's why you test these other authorities. So, for example, if you consider as an authority the entire consensus of the church, you don't believe because the church has a consensus on this. You don't believe through the consensus of the church, but rather you accept the consensus of the church because presumably it agrees with sacred scripture.

So, the Anglican theologian Richard Field writes against Catholics: "Our adversaries fall into two dangerous errors. The first, that the authority of the church is regular and ratio credendi, the rule of our faith and the reason for why we believe."

Finally, it's important to point out that several Protestant theologians do actually extend infallibility beyond the scriptures. So, for example, Richard Field says, "The whole present church may be ignorant of some things and err in them. But that in matters necessary to be known and believed expressly, it cannot err." You see, very similarly, in theologians like Louis Le Blanc, he says that the present church as a whole cannot fall into pernicious error or depart from the foundations of faith. This is because Christ has promised his Spirit, who will guide it into all saving truth. So you see why portraying sola scriptura as meaning that it's the only infallible rule of faith is really a departure from traditional Protestantism. Really, traditionally, it means that it's the only rule of faith, and infallibility can actually exist in other things. For example, like Richard Baxter would also extend it to something like ecumenical councils at times, but really scripture alone is what can bind the intellect in and of itself. It's what can produce the ascent of faith in and of itself, and it's the reason why you believe. So in the Protestant paradigm, even though the universal church cannot err on fundamentals, a Christian does not believe with divine faith something to be true simply because all the faithful hold it, even if this universal belief may be infallible.

It's also important to understand what faith is. The material object of faith is those mysteries that cannot be reached by the natural light of reason. The formal object of faith is that these are believed on the basis of God revealing them. And the principle here is that supernatural grace that moves the will to move the intellect to accept, to assent to these things on the formal object, right? Because God has revealed them.

In Catholicism, sacred tradition and sacred scripture are both sources of divine revelation. The mysteries that we believe are contained in these, and thus we truly have divine faith because the formal object is on the basis of God revealing these through either tradition or scripture. It is our ratio credendi, or reason for believing. The magisterium is a teacher and judge of these, and all three are a rule of faith. All three independently bind the conscience before God without having to appeal to another rule of faith.

So, moving forward in this video, if we really want to ask if St. Augustine taught sola scriptura or not, this is a little bit less about infallibility and more about: did St. Augustine believe that anything beyond scripture can bind the conscience, can produce the ascent of faith independently from scripture? Basically, is anything able to demand an irrevocable ascent without having to appeal to scripture?

But a parallel example in Catholicism would be this: the sensus fidelium, so the sense of all the faithful, is infallible. So, as Catholics, we don't only believe that the magisterium as a whole cannot fall into error, cannot teach error, but the faithful under that magisterium will also not believe error as a whole. Yet, in Catholicism, the faithful are not a rule of faith. So, if I look out across the church and I see that the faithful are in a consensus about something, I can say it's infallible. They're not going to fall into error because the Holy Spirit of truth preserves them. But I don't believe because the faithful believe it. I can only believe because of rules of faith: so the magisterium, the tradition, or the scriptures. I hope that that makes sense, because framing it as the only infallible rule of faith is a little, it's just not accurate. So for us Catholics, the magisterium, sacred tradition, these are rules of faith. These are able to produce the ascent of faith independently, without having to appeal to sacred scripture. Obviously, this is not going to contradict scripture in any way. Obviously, these all these things could be supported through scripture. But even if no clear proof can be taken from scripture, these are still to be believed irrevocably, independently, because they are true rules of faith.

So now let's address some common passages brought forward by Protestants. So, one of the first ones that, for example, Gavin Ortlund brings forward is his letter to St. Jerome. It's a very famous letter, and St. Augustine says to St. Jerome, "I confess to your charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of scriptures. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great their superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them, but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth, either by means of these canonical writings themselves or by the arguments addressed to my reason."

So, very clearly, for St. Augustine here, not only is scripture free from error, but it is able to produce the sense of faith in and of itself, whereas these other writings, he doesn't accept what they say as true in and of themselves, but they're compared to. They must be tested by scripture. St. Augustine repeats a similar idea here against Crisconium. He says, "The canon of canonical books was drawn up that we might, according to them, freely judge concerning other writings of either believers or unbelievers." So other authorities that are not rules of faith must be tested by the rule of faith, pretty much. And to this, no Catholic theologian again would disagree. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas writes, "Sacred doctrine properly uses the authority of canonical scriptures as an incontrovertible proof and the authority of the doctors of the church as merely probable." And St. Robert Bellarmine also wrote, "The writings of the fathers are not authentic, nor do they have binding authority." So that's why St. Augustine says, for example, in Against Faustus of the Manichaean, he says that such writings of bishops and other fathers are "without any obligation to believe." Why? Because they're not rules of faith. They can't demand the ascent of faith in and of themselves, right? So nothing here contradicts the Catholic paradigm, and nothing here necessitates sola scriptura.

What I do propose is that St. Augustine sees the authority of the universal church as infallible and binding in and of itself, without having to appeal to scripture. Although he obviously tests several writings of the fathers and bishops by scripture, what he never does is compare and try to test the authority of the universal church with scripture. He never does that in any of his passages. He never says that this could err, and he never says that we have to test what the universal church holds via scripture. So I challenge a Protestant to find a passage in which St. Augustine ever suggests that the universal church can ever be at odds with the truth of scripture.

So, another common passage comes from On Christian Doctrine by St. Augustine. This is not really so much about sola scriptura, but is kind of related to it because it's about the sufficiency of scripture. Here, for example, Gavin Ortlund claims that this is close to the reformed view of the sufficiency of sacred scripture. But what's funny is that really, every time I read a classical Protestant work on this, and they quote St. Augustine, and even even like Gavin Ortlund himself in his video, they always cut the quote short. They always cut the quote short after when it says "manner of life" and say things that sound a lot like the reformed articulation of the principle of the sufficiency of scripture. For example, in his On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 9, "Among the things that are plainly laid down in scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life."

Now, some people try to evade the force of these statements by pointing to other. So, St. Augustine says, "For among the things that are plainly laid down in scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life to wait, hope, and love." But St. Augustine immediately continues. He says, "Of which I have spoken in the previous book." So, what did St. Augustine cover in the previous book? This would be book one, because this is this quote is from book two. In book one, he covers the Trinity, the nature of God, the incarnation, the passion of Christ, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ. He also talks about the forgiveness of sins, morality, the love of neighbor. All these things are found clearly in sacred scripture. No Catholic theologian would disagree with this. He's not saying that scripture contains all formal revelation, but everything he listed in the previous book. He doesn't even talk about baptism. He doesn't even talk about the Eucharist.

For example, John Salza, a Catholic, wrote, "Next, let us concede that the doctrine of Christ and the apostles expressed in the canonical books does sufficiently teach us, containing all the dogma necessary for the salvation of the human race." And St. Robert Bellarmine, I mean, really, plenty of Catholic theologians would say this all the time.

So, now let's get to the important part, right? Did St. Augustine believe that the church was: one, infallible, that it could not fall into error? And two, did he believe that it, more importantly, did he believe that it combined in and of itself, without having to appeal to scripture? The answer to these is obviously both yes.

You can appeal to Letter 82, where he says that that the authors themselves of sacred scripture alone were free from errors of scripture. "Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." My challenge to each viewer would be: don't take any word for it. Go read that. You can read.

But he has other passages where he says that the church cannot fall into error. He says, for example, in Exposition of the Psalm, Psalm 9, "But even this church, which now exists, unless the Lord himself dwelt within her, would fall into error, however diligent her speculation might be." This obviously implies that because he dwells in his church, that she can't fall into error. That's what he's implying here.

St. Augustine says that the universal consent of the church is guided by Christ himself. He says, "The safe course for us is not to advance with any rations of judgment in setting forth a view which has neither been started in any regional council of the Catholic Church, nor established in a plenary one, but to assert with all the confidence of a voice that cannot be contradicted what has been confirmed by the consent of the universal church under the direction of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ." So the voice of the Catholic Church, the universal Catholic Church, not just one church father or maybe even a region of fathers, but the whole church, not only cannot be contradicted, but it is under the direction of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, Protestants don't deny that Christ inhabits the church. He dwells in his church, and that he guides his church. But really, what we're going to see throughout his corpus is that this is without any limitation. And this is an independent authority that can bind the conscience irrevocably without having to appeal to scripture. Now, Protestants, remember, can affirm this in a sense. They could say that the universal church will not err on essential matters. Obviously, that would seriously threaten salvation, and that would destroy Christianity. But not on all matters. They can err on all matters. So, for example, the universality of invoking saints, the universal, at least in the reformed tradition, the universality of the belief that Christ was truly present even after the liturgy in the eucharistic element. Reformed theologians believe that after the liturgy is done, Christ is no longer the sacrament of the Eucharist. This was truly universal going back to the earliest testimonies that we have. The problem is that St. Augustine extends this infallibility not merely to errors related to salvation, but to all heresies, anything contrary to divine revelation. He says, "This same is the holy church, the one church, the true church, the Catholic church, fighting against all heresies. Fight it can be fought down by heresies? It cannot." He says, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it," citing Matthew 16:18. St. Augustine has a huge work on heresies, and for him, a heresy is simply anything contrary to the Christian faith that has come since the time of the apostles. And in this work, not only does he list like obviously notorious heretics like Arius or Pelagius, but even Arius in the East, so not the same Arius like the Arian who denied the divinity of Christ, but Arius, so his error according to St. Augustine and other church fathers is that "he added also some doctrines of his own. He said that it is not proper to offer sacrifices for the dead." So for St. Augustine, no error, no error can overtake the church as a whole.

Here, there are two interesting case studies: the Donatists and infant baptism. For St. Augustine, the Donatists were heretics because they rejected the judgment of the Catholic Church. He says, "Their obstinate disagreement turned the schism into heresy. They even dared to rebaptize Catholics, and by this act were further confirmed themselves heretics, since the Catholic Church throughout the world had decreed that even in heretics, baptism once given should not be annulled."

Now, I already hear the objections, right? Protestants obviously believe that the church has authority and that it can declare something to be a heresy and whatnot. But what's important here to remember, as we're going to see very clearly, is that for St. Augustine, the validity of baptisms administered by heretics and schismatics outside of the church cannot be demonstratively proven by scripture. Sure, there are arguments that can support his position, but he says very clearly several times that there is no clear example in scripture that supports his point.

So, for St. Augustine, because the church holds this a priori, it is apostolic. A priori, it has the apostolic authority behind it. This is different, for example, than if something is clearly contained in scripture, and then the church as a whole believes it. Then Protestants can say, "Well, yeah, because the whole church believes what is clearly in scripture, then we can excommunicate and we can declare as heresy." But St. Augustine is clear. There is no clear example in scripture for this. Yet, the church in and of itself is able to bind the conscience of this.

So, in his day, the view of the church, and of course St. Augustine's view, was that if you're baptized in schism, your baptism is still valid. When you come back to the church, you don't have to be rebaptized. But obviously, the Donatist view was that if you're baptized in schism, you have to be rebaptized when you enter the church. And in his work on the unity of the church, he says that no clear biblical passage can be produced to prove either his view, the view that you don't have to be rebaptized if you're baptized in schism, or to prove the Donatist view. And regardless, we should just hold what the universal church holds. Not only should we hold this, but we have to believe it. And if one refuses to believe this, believe this, right, which implies faith, it's as if he does not hear Christ himself and risks eternal damnation. So he says, "Neither I nor you reads this openly and clearly."

But now, since we do not find in the scriptures that some passed from the heretics to the church, and were gathered in, like I say, or like you say, Christ offers the evidence of his church. In which way then that the church gathers them in throughout all nations, beginning from Jerusalem, in that way you are gathered in when all doubts and delays have been removed. If you do not want this, you struggle not with me or any other man who wishes to gather you in in this way, but most harmfully with the Savior himself against your own salvation. You who doesn't wish to believe, you should be gathered in in the way the church gathers you in, which he whom you say it is acceptable not to believe commends with his own evidence. End quote.

In summary, St. Augustine teaches that we must give the assent of faith and believe in something as being divinely revealed, even if it is not expressly found in sacred scripture, because the entire church holds it. If we refuse to give the assent of faith to what the church proposes as revealed by God, we are struggling against Christ himself and we risk our eternal damnation.

He also repeats a similar idea where he places the church at the same level of scriptures. So he says that he is not bound to agree with St. Cyprian, who did err on the issue of rebaptism before the Donatists, but he held the same opinion. And this is because his writings are not canonical, right? So he tests them by scripture, but in a positive sense, he is bound to reject St. Cyprian not because he contradicts scripture, because like he said, there's no clear testimony from scripture, but because the universal church rejects. He says, "I am not bound by the authority of that epistle because I do not hold the letters of Cyprian as canonical, but I consider them in light of the canonical scriptures, and whatever in them agrees with the authority of divine scriptures, I accept with his praise, but whatever does not agree, I reject with his peace." So clearly, scripture is a rule of faith. St. Cyprian is not a rule of faith. You test St. Cyprian by scripture, right?

Then he says, "I do not accept, I say, what the blessed Cyprian wrote concerning the rebaptism of heretics and schismatics because the church does not accept it. For which church the blessed Cyprian shed his blood." So clearly, scripture is able to bind the conscience independently. The church is able to bind the conscience independently. Even if what the church holds is not clearly provable from scripture, he reiterates this idea again. And he says, "Therefore, even though no example of this matter can be brought forward from the canonical scriptures, yet the truth of those same scriptures, that same truth is upheld by us when we do that which has now pleased the whole church, which the authority of those scriptures commends."

Burden of proof for Protestants is remembering the definition of what a rule of faith actually is. Is you have to find a passage in St. Augustine where he ever tests the universal consensus of the church by scripture. He never does that. He tests individual bishops. He tests councils, of course, but never the consensus of the church. And then in his work on baptism, right, he has several passages where he says that whatever is held by the universal church, although even if it's not contained in scripture, is held a priori. It's believed to be coming from the apostles. But this is important, right? Several Protestant authors will obviously say that whatever is held by the whole church, you can, you know, believe that that it comes from the apostles. It's greatly, it's authoritative, right? But remember what St. Augustine says. This is to be believed irrevocably. It's able to bind the conscience in and of itself. And if you don't listen to this, if you don't believe in this, then you are arguing against Christ himself, even if there is no testimony of scripture. That is precisely what Protestants are against when they argue against the Catholic notion of sacred tradition.

St. Augustine says, "This custom, which even then those who look back to past ages could not find to be invented by men of a later time, is rightly believed to have been handed down from the apostles. And there are many other things of the same kind which it would be tedious to recount." He says this in book two and book four. He says it twice and he says it again in book five. He says, "The apostles, however, gave no explicit command on this matter. But that custom which was opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have had its origin in their tradition. Just as there are many things which the whole church observes and which therefore are rightly believed to have been commanded by the apostles even though they are not found in their writings."

I mean, this is, I mean, this is basically the same logic that we would apply to things like purgatory, to things like offering the Mass for the dead. Obviously, Protestants accept tradition. Obviously, tradition is authoritative, but it is not the reason for believing it. It is for St. Augustine, and that is not infallible, and it doesn't bind the conscience in and of itself. It has to always be tested and proven from scripture.

Another interesting case study here would be infant baptism, right? So St. Augustine very clearly argues for the necessity of infant baptism through scripture all the time because of original sin. We're all conceived in original sin. And so therefore, it follows if we want children to not have original sin, we have to baptize them. But this is different than the validity. The fact that we know that infant baptism actually works. Right? For St. Augustine, this was not clearly provable from scripture. So, for example, in on baptism, book four, he says that we believe this. We hold this because the whole church holds it, and therefore it comes from apostolic tradition. And he says that when it comes to scripture, the validity of this practice can be inferred from circumcision and circumcision being applied to children. But this is not proven from circumcision. Obviously, on this issue, on the validity of infant baptism, like he did for the validity of baptisms administered by schismatics, he said that the reason that we believe, the reason that we accept this is because it is a tradition coming from the apostles.

He says, "But the custom of our mother church in the matter of infant baptism is by no means to be scorned, nor to be considered at all superfluous, nor to be believed except on the ground that it is a tradition from the apostles." If we wanted to put this in more scholastic terms, we could say that the material object, what is being believed here, is infant baptism, and the formal object is on the basis of God revealing because it comes to us from God through the apostles in apostolic tradition. But the Protestant objects, right? Like Martin Chemnitz, St. Augustine is merely using the word tradition here as an explication of what can be deduced from scripture. Yet, very clearly, he says that this is not explicitly in scripture. Instead, it is believed because it is an apostolic tradition preserved by the church, and this is how he consistently defends the validity of infant baptism. He defends it from the universal practice of the church. The fact that the church does it is able to independently bind the conscience to this, and it's the reason why we believe.

He says, "But tell me please, does Christ benefit baptized babies or does he not?" They are bound to say that he does. They are constrained to by the whole bulk of mother church. Notice how consistent this is with this previous passages. Obviously, infants need regeneration because they're conceived in original sin. And this is provable from scripture. But for the validity of baptism, to actually know that baptism actually benefits babies, we can infer its value from circumcision. However, it's believed because it is an apostolic tradition, not expressly in scripture, and it is passed down and preserved through the church. And even though it's not expressly in scripture, we're still bound to believe because of this. The fact that infant baptism is valid, he says this has the authority of mother church behind it. This is maintained by the well-established rule of truth. Whoever attacks at this strength, whoever strikes against this impregnable wall is himself shattered. End quote.

He then says something that sounds pretty Catholic. Basically saying that if an issue is not settled by the full and universal authority of the church, then it's fine for people to disagree. But if it is settled, there is absolutely no room for disagreement. He says, "Let them not disparage the rule of faith, not disparage the truth. Let them not speak against the holy church, toiling away every day for the remission of original sin in babies. This matter is fundamental. Someone who goes wrong in the discussion of other questions that have not been thoroughly canvased, not yet firmly settled by the church's full authority is to be tolerated. Error in that case is to be tolerated. But it should not go so far though as to strive to shake the very foundation of the church." End quote.

So, for St. Augustine, again, very clearly, this is not about scripture. He is not proving the validity of infant baptism from sacred scripture. St. Augustine is not merely speaking very highly of the church here or very highly of church tradition, universal tradition. Now, the first objection would be something I've kind of already addressed in the entire video. Well, Protestants accept traditions, right? Protestants do believe that tradition has authority, right? But remember, for Protestants, these traditions have to always be weighed against scripture and have to be proven from scripture. Martin Chemnitz wrote a large treatment on traditions. He says, "We can see that it lends great strength when the custom and tradition of the church agree with sure and clear testimonies of scripture." So, they're not this rule of faith in themselves that can bind the conscience, but they're only authoritative in as much as they reflect the truth from scripture. For St. Augustine, tradition is independently authoritative. For St. Augustine, the universal church on its own is able to independently bind the conscience, even without having to be weighed against scripture.

He says, "I answer therefore that if the authority of scripture has decided which of these methods is right, there is no room for doubting that we should do according to that which is written, and our discussion must be occupied with a question not of duty, but of interpretation as to the meaning of the divine institution. In like manner, if the universal church follows any one of these methods, there is no room for doubt as to our duty, for it would be the height of arrogant madness to discuss whether or not we should comply with it." End quote.

Recall the letter 82 that we quoted to St. Jerome, right? He says that he only accepts what the church fathers before him and bishops wrote, in as much as they convince him from the canonical writings himself. But for the authority of the universal church, he never once does this. He never once tested by scripture. But for St. Augustine, these two authorities are both a true rule of faith independently. They don't have to appeal to one another.

The second objection is the most popular one, right? And it's Gavin Orland's favorite. It comes from the second book of on baptism, in which he says that even councils, plenary councils that are formed from the whole Christian world, are sometimes corrected by those which follow them, right? This is possibly the only passage in the Augustinian corpus that I think poses any significant challenge to answer against Protestants. But so we'll deal with it progressively. First, the only real problematic part here in this big passage is that St. Augustine says that these these councils are formed for the whole Christian world, right? This quote is pretty big, but really before that, he's only saying things we've already covered that bishops themselves must submit to councils and so on because they're not rules of faith, and that we are to test the writings of bishops and even councils by these scriptures, right? But the question is, is he talking about ecumenical councils? Second, this is very important. Even if I were to concede that St. Augustine here is doubting the infallibility of proper ecumenical councils, which I don't concede, this would not prove that he held to sola scriptura. We've already proven that one, he taught the whole church was infallible, cannot fall into error, not just on essential matters, but in all matters. And also, we've shown several times that the church itself is able to bind the conscience independently. In other words, it's a rule of faith. So in this passage, if you were denying the infallibility of ecumenical councils, he'd only be denying the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium, for example. It wouldn't be a one-to-one with a Catholic view if I were to concede that. But this is not automatically sola scriptura, as Gavin Orland claims. Third, we know for a fact that what St. Augustine here thought could be corrected by later plenary councils are not what we have in mind when we speak of ecumenical councils. This is absolutely beyond dispute because of the word "often." And he says that these plenary councils are "often corrected by those which follow them." If here he was speaking of ecumenical councils as we are, there would have only been Nicaea and First Constantinople. It is impossible to say that these councils often correct themselves if there's only been two so far. At most, there could have been one correction, but this could not have happened often. So clearly, he's not talking about Nicaea and Constantinople. So what is he actually talking about?

Well, in the same work on baptism, in book five, he uses the very same language to speak of a council, a plenary council for the whole Christian world, that confirmed this practice of not baptizing those who were baptized in schism because they already had a valid baptism. Now, neither Nicaea nor First Constantinople actually dealt with this issue. Neither of these dealt with the question of whether or not heretics had to be rebaptized if they were baptized in schism. The only council that did do this before St. Augustine in general was the Council of Arles, held in the year 314. Canon 8 says, "Concerning the Africans who use their own special law in that they practice rebaptism. It is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed, you had his baptism, and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands, so that he received the Holy Spirit. But if when questioned, he does not solemnly confess the Trinity, let him be baptized." End quote. So it's clear that for the mind of St. Augustine, for example, the Council of Arles, he does not have in mind ecumenical councils like Nicaea and First Constantinople. It's impossible.

But one last point of tension remains. Even if these plenary councils formed for the whole Christian world are not ecumenical like First Nicaea or First Constantinople, St. Augustine nevertheless says that they can err and can be corrected. Would it then not follow that if the Christian world accepted these potential errors, that they would then fall into error? This would not follow because it would pose a contradiction in the Augustinian corpus. So then what's the solution here? Well, St. Augustine never answers this for us. It is up to the theologian to find a synthesis of St. Augustine and uphold both truths. On one hand, St. Augustine says that the universal church cannot err, and on the other, these non-ecumenical plenary councils for the whole Christian world are not infallible. A good solution will uphold both of these. My proposed solution, although I'd be interested to hear what others have to say, is that these non-intrinsically infallible councils may err by providence, they will not be accepted by the whole universal church. But again, here he's not even talking about ecumenical councils. In a similar, but not perfectly analogous way, we can look at the Council of Hieria. It was an iconoclastic council held before Second Nicaea that tried to get images out of the entire Christian church, but obviously, it wasn't infallible and it wasn't binding. That's all for this video. I hope you enjoyed. Make sure to like, subscribe, and leave your thoughts below. God bless you.

So, Catholics read scripture, they meditate on scripture, they contemplate scripture, but very few are actually aware about what the church teaches about the nature of scripture or other questions that could be asked that theologians frequently discuss. So, in this video, I want to provide a summary of that. At the end, I'll provide some further reading because I always recommend that people read for themselves and don't just take my word for it. And just know that I also made a Substack article on this that you can go check out and read for yourself if you want. You could also, of course, subscribe to my Substack and to my channel. So, in this video, I want to discuss the inherency, inspiration, and dignity of scripture, the canon of scripture and how it becomes known to us. I want to discuss the senses of scripture, the content of scripture, and the sufficiency of scripture. There are other questions that we could talk about, but this is generally what is talked about when we talk about the nature of sacred scripture.

So, as Catholics, we believe that scripture has intrinsic authority. It does not receive its authority from the church in itself, but rather it only becomes known to us by the church. This is because scripture is given to us immediately by God. For this reason, Catholic theologians say that scripture is the physical word of God, making God the primary author and the inspired writer the secondary author of an inspired book. Other records of divine revelation, such as sacred tradition or even a sermon written by a Catholic priest, are not physically the word of God, but only morally. Their content is influenced by God's revelation, but the human preachers teach in their own words and in their own sense. This is why we only call sacred scripture inspired, but not sacred tradition, statements of ecumenical councils, or any other inherent record of the divine truth. Thus, when Protestant apologists occasionally demand that we provide a rule of faith on the level of scripture, they argue from a straw man. Since we do not hold that any rule is inspired except scripture, as scripture is God-breathed, it is breathed out by God. That, in and of itself, is not said of anything else. So, it inherently gives scripture a uniqueness that nothing else has. Um, we are never told that there is a tradition or a set of traditions or a magisterium that are God-breathed in the same sense that scripture itself is. Say, if you're thinking about tradition historically, not just thinking about the living magisterium, and you say that's God-breathed and has the same kind of authority that scripture does. Well, the Lutheran theologian and reformer Herman Hamann demonstrates this ignorance here. He says, "Augustine says that the holy scriptures were inspired by the Spirit of God. Let the Papist also bring forward such testimonies concerning traditions." End quote.

So, Vatican I says that these books the church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and were as such committed to the church. End quote. And this is an important distinction. Scripture in itself obviously has its own authority. However, it becomes known to us through the church. There is a frequent Protestant objection where they say that, well, you know, scripture only has authority from the church for Catholics, but this is not true. The Catholic theologian in the 16th and 17th century, writing Johan Muhlhausen, says, "For no Catholic, none at all indeed, will deny that those sacred pages have received both authorities simply from God alone. Therefore, what Catholics wish is only this: which books of this kind have authority from God cannot be judged or declared by Aras, Jerome, Macedonius, Luther, Calvin, or any private individual, but only the church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. And thus the sacred books are divine in themselves and canonical. Yet, it is the office of the church alone to propose them to us as such, and to distinguish them from those that are not divine and not canonical." This Eckius contends as well as Stapleton and others whom Pereas cites. End quote. So this was against a reformed theologian, Pereas.

Now, because scripture is inspired, that means that it's ontologically unique for us Catholics. Even if sacred tradition, even if the ordinary universal magisterium or the extraordinary magisterium gathered in councils or ex cathedra statements from the Pope, even if all those other things are infallible, and they are, still a rule of faith over us, scripture is ontologically unique. There's nothing else like scripture, right? Because scripture is given immediately by God. It is physically the word of God and it has God as its primary author. So, for example, an ex cathedra statement could be infallible. It's not going to have any errors and it's going to accurately and infallibly represent the truth of divine revelation, but it's going to be in the Pope's own words. Right? These words are not going to be given to him by the Holy Spirit. Because of this ontological uniqueness, scripture ranks infinitely higher than any other rule of faith, tradition, the magisterium, and so on. Because of its supreme dignity, Father Matthias Joseph Scheeben, a brilliant Catholic theologian from the 19th century, I recommend everybody goes and reads him. He says this beautifully. He says, "As the record of his revelation issued by God himself, sacred scripture ranks infinitely higher in dignity than any other human report about God's revelation, however correct and free from error it might be, and any human exposition and interpretation of its content. The value that it possesses as a source of revelation due to this exalted dignity is, however, further enhanced by the fact that God not only had the essential content of his formal revelation written down directly, but also set up for us in sacred scripture a mirror that he himself created, lasting for all ages, in which both the entire history of the revelations from the first to the last is reflected in its original freshness, and also the content thereof is displayed for us in a superlatively manifold, abundant, and vivid depiction." End quote.

In fact, because scripture comes immediately from God and because it's ontologically unique, there's nothing wrong with saying that it's in a sense above the magisterium. In fact, this is why the Vatican Council says that the magisterium, the teaching office of the church, is not above the word of God, but rather serves it. And this is the confession of many Catholic theologians. For example, the Wallenbergs brothers of the 17th century say that there's nothing wrong with a higher authority becoming known to us by a lower authority, that is the magisterium. Well, that obviously implies that we believe that the magisterium is not higher or even at the same level of sacred scripture. So yes, the magisterium is above us and always above us, so that we are to give irrevocable assent to what is proposed to us by the magisterium when it speaks in the power and name of Christ. However, the magisterium serves the word of God. It doesn't claim to be at the same level of the word of God, doesn't claim to be above the word of God.

Father Scheeben writes, "In particular, as for the dependence of the present-day ecclesial teaching authority on the above-mentioned rules of faith that exist in a relatively autonomous way alongside and before its activity, only with regard to sacred scripture as a special, utterly immediate representation of God's authority is this a dependence of subordination under an authority that is in a certain respect higher. With regard to the completely authoritative proclamations of the early church, this dependence is based not on subordination of the later ecclesial authority to the earlier, but rather on the juridical continuity or identity of both, and that the later church, if she tried to deny the earlier, would thereby deny herself also." And by the way, Father Scheeben was a student of those who were present at Vatican I. Very well-versed in magisteriology and ecclesiology. And really, Father Scheeben's dogmatic, his entire volumes, but really his first two, volume one, part one and two, are fantastic to get a treatment of the Catholic view of tradition, scripture, the magisterium. It's really amazing. You see other Catholic theologians, for example, Peter Soto in the 16th century, he acknowledges that the supreme council of God and his concern for our salvation are in the sacred scriptures.

Now, in the future, I plan on doing a video or maybe a livestream just on the nature of inspiration because you could ask a few questions, right? Is scripture inspired in regards to its material words? Each material word, right? Did the Holy Spirit give the author every single word that was to be written down, or only the sense of the words, right? Only the sense of what was going to be written down in the message. So, both positions have their support throughout history, and they kind of go back and forth in which position has support, but it seems like the most common view, at least recently, is that it's only according to the sense. In other words, not every, it's not like a robotic mechanical inspiration where every single word is dictated, but rather the sense of the word. So what would that mean, right? So, you know, you could preach about baptism and the salvific effects of baptism in general. But in Romans 6, there is a specific sense in which baptism is preached where it gives a relationship between baptism and the death and resurrection of Christ, right? And just how Christ was, you know, buried, we are buried with him in baptism, and then we rise to new life through sanctifying grace, and we're able to live that new life in service of God the Father. So that would be a very specific sense, and you're not just talking about baptism. You're talking about baptism in this specific way. And there's, you're not denying that there are some words that are given to the author, or that some words are prevented from being used, but there is not this robotic, mechanical, you know, every single word that was ever written down is exactly what the Holy Spirit intended. Um, and this is kind of how you explain how some differences in the Gospels, right? And St. Augustine deals with this. He comments on the difference in the Gospels of when St. John the Baptist introduces Jesus for the first time. St. Augustine says, "If it is asked which words John the Baptist actually said, whether those which Matthew reports, or those that Luke reports, or those that Mark places in the few words of that he reports, leaving the rest silent, one should not labor over this if one prudently understands that these sentences themselves are necessary for knowing the truth. However, they were expressed in words. For if one evangelist follows a different order of words than another, it is certainly not contradictory."

Now, as a result of inspiration, scripture is also inherent. It contains no errors. And here too, it's ontologically unique because the magisterium is only infallible because of its external assistance by the Holy Spirit. But because scripture is the physical word of God, it is intrinsically inherent. Right? So not only in its inspiration is it ontologically unique, because tradition and the magisterium are not inspired, but even in its infallibility, in the fact that it contains no errors, it's also ontologically unique. Right? Scheeben says, "The church's utterances are therefore not infallible of themselves by dint of their own physical origin, but rather become infallible through the divine promise, while sacred scripture, because it proceeds from God physically as his word, is immediately infallible because God can neither err nor lie in his own speech." End quote.

As Catholics, it's important to point out that we believe that scripture is infallible in all its parts. There's a modernist era to say that, you know, these parts are not inspired or these parts are not infallible or inherent. Right? These parts are only the parts relating to faith and morals are inherent, but not the parts relating to history. Right? You see this very clearly, for example, John 10, "The scriptures cannot be broken." "Scripture must be fulfilled." "All things written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled." That's Luke 24. So scripture is absolutely inherent in all of its parts. Okay.

However, it's not wrong to speak of a relative truth in scripture and an absolute truth. So, we may say that scripture does not always contain an absolute truth. For example, another brilliant mind, Father Christian Pesch, he wrote in the 19th century and I think early in the 20th century. He says, "Although the statements of sacred scripture are inspired and infallibly true, it must be well noted that some inspired statements possess not absolute but relative truth. For the Holy Spirit spoke and wrote for the benefit of men, and therefore in such a way that they could understand. Hence, he accommodated himself to human usage, and in matters about which people ordinarily speak according to appearances of the senses, he used the same manner of speaking." End quote.

So, as an example of this, we can use St. Paul, right? In in 1 Corinthians 15, he uses the example of the brightness that the sun, the moon, and the other stars have, and he says that that's going to, basically reflects the different degrees of glory in the resurrection. Right? So 1 Corinthians 15, he says, "There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead." So, in light of modern science, we know that actually speaking, there are stars brighter than the sun in the galaxy, and we actually know that the moon is not even, is not actually brighter than pretty much any star, because, you know, other stars are made of gas, they have flames by which they're actually brighter than the moon. But relative to us, right? When St. Paul is looking up to the sky, when we're looking up to the sky, it is relatively true that the sun is the brightest star closest to us. Then the next celestial body is the moon in brightness, right? And you have the different stars, right? So scientifically and absolutely speaking, sure, the sun is not the brightest star with glory, and the moon is not the brightest compared to the other stars, right? But this is still relatively true. It doesn't break scripture. It doesn't mean that scripture has error.

However, there is a very improper way to talk about a relative truth in scripture. And this has been condemned by the Popes many times, right? When talking about historical matters, we have to be very careful what we mean, because we cannot say that a historical event recorded in scripture is only relatively true, because it's only recording how people remembered it, right? That that would be very problematic. This is a modernist error that has been condemned by Popes, right? For example, Pope Leo XIII, writing in Providentissimus Deus, he says, "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of holy scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals and nothing beyond, because, as they wrongly think, in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which he had in mind in saying it. This system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost, and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God himself, the supreme truth, can utter that which is not true." End quote. You also have Pope Benedict XV. He says, "Those too who hold that the historical portions I add of scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts, but merely upon what they are pleased on to term the relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are no less than the aforementioned critics out of harmony with the church's teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other fathers." End quote. So, very clearly, to say that some parts of scripture are not really inspired or not really inherent, or that there is a relative truth in the historical accounts of certain events, that's not allowed, right? Because that would be very problematic, because God is the author of all scripture, and God cannot lie or be deceived.

Next, we could talk about the canon of scripture, right? As we already quoted above, these inspired writings were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. They have God as their author and were committed as such to the church. But inspiration is invisible to us. It's supernatural in substance, not only in mode. So, for example, miracles that happen in the natural world around us, they are supernatural in mode. They're supernatural in their origin. But they are not actually supernatural in their essence. Okay? So, for example, a miraculous healing is not supernatural in its essence, but only in how it came about, because it came about, you know, by God's power. However, inspiration in its very essence, you know, to speak the very words of God, which, you know, it's, that has a supernatural quality, has a supernatural nature. And so this is only something that can be apprehended by divine faith. We can't reason from effect to its cause. You know, we can't make some sort of argument to prove the fact of inspiration for a particular book. Just like any other supernatural fact, just like, for example, the hypostatic union or the nature of sanctifying grace, this has to be revealed to us, and we assent to it by faith.

As Catholics, we believe that, as Vatican I says, these books were handed down to the church as inspired, which constitutes divine revelation. This would be broadly speaking in sacred tradition. Although some books do include their inspiration in other books, and we receive it, and it's proposed to us through the magisterium through the ages. Here it is important to briefly note that the several ways Protestants attempt to explain their method on identifying the canon do not satisfy the nature of inspiration and divine faith. First, apostolic or prophetic authorship do not suffice, since the charism of inspiration was transient and not a permanent part of their office. Furthermore, there are books like Hebrews, Mark, and Luke that are not written by apostles but are admitted into the canon anyway. Second, the internal marks, such as consistency, truthfulness, or nobility, can only produce a scientific judgment, not divine faith, and can be found in other works outside of the canon, such as the Didache. Third, the testimony of the church can only produce human faith and cannot produce divine faith for Protestants, since they do not hold that it is a rule of faith. Nor do Protestant authors believe the church is necessary for the believer to believe in the fact of inspiration, such as Clovis. The internal testimony of the spirit could produce divine faith, but it would constitute private revelation for each believer. However, Protestants do not generally affirm an immediate internal testimony, but only immediate one. However, this would also fail because if the believer feels the heart-turning power of the gospel, this would also only produce scientific judgment, not divine faith, and can also be found in other works. For example, a zealous evangelical preacher summarizing the gospel may move me to repentance and faith, but it does not mean that his sermon is inspired. All of these deserve a longer explanation, but that is not the intent of this video. If you do want to get more into the canon argument, check out the video by my friend Christian B. Wagner called "Sola Scriptura is Impossible." In this video, he goes into very great depth explaining the canon argument, not what you usually hear from Catholic apologists about infallibility or an infallible list of infallible books, but rather about the nature of inspiration, the nature of divine faith. And he even quotes Protestant divines along the way to demonstrate his point. It's a great video and many people have loved it. So, make sure to check it out.

Next, we can talk about the senses of scripture. Now, as an effect of inspiration and authorship from the Holy Spirit, scripture has a literal sense and three spiritual senses: allegorical, anagogical, and moral. These senses are immediately intended by God himself and are thus real, not simply fitting accommodations that men make when reading scripture. The literal sense is signified by the words themselves, and it denotes what the text conveys through sound interpretation and, in turn, further signifies the spiritual senses. As St. Thomas says, "All other senses of sacred scripture are based on the literal." End quote. Each of the spiritual senses corresponds to a theological virtue which it informs and nurtures. We may take Israel's 40-year desert journey to the promised land as an example, which literally happened according to the literal sense of scripture. However, in the allegorical sense, which informs faith, this connects the Old Testament to the New Testament and teaches us what we are to believe. The ancient Israelites escaped slavery through the Red Sea. We escaped slavery to sin in baptism. The Israelites were sustained with manna from heaven. We are sustained with the Eucharist. They followed Moses. We follow Christ, the new Moses. Other common examples of the allegorical sense, or the sense that relates to faith, would be the spotless sacrificial lamb signifying Jesus as the new Lamb of God, or Eve signifying Mary, who is the new Eve.

Next, the anagogical sense informs hope, pointing to eternal life and future glory, or just the last things in general. The Israelites, after their baptism, wandered to the promised land. However, we hope for the heavenly promised land in our spiritual life. The Israelites trusted and hoped in God for their salvation from peril. We too ought to hope in God's mercy for our heavenly reward. Another example would be the sacrificial lamb signifying the wedding supper of the Lamb in heaven, which we ought to hope for and look forward to, just as we see in Revelation 19:7 and following. The moral sense informs charity, instructing us on how we ought to behave. The Israelites who did not obey God died and did not make it to the promised land. If we do not obey God, we will not reach heaven, the heavenly promised land. Another example would be how the ancient Israelites utterly destroyed several pagan nations, leaving nothing alive. See Joshua 6:21, and how this signifies the daily spiritual battle we ought to engage in, destroying every vice within us by the grace of God through mortification, self-denial. For more on the spiritual senses, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 115 through 119.

Next, there is the literal immediate and literal consequence sense. Many don't know this, but the literal sense, like the spiritual senses, can itself be subdivided into a sensus immediatus and sensus consequentiae. Since the words of scripture have a much more sublime meaning than the words of a human author due to the inspiration by the Holy Spirit, the consequence sense is simply what follows virtually, logically, and immediately from the immediate sense, and that is comprehended by the Holy Spirit in one glance, thus always being immediate for and truly intended by him. However, this is consequent for the human interpreter. As an example, we may look at the several promises given to the church connected to her mission. In Matthew 28, Christ commissions the apostles to go teach all nations and promises his presence until the end of the world. Consequently, meaning that this commission and promise extends to their successors. Thus, St. Augustine and many other Church Fathers point out how, even though Christ was speaking directly to the apostles, he was consequently speaking to their successors because his commission of going out into all the world and his promise of being with them until the end of the age cannot be limited to the earthly lives of the apostles, which ended in the first century. Father Scheeben has a great section and guide in the first volume of his dogmatics on the role of each sense, spiritual and literal, in argumentation, but that will not be covered in this video for time's sake.

Next, we can talk about the content of scripture. Something can be present in scripture and actually also in tradition, either formally or virtually. To be formally present means that something is present in itself. This can be broken down or subdivided as follows. If something is explicitly contained, then it is contained in equivalent terms. Thus, the proposition "Jesus is God" is formally and explicitly contained in Titus 2:13, "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." However, if something is implicitly contained, it is indirectly contained therein, and subjective reasoning is required to draw the conclusion forth. This usually happens when a part is contained in the whole. Thus, if somebody tells me that "Mary was always in a state of grace through her life," I can immediately conclude that she was in a state of grace at the moment of her conception, since her conception is one moment within her life. In other words, it's a part within the whole. If something is contained in a formal confused way, then it is indirectly contained with non-equivalent terms. For example, the verse, "The Word was made flesh," does not explicitly teach that "The second divine person of the Trinity assumed a human nature." Instead, some clarification is necessary on our part to reach this conclusion, though the distinction here is only subjective. It's only nominal.

If something is virtually in scripture, not formally, the formal content of scripture has the virtue of power for such a thing to be concluded. Thus, the entire narrative of Mary's divine maternity virtually contains the Immaculate Conception and her freedom from personal sin. Since it is repugnant that the Mother of God should ever be under sin due to the dignity she ought to have, here the conclusion is not immediately obvious, and some objective reasoning is required, since the minor premise supplied by theological reasoning serves as the objective means by which the conclusion is drawn.

Finally, we can talk about the sufficiency of sacred scripture. When speaking of sufficiency, we have to ask a few important questions. If we're asking about if something is in scripture, we have to ask how is it contained? As we saw above, are we talking about formally contained in there or virtually contained? If we're talking about formally contained, is it implicit or is it in other terms? We can also ask for whom is this sufficient, and we obviously have to ask sufficient for what. Thus, asking if scripture is sufficient without further qualifications is not helpful. Scripture does not explicitly teach the Assumption of Mary. There's no verse that says that the Virgin's body was assumed with her soul at the end of her life. Yet, for centuries, the church read Psalm 132:8 to signify the Assumption of Mary in the spiritual sense. "Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the..."

"ark of your might." End quote. Most theologians also argue that the assumption of Mary is present virtually as a theological conclusion from the dignity of the Theoccus' body.

Now, is scripture formally sufficient in the literal sense for the Trinity? It is for a trained theologian like St. Augustine, but not for a catechum. So, like I said, we must ask for who? Thus, Catholics agree that scripture formally contains all things that pertains to faith, the virtue of faith, and a good life. As St. Augustine says, quote, "For among the things that are plainly laid down in scripture are to be found to all matters that concern faith in the manner of life, to wit, hope, and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book." End quote.

In the previous book, St. Augustine covers the nature of God, the Trinity, the incarnation, the passion of Christ, resurrection, and the ascension of Christ. He also talks about the forgiveness of sins, ethics, and morality, and the love of neighbor. Obviously, all of these are explicitly in scripture. Catholic theologians also teach that scripture contains what is necessary for salvation for each man. Paul of Burgos, a Spanish Jew who converted to Catholicism and became an archbishop, wrote, quote, "One should notice that the literal sense of sacred scripture has such great capacity or power that in it are efficaciously contained all things that pertain to faith in good conduct and virtue." End quote. John Dryo, a Catholic divine who wrote against Protestants, quote, "Next, let us concede that the doctrine of Christ and the apostles expressed in the canonical books thus sufficiently teach us containing all the dogma necessary for the salvation of the human race." End quote. Francis Coer, a Jesuit who also wrote against Protestants, says, quote, "We do not deny that the principal articles of faith which all Christians must know in order to be saved, are sufficiently clearly contained in the apostolic writings." End quote. St. Robert Bellerin wrote, quote, "All those things which are necessary for all and which the apostles openly preach to all, those were written. But the others, not all, were written." End quote.

However, while scripture contains things sufficient for salvation, it does not contain all formal revelation. Even Protestants agree to this since we both agree that theological conclusions may be drawn forth by good and necessary consequence. Andrew Willlet, an English reformed author, says, quote, "We do not affirm, as our adversaries charge us, that all things necessary to salvation are expressly contained in scripture, that is, in so many words. But this we hold, that all things which are necessarily to be known of us are either expressly declared in scripture or necessarily concluded out of scripture and so contained in them." End quote.

Furthermore, scripture is unable to bring about unity in faith and truth by itself in the church. Not only is it not designed to function as the sole rule of faith, but it cannot serve as the sole rule of faith given the ends of divine revelation. That is the universal and uniform faith to the truth of God in the church. Father Shabin writes, quote, "However, it is formally incomplete as a rule, despite all the perfections of its dignity and its content, because in its capacity as a dead book, one moreover that is not systematically formulated, but rather in many places obscure and difficult and exposed to multiple misunderstandings, it is not at all suited, much less designed, to carry out by itself all the functions and to perform the duties that are necessary for the effective uniform and general regulation of the faith. one that strikes down all errors and doubts and asserts truth in its full purity and certainty, firmness and decisiveness. In order for such regulation to take place, another principle, the living authoritative proclamation of doctrine, which includes a true judicial authority, must be added to sacred scripture in order to apply and assert fully the regulatory significance that is essentially inherent in sacred scripture as a source of faith and hence to appear as the proximate rule." End quote.

Now, I published a script for this video in my Substack if you want to check it out. So for further reading I recommend reading just father Matias Joseph Shaen he is fantastic you know but specifically on scripture he deals with it in volume one part one chapter 3 uh you could buy the physical copy you could get it online you can read Fransin's uh uh tractatus the deina tradition escriptura right his treatment on tradition in scripture uh unfortunately only the section on tradition is translated into English although I mean if you're good with AI and you want to translate the parts of scripture I think actually some people might be working on translation right now for that uh Father William Humphrey's The Written Word is amazing. Uh you can find that it's a it's an old work and you can find it on Google Books for free. It's it's in English. Uh you can read Father Christian Pesh uh his his dogmatic um uh his basically his dogmatic manual on this. I've translated it from Latin into English and it's on my Substack. I'll link it below. But he also has a um he also has a separate work. It's a fantastic work. It's on the inspiration of sacred scripture. it's focused just on that, right? Because in his other work, he's taught, you know, he has a it's a dogmatic manual, so he goes over every possible, you know, the theological topic. Uh, and he touches on tradition and on scripture, uh, not briefly, but, you know, not as he would in an entire work, but he has a whole separate work called on the inspiration of sacred scripture and it was just recently translated. Um, I will I will put it in the link below as well.

So, really, you know, go do further reading. Don't just take my word for it because I can do all the reading. I can do all this stuff, but you know, I am not the pope. I am not infallible and I don't want you guys to take everything I say, you know, um uh blindly, right? I want you guys to go and read and and become wise and and to meditate on this stuff uh so that you too can uh you know, can see the beauty of the Catholic faith. So, with that said, I hope you guys enjoyed. If you're not already subscribed, please subscribe below. Uh leave a like, comment, share with others. Um let me know what you guys thought. Let me know what you guys want to see in future videos. And uh you know, God bless you. Thank you.

The issue of the biblical cannon has come up once again in the online apologetic sphere. Dr. Gavin Ortland with Cleave to Antiquity and Javier Purdomo, some Protestants I would consider to be good buds of mine, recently made a video on this and they received a response particularly from the Catholic apologist Joe Heshmire. Now, I won't get into their dialogue and their back and forth in between each video, but I do want to point out something that has stuck out to me in these dialogues. And it's I think an error that is being committed not only on the Protestant side, but also on the Catholic side, unfortunately.

Now, at first glance, a fallible list of infallible books is not contradictory. It's not nonsense. The Catholic Church had a fallible list of infallible books for most of history. In fact, some might even argue that the Orthodox Church doesn't have a infallible list yet, but that's besides the point. But the truth is, anybody ridiculing the idea of a fallible list of infallible books must realize that we had that for most of history. And one can obviously not say that it's because nobody disagreed about the canon because that's clearly not true. Not just in the case of St. Jerome, but also in the case of many later medieval and even scholastic authors.

But an issue that continues to stick out to me in these dialogues again with Protestants and Catholics is that there is often a conflation between infallibility and inspiration. When we think about the issue of the biblical cannon, we usually think in terms of infallibility. Which books are infallible and which books are not infallible?

>> You say, "No, no, no, no. To even recognize that which is infallible, you must yourself be infallible in some way or have some kind of infallible operation because now you need infallibility to receive and interpret the infallible teachings of your church. You know, as Catholic, you're going to have a fallible list of ex cathedral statements and have the same kind of problem and so forth because there's never been an ex cathedral statement about how many ex cathedral statements. Catholicism, which holds to holy tradition as infallible, has no formal infallible list of infallible traditions. But neither of us need such a source. I can say that 2 plus 2 is four not because I'm infallible, but because I have a reasonable confidence to ground, but this is actually not the right question to ask. A book is not canonical merely because it has no errors or because the author was prevented from error while it was being written. A book is canonical when it contains what the Holy Spirit expressly wished to be put down. As 2 Peter 1:20-21 says, quote, "Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." End quote.

So already the question of infallibility is not even essential to the issue. Every single apostle being constituted a divine legate for the entire church possessed the charrorism of infallibility. And if any apostle wished, they could write to the entire church or they could write to any particular section of the church and they would be protected from error. Again, these writings would be infallible. They would have no error so that the faithful would not be deceived. But that just means that the apostle was protected from putting down falsehood. The Holy Spirit was not moving this apostle to set down exactly what God wished to be put down. That's inspiration. In other words, this infallible writing would come from the will of man, but he would not be moved by the Holy Ghost as he wrote. So, while infallibility is a negative curism where God prevents the human author or messenger from putting down falsehood, inspiration is an invisible positive supernatural act on the part of God in which he moves the intellect and the will of man to set down exactly what God wishes to be set down. And this is exactly what St. Peter says. When we speak of infallibility, we could also speak of it as an effect from inspiration. So all inspired books will be infallible, but not everything that's infallible is inspired. This is made most clear in our doctrine of papal infallibility. When the pope speaks infallibly or when an ecumenical council makes an anathema or an infallible statement, they're not being moved by God to expressly set down exactly what God wishes to be set down. They're simply protected from error so as to not lead the faithful into heresy. So inspiration will have infallibility, but the same does not follow vice versa.

This is already a red flag because most of these discussions are unfortunately centered around infallibility. So the problem in the Protestant system is not that they have a fallible list of infallible books, but rather that they have an unrevealed list of inspired books. Because inspiration is a supernatural act and it's invisible. There's no way for us to by reason tell if something is inspired or not. My friend Christian Wagner gives a good example, but I'm going to expand it a bit to help us visualize this a little more. Let's say that you are St. Paul's helper and he hands you a letter and he asks you, "Is this without error?" Well, let's say you are very familiar with the apostolic preaching and you actually can even though you're fallible. You can by reason come to the conclusion that this letter contains no doctrinal errors. It's orthodox. St. Paul might even ask you, was this letter written by an apostle? And the answer is obviously yes. St. Paul might even ask you, does this epistle move your spirits and raise your affections towards God? You know, is it lofty? Now, this isn't the case with every piece of scripture, obviously, but it is the case with a lot of them. So, you might say yes. Now, does this mean that it's inspired? Does this mean that while St. Paul was writing this, he was being moved by the Holy Spirit to set down exactly what God wished to be set down. You'd have no way of knowing. You can certainly conclude that it's orthodox, that it's lofty. You can conclude that it's obviously written by an apostle. But none of these necessitate inspiration. Inspiration will include these. Inspiration will bring these about. Inspiration will be infallible. And an inspired writing, at least in the apostolic period, is written either by an apostle or an apostolic man like Saints Luke and Mark. Some even say that maybe Apollo wrote Hebrews. But if St. Paul were to ask you, do you believe that this is inspired? You simply have to say I don't know. I can make a probable guess because it's written by St. Paul. But we know that St. Paul wrote many things that are not inspired like the letter to the Laosans or even the letter before first Corinthians.

Christian Pesh writes, quote, "Moreover, the apostolic office does not necessarily bring with it inspiration for writing. For many apostles existed who wrote nothing. Therefore, they did not have a divine mandate to write. Furthermore, the apostles by virtue of being apostles did not cease to be men who could write letters in their own name about private matters. But if they spoke about matters of faith and morals by virtue of Christ's promise, they were indeed infallible in proposing these matters, either orally or in writing. But infallibility is not yet inspiration. Inspiration is a charism passing and extraordinary even compared with the apostolic office. Therefore, this special charrorism must be proven for some apostle by a special argument. This is what St. Augustine actually teaches in On City of God. Quote, "I think that even those men to whom the Holy Spirit certainly revealed those things which should be in the authority of religion could write other things as men with historical diligence and other things as prophets with divine inspiration. And these were so distinguished that the former are judged to be attributable to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them as if the former pertain to the fullness of knowledge, the latter to the authority of religion, in which authority the canon is preserved." End quote.

Now, to help us visualize this point even better, here's a chart that I made. It has a parallel example with Christ's divinity. Christ's divinity is a supernatural fact. It cannot be known by reason. God has to reveal this to you. So, if you're a Jew living in the first century, you've never heard of Jesus Christ, or maybe he's standing right in front of you, but you haven't seen him preach yet. You haven't seen him speak yet, and I were to ask you, "Is this man God?" You'd simply have to say, "I don't know." And, you know, they'd probably say, "No, he's not." But because we believe with faith the things that God has revealed. If God has not revealed a supernatural fact, something that only exists in the mind of God. And obviously this cannot be reached by reason, then you don't believe it with divine faith. So there you are. You have the man Jesus in front of you. And let's say that he raises the dead. Is this sufficient for you to believe that he is God, that he is the God man? A miracle of our Lord raising the dead, although extremely impressive, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion and to believe the supernatural fact of his divinity. For we know that other men could also raise the dead if they're aided by God, such as Elijah in the Old Testament. Now, what if our Lord begins to heal people? People who are sick, who are blind, who are deaf, who are lame, are these miracles now sufficient for you to conclude that he is God? No, because the apostles also perform similar miracles. Now, an interesting objection might be that whereas the apostles and the prophets perform these miracles by God's power, Jesus does himself say that he performs these miracles by his own power. But that's exactly my point. Christ saying that I am performing these miracles by my own power is himself revealing his divine nature, his divine power. So raising the dead, performing miracles, even being sent by God in a way is not sufficient to conclude that this man in front of me is divine. And so I apply that in a parallel sense to holy scripture. If a writing has lofty and orthodox doctrine, it does not mean that it's inspired. For example, first clement. Even if it was written by an apostolic man or an apostle, it does not mean that it's inspired. For example, St. Paul wrote to the Ladyans. He wrote a letter before first Corinthians. And obviously the apostles wrote much more than what we have. But most importantly in the essence of the apostolic mission is not writing New Testament books but simply preaching and teaching. Now for this there is no promise made of inspiration but simply a promise of protection from error. Thus these criteria that we've gone over none of these are sufficient to know that the man in front of you Jesus is divine. We actually see this in scripture from many who were just seeing his miracles but were not intimately with him like the apostles. This is why in Matthew 16 when Christ asks the apostles, "Who do people say that the son of man is, many say that people thought that he was Elijah or John the Baptist?" They group Jesus with other prophets because at least from afar, they're seeing Jesus do things that other prophets do. That is prophesy, perform miracles, and exort people to repentance. But Christ's divinity had not been publicly revealed to every single bystander, every single witness. It had been publicly revealed to the apostles. And that's why the apostles knew who he was. In other words, the supernatural fact, the invisible supernatural fact of Christ's divinity had not yet been revealed to the public and that's why they were confused about who he was. In a similar way, the criteria we've gone over is not sufficient to know that a book is inspired. All of these criteria are met by other non-cononical writings. In other words, if you say, "I believe Filon is inspired because it has orthodox doctrine or it was written by an apostolic man," then you should also just say that you believe that First Clement is inspired. But this is false. Therefore, orthodox doctrine, apostilicity, and all these other criteria are not sufficient to establish canonicity. So, so far, if I ask you, do you believe that the man in front of you, Jesus, is God? You do not yet have sufficient criteria. Miracles and prophecies are not unique to the divinity, especially since God has and can bring these about through other men. And God simply has not communicated to you the supernatural fact of Christ's divinity. So, so far, if St. Paul writes a letter and hands it to you and asks, "Is this inspired?" You can fallibly know through your fallible ears if it has orthodox doctrine because you've heard the apostolic preaching before. You can compare this letter to what orthodox doctrine is. Again, my contention is not

With infallibility. If St. Paul asks you, do you believe this is inspired? You cannot say, yes, I believe it's inspired because it's written by an apostle. Because inspiration is not an ordinary attribute of the apostolic office. To both, you simply have to answer, I don't know.

So, what would it take for you to believe this? Well, it's simple. God has to reveal this supernatural fact. And very obviously the divinity of Christ is revealed in the New Testament abundantly. The gospels and the epistles and even some of Christ's own miracles fulfill Old Testament prophecies that were said to be done by God. Since some miracles of Christ might point you and might even reveal his divinity, but not each and every miracle abstractly considered. So the holy trinity, the sacraments, the nature of the church, the incarnation, all of these are supernatural facts and you're not going to believe these unless God reveals them to you because faith is ascent to what God has revealed.

In a similar way, you can't believe that John is inspired or that Hebrews is inspired if God has not revealed this. So, it would take the human author or maybe a later prophet or apostle to reveal that such a book is inspired because this is a supernatural fact. Now, there are many books in scripture that are said to be written by the Holy Spirit or set down as prophecy. So, that would be sufficient to establish their canonicity. But this is obviously not the case for all books. There's no book saying that Filon is inspired or that Hebrews is inspired.

Now, if a Protestant were to say that, that's fine. The apostles did reveal which books were inspired. Then you have the attestation of a supernatural fact that is divine revelation, formal revelation for the entire and universal church that is outside of scripture, which obviously undermines the sufficiency of scripture.

So just a quick note if you're not already subscribed, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever you are, whether you enjoy my videos or whether you hate them and despise them, make sure to subscribe, like and share with others and leave your comments below. May God bless you and I hope you enjoy the rest of the video.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith says, quote, "The whole council of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the spirit or traditions of men." End quote. And it's a little ironic because the Westminster Confession of Faith earlier lists what the canon is, the Protestant canon. And it says that quote, "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life." End quote. So the Westminster Confession of Faith and many other confessions of faith are claiming that these books are inspired, which is a supernatural fact. One cannot come to the conclusion of inspiration by natural reason. As 1 Corinthians 2:1 says, quote, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God." End quote.

So as Catholics, it's more productive to ask not why do you have a fallible list of infallible books, but why do you claim to know the inspiration or to believe the inspiration of something that you simply don't have revealed to you? If you think you do have it revealed to you, then where is it revealed? As Catholics, we believe not only in sacred scripture, but also sacred tradition. But while Protestants can believe in tradition in a sense, Martin Kemnets lists eight types of traditions and accepts seven of them, they do not believe in the Catholic sense of sacred tradition.

Father Christian Pesh writes, quote, "Therefore, since the Protestants themselves understood this and yet did not want to admit sacred tradition alongside scripture, they strove to find other criteria by which a book could be recognized as inspired. Thus, they said scripture is divine because of supernatural facts narrated in it, because of sanctity, sublimity, agreement of doctrine contained in it, because of a special taste and other wonderful effects that readers mind draw from it, because of the diction itself, which combines great simplicity with singular sublimity." End quote. He further writes, quote, "But these reasons, although they can be used to confirm inspiration already proven elsewhere, are not suitable criteria to recognize inspired books." End quote. End quote. A book is not inspired simply because it teaches revealed doctrine or narrates supernatural facts. On the other hand, it would be difficult to show all these notes simultaneously in all historical books of the Old Testament and all epistles of the apostles. Furthermore, how can a book be inspired just because it narrates miraculous facts and prophecies? Could not these be fictions and lies? Or if they are true, can they not become known without inspiration? Therefore, those marks are insufficient to establish the fact of inspiration. End quote.

And I've gotten a lot of pushback from many Protestants, which I actually appreciate. I love entering in dialogue. So, I definitely encourage that. And many have appealed to, particularly Lutherans, to simply the testimony of the early church. Now it's a little ironic because Martin Kemnets when speaking of consensus in the church fathers says that consensus is useful and acceptable but only in so far as it agrees with scripture but as I said there's nothing in scripture that says that Filon is inspired or that says that Hebrews is inspired and and so on. So in this case appealing to consensus is a little bit odd. So if the early church was teaching that a certain book was inspired then that presumes that they believe that this was revealed as such. In fact, Martin Kemnets in his eight types of tradition, seven of which he actually accepts, the second type of tradition is basically the tradition of the biblical canon. But if preservative tradition exists, whether it's infallible or not, it implies and depends on a constitutive tradition. As the STS says, quote, "Constitutive active tradition is the preaching and faith of the whole church during the age of the apostles or any divine promulgator under the action of God revealing. Preservative act of tradition is the preaching and faith of the whole church in the ages that follow the death of the apostles under the action of God preserving the revelation." End quote. So it makes no sense to appeal to the early church if there was no initial transmission of such revelation.

So for example, if one wishes to hold to the Westminster confession of faith or maybe even the London Baptist confession of faith, one must agree that these are the books inspired by God which are supernatural facts. These supernatural facts have to be revealed just like any other supernatural fact just like the sacraments, the nature of the church, the incarnation, the Holy Trinity. But Protestantism is a system that cannot hold for these things to be revealed. Because again, quote, "The whole council of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture." End quote. Now, if one wishes to say that maybe the inspiration of Hebrews or second and third John or maybe even Filimon can be deduced from scripture, because these are certainly not expressly set down in scripture, then they're welcome to try. But we've already proved that apostilicity, orthodox doctrine, and many other criteria are not sufficient to establish inspiration.

That's all for this video. I hope you enjoyed. See you next time, and God bless you.

You've probably heard most popular Protestant apologists say that sola scriptura means that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. But what if I told you that these modern apologists of today are actually departing from classical Protestantism? Originally, sola scriptura meant that scripture is the only rule of faith and that tradition, councils, and church authority, although they are true authorities and very powerful ones, they are not the rule of faith. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but I can prove it to you. Before that though, make sure to subscribe to my channel, leave a like, comment below, and share with others.

You've probably heard Protestant apologists say the following: "Scripture is the only infallible rule for the church. Sola scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. It has never been held by any historic Protestant confession or something like that. I understand that you can find anecdotal evidence of what this or that Protestant person or group will do. But we shouldn't judge an entire branch of Christendom based upon anecdotal observations like that. You have to look at the best of the tradition or at least the all of the tradition. Sole Apostolicica teaches this that the sole infallible creaturely rule of authority. That is the creaturely fountainhead or the creature source of God's saving self-revelation is the apostolic teaching." Right? So we're talking about an issue of infallible authority. So when we say "sole," we're saying there is one infallible authority that guides the church. Doesn't mean that we don't value tradition. Doesn't mean that we don't value pastors. "The Bible alone." This doesn't mean that the Bible is our only authority. It does mean that the Bible is our only infallible. "Sola scriptura means that scripture is the church's only infallible rule. That the Bible is infallible. And if you don't think that the other rules of faith that are purportedly infallible are actually infallible, that alone will get you to sola scriptura." "Sola scriptura is the perspective that inspired scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. And sola scriptura is what Protestant churches teach that the Bible is the only infallible authority." "Let's define sola scriptura. It's the idea that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in practice, which means it can never go wrong. Therefore, the Bible is the only infallible rule for the church, which is the doctrine we call sola scriptura as it's been defined in historic magisterial Protestant documents and as we've agreed to define it for this debate. It's actually a very modest claim. It's the idea that scripture is the only infallible rule for the church. A rule is a standard that governs the church's faith and practice. Infallible means incapable of error. Sola scriptura is essentially saying that scripture is the only authority standing over the church that can't get it wrong."

However, this is not true. This is not the traditional articulation. Generally, this is what creeds, confessions, and their authors say. We can start with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says about the canonical books that they are given by God to quote "be the rule of faith and life" end quote. It says that councils quote "are not to be made the rule of faith or practice" end quote. Notice how it's talking about a singular rule of faith. The Westminster Larger Catechism says, quote, "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience." End quote. The Helvetic Confession of 1536 says, quote, "We know of no other rule of faith but the holy scripture." End quote. The 1675 Helvetic Consensus Formula says, quote, "The Hebrew original for the Old Testament forms together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice." End quote. The Lutheran Formula of Concord says, quote, "The Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard according to which, as the only test stone, all dogma shall and must be discerned and judged as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong." End quote.

We may now move on to Reformed and Anglican authors. Henry Bullinger says that the first four ecumenical councils were based on scripture, which is the only rule of faith. He says, quote, "Those ancient confessions alone to which we do attribute so much as permitted by the canonical scripture, which we confess to be the only rule how to judge, to speak, and do." End quote. William Whitaker, a very popular Anglican theologian, says, quote, "For it is to be held undoubtedly, as we shall hereafter prove most largely, that the revealed and written word of God is the sole rule of faith." End quote. William Bucanus says, quote, "All those which being written by the Holy Ghost were either written or allowed by the prophets and apostles that these alone might be the rule and direction of faith and good works." End quote. Andrew Willet, an Anglican, denies that the church is a rule of faith and affirms it is only the scriptures. Quote, "The rule of faith is in the scriptures, not in the church." End quote.

We also see this in Lutheran authors. For example, Herman Holsman says, quote, "Scripture alone is the rule according to which judgment is made about religion and the very meaning of scripture itself." End quote. The father of Lutheran Orthodoxy, Johann Gerhard, says, quote, "God himself has presented and committed scripture to us as the only rule of faith in life." End quote. And again, he says, quote, "These characteristics, however, fit scripture alone. Therefore, scripture must surely be acknowledged as the only rule of faith in the church." End quote. Johann Cromer says, quote, "Holy scripture is also the sole norm and rule by which all religious controversies can and not to be judged." End quote. And Hieronymus Kromayer says, quote, "Just as we acknowledge written traditions, that is scripture, alone as the rule of believing and living. So we gladly receive the others we have listed, provided they are in every respect agreeable to the scriptures." End quote.

So what's going on here? Why are modern Protestant apologists saying that we can have other rules of faith, but that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith? And why are the classical Protestants and confessions saying that scripture alone is the rule of faith? What's happening here is that modern Protestant apologists are kind of redefining what "rule of faith" means. Traditionally, "rule of faith" means that which is able to bind the conscience in and of itself. Scripture alone is traditionally the rule of faith for Protestants because scripture alone can bind your conscience to give the assent of faith before God. Tradition and councils for Protestants can be quite authoritative, but they cannot independently witness to the truth. They cannot independently bind the conscience, but they are to be accepted only in so far as they agree with the rule of faith. Instead, modern Protestants seem to be defining "rule of faith" to mean a theological source or a theological authority. Well, but what's the problem here, right? Am I just being nitpicky? Am I just being, you know, am I just trying to score some points here? I'm actually not because traditionally several Protestant theologians actually extend infallibility beyond the scriptures. This is actually very common specifically in the Anglican and Reformed traditions, although I've been able to find it a little bit though more conservatively in the Lutheran authors that I've been able to that I've had the pleasure of reading. And so if we redefine "rule of faith" to mean that it is simply an authority and scripture is the only infallible authority. Well, what do we do with the Protestant authors that say that ecumenical councils can be infallible or that, you know, any any council even if it's not ecumenical if it's gathered in the name of Christ can be infallible? Or for example, Richard Baxter who's Reformed and says that the canon of scripture is preserved in the church by an infallible tradition. Well, tradition is an authority for Protestants and for Richard Baxter it can be infallible at least for the canon. So if we were to redefine a rule of faith to mean just any authority then does Baxter not believe in sola scriptura? Do these Reformed and Anglican authors who extend infallibility beyond the scriptures do they not believe in sola scriptura? Instead, they affirm that scripture is the only rule of faith because scripture alone can bind the conscience before God.

This is why William McConnell says that in some councils, if they are gathered in the name of Christ, Christ actually can govern these by his spirit. Richard Field says, quote, "The whole present church may be ignorant of some things and err in them, but that in matters necessary to be known and believed expressly, it cannot err, and that it cannot err in any the least thing with pertinacity, stubbornness, such and so great as is found in heretics." End quote. Robert Baron, another Reformed author, says, quote, "We do not simply and absolutely condemn that which the Parisians teach about the infallibility of councils. For it can be believed piously and probably that truly general and legitimate councils, that is legitimately convoked and proceeding, are so governed and directed by the Holy Spirit that they do not err in fundamental dogmas." End quote. Louis Le Blanc says, quote, "Indeed they, that is Reformed theologians, acknowledge that those councils which are truly gathered in the name of Christ." And he goes on to say, "These councils have Christ so present in them that they cannot fall into any pernicious error." End quote. Another French Reformed author, Moses Amyraut says, "These are the things which are chiefly included in that formula to be gathered in the name of Christ. If these are diligently employed in ecclesiastical assemblies, there is no room for doubt that as Christ promised, he is present among them through the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit. If therefore, as has been said elsewhere, there were any council concerning which it were certain and beyond doubt that none of the things we have mentioned had been omitted by it, then it would likewise have to be pronounced certain and beyond doubt that it neither erred nor given those conditions could have erred." End quote. Johannes Musaeus, a Lutheran, says, quote, "For all Christians everywhere living from the apostles to our times or even only all members of today's entire church cannot err simultaneously and at once in matters of faith because of the special grace, direction, and assistance of the head of Christ and the Holy Spirit." End quote.

So for modern Protestant apologists who kind of redefine "rule of faith" to just mean any authority, any theological authority and say that sola scriptura means that it's the only infallible rule of faith or the only infallible authority. Well, what do we do with these Protestant authors? Richard Baxter, for example, in his Cases of Conscience in Question 148 says, "How do we know the true canon of scripture from Apocrypha?" And the second note that he gives is, quote, "The tradition of infallible church history tells us which books they are which were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost and who sealed their doctrine with miracles in those times." End quote.

So to conclude, Protestantism traditionally acknowledges only one rule of faith. Scripture alone can bind the conscience independently. It can independently witness to the truth and oblige someone to obey before God. And councils, tradition, and other authorities, although they are not rules of faith, they aid us in interpreting the rule of faith. For Catholics, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition are also rules of faith. This is why if you read through traditional Protestant works, they will actually argue against us that the church is not a rule of faith. Whereas modern Protestant apologists will say that it is a rule of faith, but just not an infallible one. And again, my point in this video was not to score easy points against modern Protestant apologists, but just to kind of call attention to this issue, to this problem, uh because if we want to speak about these issues with more accuracy, and these issues are obviously very important. They pertain to the salvation of souls, then we ought to be more precise with our language. I hope you enjoyed. Subscribe, comment below what you think, share with others, like this video, all that good stuff. And God bless you.

If you ever want to have the most frustrating conversation of your entire life, bring up the issue of private judgment with literally any Christian on the internet. It doesn't matter what their background is. High church Protestant, low church Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, Black Hebrew, Israelite, Catholic, each of them are the same. The issue of private judgment seems to be a convenient sledgehammer to wield against a person when you don't feel like arguing against their actual positions or when someone doesn't actually know how authorities work. The private judgment conversation is usually completely acidic to any reasonable and level-headed interaction. But is there actually something to the conversation beyond the Instagram comment section dumpster fire? Is there actually a good argument to be made against Protestantism by an appeal to the issue of private judgment?

But before we get into answering that question this video, I want to tell you about a place where I already answered this question, my Substack. If you sign up for my Substack at the link below, you'll basically be at the cutting edge of whatever I'm going to eventually make content on. My original thoughts and notes go on my Substack in an unpolished form without the simplifications I often put into my videos. Let's get back to the video.

About a year ago, I asked myself a similar question about another argument against sola scriptura, the canon argument. Since then, there have been a handful of responses to my videos on this point, but I believe an intelligent and careful listener can easily conclude that none of these videos actually refute the argument presented. In fact, I've met a few people who became Catholic in large part because of that video, which I'm eternally grateful for. A few months ago, I decided to do the same with this issue of private judgment. When we look into Catholic authors from the golden age of Catholic apologetics, do they present this argument in the same way it often comes up online? Or is there a more consistent and convincing way of presenting it? For this argument, it is not so simple after all, since there is some diversity among Roman Catholic authors, especially on debates relating to the assent of faith and the authority of the church that have taken place between Thomists and Scotists. Yet, this is not to say that an argument couldn't be made, especially since I believe that the Thomistic position can be easily demonstrated.

But before I begin to present the argument, I want to clearly state the purpose of making this video. This video isn't polemical as much as it is theological. What I mean by that is that my purpose isn't to necessarily refute all Protestants by presenting this argument, strictly demonstrating each proposition and answering each possible counterargument or objection. Rather, in the context of Roman Catholic theology, I want to provide an explanation for what the argument actually is in the first place. For example, this argument in a large part depends on the manner in which we define a word like "faith." In my opinion, it would be a disservice to you, the listener, for me to go into a large tangent about the biblical and patristic evidence for this definition of faith. So, I will simply state how faith is being defined for the purpose of this video and then continue on with the video. If you do not like that approach, then you have not clearly thought through the problem at hand. Anyways, let's get to the argument itself.

To begin, it will be helpful to provide a brief summary of the argument which will be given in the form of a thesis statement. In sum, the Protestant doctrine that allows for the private judgment of articles of faith is unreasonable in so far as it contradicts the correct notion of faith. From the beginning, we must clarify a few points.

First, when we are setting forth this argument, we must remember that we are here talking about the judgment of faith rather than any knowledge whatsoever. Catholics do not completely reject the idea of private judgment. Obviously, there are many cases in life and in the supernatural life in which we must make private judgments. When I read St. Thomas' Summa, my affirmation of much of what he says comes from private judgment motivated either by his scientific authority or the lucidity of his arguments. Rather, we are talking only about those things that are assented to by faith. To believe is an act whereby we affirm something on the authority of God revealing. It is similar to scientific knowledge in so far as both are firm judgments. Yet, it is distinct in so far as scientific knowledge comes from the intrinsic evidence of things. Whereas, in the words of St. Paul, faith is an "evidence." It is similar to human faith in so far as both human and divine faith affirm things based on authority. Yet, it is obviously different in so far as human faith is based on human authority whereas divine faith is based on divine authority. Hence, we refer to the motive of faith as the authority of God revealing. Just as I believe that I was born on June 1st on the authority of my mother telling me this. So also I believe that Christ is Lord on the authority of God speaking this through the apostles.

Second, when we are talking about the objects being judged, we are not talking about any object whatsoever but only the articles of faith. This is easy to understand from what was said on the first point and can be acquired from some self-reflection on how we interact with divine revelation. There are some things in our religious life that we affirm on the basis of God revealing and have a firm and irrevocable assent, the assent of faith. Yet, there are also other things that don't have this firm and irrevocable assent. Some of these are firmly held conclusions that are drawn from what is revealed by God. These are theological conclusions. Others are probable positions that seem fitting or maybe have good but non-conclusive arguments for them. These are theological opinions. This is obvious from some brief self-reflection. You don't hold your exegesis of a controversial passage with the same firmness as you hold the divinity of Christ. Further, you don't hold the certain conclusions that can be drawn in Christology about the psychological life of Christ with the same firmness as you hold the basic fact of his humanity.

Third, Catholic authors don't hold that every single assent requires private judgment. To say otherwise about speculative judgments would be to completely misunderstand what we mean about the term in the first place. A better terminology to highlight this might be to call this type of judgment "human judgment." For there is certainly a judgment which is private that can also be the type of judgment that is an act of faith in so far as there is immediate revelation from God to that individual rather than the mediate revelation which we usually receive. Hence, for example, if there was a man who grew up in the woods and God decided to reveal himself to this man, the man would be able to make the assent of faith even while his judgment was not in conformity to some public authority. Rather, the concern whether some judgment is private or public comes into play when we speak about mediate revelation. That is, the communication of divine revelation to men through certain mediators such as the prophets and apostles. The real and foundational concern is whether something human enters into the motive for our assent to something. Remember, the assent of faith is an assent to something on the basis of God revealing. Hence, if there were to enter into this motive, something human, no matter how small, it would fall into one of those other two categories that we listed above, whether a theological conclusion or a theological opinion. Here, it needs to be remembered that to simply conform oneself to a judgment is not a form of private judgment. Otherwise, all intellectual acts would be forms of private judgment. Hence, if some judgment is presented clearly and unequivocally, the individual who understands this does not need some further private judgment in order to affirm this, but to simply affirm the public judgment that is communicated to him clearly. The concern is when we go beyond what is clear and unequivocal, whether it is presented in an obscure manner or must be drawn by good and necessary consequence. For example, while it may not require any additional judgment to affirm that Isaac is the son of Abraham, there are other statements that do require serious clarification, that is additional judgments in order to affirm, for example, much of what is said in the Apocalypse of John. Further, in other cases, maybe we are going beyond simply clarifying what is obscure and into the realm of drawing good and necessary consequences. In this case, there's an entire extra proposition added as a minor premise. Hence, in either of these other cases, the judgment goes beyond "I believe this because God has revealed this" into the realm of "I affirm this because I have derived this from the word of God." This motive of the assent is distinct from the motive of assent present in the assent of faith.

Fourth, the public or divine judgment does not only happen through the infallible decisions of the church by popes or ecumenical councils. Rather, they primarily happen through the clear statements of the scriptures and the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This is a point brought up by Spanish Dominican Francisco Marín-Sola against the trend to view infallibility solely in terms of infallible judgments in the Magisterium only as existing after the time of the apostles. Hence, for me to accept the statement that Isaac is the father of Jacob does not require private judgment. It is clear in scripture in the same way as affirming the dogma of papal infallibility from the text of Vatican I or the contents of the Apostles' Creed does not require any sort of additional private judgment. Thus, it is common for theologians to label as heretics those who deny what is clearly presented by scripture and to state that the clear sentences of scripture are "de fide."

To summarize, there are four important clarifications to keep in mind before we get into the argument itself. First, the question of private judgment only arises when we are speaking about the assent of faith, not knowledge in general, whether natural knowledge or theological assent. Two, the objects of knowledge under discussion are the articles of faith motivated by the authority of God revealing, not theological conclusions or other lesser forms of knowledge. Three, private judgment is judgment where a human element enters into the motive for the assent. Hence, where there is an affirmation of truth clearly presented to us, that is not private judgment. Four, divine or public judgment is not limited to extraordinary definitions by popes or councils, but is already present wherever revelation is clear and unequivocal, especially in scripture. So that assent requires no further interpretive judgment beyond receiving what God has publicly revealed.

Now that we've went through these clarifications, we can get to the argument itself, which will clearly and obviously flow once the clarifications given above are understood. Where there is private judgment, there cannot be faith in the articles of faith. This is evident from the very notion of faith whose motive of assent is the authority of God revealing. Now when it comes to private judgment, the motive of assent is not the authority of God revealing but something that is human. That is some probable or certain argument. Hence, as stated originally, the Protestant notion of private judgment of articles of faith contradicts the very notion of faith. It really is that simple. There isn't much to it when each of the terms are properly understood. Protestants hold simultaneously that something is affirmed by faith and that there are some human elements that enter into the motive of the assent. This is a contradiction. They can escape this in three ways.

First, they can deny that anything human enters into the motive in private judgment. Yet, this is obviously untrue. This is especially clear when one looks at the case of good and necessary consequence. For the minor premise of the syllogism is the demonstrative medium whereby the conclusion is seen in the major premise. Clearly, if it is a medium of knowledge, then it enters into the motive of private judgment. Yet, the Protestant may object that every human act involves certain human elements, such as the very faculties whereby we receive the judgment we assent to. But notice how sloppy such an objection is. I did not object to any human element entering into the process of judgment, but only that such a human element would enter into the motive of the assent. That is the why I accept this.

Second, they can deny that faith has God revealing as its sole motive. This is the most insane of the options. Clearly, all of scripture and the entire tradition hold that the motive for our belief in the message of Jesus Christ is the revelation of God. Read the Gospel of John.

Third, they can deny that the assent by faith does anything that requires private judgment. Yet, this is obviously untrue on two grounds. First, by way of example, where they claim to believe doctrines that can only be drawn forth from scripture by good and necessary consequence. Second, by their own admission. I will give a few examples of Protestant divines admitting that certain articles of faith are only known from scripture by good and necessary consequence. George Calixtus writes, quote, "Sacred scripture does not contain in express words or equivalent terms in an evident and necessary sense everything that is necessary for all unto salvation." End quote. Johannes Makovius writes, quote, "Are some things necessary to be known for salvation deduced and able to be deduced by good consequence? I affirm." End quote. Francis Turretin writes, quote, "Are the doctrines of faith and practice to be proved only by the express word of God? May they not also be legitimately proved by consequences drawn from scripture? We affirm the latter. Mixed syllogisms in which one of the premises belongs to natural, the other to revealed religion, do not cease to be of faith." End quote. George Gillespie writes, "Necessary consequences from the written word of God do sufficiently and strongly prove the consequent or conclusion, if theoretical, to be a certain divine truth that ought to be believed. And if practical to be a necessary duty which we are obliged to know." End quote. John Cameron writes, "It belongs not to faith alone but also to reason to discern the reason of the consequence. Yet we say that it belongs properly to faith to believe the consequent, nor does it follow from this that faith, because the consequent is believed, rests upon reason, since reason here is not an argument but an instrument." End quote. Gerhard writes, quote, "We by no means call scripture perfect in this sense that all things one must know for faith and behavior are in scripture according to the letter and in so many words. We say that some things are contained therein explicitly and some implicitly in such a way that people can deduce from them through a legitimate and unmoving consequence." End quote. I could give many, many other examples, but those should suffice. It is clear that the Protestant position necessitates that certain articles of faith are only known by good and necessary consequence and hence by our definition by private judgment.

But before we continue, I'd like to remind everyone of my Patreon. Scholastic Answers is completely viewer-funded. We continue through your generosity. If you believe that my videos provide a truly unique service to the church, please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/milittoist. One of the best ways of supporting the channel is through recurring donations. So, please consider becoming a supporter of any amount for exclusive content and other perks. Now, let's get back to the video.

There's also another interesting consequence that we can draw against Protestant theology closely connected to our argument against private judgment. Protestant authors will often distinguish between what they call adiaphora, labeling some articles of faith as essential and others as non-essential. Now, there is no problem with affirming adiaphora, holding different opinions on non-essential issues. Rather, the issue is withholding that there are essential and non-essential articles of faith. As Cardinal Franzelin points out, articles of faith cannot be divided into essential and non-essential since the motive for the assent is the same: God revealing. Hence, each and every article of faith is equally essential when it comes to the presence or absence of the act of faith. One heresy, the denial of an article of faith, is sufficient to destroy faith. Whether such an article is seen as central and foundational or secondary and peripheral. Thus, our Lord says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned," rather than "He who believes the really important stuff will be saved and he who does not believe the non-essential stuff will be fine." To read more about this, check out my Substack article on private judgment mentioned above where I quote Cardinal Franzelin in full and explain his reasoning.

Now that you've went through all of the clarifications and the arguments, it is now time to deal with some objections. The objections to this argument usually come from aggressively misunderstanding everything Catholic authors say and then saying, "No, you the whole time without actually explaining anything." "Private judgment means figuring out truth for yourself rather than having someone else do it for you." And you know, Catholics and Orthodox will attack Protestants for using private judgment, for having private interpretations of scripture. But the thing is, Catholics and Orthodox people, they do that too. You know, if you converted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, you rely on your own reasoning to discern which of those two churches was really the one true church because they both claimed to be the one true church. So, you either had to rely on your own private judgment or you search the scriptures to see which of those churches follows the Bible more closely. And if you're doing so, if you're judging church authority by the authority of the Bible, then congrats. You believe in sola scriptura and you should be a Protestant.

Objection one: Catholics use private judgment to determine which is the true church. Therefore, Protestants can use private judgment as well with articles of faith. Response: It is important to remember what is actually happening when we are determining where revelation is to be found so that we can give the assent of faith. According to Catholic authors, what is occurring in this process is that the motives of credibility, which are modally supernatural, are being investigated so that we may make the judgment of credibility that such and such a revelation is credibly from God and hence that such and such a legate is a divine legate. This process of investigation and the formation of the judgment of credibility is not the same as the assent of faith. If you remember from above, I made it quite clear that the judgment spoken of is specifically the assent of faith. The assent of faith does not proceed from the investigation of the motives of credibility. Rather, the judgment of credibility is only a condition of the assent of faith's reasonableness, not its cause. We have no issue with the judgment of credibility being a private judgment. Yet, when the Catholic ascends to the mystery of the church as a dogma of the faith, this of course is the assent of faith. Yet this is subsequent to the investigation of the motives of credibility, not caused by it. Protestants can feel free to critique this theology of how the assent of faith arises in relation to the preaching of the gospel, but it is not at all incompatible with the argument against private judgment in articles of faith.

Objection two: Catholics use private judgment when reading dogmas, such as when they read an ecumenical council. Hence it is hypocritical to critique the Protestants for doing the same with scripture. Reply: There are two ways to answer this. First, it is important to note that the brunt of the argument against the Protestants is over the issue of good and necessary consequence. Now, in the cases spoken of, we aren't even speaking about conclusions from dogmas, but the interpretation of documents, often on issues that aren't even infallible, and hence not even objects of faith. So, the two cases aren't even remotely similar and fail on a multitude of accounts. Second, we still hold the distinction between clear and unclear here. As the Code of Canon Law states, quote, "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident." End quote. Now, as I said above, what is manifestly evident in scripture can be assented to by faith. So, the same situation can apply to scripture and infallible definitions. Where the sense is manifest, the assent of faith is given. Where the sense is not manifest, only an implicit act of faith is given in the authority of God revealing, whether inspiring scripture or protecting the church from error in infallible statements.

Objection three: Catholics use private judgment when debating each other all the time, such as between the Thomists and the Scotists. Reply: Again, the cases are not remotely similar. These are theological schools debating over theological conclusions and opinions. They're not debating over articles of faith based on human reason. You might insist that different Catholics and even different schools will disagree on whether something is "de fide" or not. Yet, there is a sophism hidden in the objection. It is one thing to debate over articles of faith as to whether they are essential or non-essential mixed with human reason drawing forth conclusions by good and necessary consequence. And another thing to, by a defect in the subject, regard something as "de fide" when it is not or vice versa. The former is a matter of principle. The latter is not a matter of principle.

Objection four: You privately judge Pope Francis. Therefore, we can have private judgment as well. Response: Supposing that I did privately judge Pope Francis. This still wouldn't have anything to do with the question at hand. Remember, the idea of private judgment is not wrong. It is the idea of privately judging the articles of the faith.

Objection five: But we do have public authorities. Hence the judgment isn't private. Response: This is why the clarification I gave above is so important. Rather than public versus private, we ought to distinguish between human and divine. For more about this, check out what Father Francisco Marín-Sola says about the ecclesiastical middle. But the understanding of the Protestant and Catholic magisteriums are completely different when communicating an article of faith that is a conclusion. For the Catholic, in no way is the strength of the conclusion founded in the lucidity of the reasoning presented in the promulgation of the dogma, but in the divine authority to infallibly speak on behalf of God, the only adequate foundation for the assent of faith to be given.

As a conclusion, I would like to apologize for any lack of clarity in this video. It often happens that these topics require someone much more brilliant than I am to state them plainly and lucidly to be understood by many. I pray that you are edified by the materials presented and hope that many will cast off their darkness and error from what has been said through the intercession of St. Thomas and Father Francisco Marín-Sola. And as always, God bless.

Purgatory is Catholic dogma. It's one of the mysteries of the faith revealed by God in both the word handed down through sacred tradition and written in sacred scripture. It's also a very contentious teaching when in dialogue with Protestants and modern Eastern Orthodox. But in this video, my aim is not to prove purgatory's existence or to defend the doctrine against the objections of the adversaries, but to explain it and accentuate the glory of God found in this mystery. Besides scripture and the saints, I will rely mostly on the book called Purgatory and the Means to Avoid It written by Father Martin Jugie, a French Catholic priest, theologian, and scholar who was a part of the Augustinians of the Assumption. Father Jugie is one of my favorite 20th-century theologians and scholars. He was a true genius and was exceedingly well-read in the Eastern tradition, writing on the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, and even produced an entire multi-volume work on Oriental Dogmatics. Father Jugie's book is not him merely expounding his private opinion on the matter but rather the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church along with its saints and doctors. First and foremost is the common doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Before we continue, if you enjoy my channel and if you really love my videos, or actually rather if you despise my channel, whatever the case may be, I would really appreciate it if you subscribed, liked this video, left a comment, and shared with others. Thank you.

It's common for Catholics who, wishing to make the doctrine of purgatory more appealing to others, such as Protestants, depict purgatory as being strictly a place of purification, denying its legal aspect and the temporal debt of punishment that must be paid for sins committed after baptism. While purification can certainly be used to describe purgatory, especially since "purgare" means to purify and cleanse, many stray from the traditional teaching of the Magisterium and the consensus of theologians when they present purgatory as a sort of progressive sanctification. Unfortunately, many Catholics shun away from affirming the punitive nature of purgatory and instead claim that purgatory is simply about becoming personally holier. They argue this way: Everyone in heaven will be perfectly holy with no attachment to sin. We still have attachments to sin in this life. Therefore, there must be purification between this life and heaven for many who die in a state of grace. While this is certainly true, as we will see shortly, it is careless to assign this progressive purification and sanctification to the essence of purgatory since it clearly seems to be against other Catholic truths. In dogmatic theology, it's crucial to synthesize all of divine revelation so that we don't fall into a contradiction. It is my contention that the affirmation that purgatory is about being progressively purged from our attachments to sin creates a contradiction. For those who support this view, they hold that any attachment to sin requires purgation throughout purgatory. And on the other hand, they must also confess with Catholic teaching that a newly baptized man enters heaven immediately upon death. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, quote, "By baptism, all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all..."

Punishment for sin. And those who have been reborn, nothing remains that would impede their entry into the kingdom of God. Neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God. End quote.

This is paragraph 1263. The very next paragraph says, quote, "Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weakness of character and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically the tinder for sin, which is the fomy's picati. Since concupiscence is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." End quote.

We see then on one hand that one who was baptized were he to die right there and then he would immediately enter heaven and yet they would still be dying with concupiscence and all these other attachments and inclinations to sin. But obviously if someone who dies immediately after being baptized enter into heaven regardless of whether or not they still have these vicious inclinations to sin, then these vicious inclinations are not what is purged throughout purgatory. Otherwise, someone who would die right after baptism would have to go to purgatory. But that contradicts what the church teaches.

Rather, the teaching of the church is that even after post-baptismal mortal and venial sins are forgiven, there remains temporal punishment that requires expeation. As St. Thomas writes, quote, "No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment." Now, this plenary absolution is given when a man receives baptism or suffers martyrdom. For which reason it is stated that martyrdom contains all the sacramental virtue of baptism. That is as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose therefore a catechuman to have the desire for baptism. Such a one were he to die would not forth come to eternal life but would suffer punishment for his past sins but he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire as stated in 1 Corinthians 3:15. End quote.

We see then that the sacrament of baptism or martyrdom which is baptism by blood not only cleanse uses from all sin, all guilt but also the temporal punishment due to sin. But whether it be the sacrament of penance, perfect contrition or baptism of desire, these do not cleanse us from the temporal debt due to sin.

The Council of Florence further teaches in the decree of union with the Greeks. Quote, "Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and emissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains. And the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains. That is sacrifices of masses, prayers, armsgiving, and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances." End quote.

The Council of Trent also says of temporal punishment, quote, "If anyone says that to every penitent sinner who has received the grace of justification, the sin is to such an extent remitted and the sentence of eternal punishment to such an extent faced that there remains no obligation of temporal punishment to be paid either in this world or in the next, that is to say, in purgatory before heaven is open for that soul, let him be anathema." End quote.

Once we have been regenerated and justified, the soul is in perfect submission and order to God by the effects of sanctifying grace in the soul. However, just as bodily mortality and our passibility remain due to the weakness of our fallen flesh, so does the fis picati or the inclination to sin. As St. Paul writes in Romans 7, quote, "I find then a law that when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man, that is the soul. But I see another law in my members, that's flesh, waring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members. Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." End quote.

We see then that the justified soul in the state of grace has no defect. The defect lies in the fallen flesh united to the soul which inclines us to sin even after baptism. But once the body separates from the soul at death, the just soul is no longer inclined to any sin, but rather it is perfectly free and alive by charity.

To elucidate this doctrine more fittingly, let us consider a helpful analogy. The soul in the state of grace may be likened to a flame and the fallen flesh subject to concupiscence to a wet log upon which this flame burns. The flame representing charity infused by sanctifying grace is in itself perfect, luminous and ordered to its proper end, namely union with God. However, in so far as it is united to a log soaked with moisture, that is the flesh debilitated by the fis piccati, its natural order is impeded. The defect therefore is not in the flame that is the soul but in the material upon which it acts the body whose moisture concupiscence resists the perfect operation of the flame. As Galatians 5:17 says quote for the flesh lustth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that ye cannot do the things that you would. End quote.

If one were to sprinkle water upon the log, symbolizing venial sin, the flame would diminish but not be extinguished. It would burn with reduced fervor. But should an entire bucket of water be poured over it, signifying mortal sin, the flame is entirely quenched. For charity cannot coexist with mortal sin in the same subject. Nevertheless, in both cases, the flame itself remains ontologically uncompromised. Its weakness is intrinsic due to the log's condition.

From this we derive a deeper understanding of aesthetical practices such as fasting, abstinence and mortification. These acts are not ends in themselves but means by which the log is dried, concupiscence is subdued, and the soul is rendered more docile to grace. The more the body is subjected to reason and the divine law, the less resistance it offers to the interior movement of charity. Thus, as St. Paul exorts, quote, "If by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live." End quote. In this way, the flame of divine love burns more purely and efficaciously, consuming not only the self, but extending outward and perfect conformity to the will of God.

Father Martin Jiggy writes, quote, "A soul may go to purgatory, then for three reasons. On account of venial sins not remitted here on earth. On account of vicious inclinations left in the soul through habits of sin. On account of the temporal punishment due to every sin mortal or venal committed after baptism and not sufficiently atoned for during life. Certain souls go to purgatory for the third reason only, that is temporal death. For they have brought to the judgment seat neither venial sins nor ingrained inclinations to vice. If a person dies with one single venial sin on his soul, he is condemned to purgatory for the first and third reasons since venial sin too must be atoned for." End quote.

However, with regard to vicious inclinations to sin, Juggy writes, quote, "Then again, it could be safely said that no one goes to purgatory solely for the second reason that is vicious inclinations to sin. Since vicious inclinations do not in themselves constitute sins, and the majority of theologians hold with St. Thomas that these inclinations do not survive the first instant that follows separation of soul and body. They disappear in that instant for the soul in a state of grace once it finds itself in the presence of God strains towards him with aror and hates intensely all that displeases him. This violent turning away from sin suffices to detach the soul from every inclination to commit sin and gives to it a perfect moral rectitude. The position becomes perfectly clear when it is remembered that the greater number, if not all, of vicious inclinations are linked in some fashion to sensibility and the organs of sense whose exercise is suspended by the separation of body and soul affected by death." End quote.

Hence, to speak of purgatory as progressive sanctification through which we are detached from sin is not consistent with Catholic theology. It may be a permissible view, but it's certainly, at least in my opinion, not consistent. So, while to say otherwise is not a condemned opinion, it's certainly not in line with the church Catholic. This is not only true about sinful inclinations, but also about venial sins. Here we are speaking of the remission of venial sins, not of the temporal debt incurred by them. The sin, which is the foundation for the debt, can be forgiven, but this does not de facto remove the debt. This depth that remains is why we do penance in this life.

Father Jiggy writes, quote, "What is said of vicious inclinations is true also of venial sins not remitted here below. The act of perfect contrition breathed by the soul at the moment of death suffices to wipe out the guilt of venial sin, but they remain the expedatory chastisements fixed by divine justice." Here again is the doctrine of St. Thomas and held by the best theologians. It would appear to be the only true one. The idea of progressive purification from venial sin as such and from vicious inclinations ought to be discarded as not in harmony with the state of souls separated from their bodies. End quote.

On this St. Thomas Aquinas comments, quote, "Guilt is not remitted by punishment, but venial sin as to its guilt is remitted in purgatory by virtue of grace, not only as existing in the habit, but also as proceeding to the act of charity in deastation of venial sin." End quote. The reason for this is due to the perfection of the virtue of charity.

As father Juggy most beautifully writes, quote, "We have seen that according to the best theologians following St. Thomas, venial sins and vicious inclinations disappear on the threshold of purgatory with the engulfing of the whole soul in the virtue of charity, queen, mother, and nurse of all virtues. For charity is the nuptial robe which instantly imparts its many colored glory to the spouse of Christ. No longer is there spot or wrinkle in her. All is perfectly ordered, pure, holy, immaculate. From the moment it gets free play in the soul, charity destroys the least disorder, the least imperfection. Such as the doctrine of St. Paul in the 13th chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. The apostle shows that charity is the synthesis of all the virtues. Besides, it is of Catholic faith that after death, one cannot merit, one cannot make progress, one can no longer better oneself. The degree of charity to which the soul has reached at its last breath, is the eternal degree of its charity. It marks as it were the eternal temperature of the soul, its place in the hierarchy of supernatural values, its diaspan in the chant which the elect around the throne of the most holy trinity." End quote.

In fact, ironically, while St. Augustine along with obviously other church fathers never doubted the temporal punishments due to sin and purgatory. It's precisely the idea about progressive purification from our attachment that St. Augustine doubted about purgatory. Again, St. Augustine never doubts that there are temporal punishments due to sin for which we suffer in purgatory. But what he does doubt is whether we suffer in purgatory because we are being purified from our attachments progressively. He says this multiple times. For example, quote, "Something like this is not unbelievable after this life as well, and the possibility of it is worth considering. It may or may not be discovered that some of the faithful are saved by a kind of purifying fire swiftly or slowly as much or as little as they have loved perishable goods." End quote. Here, St. Augustine is clearly doubting whether the soul suffers as it is being detached from its temporal attachments in this world.

Further in his entryon he writes quote and that it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into and either ascertained or left doubtful whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish be more or less quickly delivered from it. End quote.

Thus, it follows from all this that the principle and one might even say the unique reason for the existence of purgatory is the temporal punishment due to sins committed after baptism. Since neither venial sin nor vicious inclination survives the first instant that follows death. Immediately on its entering purgatory, the soul is perfectly holy, perfectly torn towards God, filled with the purest love. It has no means of bettering itself nor of progressing in virtue. That would be an impossibility after death and it must suffer for love the just punishment which it sin have merited. End quote.

This brings us to the relationship between baptism and the sacrament of penance and the difference in their effect. Baptism is the sacrament of birth through which we enter the spiritual life and are marked with the baptismal seal. The sacrament of penance does not mark one with a character but returns one to the state of grace and can be repeated more than once. Although they both justify the unjust by the infusion of gifts, they are not the exact same with regard to the effect.

Father Juggy writes, quote, "In this connection, it is well to notice the difference that exists between the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of penance as regards the remission of sins. At baptism, God shows himself royal and magnificent in his pardon in forgiving with a total and plenary forgiveness all the recipients sins. On leaving the baptismal font, the neophite is white as snow. Were he to die, he would immediately enter heaven, for he is clothed with the innocence and the merit of Jesus. Looking on that soul, God sees in it his well-beloved son. All you who have been baptized in Christ, says St. Paul, have put on Christ. That grace of baptism is so grand and so splendid that in the designs of God, it should be the first dawn flesh of eternal life. According to that saying of holy rit, the path of the just is as the brilliant light of morning, whose light will grow in the splendor unto noon." End quote.

One can therefore conceive the indignation of our heavenly father when he sees us extinguishing in ourselves this aurora of eternal life by mortal sin or dimming its light by deliberate venial sin. Doubtless his merciful heart is touched by our cries of repentance. Foreseeing our weakness. He has established a second stream to wash us from our iniquities and restore us to the whiteness of the robe we have tarnished. That second stream is a sacrament of penance. But this time the pardon will not be so generous as at baptism. Outrage love will raise the arm of avenging justice. The soul is released from the sin and from the eternal punishment which was its due, but it must submit to a temporal chastisement proportionate to the gravity of its offense. There is no absconding from this chastisement. If the debt is not paid here below, it is carried forward to the next life.

We now come to the difference between expeation and purification. Father Jiggy writes, quote, "To purify properly signifies the removal of a blotch, a physical stain, the making clean. By extension, we speak of moral purification because there is question of removing a stain of spiritual order. The word experation on the contrary belongs in its own right to the vocabulary of morality and spirituality. It can be used of free persons only. To expedate is to repair a fault by a pain, by a chastisement which the guilty one imposes on himself or to which he submits as imposed by the person he has offended. Of itself, expeation does not tend towards the good or the ailaration of him who does it, but it aims at making an honorable amend to the person injured at the cost of the offender." End quote.

From this we can draw two important conclusions. First, as Father Juggy writes, quote, "If purgatory had for its end to better these souls, to make them progress in perfection, to educate them little by little for their entry into heaven, it would be incomprehensible that we could take their place, alleviate their pains, shorten and even end them by intervention." End quote.

Second, this is exactly why we should do penance in this life. This is why living a life full of fasting, prayer, arms, mortification, and all other voluntary sacrifices is crucial while we still walk on earth. Not only is there the risk of landing in hell if one aims for purgatory by maintaining a lousy spiritual life, but as Father Juggy writes, quote, "Our satisfactions while on earth not only appease the justice of God, but win for us grace and merit, for they are good works at once satisfactory and meritorious. The pains of purgatory, on the contrary, are purely satisfactory, for there is no meriting after death. Here below, the sinner in accepting fully the chastisement for sin merits with a merit of congruity, a demunition of his punishment. This congruous merit exists no longer for the soul in purgatory, even though it accepts the punishment with a mightier love than earth could ever know." End quote.

As Ecclesiastes 11:3 says, quote, "If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth. And if the tree fall toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree fallth, there it shall be." End quote. More clearly, St. Paul says regarding Christians, for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may receive the things done in his body according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad. End quote.

As St. Augustine comments in his entridion, quote, "Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demarit is acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man's suffering after this life. No one then need hope that after he is dead, he shall obtain merit with God, which he has neglected to secure here. And accordingly, it is plain that the services which the church celebrates for the dead are in no way opposed to the apostles word. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in his body according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad. For the merit which renders such services as I speak of profitable to a man, is earned while he lives in the body." End quote.

How foolish then would it be not to make use of this life to make satisfaction for our sins and to also merit and grow in charity. How foolish are those who delay the expeation of their sins to purgatory where though one accepts these chastisements with the sweetest fervor of charity there is no merit.

Now we can move on to speak about the pains of purgatory. It's important to note that the magisterium has not formally taught on the nature of these pains. Though what follows are certain or probable conclusions supported by authoritative theologians. Father Juggy writes, quote, "What are these expedatory pains? We can say immediately that these pains are proportioned to the number and to the subjective gravity of the sins to be expedated. The subjective gravity depends on the state of the soul of the sinner at the moment he commits the sin. The same fault can be more or less grave in the eyes of God, according as it is committed with more or less knowledge, advertence, and consent by one who has received more or less of the divine favors and graces, and who is held by his social position and the duties of his state to more or less of vigilance over himself to more or less responsibility in influencing others. As St. Augustine says, quote, 'During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man's death and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth.'" End quote.

In purgatory, we thus find two pains. The common pain of hunger for God and the pain of sense. The first is the primary torment of the holy souls possessing the fire of charity. These souls hunger for God with the most ardent desire, but they cannot yet see him as those in heaven. It would be erroneous, however, to imagine that this pain is merely negative, similar to the discomfort that one feels when he is hungry during a work meeting 30 minutes before lunch. This pain is far worse because its final cause is greater. One is no longer hungry with bodily appetite, but rather one's soul is filled with a living flame of love, which ardently desires not bodily food, but the bread of life. God himself for all eternity.

Father Juggy writes, quote, "At the moment of death, the scales fall from the eyes of the soul, and it sees God as its sovereign good and only felicity, that it is made for him, and that he is its all. It is given a mighty revelation of the immense gratuitous love with which it has always been enveloped and its love for him knows no limits. An irresistible attraction draws it to him. But its Elon is hindered by the debt of its sin which with great willingness it must pay to divine justice or rather to outraged love. The great desire to offer to that love a just reparation devours them. At the same time their hunger and thirst for the beloved pierces them with the agony of longing. That is their great torment. A torment far exceeding all the torments of this world because it is of another order and surpasses our experiences." End quote.

Now what about the pain of sense? One may say that these pains flow from the delay of the beific vision. So that the delay of the be but beautifific vision is the primary and in a sense the only pain. But how can the soul suffer if it's immaterial? Is it done by a sort of miracle? Is a fire of purgatory a material fire? On these, one may hold any view since the church has no particular teaching. It's important to note, however, at least according to several great theologians, the least of the pains in purgatory surpass the greatest pains on earth. As St. Augustine says, quote, "That fire will be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever." End quote.

Why then would we postpone the atonement of our sins for the next life? It will be much more painful and it will not be meritorious. We won't grow in charity in purgatory, so we must use this life to make atonement. But why can't God just fully remit this debt without our suffering? Well, he obviously can.

Father Juggy writes, quote, "Certain adversaries, however, here make an objection which at first sight is devastating enough. It is seemly, they say, that God, who is a good father, should not watch with steel-ointed eye the small sins of his children. Why should he not gratuitously remit these venial faults? Why should he not give to them at the hour of death a complete amnesty in respect of the pain the sinner ought still to suffer? Certainly God could do that. But would it be wise? This brings me to the final two points for this video. The existence of purgatory shows us both the wisdom of God as well as his divine goodness and love towards mankind. First, with regard to God's wisdom in willing and creating purgatory, Father Jiggy writes, quote, 'If purgatory did not exist, God would treat in precisely the same manner the fervent and the lukewarm, the hero and the slacker, the perfect and the imperfect. Doubtless he could accord to the saint a more exalted place in heaven. Yet see the immediate consequence of that theory. If the menace of purgatorial pains hardly suffices to inspire in us a horror of sin in general and the venial sin in particular, what would be the case if the gates of heaven were so to speak halfoped immediately after death to those who lead a lazy and lukewarm life to those who loiter about the thin line that marks the frontiers of mortal and obvenial sin, to those who shrug their shoulders after expedatory penences once they have received absolution for mortal sin. Such a doctrine would favor laxity. It would be the ruin of the life of perfection. Still more, it would conduct the souls quickly to mortal sin towards death. For the dividing line of mortal and venial sin can be difficult to determine. In a word, take away the doctrine of purgatory and you immediately open up to human souls. That great way and wide path leading to eternal predition of which the savior speaks in the gospels.'" End quote.

Purgatory then majestically reflects God's wisdom in that dreading the purgatorial flames with a holy fear, the Christian is moved to penance and greater holiness, avoiding sin with a greater effort and many other things which are not at all possible without the grace of Jesus Christ. Further, this also reflects God's goodness towards us. We see in purgatory God's fatherly love which compels us to avoid sin.

Father Jiggy writes, quote, "A father shows his goodness towards his children when he treats them with punishment if they expose themselves to danger of body or soul. He will, for example, forbid them to bathe in a dangerous river or to read an immoral book. In establishing purgatory to punish sin, to turn us away very specially from those faults which are called venal and are in reality so dangerous. God has not only safeguarded the rights of his holiness, justice and wisdom, but he has also consulted our own best interest. He foresaw that venial sin of its nature would lead straight to mortal sin. That is a fact indeed of everyday experience. And he underlined it when he said that he who is unfaithful in that which is least is unfaithful also in that which is greater. It would therefore be unjust to accuse God of severity when he hangs over our heads the threat of purgatory. Rather is this a proof of his infinite goodness." End quote.

That is all for this video, but I highly recommend you read Father Martin's book Purgatory and the Means to avoid it. Not only did I obviously not cover everything in the book, but for this video, I limited myself to the first half of the book, which only speaks about purgatory. In the second half, Father Juggy speaks about the avoidance of purgatory through the means that the church provides and that were instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope it edified. I hope you can take this to prayer. If you are not yet subscribed, go ahead and subscribe. Like this video, comment down below, share, and God bless you.

St. Augustine taught the doctrine of purgatory throughout his pastoral life which spanned almost 40 years. He distinguished between temporal punishment suffered in this life and temporal punishment suffered in the next life due to venial sins. He taught this throughout many of his works, not just one, and taught this as an absolute certainty using language like quote it cannot be denied. End quote. He taught that offering the mass for those who are suffering temporary punishments after death was the universal practice of the church and was received from the ancient fathers and even used scripture to support it. However, St. Augustine did speculate on the nature of purgatory. Different details as we will see. But these details are still speculated about with our own theologians nowadays. So this is not a problem. What he was always certain about was postmortem suffering even for the saved for venial sins which is purgatory.

Now recently I engaged in a lengthy discussion on ex or Twitter with a Lutheran who claims that St. St. Augustine didn't teach purgatory. I won't name him, but the evidence is so clear. I even had Protestants DM me and ask why this Lutheran wasn't engaging the true evidence. However, the arguments of this Lutheran are actually just the same as Martin Kemnitz, a well-known Lutheran theologian and second generation reformer. In my past videos, I've covered Protestant arguments from Kemnitz, and I have noted that a good amount of them are just not good. But in this topic, it's quite horrible. Honestly, it's truly surprising how anyone who has read St. Augustine can find this convincing. Martin Kemnitz writes are these things at once without any examination to be accepted as articles of faith just because Augustine thought thus this Augustine certainly never wanted end quote but we will see this is not a question for St. Augustine is an absolute certainty and a practice of the whole church supported by tradition and scripture so the way that Protestants and including keenets like to cope about this is they use three steps one they focus on the text where St. Augustine speculates about the nature of purgatory and claim he is doubting purgatory's existence as a whole. Two, they ignore the text where St. Augustine explicitly affirms the church's belief in purgatory. Martin Kemnus does this, for example. And three, they take St. Augustine's teachings on prayers for the dead to mean that they work a temporally or outside of time. In other words, they claim that St. Augustine taught that praying for a diseased person worked outside of time by asking God to save the person before they died. But as we will see, St. St. Augustine is clear on how prayers and offering the mass for the dead helps them.

In this video, I will show from St. Augustine's own words that he taught, one, there are temporal punishments even for the saved after death. Two, offering alms or the Eucharist as a propitiation benefits those suffering temporal punishments after death. And three, this is both biblical and the practice of the universal church.

Now, my good friend Christian Wagner recently did a video on this, but mine will be structured in a slightly different way, having different aims to respond to one, the discussion I had on Twitter, and two, Martin Kemnets. However, his video is actually way more in-depth than mine, and even covers a letter of St. Augustine, which was recently found in which St. Augustine regards the denial of purgatory as a Pelagian error. Seriously, that's how sure St. Augustine was about purgatory.

Now, because Protestants could not fathom that St. St. Augustine certainly believed in purgatory. We will begin by addressing the most common objection, a very bad objection often made by Protestants who portray St. Augustine as one who was not sure about purgatory. For example, Gavin Ortland tried to frame it in this way in his video on purgatory.

>> Have a lot of speculation and openness that even Augustine who's often held to be a key representative witness for purgatory, his views are actually very complicated and sort of open-handed. In his incorrid and either ascertained or left doubtful whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire and in proportion as they have loved complicated with Augustine is certainly he's not sort of dogmatic about this. He kind of is leaving it open exactly how much is this going to happen? how certain are we and so forth.

>> Now Trent Horn replied to this claim and made it clear that St. Augustine was not doubting purgatory but from what I can tell Gavin never replied and the discussions on X that I recently had also Martin Kemminance Verigi they also use these quotes to try to claim that St. Augustine did not teach purgatory in St. In Augustine's and Charidion chapter 69, he writes, quote, "And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life." End quote.

Now, immediately he expresses some uncertainty, saying, quote, "It is not impossible." End quote. Well, what's not impossible? He says, quote, "That something of the same kind may take place even after this life." End quote. Well, what is this something of the same kind? For this, we simply need to look a chapter before since he is continuing a discussion that he was having in that previous chapter. In the previous chapter, chapter 68, he is discussing the grief caused by losing the worldly things we are attached to. He writes, quote, "The work of the former is not burned because he has not given his love to things whose loss can grief him. But the work of the latter is burned because things that are enjoyed with desire cannot be lost without pain. But since by our supposition, even the latter prefers to lose these things rather than to lose Christ. And since he does not desert Christ out of fear of losing him, though he is grieved when he does lose them, he is saved. But it is so as by fire because the grief for what he loved and has lost burns him." End quote. So it is clear he's talking about when we lose these things that we are attached to this causes us pain. But then he continues in the next chapter chapter 69 which Protestants bring forth to discuss if this happens also after this life. He says quote and it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into and either ascertained or left doubtful whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish be less or more quickly delivered from it. End quote.

Here is the laddin on the screen. You can see this is what he says. Notice that now he is speculating on whether after this life there is also a fire in which we suffer for our attachments not venial sins. He says as they have loved the goods that perish end. He further speculates on the proportion of suffering this causes. Quote, "In proportion, as they have loved with more or less devotion to goods that perish, be more or less quickly delivered from it." End quote. Again, here is the Latin text if we break it down. He says, "It's not impossible, and it may be inquired into whether some of the faithful will pass through a kind of purgatorial fire and be saved from it in proportion to how much they have loved the things of this world." So clearly, he is not doubting the existence of purgatory, but rather how the punishment relates to the love of perishable goods.

He also does this in the city of God while affirming clearly the teaching that there are postmortem temporary punishments and that this is believed by the entire universal church. For example, the Lutheran on Twitter or X also cites St. Augustine's response to the eight questions of Dositius. But the Latin is the very same as the one in his entridion. He is only speculating on the proportion of punishment to the degree of one's love to these temporal things to these worldly things. Hence, he says, quote, "Something like this is not unbelievable after this life as well, and the possibility of it is worth considering. It may or may not be discovered that some of the faithful are saved by a kind of purifying fire swiftly or slowly as much or as little as they have loved perishable goods." End quote. This is not doubting purgatory. This is doubting if we suffer for losing things that we love after this life. For him to doubt purgatory, he would have to say, "Well, it must be inquired if after this life we are punished for the venial sins that we commit in this life." He never says that.

This is the same argument that Martin Kenets uses. He claims that St. Augustine would have denied purgatory explicitly, but he felt pressured by the influence of origin and his followers on this. He writes, quote, "But about the intermediate time after the death of the body until the day of judgment, seeing that the followers of origin had placed the purgatorial penalties of the just there with a human assertion, Augustine, because he did not dare to reject this openly, considered it sufficient to have shown that it is not a sure and firm dogma, but an obscure, ambiguous, doubtful, and uncertain disputation." End quote. He then goes on to list the passages where St. Augustine speculates about purgatory's nature as if he was doubting its existence. He continues, quote, "Thus, therefore, Augustine in part rejected and in part rendered doubtful and uncertain the opinions of origin about purgatorial punishments after this life which among the Latins were held in admiration even by the learned such as Ambrose and Jerome." End quote. But as I have clearly shown, St. Augustine is speculating on whether there is suffering for losing worldly attachments. This is not doubting purgatory.

As we have seen, many Protestants have an inability to read and understand the doctrine of grace. Kemnets even suggested that St. Augustine did not believe the Eucharist was a propitiation to aid those in purgatory, which we will see is just not true. As I said, from his words, I will show that one, there are temporal punishments even for the saved after death. Offering alms or the Eucharist is a propitiation, and it benefits those suffering temporal punishments after death. And that this is both biblical and the practice of the universal church according to St. Augustine. So, let's get into it.

First, St. And Augustine is clear that there is temporary suffering in this life and in the next. Quote, "One who cultivates his field interiorly and gains his bread, albeit with toil, can suffer this toil up to the end of his life. But after this life he need not suffer. One who did not cultivate his field and allowed it to be overcome with thorns has in this life the curse of his earth and all his works. And after this life he will have either the fire of purggation or eternal punishment. Thus no one escapes this sentence but we should act so that we feel only in this life." End quote. Here he makes three classes. One, those who cultivate their field or suffer in this life but after this life do not suffer. Those who did not cultivate their field and thus feel the sentence in the next life in the fire of puggation and those who did not cultivate their field and thus feel the sentence in the next life in eternal punishment.

Further commenting on Psalm 37, he writes, quote, "Oh Lord, rebuke me not in your indignation, neither chasten me in your hot displeasure. For it will be that some shall be chastened in God's hot displeasure, and rebuked in his indignation. And it may be that not all who are rebuked will be chastened. Yet are there some that are to be saved in the chastening." So it is to be indeed because it is called chastening. But yet it shall be so as by fire. But there are to be some who will be rebuked and will not be corrected. For he will at all events rebuke those to whom he will say, "I was hungered and you gave me no meat." Neither chasen me in your hot displeasure, so that you may cleanse me in this life, and make me such that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire. For those who are to be saved as by fire. Why? Why? But because they build upon the foundation wood, stubble, and hay. Now they should build on it gold, silver, and precious stones, and should have nothing to fear from either fire. Not only that which is to consume the ungodly forever, but also that which is to purge those who are to escape through the fire. For it is said, he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. And because it's said, he shall be saved, that fire is thought lightly of. For all that, though we should be saved by fire, yet that fire will be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever." End quote. Here St. Augustine teaches that there is a suffering in this life and this is God's chastening or rebuking and that there are those who are in fact saved but yet suffer in the next life and that their chastening is more grievous than the suffering in this life. How much more clear can it get?

In City of God book 21, St. Augustine mentions the Plleonist opinion that all punishments after death are purgatorial and then states what the church's belief is as opposed to the Plleonist opinion. Again, take note of how he is not speculating but simply stating the belief of the church. He first introduces the Plleist opinion, saying, quote, "They who are of this opinion would have all punishments after death to be purgatorial." End quote. And this refers, of course, to a denial of hell, everlasting punishment. He then writes about what the church's teaching is collectively. Quote, "For our part, we recognize that even in this life, some punishments are purgatorial, but temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then. But all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment. For to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next. That is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come." End quote. What about this? I I really want to ask, what about this sounds like uncertainty or speculation? Nothing.

Three chapters later, he excludes baptized infants from suffering temporal punishments because of the grace that they receive at baptism. Quote, "Although the present life be immediately brought to an end, the child having been translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ shall not only be saved from eternal punishments, but shall not even suffer purgatorial torments after death." Now, by the way, this already implies that he believes that there is such a purgatorial torment after death. He continues, "For spiritual regeneration of itself suffices to prevent any evil consequences resulting after death from the connection with death with carnal generation forms." End quote. Now, this implies that those who are of the age of reason can suffer purgatorial punishments after death, which is exactly what he says immediately after. Quote, "But when we reach that age, which can now comprehend the commandment, and submit to the dominion of the law, we must declare war upon our vicis, and wage this war keenly, lest we be landed in damnable sins. Whoever therefore desires to escape eternal punishment, let him not only be baptized, but also justified in Christ, and so let him in truth pass from the devil to Christ. Let him not fancy that there are any purgatorial pains except before that final and dreadful judgment." End quote. There is zero language about speculation or probability here, but just a firm teaching of St. Augustine.

Now, let's cover St. Augustine's teaching on praying for the dead briefly. Some have tried to explain away St. Augustine's passages where he mentions either his own or the universal church's prayers for the dead as mere prayers for salvation prior to death. In other words, they claim St. Augustine believed that prayers for the dead worked outside of time a temporally so that God would save someone before death in the past because of future prayers. But this is clearly not St. In Augustine's teaching, he never even hints that these prayers are to help the dead when they were alive. Instead, he is clear that this is to help those already in their dead state.

In chapter 24, he writes, quote, "But if the church were certain who those are, who though they are still abiding in this life, are yet predestined to go with the devil into eternal fire, then for them she could no more pray than for him. But since she has this certainty regarding no one, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world. And yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she has heard in the case of those only who though they oppose the church are yet predestined to become her sons through her intercession." End quote. So far here St. Augustine is teaching that the church prays for all living men because the church does not know who was predestined. Now when it comes to praying for the deceased, he clarifies that the church prays for only those who died in Christ. This has nothing to do with asking God to save them atorally before their death, but rather prayers to help those who die in grace. He continues, quote, "But if any retain an impenitent heart until death and are not converted from enemies into sons, does the church continue to pray for them for the spirits of such persons deceased? And why does she cease to pray for them unless because the man who was not translated into Christ's kingdom while he was in the body is now judged to be of Satan's following?" End quote. Right after this, he further clarifies that the church's prayers for the dead are only for those who die in Christ. Quote, "It is then, I say, the same reason which prevents the church at any time from praying for the wicked angels, which prevents her from praying hereafter for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire. And this is also the reason why, though she prays even for the wicked so long as they live, she yet does not even in this world pray for the unbelieving and godless who are dead. For some of the dead indeed, the prayer of the church or of pious individuals is heard. But it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of

Such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. End quote.

So here Augustine gives three categories: those who live so wickedly who are unworthy of these prayers, those who died in Christ but still need prayers but did not live so well, and those who died in Christ and do not need prayers after death because they lived so well.

Finally, St. Augustine explicitly states that after the resurrection, some of the dead will not go into eternal punishment, though they did suffer pains proper to the spirits of the dead. How much more clear can this get? He says, quote, "As also after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded and a quiddle from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, they shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come." Matthew 12:32. End quote.

There is nothing about speculation here. In chapter 26 of the very same 21st book of City of God, St. Augustine speculates once more, like he does in his Entridion chapter 69 and his Questions to Doitius, on whether our attachments or venial attachments, not venial sins, are a cause of suffering or loss in the next life. Quote, "But if it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the bodies of the dead shall be exposed to a fire such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind. If it be said that such worldliness being venial shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation either here only or here and hereafter both or here that it may not be hereafter. This I do not refute because possibly it is true." End quote.

This is the same thing he says in chapter 69 of his Entridion and his first response to Doitius's questions. He's speculating on whether our attachments, like he says, whether our pleasures are a cause of suffering after this life. Right here, many Protestants will ignore everything St. Augustine has just said about the certainty of postmortem suffering for venial sins and jump to the conclusion that he is speculating on whether purgatory exists at all. This makes no sense. We need to ask what it is that St. Augustine does not refute and allows for possibility. It is not temporary punishments after death, since we already established that he holds us to be a certain belief of the church. What he allows is a possibility that our attachments to worldly things are burnt up. This is clear in what he says right after. Quote, "But whoever prefers, I do not say his wife, but any of those relatives who afford no delight of such a kind and whom it is right to love, whoever prefers these to Christ and loves them after a human and carnal fashion, does not have Christ as a foundation, and will therefore not be saved by fire, nor indeed at all. But he who loves his relations carnally, and yet so that he does not prefer them to Christ, but would rather lose them than Christ if he were put to the proof, shall be saved by fire, because it is necessary that by the loss of these relations he suffer pain in proportion to his love." End quote.

So now he's talking about losing these attachments in this life. But he always speculates about whether these attachments will cause us pain in the next life. This is exactly again, like I pointed out in chapters 68 and 69 of Entridion, the exact same thing. I I don't know how much more clear it can get. St. Augustine is certain about punishments after death for venial sin, but he speculates about suffering due to losing worldly attachments. And this is not a denial of purgatory. However, Kemnit, Vermeiggley, Dr. Ortland, the Lutheran who I was discussing this with on Twitter, will look at passages of the second category, suffering due to losing worldly attachments, and they'll ignore and try to muddy the passages of the first topic of the first category.

This now brings us back to St. Augustine's teaching on the church's prayers for the dead. Again, many Protestants claim that these prayers are supposed to work outside of time. But as I just showed, St. Augustine teaches that these are to help the dead in their dead state. However, he is even more clear elsewhere that these prayers are to forgive the sins of the dead and reduce their suffering. He even calls the mass a propitiation.

So, we return to his Entridion, or his handbook on faith, hope, and love, where he speaks about purgatory as a certainty before chapter 69 and after. In chapter 65, he covers penance in the church and the authority that the church has to forgive these sins. This is important because after this, he will begin to talk about the forgiveness of sins after this life. Quote, "But even crimes themselves, however great, may be remitted in the holy church. And the mercy of God is never to be despaired by men who truly repent, each according to the measure of a sin. And the act of penance where a crime has been committed of such a nature, as to cut off the sinner from the body of Christ, we are not to take account so much of the measure of time as the measure of sorrow. For a broken and contrite heart God does not despise. But as the grief of one heart is frequently hid from another, and is not made known to others by words and or signs, when it is manifest to him of whom it is said, 'My groaning is not hid from you.' Those who govern the church have rightly appointed times of penitence, that the church in which the sins are remitted may be satisfied, and outside the church sins are not remitted. For the church alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit, without which there is no remission of sins, such at least as brings the pardon to eternal life." End quote.

Now in chapter 66, right after he talks about temporal punishments. Quote, "For many sins seem in this world to be overlooked and visited with no punishment whose punishment is reserved for the future. For it is not in vain that the day when Christ shall come as judge of quick and dead is peculiarly named the day of judgment. Just as on the other hand many sins are punished in this life which nevertheless are pardoned and shall bring down no punishment in the future life. Accordingly, in reference to certain temporal punishments which in this life are visited upon sinners. The apostle addressing those whose sins are blotted out and not reserved for the final judgment says, 'For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, but when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned in the world.'" End quote.

In chapters 109 through 110 of the very same work in which St. Augustine supposedly denies purgatory, he writes, "During the time moreover which intervenes between a man's death and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth." End quote.

So far, it is clear that St. Augustine has in mind the time between death and the resurrection. He continues, quote, "Nor can it be denied, notice how this cannot be denied. This is not speculation. This is not an uncertainty. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead are benefited by the piety of their living friends who offer the sacrifice of the mediator or give alms in the church on their behalf. But these services are of advantage only to those who during their lives have earned such merit that services of this kind can help them. For there is a manner of life which is neither so good as to not require these services after death, nor so bad that such services are of no avail after death. There is on the other hand a kind of life so good as to not require them. And again, once so bad that when life is over they render no help." End quote.

So he gives us three groups: those who lived so good who don't need these prayers, those who live so bad and these prayers are of no avail, and those who live not so good. This is in Latin, *neque bonus* but not so bad, *neque tam malus*. So now we can ask, what is the type of help that is offered to them when the alms are given, when the mass is offered for them? He continues, quote, "It is not to everyone that these services are profitable, and why are they not profitable to all except because of the different kinds of lives that men lead in the body. When then sacrifices either of the altar or of alms are offered on behalf of all the baptized dead, they are thank offerings for the very good. They are propitiatory offerings for the not very bad. And in the case of the very bad, even though they do not assist the dead, they are a species of consolation to the living. And where they are profitable, their benefit consists either in obtaining a full remission of sins or at least in making the condemnation more tolerable." End quote.

I I really don't know how much more clear this can get. He says that offering the mass or making alms for those who are dead but who lived a very bad life, it does not help them at all. But it does help some who are dead. And how does this help them? Well, it helps them in either obtaining a full remission of sins or at least making the condemnation more tolerable. This condemnation is not for those in hell, because he already said that it doesn't assist those in hell. But he says it assists those who did not live so good and did not live so bad. It again, it assists them in obtaining a full remission of sins. This would be getting them out of purgatory, or at least in reducing their punishment in purgatory.

Notice how nothing here, nothing at all, even hints that St. Augustine is speculating or uncertain about purgatory. He describes this as a universal practice of the church and uses words like "there can be no doubt," or "it cannot be doubted," or "nor can it be denied." This is not something that can be denied for St. Augustine, since it has backing in scripture and from the practice of the universal church.

With this in mind, we then approach other texts of his in which he speaks of prayers for the dead to aid them in their dead state and not to help them outside of time, as the Protestants claim. In Sermon 172, he preaches about the tragedy of death and why the Apostle St. Paul exhorts us to not be saddened about the death of Christians. He writes, quote, "So it is that funeral processions, expensive arrangements for burial can be some sort of consolation for the living but of no assistance to the dead. It is not to be doubted though that the dead can be helped by the prayers of the holy church and the salvific sacrifice and alms distributed for the repose of their spirits so that God may deal with them more mercifully than their sins have deserved. The whole church, I mean, observes this tradition received from the fathers that the prayers of the dead should be offered for those who have died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ whenever their names are mentioned at the sacrifice in the usual place and that it should be announced that the sacrifice is offered for them." End quote.

So going back to how these prayers benefit them in obtaining a full remission of sin or at least reducing their punishment after death, then we see here that he teaches that the whole church observes this and it's received from the fathers. Now, my Lutheran discussion partner on X kept bringing this up and claiming that this was talking about prayers helping them temporally, helping them, you know, outside of time, that they may have died in a state of grace. But as I have shown, St. Augustine is speaking of those who are already in their dead state, and this is to obtain a full remission of sins or help their condemnation, reducing this punishment.

St. Augustine then also writes in another sermon, quote, "There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of martyrs are read aloud in the in that place at the altar of God where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended." End quote.

So here, in keeping with his other teachings, as we have seen, St. Augustine teaches: one, prayers, the offering of the Eucharist, and alms help the dead. This only helps those who died in Christ. This is so that God may deal with their sins more lightly and to obtain a full remission of sins. And this is observed by the whole church universally, not just him. And it was passed down by the fathers. The claim that he thought that these prayers helped the dead before their death, outside of time, is not in the thought of St. Augustine. And this is clear because he speaks about these prayers helping the dead who died in Christ. They're already in Christ after their death, but they're still undergoing temporal punishments in the next life.

He continues, quote, "There can be no doubt at all that these things are of value to the departed, but to such of them as lived in such a way before they died as would enable them to profit for from these things after death." End quote.

He finishes by exhorting us to pray for the dead and make offerings for them. Quote, "By all means, let us perform these last offices for our dead and thereby soo our natural human grief. But we should be much more punctilious, more present, and more generous in seen to those things which can help the spirits of the dead, such as offerings, prayers, and expenditure on good works and armsgiving. That is, if we love those who have died in the flesh, not the spirit, with an affection that is not merely of the flesh, but also spiritual." End quote.

Here, as I have shown all throughout, St. Augustine presumes that these prayers and offerings are aiding those who are already in Christ at death.

In his work On the Care for the Dead, St. Augustine begins by explaining the church's practice of prayer for the dead and discussing several passages of sacred scripture. He first starts with 2 Corinthians 5:10, quote, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may receive good or evil according to what he has done in the body." End quote. St. Augustine comments, quote, "For this apostolic sentence admonishes us to do before that which may profit after death, not then when there is to a receiving of that which a person shall have done before death." True. But this question is thus solved, namely that there is a certain kind of life by which is acquired while one lives in this body, that it should be possible for these things, prayers for the dead, to be of some help to the departed, and consequently it is according to the things done by the body that they are aided by the things which shall after they have left the body be religiously done on their behalf. So it comes to pass as well that not unmeaningly does the church or care of friends bestow upon the departed whatever of religion it shall be able as also that nevertheless each receives according to the things which he has done to by the body whether it be good or bad the Lord rendering unto each according to his works. For that this which is bestowed should be capable of profiting him after the body, this was acquired in that life which he has led in the body." End quote.

He then references 2 Maccabees, which shows prayers offered for the dead. But he says that even if scripture did not speak of this, the practice of the universal church, *universalis ecclesia*, is enough to approve the practice. Quote, "In the book of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. How be even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority which in this usage is clear of the whole church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at his altar, the commenation of the dead has also its place." End quote.

Now, at this point in the video, I urge you to go check out my friend Christian Wagner's video on this, which he goes into greater detail in his channel Scholastic Answers. In the end of his video, and I won't include that here, I don't want to steal his thunder, he covers a recently discovered letter of St. Augustine to St. Sir of Alexandria in which he considers a denial of purgatory a Pelagian error. I mean, that's how sure St. Augustine was about purgatory. Denying it for him was was a thing of the Pelagians at his time. Now go check that out. It's truly amazing how only from St. Augustine we get that one. There are temporal punishments even for the saved after death. Offering alms or the Eucharist as a propitiation benefits those suffering temporal punishments after death. This is both biblical and the practice of the universal church, and in his time, denying this was a Pelagian error. We can, of course, look at the teachings of St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyril, St. Epiphanius, and many, many others to see that this practice and belief is in fact ancient and universal, as St. Augustine tells us. But this will do for now. If you enjoyed this video, subscribe, like, and share this video with others. I hope you have a great day and God bless you.

Often, those who deny the traditional teaching on baptism's efficacy appeal to Acts chapter 10 and the episode in which Cornelius and his household begin to speak in tongues as they hear St. Peter preaching the gospel to them. Rather than interpreting this passage as the Holy Spirit being given in order to show St. Peter through miracles that the Gentiles can be baptized into Christ, they instead interpret this passage to mean that this is the ordinary way in which people are saved. They hear the gospel, they are regenerated by believing, and then they are baptized afterwards. Interpreted in this latter sense, this passage would challenge baptismal regeneration. This is frequently argued today by Protestants such as, for example, Dr. Gavin Orland, who often says that what he sees in Acts chapter 10 is what he often observes in his ministry. He sees people come to faith and they are afterwards baptized, even though they are already showing fruits of the spirit.

"Acts, you get Cornelius, they respond. This is what I see in my ministry all the time. There's the word preached. There's a response to the gospel. In connection to that, there's the Holy Spirit reception. The Holy Spirit falls down. They're speaking in tongues. And then in response to that, Peter says, 'Can anyone withhold water from baptizing for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?'"

This line of argumentation is not new, however. It goes back all the way to the Reformation. For example, Rudolph Guther, a reformed Protestant from the Reformation era, comments on Acts 10. Quote, "Moreover, the example in this passage speaks against the error of the papists who tie the grace of God to the sacraments and claim to bring it into their sacraments by exorcisms and conjuring. Yet, it is clear that they are only signs and tokens of the grace given us in Christ. If you examine this account closely, you will see that the same thing happened to Cornelius as once happened to Abraham. This shows that the sacraments of both the Old and New Testaments have the same purpose. For Paul testifies that Abraham was justified by faith and afterward received circumcision, which was a seal of the righteousness of faith. In the same way, we hear that Cornelius believed and was filled with the Holy Spirit of God, an infallible proof of his regeneration and justification. Only afterward came baptism, by which all these benefits of God were sealed and confirmed. Therefore, it is clear that the grace of God is not tied to baptism, nor is it poured into us through baptism as though by a pipe or conduit." End quote.

However, this reading itself, whether or not it challenges baptismal regeneration, ought not to be taken, and I will demonstrate that in this video. First, it should be noted that several church fathers do take this reading. And while obviously they're not doing this to undermine baptismal regeneration, they do interpret Cornelius as first being regenerated when he begins to speak in tongues with his household. And I also grant that this is the reading that one would naturally come to at first glance. For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that Cornelius was born again by faith and then afterwards when he was baptized, his body would also partake of the grace through the water. Thus, because many holy fathers take this view, I do not scorn it as irrational or novel. However, I do believe that this reading is untenable and unacceptable, and I will demonstrate that here.

In fact, I don't believe that Cornelius was justified at his baptism. I believe he was already justified even before St. Peter came to visit him. Hence he is described by the book of Acts as, quote, "a devout man and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people and prayed to God always." Also, the angel who was visiting Cornelius said that his prayers had, quote, "ascended as a memorial before God." So already this should make us think, if Cornelius was first justified when he was hearing the gospel from St. Peter, how could the book of Acts say such things about him? For this reason, St. Thomas Aquinas writes, quote, "With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the gospel was not yet made manifest. Hence, Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith." End quote. And he also writes, quote, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly. And yet when he actually receives baptism, he receives a fuller remission as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before baptism, Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for baptism, implicit or explicit." End quote.

Now, for absolute proof that Cornelius was not regenerated with his household at that moment when they began to speak in tongues, as is argued by Dr. Gavin Ortland and some other Protestants who deny this traditional teaching of baptism, we only need to look at the next chapter, Acts 11, in which St. Peter recounts the same events that we just read about in Acts chapter 10. St. Peter describes it thus, quote, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." End quote.

So, St. Peter says that the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 10 by Cornelius and his household is just as it was for the apostles in the beginning, that is, Pentecost. This is made abundantly clear, and that he is pretty much paraphrasing or almost quoting verbatim what our Lord told the apostles in Acts chapter 1. Quote, "And while staying with them, he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which he said, 'You heard from me, for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" End quote.

Thus, what happened in Acts chapter 10 to Cornelius and his household is what happened to the apostles in Acts chapter 2 in Pentecost. They received what we call in the Catholic Church gratuitous graces or charismatic graces. These graces are not for the person receiving them, but they are for the whole church to strengthen the faith of the church and to expand the reach of the gospel through these miracles, which is exactly what we see in Acts chapter 10. So, it's clear that the speaking in tongues in Acts chapter 10 was to show St. Peter with certainty that Cornelius and his household, although they were Gentiles, could enter the covenant.

But if, according to St. Peter, what Cornelius received is the same thing that the apostles received back in Pentecost, then we would be claiming that the apostles were first regenerated back in Pentecost. But this makes no sense, especially since we know that the apostles already believed in Christ way before Pentecost. Even if they abandoned Christ the night before his passion, they still repented afterwards and were reconciled to him before Pentecost. So we're left with two interpretations: either Cornelius was regenerated when he began to speak in tongues, as Dr. Gavin Ortland claims and other Protestants claim. But interpreting scripture with scripture, this would mean that the apostles were first regenerated in Pentecost, according to St. Peter. Or we could interpret Acts chapter 10 as merely the giving of gratuitous graces, so that they began to perform miracles, speak in tongues, to show St. Peter that they can join the covenant.

We know that the second reading is more coherent because we also have other parts of scripture in which the Holy Spirit is received not for regeneration or justification, but for these gratuitous graces. For example, in Luke 1, St. Elizabeth received the Holy Spirit to greet and prophesy about Mary and how she is blessed among women. But even before receiving the Spirit for this prophecy, she was already described as being righteous in verse 6. In Exodus 31, the Holy Spirit was received for the gift of craftsmanship. Quote, "See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge in all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze." End quote. In Numbers 27, the Spirit is given for leadership. Quote, "So the Lord said to Moses, 'Take Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Make him stand before Eleazar the priest, and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight.'" End quote. And in Judges 14, the Spirit is given for physical strength. Quote, "Then Samson went down with his father and mother to Timnah, and they came to the vineyards of Timnah. And behold, a young lion came toward him, roaring. Then the spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and although he had nothing in his hand, he tore the lion in pieces, as one tears a young goat." End quote.

So in summary, to interpret Cornelius as being first justified when he began to speak in tongues seems to demand that the apostles were first justified and regenerated at Pentecost, which is not a tenable position. In fact, all we know from the text directly is that they began to speak in tongues, which we know from other parts of scripture that it is not tied directly to regeneration. Thus, interpreting scripture with scripture, we see that those who deny the traditional teaching on baptism's efficacy could not appeal to Acts chapter 10 as a passage that challenges such a teaching. That's all for this video. I hope you enjoyed, but even if you didn't, just subscribe, leave a like. Thank you, and God bless you.

Catholics believe that confirmation is one of the seven sacraments of the new law. As the catechism says, confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace. It roots us more deeply in that divine affiliation, which makes us cry, "Abba, Father," and it unites us more firmly to Christ by increasing these gifts of the Holy Spirit in us. It also gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ. This sacrament, also called Chrismation in the East, is given through the laying on of hands and the anointing with chrism oil. It more fully conforms the Christian to Christ's offices of priest, prophet, and king. This is because Christ, or Messiah, means the anointed one.

In this video, I will be arguing that Protestants, in rejecting the sacrament of confirmation, do not partake in the fullness of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised and gave to Christians and intended for all of us to have until the consummation of the age. Now, confirmation is rejected as a sacrament by Protestants, usually for four reasons, as highlighted by the reformed theologian Francis Turretin. First, it does not have a divine institution. Second, no divinely ordained external sign. Third, there is no word or promise of grace. And fourth, it deriggates from baptism or its sufficiency.

Now, these are the claims that I'm going to try to dispute in this video. But we see, for example, Martin Luther himself, in his work On the Captivity of Babylon, arguing against confirmation in a similar way. Another Lutheran reformer, Matthias Flacius, criticized the Catholic doctrine because Catholics believe that, quote, "through certain ceremonies of anointing, laying on of hands, and murmuring of words, they think that greater grace of the Holy Spirit is poured forth." End quote. The Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard admits that confirmation can be a sacrament in the broad sense, as it was used by the apostles in the laying on of hands, but it is not a sacrament in the proper sense. On the reformed side, John Calvin wrote an entire work on confirmation and anointing of the sick. One of his critiques against confirmation is that it drains the sufficiency of baptism and the Eucharist. There isn't much of an issue on the Anglican side. I do disagree with the distinction between sacraments of the gospel and sacraments of the church. I think they're all sacraments of the gospel, but I will not focus on that in this video.

However, we must be very careful before we cite biblical and patristic evidence against the Protestants on confirmation, specifically the Lutherans. This is because they themselves retained a rite called confirmation, and it is very similar to ours, even if they do not call it a proper sacrament. In this rite, described by Martin Chemnitz, the Lutheran theologian, in his Examination of the Council of Trent, hands are indeed laid upon the baptized, and there is a prayer said for them for the increase of the Holy Spirit. As an example of this, we can look at the 1574 Book of Order for the city of Hess in Germany. It had gone Lutheran by then, and this is what it says on confirmation. Quote, "Then the pastor and minister of the church lays his hand upon that first child who has made the confession and vow and says, 'Receive the Holy Spirit, protection and defense against all evil, strength and help unto all good.'" Very similarly, Andreas Hyperius, a reformer who was kind of in the middle between reformed and Lutheran, speaks very similarly about confirmation. Quote, "And concerning this third form of the laying on of hands, scripture speaks explicitly in Acts chapter 19, both because it was bestowed upon the newly baptized and chiefly because it was for this end that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For it was shown that just as in baptism, sins were forgiven, so in the laying on of hands after baptism, the Holy Spirit was given."

So, we see this is a pretty tricky topic, actually. We can't just cite evidence of the laying on of hands for the Holy Spirit, whether in the Bible or in the early church, and just count this as evidence against the Protestants, specifically the Lutherans. We have to be more nuanced. So, from what I can tell, from my reading, what is directly rejected by Protestants is: one, that confirmation is a true and proper sacrament in the same sense as baptism and the Eucharist. Two, obviously, if it's a sacrament, then it's commanded and intended by Christ. Three, that grace is given through the rite itself rather than through impetration. In other words, it's not just a prayer that the church is saying, but the rite itself is giving grace, such as baptism and the Eucharist. And four, that the chrism oil is efficacious matter, just as, for example, the water in baptism.

Now, the following description of the Protestant view, at least for Lutherans, I ran it through some very well-read Lutherans before this video, and they agreed and approved this description. But I said, quote, "For Protestants, particularly Lutherans, the laying on of hands with prayer at confirmation is understood as a petition for the Holy Spirit, much like any other prayer offered in the life of the church. It is not regarded as a divinely instituted sacrament that conveys grace *ex opere operato* as baptism and the Eucharist are. This is because, as Gerhard says, the rite does not have a fixed and prescribed matter and form recorded in scripture. The gestures and words of the rite, such as the laying on of hands, the anointing, and the accompanying formula, do not themselves possess a divinely ordained positive power to confer grace, but serve instead as a solemn invocation." End quote.

Now that we've outlined what the Protestants reject and don't reject, we can get to proving confirmation from sacred scripture. As I said, the sacrament fulfills the offices of prophet, king, and priest in the Christian, which correspond to Christ himself, since he is the anointed one. This is something that early fathers pick up on, specifically St. Augustine and St. Isidore of Seville, who say that although in the Old Testament only those who were of this specific office were anointed, now all Christians in the new covenant are anointed. This isn't just a spiritual anointing with the Holy Spirit, but with actual chrism oil. In other words, they speak of this as being essential to the new covenant. We will get back to this later.

We see in the New Testament that our Lord promises the gift of the Holy Spirit several times, and it's distinct from that of baptism. Let's read John chapter 7. "On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' But he spoke of the Spirit which they that believe in him should receive, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." End quote.

So here our Lord promises the gift of the Holy Spirit in the future. From executing this passage, we can conclude two big things. First, this gift of the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, was given after Jesus was glorified and was not yet given before that. Thus, this could not signify the grace of the Holy Spirit for regeneration or justification that we receive in baptism or even outside of baptism. This is because even before Christ's glorification, there were already many justified people. Obviously, the second conclusion that follows is that this gift is for all believers for all time. This is without distinction of office or time period. "He that believeth in me," end quote, "which they that believe in him should receive," end quote. Thus, this gift of the Holy Spirit is not exclusive to prophets or miracle workers, but for all the faithful at all times, and it is not restricted to apostolic times, but will persist forever. It should also be noted that St. John was writing his gospel near the very end of apostolic times. Why would he tell us about a temporal charism that few people had and that would soon cease?

Also, St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12, quote, "Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" End quote. So, we see that these miraculous gifts were not for everybody in the apostolic age. Yet, our Lord is promising a different gift that will be for everybody. So, our Lord made the promise, but we have to ask, how is this promise applied?

First, in the book of Acts chapters 8 and 19, we see that those who have already been baptized receive the laying on of hands for a further reception of the Holy Spirit. For example, first in Samaria, when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. This laying on of hands after baptism occurs again in Acts 19 when St. Paul encounters some disciples of John the Baptist.

Father Emmanuel Durzo notices something very interesting here. He notices how the apostles express a certain concern that baptism, although it is certainly very splendid in its grace, does not yet bring the faithful to the fullness of Christ's design. The apostolic mission points even further to the gift of confirmation through which Christ desires to perfect and empower the Christian life. He writes, quote, "The very concern of the apostles for confirming the baptized, as shown in those passages of Acts, underscores their conviction that something was lacking to the baptized for full participation in the Christian life before receiving the effect of confirmation. And that therefore there is a certain perfecting grace of the effect of baptism. That this grace is especially strengthening in view of the confession of faith is suggested by Acts 1:8. 'You will receive the power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.' And Acts 5:32. 'And we are witnesses to these things. And so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.'" End quote.

This answers two objections. First, the general Protestant objection that having more than two sacraments somehow offends baptism and the Eucharist. Since here we see the apostles, who could obviously baptize and administer the Eucharist, still showing concern for something that was lacking in the baptized. Not because baptism is imperfect or anything, but because Christ intends to give even more than that. The second related objection is that of the Lutheran Martin Chemnitz, who says that what was administered by the imposition of hands ceased after the apostles and is now conferred to us through baptism in the Eucharist. But as St. Robert Bellarmine says, this is to invent rashly and arbitrarily, indeed even against the word of God. The apostles already had baptism and the Eucharist for others. Why would that paradigm change after the apostles? We're told of nothing about that.

Now, these passages about the laying on of hands and how the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of hands confirm three things: one, it is distinct from baptism; two, it is a sensible sign; and three, it is an efficacious sign, specifically since Acts 8 says that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands, similar to Titus 3:5 and how we are saved by baptism through the washing of rebirth.

Now, the Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard would object and say that these passages in Acts are not about a sacrament of confirmation, but about an extraordinary gift given by the apostles that would not persist after their time. Now, this objection about it being an extraordinary gift would be valid if we didn't have, for example, Acts chapter 8. We know that extraordinary gifts of speaking in tongues, for example, were given in abundance in the apostolic times in order to spread the gospel. And we see in Acts 19, after St. Paul lays his hands on the disciples, they begin to speak in tongues. However, in Acts chapter 8, they don't begin to speak in tongues. Even before the apostles Peter and John went to Samaria, St. Philip was already performing miracles among them. In other words, Peter and John didn't go to Samaria to give this extraordinary gift of miracles. There were already miracles present in Samaria. So, this rite of confirmation stands on its own, whether or not it's accompanied by these miraculous gifts.

This is actually the thought of St. Augustine, who, for example, says that in the apostolic times, miracles often accompanied this rite, but that even if they no longer follow in today's age, they do not mean that the Holy Spirit is not received. In other words, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Second, that this grace is perpetual is proved from Hebrews 6:2, in which the author lists the laying on of hands alongside with baptism, repentance, faith in God. And he calls all of these fundamental, a principle of the Christian faith. He says, quote, "Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works or of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptism and of the laying on of hands." End quote.

Now, what else could this laying on of hands be except the same thing that we see in Acts 8 and 19? We're only here interpreting scripture with scripture. And he's not talking about laying on of hands for ordination, since he's addressing all the disciples, all the faithful, not just the clergy. Again, notice he calls this a principle of Christianity. In other words, you repent, you believe in God, you are baptized, and you receive the laying on of hands. This is how Hebrews 6 describes it. This is what we see in the book of Acts, and this is what the Catholic Church still does today.

Now, as I already said, many Protestant traditions will retain a certain rite of confirmation, but will they really call it a principle of Christianity, just like repenting and being baptized? Will they list it next to baptism? In other words, if it walks like a sacrament and it smells like a sacrament, then it's probably a sacrament. So Protestants like Francis Turretin, Johann Gerhard will reject this because there is no explicit command from Christ in which Christ says, "Go and lay hands on people." But this slaps *exegesis* across the face. I mean, even in the principle of *sola scriptura*, we can deduce conclusions that are not explicitly stated if they follow necessarily. Here we have the promise of the Holy Spirit as distinct from baptism for all times, and we have the apostles applying this promise. This, for example, if I were to say, well, we don't have it recorded that Jesus told the apostles to write scripture, so why would I accept scripture? Well, obviously it follows that if they wrote scripture, then they did it because of the command of Christ. And if they are applying this promise of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, even if it's not directly stated or written down that Christ commanded this, who else is going to command the apostles to give the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands? As St. Robert Bellarmine says, we don't have the command, but we have the execution of a command, a command that only Christ can give.

Before we continue, whether you enjoy my videos and you like my channel or whether you despise them, like, subscribe, and share because it helps me out. Thank you.

We will now get to the church fathers. Now, while the practice of this rite of confirmation is universal, and I could cite extensively on this, we must be careful to only quote what actually would present a difficulty to the Protestant position. Again, they are not opposed to a certain rite in which we pray for the increase of the Holy Spirit for the baptized. Many church fathers have this, and although I would argue they are talking about confirmation in the Catholic sense, there's nothing in the quote itself that would demand this. So we have to be very careful. In fact, in my opinion, I think the stronger testimony of this comes from scripture, not so much of the church fathers, but I will try my best anyway.

Tertullian compares the efficacy of this rite to the efficacy of baptism. This suggests that it is a sacrament in the strict sense, though a Protestant may be able to make the same comparison in an improper way. As we saw above, what's certain is that the face value reading of this inclines towards a Catholic position. Tertullian says, quote, "Thus too, in our case, the unction that is the chrism runs carnally on the body, but profits spiritually, in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, and that we are plunged in water, but the effect is spiritual, and that we are free from our sins." End quote.

St. Cyprian mentions this rite many times as this thing from baptism and assigns grace to it, saying that it is, quote, "also necessary, just as baptism." He affirms against some Protestants who reject this *exegesis* that the passage from Acts 8 and the laying on of hands is the same practice that is continued in the church today. Pseudo-Ephraim says that the anointing of chrism oil, which he compares to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, clothed the newly baptized with the armor of the Holy Spirit and was given to the church by

The Lord as a fulfillment of a prophecy. This not only affirms a divine institution but also suggests it is a sacrament along with the Eucharist, as he affirms some sort of efficacy to the matter that is the crisis oil. He says, quote, "Mystically, this was fulfilled by the Messiah, who gave to the people redeemed by him, namely to the church, grain and wine and mystical oil." And later, he says, "Oil as a sweet ointment with which the baptized are signed, clothing themselves with the armor of the Holy Spirit." End quote.

St. Surah of Jerusalem, in his catecheses, compares the crism oil to the eucharistic elements, implying it is a sacrament in the strict sense and teaching that anointing confers grace in the soul. Notice also how he compares the chrism oil, that is the matter of the sacrament, to the bread and wine before consecration.

St. Ambrose, writing on the sacraments, says that after baptism, it remains that perfection be accomplished by the spiritual seal. This implies that for St. Ambrose, baptism is not intended to be the only sacrament of initiation in the New Testament economy of grace, but also confirmation. Again, we would tie this back to Hebrews 6:2, in which the author lists the laying on of hands as a principle of Christianity, just like baptism.

St. Augustine explicitly says that this sacrament of crisism is among the holy visible signs, just like baptism, implying it is a sacrament in the proper sense, like baptism. He compares baptism to the molding of dough and confirmation to this dough being baked by flame, suggesting that baptism is not the only sacrament of initiation, but that confirmation, just like baptism, also has a very important and essential role in Christianity to prepare the faithful. He says, quote, "Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread, but it's not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does the fire represent? That's the crism, the anointing, oil, the fire feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit." Again, he says this in two sermons. He also affirms that this practice that the church does is the same one as that in Acts chapter 8. And commenting on 1 John chapter 2, in which John speaks of the anointing from the Holy One, St. Augustine interprets this as a sacrament of confirmation.

Now, there's much more that could be said, but this is just a basic Petristic argument. Again, I could quote more extensively on it, but I don't think that they actually do much to further the conversation in the Protestant discussion. Since Protestants do retain a certain right of confirmation, even if they do not consider it a proper sacrament, what is evident from these is that they compare it to baptism. These church fathers assign efficacy not only to the right, but also through the crisis, that is the matter of the sacrament, just like the water of baptism or the bread and wine of the Eucharist. And they even say that it is necessary for Christians to undergo this.

That's all for this video. I hope you enjoyed. If you're a Protestant, I try my best to represent you accurately. As you can see, I went back into the older sources and see in what way Lutheran and maybe some reformed retain confirmation. However, I don't believe the Protestant theology of confirmation satisfies the scriptural testimony, the scriptural exegesis, and the comments of many church fathers. But I would love to generally know your thoughts below. Whether you're Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, please leave a like, subscribe, share, comment down below. I promise you it helps me out a lot. And God bless you.

A common argument against the Catholic practice of communion under one kind comes from the bread of life discourse in John 6. This was used by the otquist heretics before the Reformation, as well as by Protestants during and after the Reformation, such as Leonard Richardson, Daniel Featley, and others. In this video, we will examine the text of John chapter 6. We will examine an argument provided by the Lutheran scholastic Johan Ghart against communion in one kind, and we will respond to that argument using the exegesis of John chapter 6 provided by Cardinal Johan Baptist Francin.

Before we begin, it's important to lay out what our differences are in this issue. It is the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. As a sacrifice, consecration must occur under both species because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins, according to scripture. This is why, in the first Mass ever celebrated, the Last Supper, our Lord said, "This is the chalice of my blood which will be shed for you for the remission of sins." However, as a sacrament, receiving the Eucharist in only one kind does not deprive somebody from life-saving grace. They receive the same benefit promised by Christ in John chapter 6: eternal life, union with Christ, abiding in him and him in us.

This does not mean that one cannot argue for communion in both kinds by saying that it is more fitting, by saying that it better signifies the sacrament, and it better signifies the sacrifice. In fact, in Johan Ghard's argumentation against the Catholic Church on this issue, he cites a lot of scholastics who argue this point, namely, that receiving in both kinds is better signification. But this is not really an issue. Theologians after the Reformation, and even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, teach that communion under both kinds is a more complete sign, in the same way that baptism by immersion is a more complete sign than baptism by sprinkling or by pouring. They are equally efficacious. They don't deprive somebody from life-saving grace. However, one is a more complete sign than another.

But the position that was often said by the Scholastics, namely that the Eucharist under both kinds is a more complete sign, which Martin Kemnit and Johan Ghard often try to use against the Catholic position, that is not the same position as the Protestants. Protestants do not only say that it is a more complete sign, but rather that it is a divine precept to administer both kinds, and that not doing so is abuse of the sacrament. While speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice is certainly present in these Protestant traditions, they do not carry it out to the extent that we do, so that they tend to join the sacrifice and the sacrament together, often leaving no exception for separation or distinction.

If you'd like to see related videos that support the Catholic position, both from scripture and church history, check these out on the screen. I will also link them below.

Now, let's get to John 6. John 6:53-56 reads, quote, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." End quote.

The argument from the Protestants may be described as follows: Christ promises grace and eternal life to those who eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now, Christ prescribes a necessity of both species, flesh and blood, with the conjunction "and." Therefore, reception in both kinds is required by divine precept to receive this grace and eternal life. Therefore, the cup cannot be illicitly retained by Rome.

Now, first, a few things must be noted. This strict reading already contradicts the Protestant position. Because whereas pre-Reformation Catholics held both kinds was necessary for salvation, Reformation Protestants simply held it was a divine precept for the clergy to administer both kinds. But they did not believe that it was a requirement to receive both kinds, at least always, for salvation. If you'd like to see an article quoting just a few Protestant authors who admit and concede the sufficiency of communion under one kind for salvation and for its signification, read the description below. Hence, if we want to read the command in John 6 as strictly as possible, we are left believing that if a man receives Christ's body but not his blood in the sacrament, it avails nothing, which is already rejected by Protestants themselves. In other words, Protestants argue for a necessity of precept, not a necessity of means. Regardless, let's ignore this for now and move on.

A common Catholic response from John chapter 6 has been that although Christ commanded the reception of his flesh and blood, he also seemed to teach the sufficiency of only receiving the Eucharistic bread. In fact, the Council of Trent argued like this in its 21st session. Quote, "He who said, 'Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,' also said, 'He that eateth this bread shall live forever.' And he who said, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,' also said, 'The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.' And in fine, he who said, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him,' said, 'Nevertheless, he that eateth this bread shall live forever.'" End quote.

An admittedly great response, however, to this argument comes from Johan Ghard, which we will get to in the following section of this video. Ultimately, the objection, though certainly a good one, fails due to the rest of what John 6 teaches. In fact, St. Robert Bellerin, though he wrote before Gearhard, had already answered this same objection. Still, a much more thorough exegesis is given by Cardinal Franlin, which we will include after Ghart's objection.

Now, it's important to note that Ghard, being a Lutheran, does not particularly see John chapter 6 as referring to sacramental reception, though he entertains it temporarily for the sake of argument. Johan Ghard objects to the reasoning provided by the Council of Trent and other Catholic theologians by quoting William Hassel Vanest, a 16th-century Dutch Catholic commentator. Ghard writes, quote, "But Estius on 1 John 3:21 teaches that it is common in scripture for an effect to be attributed to one cause while another necessary condition is implicitly understood, unless there is some deficiency elsewhere. Therefore, when the same effect is sometimes attributed to one cause and at other times to multiple causes, this is no indication that one cause alone is sufficient. Rather, it indicates that multiple causes are required, each contributing to the effect in proportion to its role. Thus, the pontifical argument must be inverted, and it must be maintained that Christ attributed this effect not only to the eating of the bread, but also to the drinking of the blood. For no one adds another cause to an already sufficient one to prove its sufficiency. Rather, the addition of causes shows that one alone is insufficient. Otherwise, why would others be added?" End quote.

So, Ghard's argument could be summarized as follows: One cannot disregard a prescribed condition on the basis of a different condition that is said to achieve the same end because the latter often assumes the former and other conditions are also met. And this is actually true. This happens a lot in the writings of the Apostle John, and obviously it also happens elsewhere in scripture. For example, when it is said that, quote, "Whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward." End quote. It is implied that this person will persevere. Otherwise, someone who becomes an unbelieving fornicator after once being a faithful Christian who gave a cup of cold water would be said to not lose his reward. But this is absurd. Therefore, it does not follow that one kind is sufficient for grace and eternal life. Similarly, as in first John, "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God," assumes that they repent, have not committed mortal sin, have been baptized, etc.

We now get to Cardinal Frans's exegesis of John chapter 6. First, he affirms that this passage does indicate a two-fold and distinct manner of receiving flesh and blood corresponding to the two visible species. This is because, quote, "Christ the Lord indeed distinguishes eating his flesh from drinking his blood. And by the power of the words, the flesh of Christ is made present under the species of bread and is received under the aspect of food properly by eating and not by drinking. Likewise, the blood of Christ is made present under the species of wine and is perceived under the aspect of drink properly by drinking and not by eating." End quote.

Next, Franc notes that Christ himself explains the consumption of both species as eating the whole Christ. Quote, "In the current state of the flesh and blood of the Lord, who no longer dies, the flesh is so inseparably united to the blood and the entire humanity to the divine person that wherever either the flesh or the blood becomes present by the power of the words, the whole Christ is present." Hence, Christ himself explains eating the flesh and drinking the blood as eating Christ himself when he says, "He who eats me." Therefore, it is inconsistent that to say that in substance more is received under both species than under one alone, since the whole Christ is received under each." End quote.

So, so far we have established on the part of the sacramental elements, the *res et sacramentum*, that John 6 speaks of sacramental eating and drinking under the species of bread and wine, and that Christ is fully present under both sacramental species. With regard to the *res tantum*, the reality or the effect of the Eucharist, which is spiritual nourishment, Francine notes that eating and drinking are reduced to the same thing. In other words, spiritually drinking the blood of Christ is the same thing as spiritually eating his flesh. There is no distinction. Francine writes, quote, "From the point of view of the sacrament, that is the sign of nourishment of the life of grace, Christ indeed distinguishes between food and drink. He says, 'My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.' But the need that is hunger and thirst which food and drink remedy are not two things but one in the same thing in the spiritual order. As the Lord himself indicates in John 6:35, 'He who comes to me shall not hunger and he who believes in me shall never thirst.' Hence the nourishment or relief of this need is signified and affected equally through Christ under the form of food and of drink. Even though the mode of signifying nourishment is more expressively conveyed through both species, the signification of nourishment and therefore the essence of the sacrament is the same even in one species alone." End quote.

It thus follows that from the nature of the sacrament that reception in both kinds is not necessary for the promise of grace and eternal life. Fronen writes, quote, "So if there were such a necessity, it could and should be proven only from a positive command of Christ." End quote. In other words, we have so far established that there is no necessity of means to receive the Eucharist in both kinds. The Eucharist being a means to eternal life, a means to grace. There is no necessity to receive both kinds because one kind suffices. Why? Because Christ said that his flesh is true food and that his blood is true drink. But we know that hunger and thirst are the same thing in the spiritual order. So both species affect the same thing. In other words, there is no defect in the thing itself from receiving in one kind. This is already conceded by many Protestant authors.

What remains to be shown is that Christ does not command reception in both kinds despite the sufficiency of one kind. Francen writes, quote, "But such a command cannot be demonstrated from John 6 either. The command would be contained in the words, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.' But the command expressed in these words is based on the necessity of having, that is, retaining and preserving the life of grace. And the reception of the Eucharist is enjoined in so far as it is a means for attaining life. But as has been said, such a means is present even under one species, as food or as drink, no less than under both species as food and drink. Therefore, what is commanded is only the reception of the body and the blood of Christ, which occur equally under one species. The command, however, does not extend to the manner of reception, that it must be taken both by eating and drinking. Hence the Lord himself promises the same effect of eternal life indiscriminately whether he refers only to eating or distinguishes between eating and drinking." End quote. Because to eat and drink are mandated in order to have grace and eternal life. But eating and drinking each produce the same effect, the precept does not apply to the mode of reception.

Now to directly respond to Girhard, it is conceded that many precepts in scripture are often tied to a promise with the assumption that other necessary conditions are met. For example, Romans 10:9 says, quote, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." End quote. But this also assumes that one has believed in other articles of faith, such as God the Father, the Holy Spirit, one baptism, the virgin birth, etc. It also assumes that this person who's going to be saved will persevere without dying in mortal sin. Thus, we can concede to Ghard that when Christ says, "He who eats this bread will live forever," does not de facto make Christ's blood unnecessary for the promise. Similarly, if I say, "Unless you grab a sword and grab a shield, you will not defeat your enemy," and then I say, "This sword will be the defeat of your enemy," it does not follow that the shield is unnecessary.

However, Girards in applying that principle to John 6. Here, eating Christ's flesh and drinking do not contribute two distinct and complementary parts to abiding in Christ and having eternal life, so that fulfilling only one is insufficient to achieve the end for which it was ordained. Rather, the reception of either kind affects the same thing. Here, I'll put it in a four-step syllogism.

First, receiving Christ's sacramental body and blood is given as a command ordered towards eternal life. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Second, with regards to Christ's sacramental presence, receiving either kind is explained as receiving the whole Christ, "he who eats me." And receiving the whole Christ brings about the same effect. "He will live."

Third, with regards to the spiritual effect, receiving either kind produces the same effect. "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." And spiritual hunger and thirst are the same thing according to John 6:35. Therefore, either sacramental species, food or drink, satisfies this hunger and thirst.

Therefore, there is no precept as to the mode of reception. Thus, the most coherent way to read John 6:53 is disjunctively, for the conjunction "and" is not always used in a combined sense. This argument has been put forward by several Catholic authors, such as St. Robert Belleramin and Gabriel Vazquez. But Reverend Duranzo summarizes it well. He writes, quote, "Even if we understand those words as referring to the consumption of the actual elements, bread and wine, the word 'and' does not necessarily need to be taken in a combined sense. It can also be understood in a disjunctive sense, as it happens in other places in scripture. Meaning that Christ's words could indicate the necessity of one or the other, or the need not to omit both, and could be interpreted as 'if you omit both,' or 'if you neither eat nor drink,' or 'unless you eat or drink.' And we see this happening in scripture. The word 'and' is taken in this disjunctive sense in Acts 3:6, when Peter says, 'Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give to you,' which clearly means I do not have silver or gold. Because to give alms to the temple beggar, it is not necessary to have both silver and gold. Similarly, in Exodus 21:15, the words in the Hebrew text say, quote, 'Whoever strikes his father and mother shall be put to death,' where 'and' is understood in a disjunctive sense. Because obviously striking your father is sufficient to be put to death. You don't have to strike both of them to be put to death." End quote.

If you enjoyed this video, make sure to leave a like, share, comment down below what your thoughts were. If you'd like to see similar and related videos, check the description. And as always, may God bless you.

The debate about how Christ is present in the Eucharist has been ongoing for centuries. Even within Protestantism, they don't all agree: Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglicans. Time and time again, theologians have poured over John chapter 6. They've examined the Last Supper narratives. They've quoted church father after church father in every disputation, in every treatise, in every response to a treatise. And in the modern age, everyone reading over these 16th and 17th century debates is trying to discern which denomination has the most correct view of the Holy Eucharist, of course, in accordance with scripture and also in accordance with the early church. However, although how Christ is present in the Eucharist is certainly important, and that's why it's one of the most studied issues, it's my contention that when we study the adjacent issues that were also hot during the Reformation, it becomes quite clear that only the Roman Catholic Church has preserved the biblical and Petristic doctrine.

I've already made videos about what the effect of the Eucharist is and on communion in both kinds or in one kind. You can go watch those if you're interested. But today, I'd like to ask the question about how long is Christ present in the Eucharist? Is he limited to only the liturgy, or does Christ's presence continue even after the liturgy? In other words, does he have a perpetual presence? It's the Catholic teaching that Christ continues to be present in the Eucharist even after the liturgy. He begins to be present at the words of consecration, and he continues to be present until the species of bread and wine remain. This is actually pretty much universally rejected amongst Protestants, although it was the universal Petristic practice, and we will see it is the biblical doctrine. But our support from church history is so strong that even John Calvin himself said that we have the early church on our side for this point.

Now, before we get into it, I'd like to explain why this matters. So, not only does this vindicate the Catholic Church's claim at the Reformation to be preserving the tradition, which Protestants often claim that's what they're doing, but in my opinion, this also shows how odd and idiosyncratic the Protestant view is. Because if Christ's presence does not remain after the liturgy, but yet we continue to preserve the Eucharist, and in fact we even administer the Eucharist without having to consecrate the elements again because we believe that his presence is still there, then Protestants believe that the church really did fall into universal sacrilege, into a universal misuse of what the Eucharist is. And when we have record after record of early Christians receiving the Eucharist outside of the liturgy without needing to consecrate the elements because this was a Eucharist preserved from the liturgy, then we're basically saying that they had an invalid Eucharist, and it was sacrilegious for them to do so universally for ages and ages.

The Council of Trent says, quote, "The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing and is a visible form of an invisible grace. But there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them. Whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the author himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, would nevertheless himself affirm that truth that to be his own body which he presented to them. And this faith has ever been in the church of God that immediately after the consecration the veritable body of our Lord and his veritable blood, together with his soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine." End quote. And later, Canon 4 teaches, quote, "If anyone saith that after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but are there only during use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after, and that in the host or consecrated particles, which are reserved, or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord remaineth not, let him be anathema." End quote.

Now, let's talk about what Protestants teach on this issue, because the Lutherans are going to differ a little bit from the Calvinists and the Anglicans. Peter Martyr Vermigli, a reformed English reformer, he says, quote, "There is another false and absurd opinion that has followed this transubstantiation, and that they have thought that after the receiving of the sacraments there remains still a sacrament, and that the bread or show of bread does really and verily contain in it the body of Christ. That this is false, we will show by other sacraments where the whole consists in action, which being taken away, it is no more a sacrament. It appears in baptism that when a man is dipped or sprinkled with water by the words of the Lord, then it ceases to be a sacrament. That very same thing was in circumcision, for that sacrament also consisted in action." End quote.

And Theodore Beza, another reformed Protestant, says, quote, "This sacramental transformation is not caused by the mere pronunciation of words, as if they were magical incantations or charms. Rather, the promise is the soul or essence of the sign. Accordingly, the water, bread, and wine become sacraments, that is, true and effective signs of the spiritual realities promised in the word and represented by them. Since this transformation is only in the use of the elements, it follows that it only takes effect during the act of administration. Outside of that action, either before or after, the change does not apply." End quote.

The reformed Westminster Confession of Faith says similarly, quote, "Private masses, or receiving the sacrament by a priest or any other alone, as likewise denial of the cup to the people—I have a video on that if you want to check it out—worshiping the elements, the lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament and to the institution of Christ." End quote.

David Dickson, a Scottish and reformed Presbyterian, wrote one of the first commentaries on the Westminster Confession of Faith. He comments on this particular article, quote, "Christ commanded the element of bread to be broken, eaten, and distributed, but nowhere does Christ command the bread to be reserved." End quote.

The 39 Articles of the Anglican Church say, quote, "The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." End quote.

So now, let's get to some Lutherans. Martin Chemnitz writes, quote, "For Jesus took bread and gave thanks, or blessed it. He did not, however, after the blessing, put it away to be reserved, but broke it and gave it to his disciples. Neither did he command that they should put away the bread, reserve it, carry it about, or display it to others, but said, 'Take, eat.'" End quote. Now, this is going to be a major contradiction for Martin Chemnitz and the Lutheran tradition, but we'll get to that later.

The Lutheran Book of Concord and the Solid Declaration, Article 7, says, quote, "However, this blessing or the recitation of the words of institution of Christ alone does not make a sacrament if the entire action of the Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, is not observed, as when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, whatever. But the command of Christ, 'This do,' which embraces the entire action or administration in the sacrament, that in an assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord's death is shown forth at the same time, must be observed unseparated and inviolate." End quote. It further says, quote, "That is, if the institution of Christ be not observed as he appointed it, there is no sacrament. This is by no means to be rejected, but can and should be urged and maintained with profit in the church of God." End quote.

So, so far we've seen the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican position that Christ's presence is no longer there after the Eucharist is no longer being used, pretty much. Now, of course, there's a biblical case to be made against them. But when we look at the Petristics, you're going to see what the Protestants are basically claiming is universal sacrilege. They're claiming universal and long-standing sacrilege, not since the fifth century, not since the sixth century, but since the very second century of the church, and we have very clear testimony. I I think this is a problem. However, it's very important so we can be very precise and represent the Protestant position or positions.

The Lutherans differ a little bit from the reformed and the Anglicans. The reformed and the Anglicans, at least most Anglicans, typically do not make any exceptions for reserving the Eucharist. The Lutherans, however, following modern cabinets at least, they do hold that the Eucharist can be reserved and taken to the sick because in their theology, since it's being taken to the sick for consumption and for reception, that's still within the use ordained by Christ in the sacrament. So, they would be okay with reserving the Eucharist in order to take it to the sick or in order to take it to somebody who's just not there right now, but will receive it later. The reformed are not for that, though.

Now, it's interesting already in the second century, St. Justin Martyr records that the deacons after the liturgy took the eucharist, portions of the eucharist, to those who could not be present, to those who were absent. And St. Irenaeus records that preser as a sign of communion in between cities. This is of course after the liturgy, and they called it the Eucharist. It's still the body of Christ and the blood of Christ. And we obviously can't say that they were reconsecrating it because one, it's still called the Eucharist. But even then, in St. Justin Martyr's example, deacons obviously cannot consecrate the Eucharist. So Peter Martyr Vermigli, the reformed theologian, comments on these type of episodes in the early church and he says, quote, "Now I would not say too quickly that receiving the sacrament in that way, apart from the sacred company and the rite instituted by the Lord, by sacred company he just means more people rather than, you know, to the sick privately, was a proper communion. So he doesn't say it's a proper communion yet. I allow it to the sick, providing the sacred words are repeated and some of the faithful celebrate the Lord's ceremony there together." End quote. So Peter Martyr Vermigli, obviously just saying that it's okay to take it to the sick, but we have to repeat, he says, we have to repeat the sacred words, the words of institution, which is not what the early church did. And obviously, if you have deacons taking it, they're not going to consecrate the Eucharist because the early church believed in the perpetual presence of Christ in the Eucharist even after liturgy.

Interestingly enough, also the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the rite for communion to the sick does require the words of consecration, which means, of course, that you know, you're not going to take a pre-consecrated host to someone who's sick. You have to consecrate it there immediately.

Now, as I said, Lutherans do allow for communion to the sick. So this is what Martin Chemnitz comments on this episode. Quote, "What is reported by Justin that when communion has been held at an assembly of the church, the deacon carries some portions to those who are absent, to the sick. Likewise, that as Usius says, the Eucharist is sent to visiting bishops. This gives no support to the papalist." That's us. "For there the sacrament remains in use, for it is carried away and sent in order that it may be distributed, offered, received, and eaten." End quote. And then later, the Lutheran scholastic Johan Gerhard uses similar argumentation to oppose adoration of the Eucharist, exposition, and possession. Quote, "God nowhere commanded the adoration of consecrated bread. Therefore, it is not to be done regarding bread consecrated outside the use instituted by Christ. We have neither word nor promise that it is the body of Christ. For the sacramental words, 'This is my body,' are by divine institution and precept bound to the action prescribed in the words of institution, namely, that the bread is to be taken, blessed, distributed, and eaten. Therefore, to propose the consecrated bread outside its instituted use for adoration is to offer an occasion for our." End quote. He further says, quote, "Nothing has the nature of a sacrament outside the use instituted by Christ, but processional carrying is contrary to the use and has purposes far removed from the one for which the Eucharistic sacrament was instituted by Christ." End quote. So, he's saying that we have basically no promise that Christ's body remains in the sacrament after the liturgy.

However, St. Robert Bellarmine, even writing before Gerhard, I think rightly points out this contradiction. St. Martin Chemnitz wrote, he says, quote, "But Chemnitz's response fails in many ways. First, because this response can clearly apply only to the testimony of St. Justin alone. For the other testimonies indicate the reservation of the Eucharist, not its sending from the actual act of the supper. Second, because if it is true, as Chemnitz so often repeats, that the sacrament exists only while it is being done—note this, in other words, only when Christ expressly did or commanded it to be done—how could it be a sacrament when sent to the absent or sent to the sick? For Christ neither sent it to the absent nor commanded it to be sent. Third, such a sending is superfluous according to Lutheran principles and thus should not have been accepted by Chemnitz." End quote.

And I think this is just pretty clear. If your argument against the Catholic Church is going to be that we have no command from Christ to, you know, adore the Eucharist or to expose it or to have processions, we also have no command to take it to the sick. So it is inconsistent from there in the Lutheran tradition to allow that for for those who are absent. And I think the reformed do have, I guess, a more consistent exegesis there than the Lutherans.

Father Joseph Paul, a more recent theologian, writes, quote, "No doubt Christ might have made the Eucharist a merely transitory sacrament had he willed so, but this was evidently not his intention. It is inconsistent and arbitrary to say, as Chemnitz does, that Christ is truly present while the sacrament is taken to the sick, but that his presence ceases as soon as the Eucharist is reserved for other purposes." End quote. I just think that makes perfect sense. It's inconsistent to say that it remains when you take it to the sick, but as soon as you decide to use it for something else, the presence is no longer there. In my opinion, and I'm not totally sure on this, I think the Lutherans are just overwhelmed by the abundance of Petristic, medieval, you know, Catholic evidence for this, and they took a weird, odd middle route, where I think the more consistent route would have been with the reformed and the Anglicans say, although that of course has its problems.

Now, I want to talk about the biblical proof for the Catholic doctrine. In other words, that Christ's body remains in the Eucharist even after liturgy. Father Joseph Paul writes, quote, "The fundamental reason is found in the fact that some time necessarily elapses between consecration and communion. This is not the case with the other sacraments. Baptism, for instance, lasts only as long as the baptismal act or revolution lasts and is therefore called *sacramentum transitorium*, in other words, a transient sacrament. The Holy Eucharist, on the contrary, is a permanent sacrament, *sacramentum permanence*." He continues, quote, "That the real presence does not depend upon the actual consumption of the Eucharist is clearly manifest in the case of the chalice. So watch this. He says Christ said, 'Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood.' The act of drinking is here evidently neither the cause nor an indispensable condition of the presence of his blood." End quote. In other words, Christ is not present in the Eucharist because we're drinking or eating. He says, "Eat, because it's my body. Because it's my blood." In other words, his his presence does not depend on our action. And the Lutherans are going to say, "Yeah, we we know against the reformed, we've always believed in an objective presence." But I think that's the this is the more consistent reading of that if we're going to hold to an objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

St. Bellarmine similarly writes, quote, "The reason is that the institution of the Lord embraces not only the essence of the sacrament, but also its use. For the blessing or consecration pertains to making the sacrament, while distribution and eating pertain to its use. But a thing does not depend on its use for its being. Just as if someone makes a chair whose useless for sitting, and yet no one ever sits on it, it would not therefore cease to be a chair. Indeed, even if someone were to make a chair not to be sat upon, but to be exhibited in a display, it would still be a true chair. So too, the most holy sacrament does not cease to be a sacrament, even if no one uses it for the purpose for which it was instituted." End quote.

So, we know that Christ's body and blood are present in between the consecration and, of course, reception. And if no one receives it, then he continues to be present. However, it is important to note that Christ does not command us to adore the Eucharist. He does not command us to expose it for adoration. He does not command us to have processions like the procession of Corpus Christi, which is a big hot topic during the Reformation. So, this is why it's very important to clear something up. Something that I think St. Robert Bellarmine very clearly expresses, because when you read the Protestant reformers and the Protestant theologians after them, they make it sound as if we're consecrating hosts, who are consecrating the Eucharist in order for them to be adored, as if that's the final end that we consecrate the Eucharist for. Sure, we might receive some, but these are to be adored. But that's not true. When a Catholic priest consecrates the host at Mass, the final end for that host is to be consumed. It's to be received. That's what Christ instituted. That's what the Eucharist is for. So, for example, if a priest was to consecrate a host with the intention for this host to never be consumed, that would be sacrilege because that's not what the Eucharist is for. Although that's kind of the way that Protestant theologians, you know, Gerhard, Chemnitz, um, even reading other like Calvin, Beza, that's the kind of the way they make it sound as if that's what we're saying.

So, I like the way St. Robert Bellarmine put it. This is what he says. Quote, "And this is what the church does. For it always consecrates the Eucharist with a view to its being eaten, but preserves some part of the sacrament, not so that it may not be eaten, but so that it may be eaten at an opportune time, namely, so that it may be brought to the sick whenever necessary. For due to various and especially sudden cases, the Eucharist must always be ready. And during that time in which it is reserved, nothing prevents it from being carried or displayed to stir up the devotion of the people. Secondly, I say that if some legitimate priest were to consecrate the Eucharist, observing those things required for the essence of the sacraments—so, if he was to basically celebrate Mass, but not with a view to it being eaten, rather for some other end—he would indeed act wrongly. Yet, he would still truly consecrate the sacrament, and it would remain a sacrament for as long as the species of bread remain." End quote.

So, we got to separate the the consecration from its actual use. The presence of Christ does not depend on its use. However, St. Robert Bellarmine is saying if you were to consecrate only to adore the Eucharist or only to, you know, expose it for adoration, that would be sacrilege if you do not intend for this host to eventually be consumed because that's not what Christ gave us the Eucharist for, at least not finally. But while the Eucharist is being preserved, there's nothing stopping us from growing in our spiritual life by adoring Christ in the sacrament. So I think this is some common ground we can actually find with Protestants. We're not consecrating the host in order to adore it finally and then, you know, the host rots or the wine rots after we've adored it for long enough and then we can consecrate it again. That's not at all what we're saying, and that's kind of the idea that Protestant theologians kind of give.

St. Robert Bellarmine continues, quote, "From this is answered the principal argument of the adversaries, which is taken from scripture and goes like this." So this is what the Protestants are saying: "Sacraments depend on divine institution, so that they are not sacraments if the rite and institution of the Lord are not observed in their administration. But the Lord commanded that the bread be blessed, broken, distributed, and eaten. He did not command that it be reserved in a pix, carried in a procession, or exhibited to be adored in a church. Therefore, it is not a sacrament when it is reserved in a pix, carried, or adored, but only when it is blessed, broken, distributed, and eaten." End quote. And he answers this objection, saying, quote, "First, by denying the consequence, because reservation in a pix, carrying, and adoring are in no way contrary to the divine institution. For the Lord did indeed command that the bread be blessed and eaten, but he did not command that it be eaten immediately after the blessing, especially not all of it, and by all people. Hence, a delay in eating is not contrary to the institution, provided that the blessing or consecration is ordered to that end." End quote.

So, like I've been saying, if you consecrate for the purpose of letting a Eucharistic host rot, right, in adoration, then that would be sacrilege. But consecration is necessarily ordered towards consumption, but it does not mean that it's consumed right away. And we'll see this is what the early church practiced.

So now I want to go over the history of this and show that the reformers are not only, I think, having a bad exegesis of scripture and what the nature of the Eucharist is as opposed to other sacraments or at least baptism, but I want to show that they're truly departing from the lowercase Catholic tradition. I already mentioned St. Justin Martyr, communion to those who are absent, and St. Irenaeus, sending the Eucharist across cities, right? They still believe that Christ's presence remained in the Eucharist. And now Lutherans can accept that. You know, Martin Chemnitz said he could accept that. Although I do think it's inconsistent because we could just say, like I just said, we still consecrate for the purpose of eating. So then I think that would just give the Lutherans no room to complain against us.

So, first, starting very early on, as early as Tertullian, you have Petristic witness of communion at home. During persecution, lay Christians were allowed to take the Eucharist home in the species of bread and to commune at their own time, obviously observing fast and whatnot, but they would basically take consecrated hosts after Mass, after the liturgy, and consume at home. So, Tertullian gives witness to this when writing to his wife. St. Cyprian gives witness to this as well. St. Basil, interestingly, commends this practice and says that it's very long-standing. So, again, we're not getting into like some sixth-century corruption, some seventh-century corruptions. This is extremely early on, already since the second century. St. Basil writes, quote, "It is good and beneficial to communicate every day and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For he distinctly says, 'He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.' It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert where there is no priest take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And in Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity for the most part keeps the communion at his own house and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering and given it, the recipient participating in it each time as entire is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand." End quote.

So Martin Chemnitz's response to these episodes about private communion.

At home. And he writes, quote, "Our question is not what one or the other did privately, but what was public, lawful, ordinary, and established custom of the ancient church in the administration of the Lord's supper." End quote.

He also says, quote, "But that some are said not to have at once eaten the Eucharist which was distributed, offered, and received, but to have reserved it in a little chest or in napkins, and to have ascribed, I know not what, all to the reserved bread, should in no way move us. For the question is not, to borrow words from St. Cyprien what someone before us has done but what he who is before all both did before and commanded us to do for also the custom of privately reserving the Eucharist apart from its use was afterward abregated and prohibited by public orders of the councils end quote.

And this is a common Protestant reply, especially from Martin Kemnets. First, and Martin Kemnets does this a lot. I think he's really twisting St. Cyprian here. If you go back and you read St. Cyprian's letter 63, sometimes letter 62, he's arguing against the Aori who stopped using wine in communion. They would consecrate with just water, which is obviously not valid. And St. Cyprian excuses them with charity and says that even though that group of priests in uh in Africa was doing that for a while, we cannot depart from Christ's institution. What's ironic is that obviously St. Cyprian even himself gives witness to taking communion home and the perpetual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But there's a big difference between using water for communion, which is what St. Cyprian is talking about, and reserving the Eucharist uh after mass and consuming it at home.

Secondly, the Aori were not universal. Uh preserving the Eucharist after mass and believing in Christ's perpetual presence after mass, after the liturgy was universal and it was long-standing. So again, it kind of gets us into this idea like, did the church fall into universal sacrilege? Did all these uh Eucharists that were taken to the sick after liturgy, were all, were all them basically invalid? Christ sends the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth. And it almost feels like it makes God a liar because you have the entire magisterium believing and teaching that Christ's presence remains after the liturgy. It's distributing a false and invalid Eucharist to those who are in the desert who do not have a priest near them.

And the third argument that Protestants often bring forward is that this practice of taking communion home eventually stopped. But that, that's irrelevant. No one is looking back and saying, "Hey, we shouldn't have done that." Like the Lutherans and the reformed are saying we shouldn't have done that because it's against Christ's command. It's just an imprudent practice. Like today, it would be a really bad idea to let people take the Eucharist home. But there's a difference between practice and theology or what the people believe. At no point did people stop believing that after the liturgy, after its use, Christ stopped being present, which is what, which is specifically what the Protestants are claiming because a practice comes and goes is relevant because obviously we don't practice that anymore. Yet the belief, the underlying belief of why that practice even exists, like what does that practice imply? It implies that Christ remains present in the Eucharist after liturgy. So saying that the practice stopped is irrelevant.

I also forgot to include that St. Jerome also mentions this practice.

Now, more on reservation of the Eucharist after mass in the fathers. St. Ambrose records that the Eucharist was being kept on a ship and before it underwent shipwreck, his brother Satyus tied it in a napkin around his neck. Now, this is actually already a, a sort of adoration of the Eucharist because St. St. Ambrose says that his brother Satyus wanted to have hope in his salvation. He was going to drown, pretty much. And that type of use is not in line with the Protestant teaching. And you don't have St. Ambrose like critiquing his brother. You have him commending him in this sense for, you know, the Eucharist is being stored in a ship after mass, after liturgy, obviously. And his brother, who might drown, ties it around his neck because it's the body of our Lord.

St. Ambrose is also recorded to have received the Eucharist uh right before his death. And it says that the priest who was watching over him ran down the stairs and immediately put the Eucharist in his mouth. So there's no mention here of consecration. And interestingly, it's also communion in one kind.

St. Basil also received the Eucharist and the pieces of bread alone before his death. And there was no consecration. It was the body of the Lord.

We also have some instances of adoration. St. Ambrose speaks about adoring Christ when we approach the mysteries. St. Augustine also speaks about adoring Christ. He says, "No one eats this flesh in the Eucharist without first adoring it." And we know that they're talking about latria because St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, before commenting on this, they say, "Well, I'm scared of adoring something that's material because we're, how am I supposed to uh adore something that's material if I'm only supposed to adore God?" So, they're speaking of a latria type of adoration. And then they say, "Well, Christ became incarnate and so we can adore his flesh because he is God."

And now, this type of adoration to the Eucharist, latria, is obviously rejected by the reformed and Anglicans. And even Johan Gerhard, he calls it idolatry because Lutherans don't believe that the sums of bread uh changes. Apparently, like later agree with Gerhard on this. I had an interesting discussion on Twitter with uh Pastor Weeden on this. So that was interesting.

Anyway, St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks about how his sister experienced a eucharistic miracle when she went to the altar. This was not during the liturgy, by the way. And she found a piece of the Eucharist that was left over and was healed from her illness by it after holding it in her hand and applying it to her body. This gives witness to the fact that Christ remained perpetually present in the Eucharist even after liturgy and is a form of adoration of the Eucharist.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures says, quote, "And while the moisture is still upon your lips, that is, after receiving the precious blood of our Lord, touch it with your hands and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense." End quote. This is a kind of veneration and it's affirming the presence of Christ even outside of its use.

In fact, we have explicit testimony from St. Cyril of Alexandria. He says, quote, "Moreover, I hear that there are others who say that the mystical blessing does nothing for sanctification if any of it remains for another day. But those who say such things are raving mad." So you had people who are making the same Protestant claims 11 centuries early. And St. Cyril of Alexandria absolutely denies this. Rather, the power and efficacy of the blessing, that is of the Eucharist, and the life-giving grace remained perpetually in it. End quote.

St. Augustine also records that the mass was offered in a farm that was infested by demons, and offering the Eucharist there expelled all the demons.

The strongest case against the Protestant position is what's called the liturgy or the mass of the pre-sanctified. It came into practice in around the 4th century, as we see from the Council of Laodicea, and it was, and it was later affirmed by the Council of Trullo. Basically, during Lent, on Good Friday, the West would not consecrate the Eucharist, but rather the mass that was celebrated the day before on Thursday or earlier in the week, in that mass they would preserve the Eucharistic hosts and then they would just administer it on Good Friday without consecration. And we still do this to this day. Remember, practice has an underlying belief. What does this mean? This means that the church believed in the perpetual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This also happens in the East, but in the East, it's even more constant. In the West, you only celebrated the mass of the pre-sanctified on Good Friday. But in the East, it's every day during Lent, except Saturdays and Sundays.

So, for example, an ancient uh western Roman missile says, quote, "The two senior priests, as soon as they have greeted, enter the sacristy or where the body of the Lord had been placed the day before and place it on the paten. And the subdeacon holds before them the chalice with unconsecrated wine, while another subdeacon holds the paten with the body of the Lord. With these held, one priest takes the paten and the other the chalice, and they carry them to the altar, which has been uncovered." End quote.

And in the East, you have like St. Theodore the Studite, uh giving, I think, like the first description of what this pre-sanctified liturgy is. You even have Eastern patriarchs a few centuries later uh affirming that the words of consecration are not said over these pre-sanctified gifts. That's why it's called pre-sanctified. So this was universal. It was instituted for centuries and it gives witness to the Catholic belief.

Now, I will concede, given what we've learned about the Lutheran tradition and the Lutheran teaching, especially Keen, I don't think this type of liturgy would be a problem per se for the Lutherans. Maybe they'd be against it out of superstition or something, but I don't think they would object to it theologically. But for the reformed and Anglicans, this is definitely a problem. It's also interesting, in case you didn't notice, that the Eucharist was given in only one kind during these liturgies. So, not only do you have the Eucharist, communion in one kind for centuries during Lent, but you also have preservation of the Eucharist, which the Westminster Confession of Faith, you know, the Anglican Articles, and even the Lutherans would be right there telling you it's sacrilege. You have universal century-long sacrilege in the Protestant view of church history here.

So, was it really universal and was it really, you know, centuries long? Martin Kemnets brings forward a few testimonies from early in the church and later on to try to kind of push back on this. But I think, you know, St. Robert Bellarmine has a fun time just kind of disassembling those arguments. For example, he brings forward Origen, but it's extremely ripped out of context. Origen says, quote, "The Lord did not delay and order the bread which he gave to the disciples to be reserved for the next day when he said to them, 'Take and eat.' Perhaps there is something of this mystery in the fact that he commands them not to carry bread on the way." End quote. But if you read the context of what Origen is saying here, and I put the quote on the screen so you can go check it out yourself, he has like a spiritual significance to it about how when we come to the liturgy, when we come to the Lord, we should not bring old bread. We should bring new bread. Basically, bring like a new, optimistic spiritual attitude. Origen is not saying what the Protestants are saying, that it's illicit to reserve the bread later on. And this would also kind of go against Kemnets' position because he says that it's okay to reserve it for the sick. So it's kind of like throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks, and it's out of context.

So St. Robert Bellarmine says, quote, "Nor was Origen's purpose to prove that the Eucharist cannot be preserved. Rather, when he wished to teach that God is pleased with a fresh, new, and spiritual sacrifice of praise, not an old one, he used the example of the Lord who commanded that the Eucharist consecrated by himself be eaten immediately. He also cited that passage of the gospel in which the Lord forbids bread to be carried on the journey." This is Luke 9:3. And another from the book of Joshua where the Gibeonites are reproved for having brought old bread in order to deceive the Israelites. Clearly, Origen does not wish to show that it is unlawful now to carry bread on a journey." End quote.

Martin Kemnets also brings forward Hyacinthus, who says that in his time, at least in his local church, whatever was not consumed of the Eucharist after liturgy was burned. But first, this doesn't prove that he thought it was illicit or that it was, or that Christ's presence was no longer there. It just shows that's what the practice did. It's also ironic because, as St. Robert Bellarmine points out, his does not say that they burn all the remaining bread or the eucharistic bread from the liturgy, but they only burn what cannot be consumed within one day or two or many.

Martin Kemnets cites a few more authors. I won't get into them, but I think St. Robert Bellarmine, if you go check out his response to Keith, it's great. It kind of just, it really just shows how out of context these citations are. This is really a universal, lowercase Catholic, call it what you want to call it, belief. The Roman Catholic Church was preserving the tradition here.

Keets even quotes Gabriel Biel. He was a 15th-century scholastic, and in one of his works, Gabriel Biel says that Christ commanded the Eucharist to be eaten, not preserved. But again, St. Robert Bellarmine uh points out that that's not the context of what he's saying. First, this Gabriel Biel, this 15th-century scholastic, has an entire work, you know, commending possessions, exposition of the Eucharist, adoration of the Eucharist, the Corpus Christi festival, in the context of when he said that Christ did not command the Eucharist to be reserved, he's simply saying that reception of the Eucharist is more efficacious than adoring it or preserving it, which is obvious. So really, they were all out of context there.

I recommend you go check out uh Martin Kemnets' work and of course St. Robert Bellarmine's amazing responses to him. That's all for this video. If you enjoyed, make sure to leave a like, subscribe, and leave your thoughts below. If you have any objections, if you have any questions, something that I didn't clarify. If you'd like to support my channel, I have methods in my main page. That's all for today. May God bless you.

>> Then develop a whole new theology.

>> 100 years prior to the Reformation. I mean, this is a new teaching. This is a new teaching. Was the ordinary practice of the early church. There were exceptions such as lacking one of the elements or being unable to receive them. But they were exceptions.

>> New theology that Jesus was equally present.

>> Think it's unanimous in the fathers that when you look at this issue and you're looking for patristic support, there is no patristic support for the Roman position. There is no patristic support for the Roman position. There is no patristic support for the Roman position.

But the usage of the church continued for so many ages proves that even from the earliest times it was believed to be allowable to dispense with the use of the chalice for approved reasons. And there are some Protestants who admit that if a person have a natural abhorrence of wine, he may be content with the communion of the bread alone. Now I ask, what more pressing cause can there be than the desire of avoiding schism and of preserving the unity of the church and public charity? I hold it to be certain, therefore, that the withdrawal of the chalice could not supply anyone with a just cause of seceding from the church. End quote.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a Lutheran theologian. In this video, I'll be talking about communion under one species or under one kind. This is not my first video on this topic, but it will be my most comprehensive. It's in response to Redeem Zoomer's recent video in which he claimed that this is a contradiction within Catholicism. However, it's also going to be very general, so anyone watching can learn about what the Catholic position on this actually is.

In this video, I will have three main theses. First, that it is not a divine precept to administer both kinds from sacred scripture. We will look at the Last Supper, John chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians 11. Now, this first thesis was actually conceded by several Protestants, both Lutheran and reformed after the Reformation, although they would still hold that in ordinary cases, we should not retain the cup. However, for this video, we are mostly addressing those who say that it is never licit, which seems to be the position of Redeem Zoomer. But it is worthy to note that some Protestants did eventually concede a position similar to ours. Not only did many Protestants concede that it may be licit to retain the cup in some instances, but some even conceded, as we saw in the beginning of the video, such as Leibniz, that this is not a valid reason for schism.

The second thesis is that the ordinary practice in the early church liturgy was both kinds, with non-liturgical practices and even some liturgical practices often being in one kind. We will see this, for example, in the liturgy of the pre-sanctified, which was in one kind. And my third thesis, connected to the second thesis, is that the early church, even though their ordinary practice was communion in both kinds, as well as the medievals, did not see it as a precept to administer in both kinds.

Before we begin, I just want to lay out what the Catholic position actually is. Unfortunately, I find that many, especially discussing this online, are not actually aware of what the position is. So on, when we talk about sacraments, right, we have matter and form. The matter of baptism is the water. The matter of the Eucharist is the bread and wine. Uh, you have the form or the formula. So, for example, "I baptize you in the name of the of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." For the Eucharist, it would be the prayer of consecration. In the sacrament of confession, it would be the prayer of absolution. So we have matter and form. But we also have what's called the mode of administration of the sacraments. The mode of administering the sacraments. So in baptism, this could be whether you baptize someone by immersion, full water immersion, or by sprinkling or pouring water over the head. For Catholics, matrimony is a sacrament. So, we could say that you can get married in the church, you can get married at a beach, you can get married in your house. But the Catholic position, and I, I think Protestants would generally agree with this, and we're starting on common ground here, is that the church has the right to administer the sacraments in whatever mode she decides. And as a faithful, although you have a right to the sacraments, assuming you have repented and have faith, you do not have a right or you do not have a strict right to receiving the sacraments in one particular mode or the other. So you have the right to be baptized if you have repented, but you can't demand from the church baptism by immersion over pouring. You can certainly ask your priest for it. You can certainly make recommendations, but you don't have the right to it. Obviously, a valid marriage, a valid sacramental marriage could take place in your backyard, but you don't have the right to do that. So the church has the right to say, "We're only going to marry people in parishes."

When it comes to receiving the Eucharist, as we're going to see from sacred scripture, the sacrament is validly and efficaciously received in either kind. And this would fall under the mode of administration. So although you have a right to receive the Eucharist as a sacrament, you do not have a strict right to receive it under both kinds. So I, I've encountered objections where people say, "Well, can the church just take away the Eucharist as a whole?" Obviously not. The church cannot take away the sacraments. It is a divine precept, a divine mandate to administer the sacraments until the end of the ages. But how those sacraments are administered without tampering with the matter in form is up to the church. And I think up to now, most Protestants would say, yes, you don't have a strict right to being baptized by pouring over immersion or vice versa. The magisterium of your denomination has the authority to decide this. However, obviously, there's going to be some contention on the Eucharist because Protestants believe that both kinds must be administered. Protestant theologians do not believe that you must receive both kinds for salvation. You see this, for example, in Francis Turretin. You see this in John Owen. He was a Westminster divine. So again, Protestants do not deny that receiving one kind is sufficient for grace, for salvation. What they say is that on the part of the clergy, the clergy cannot retain the cup.

The last thing to note is that the Eucharist as a sacrifice must be consecrated in both kinds, because otherwise there would mean no blood. There would not be the sacrifice presented to God. However, what we're saying here is that as a sacrament, not as a sacrifice, the Eucharist can be validly and efficaciously received in one kind. We'll get to this later, but this is why the early church was fine with administering the Eucharist in one kind on occasions. However, I, I'm not aware of any case where the Eucharist was consecrated only in the bread or only in the wine, and that the church was okay with this at all.

Now, one more thing that needs to be said very clearly. There's nothing wrong with saying that we should return to administering in both kinds. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that receiving in both kinds is a more complete sign. Why? Well, because now you have sacramentally not only the body but also the blood. If we read through the Catholic scholastic tradition centuries before the Reformation, we see that they were saying that it is, it is a better sign, a more complete sign, a more full sign to receive in both kinds because obviously the body and the blood are being shown forth. So sacramentally, what we see, what we perceive through the senses. There's nothing wrong with saying that both signs is better. As an example, baptism by full immersion is a more complete sign than baptism by pouring. So there's nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, we should probably do both kinds because it's a better sign." The Protestant position is that the Catholic Church erred, that this is going against a divine precept. That is the standard that I hold Protestants to when they want to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue. Not that it is a more complete sign to give both kinds. It doesn't matter if the ordinary practice during the liturgy in the early church was to receive in both kinds. The real question is, is it against divine precept? Did the early church see it against divine precept to receive or administer in only one kind?

Now, the reason for the retention of the cup uh varies throughout the time periods. Before the Council of Constance and the Council of Trent, before the Utraquists, several parishes had started doing this naturally because of many reasons, for example, a scarcity of wine or the risk of spilling the blood of Christ. Now, obviously, as a Catholic, I'm free to say that these are not good enough reasons to not administer the eucharistic blood. As a Catholic, I'm free to say that even though spilling the eucharistic blood is a big tragedy, that did not stop the apostles and the early church from ordinarily administering both kinds. It is a totally valid critique to say that we should not be aiming for mere sufficiency and that we should administer both kinds because of its greater significance, for example. But that is entirely different than the objections that came later, leading up to, during, and after the Reformation. Once error begins to creep into the consciences of the faithful and they begin to hear that the whole Christ is not received under one species or that they are going against the precept of Christ, then the church, using her authority given by Christ himself as the minister of God's mysteries, is able to enact this law, not contrary to the integrity of the sacrament, for it does not change the matter or the form, but mandating a certain mode of receiving the sacrament, a mode that, as our Lord says in John chapter 6, is sufficient for salvation. And while it is true that some theologians held that receiving in both kinds confers a greater grace, they did not deny that receiving in one kind only confers sufficient grace for salvation, the same grace of salvation that our Lord promises in John chapter 6 when he speaks of the eucharistic bread only. Quote, "Whoever eats this bread will live forever." End quote.

Now, I want to get to sacred scripture because maybe the Protestants are right and maybe the church does not get to decide the mode of administering the Eucharist. This could only be true for two reasons. Either one, administering in both kinds is necessary by a necessity of means, or necessary by a necessity of precept. If it's by a necessity of means, then that means that without the Eucharist in both kinds, a certain end cannot be met. Right? The Eucharist in both kinds is a means to an end. In this case, it would be salvation. And necessary by precept would mean that even though it's not necessary by means, Christ has still mandated it. Now, Protestants technically already concede that it's not necessary by necessity of means. They would say that we receive grace through one kind. And there's no debate there, as I already shown with Protestant theologians. Now, we simply have to ask, does Christ command both kinds to be administered?

First, we can go to the Last Supper narratives in Matthew 26. And in verses 26-28, he says, quote, "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, broke and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you. For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" Now, many will say that he said, "Drink of it, all of you," therefore, not just the priests, but also the laity, all of them have to uh partake of the chalice. Now, obviously, taking this to a logical conclusion, Jesus is not saying that there is a divine precept to receive the chalice for everybody because he didn't say "all of you" for the bread. And if the Catholic Church was to retain the bread and not the the chalice, then the Protestants would equally have a problem. So using the words "all of you" does not prove that there is a divine precept to always in every single liturgy administer the chalice because he didn't say it for the bread. But obviously, we'd have problems there too.

Now, why did he say "all of you"? Well, we see, for example, in the parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke, our Lord says regarding the chalice, that is not the eucharistic chalice, he said, "Take it and divide it amongst yourselves." So, it's usually explained by Exodus that although Jesus could take the eucharistic bread and divide it himself to give to the apostles, he said, "Drink of it, all of you," so that one person would not take the eucharistic blood and drink it all by himself. Hence the parallel passage that says, "Divide it among yourselves."

Now, what's also evident from the Last Supper narratives is that Jesus is telling the apostles, "Take and eat. Take and drink." He is not speaking to every single other believer that would ever live and partake of the Eucharist. He is speaking to the apostles. Even if we wanted to read Christ's words and apply them to every single other mass that will ever be celebrated, he is speaking to the recipients, not to the clergy. So in this case, this would even contradict the Protestants who say that it is a precept to administer but not to receive in both kinds. So, for example, if someone is is a struggling alcoholic and they want to abstain from the cup, Christ here is not saying administer in both kinds. He's saying take eat, take drink. In other words, if we want to read Christ strictly and literally, he would be putting down a precept for the reception in both kinds, which Protestants do not actually hold to.

We can also go to 1 Corinthians 11, in which St. Paul recounts to the Corinthians basically the entire the Last Supper narrative. He says, "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup after the supper and said, 'This is the cup of of the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

Now, something interesting to take note of is that the commands "take and eat," "take and drink," which were spoken to the apostles and Protestants believe were also spoken to all future believers so that there is a divine precept to administer to them, are actually not repeated throughout all the Gospels and in St. Paul's narrative of the Last Supper. They are said in the Gospel of Matthew, partly said in the Gospel of Mark, and they are not even said in the Gospel of Luke, and St. Paul does not record them. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, although our Lord does say, "Take, eat," the following verse just says that he gave it to them. In other words, it was not the intention of the evangelist to denote some sort of divine precept here, but rather they were just recording what actually happened, vindicating the Catholic exegesis that this is descriptive, not prescriptive.

What's also interesting is that just as Christ told the apostles "take eat" and "take drink," he also said, "Do this in remembrance of me." But obviously, he's not saying that every faithful person who attends the mass is going to get to consecrate the Eucharist just like Jesus did. What we also see very interestingly in the passage of 1 Corinthians 11 is that St. Paul implicitly affirms concomitance. The doctrine that since Christ has risen from the dead and since Christ has a glorified body, he cannot be separated. His blood cannot be separated from his body. So wherever his body is, there is also his blood. And wherever his blood is, there is also his body. And this follows from concomitance. So St. Paul says, "Whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and the blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat the bread and drink the cup." So we see that for St. Paul, whether you eat the bread or drink the cup, you are guilty of profaning both, the whole and entire Christ.

Finally, we get to John chapter 6. Now, I've made a longer video on this in which I engage with the arguments uh from the Lutheran theologian uh Johan Gerhard in my channel. So, you can go watch that if you want a more in-depth treatment of this chapter. But basically, our Lord says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." So, he continues to promise eternal life, grace, union with Christ. He promises this on the basis of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Now, as we already stated, most Protestant theologians would concede that we are not deprived of any life-saving grace if we only receive the Eucharist in one kind. But perhaps another Protestant insists and says that because our Lord conjoins the eating of flesh and drinking of his blood with the conjunction "and," he is teaching that we must receive both in order to have union with him and to receive grace. However, we must remember that in scripture, especially in the Semitic language, the conjunction "and" can be used even though it is only signifying really what the word "or" means. So, for example, in the original Hebrew of Exodus 21:15, it says, quote, "Whoever strikes his father and his mother shall be put to death." End quote. But we know that striking either our father or our mother, not both, is sufficient to fall under the condemnation of this law. In Acts 3:6, St. Peter tells the lame man in the temple, quote, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." End quote. But we know that to give alms, it is not necessary to have both silver and gold, but only one suffices. Yet again, in the Semitic language, we use the conjunction "and" even though we really mean to say "or."

It must also be noted in John chapter 6 that what is promised to receiving in both kinds, that is eternal life, to receiving Christ's flesh and blood, is also equally promised to only receiving the eucharistic bread. As Cardinal Frerius says, quote, "But such a command, that is, to receive in both kinds, cannot be demonstrated from John 6 either. The command would be contained in the words, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.' But the command expressed in these words is based on the necessity of having, that is, retaining and preserving the life of grace, and the reception of the Eucharist is enjoined in so far as it is a means of attaining life. But as has been said, such a means is present even under one species, as food or as drink. So here, recall how our Lord says that whoever eats this bread will live forever. And this is no less than under both species as food and drink. Therefore, what is commanded is only the reception of the body and blood of Christ, which occurs equally under one species. The command, however, does not extend to the manner of reception, that it must be taken both by eating and drinking. Hence the Lord himself promises the same effect of eternal life indiscriminately, whether he refers only to eating or distinguishes between eating and drinking." End quote.

So that's it for the biblical view. Again, I have a video going into more detail on John chapter 6. But from what is clear to me, there is no divine precept to receive in both kinds. There is no divine precept to administer in both kinds. It is not necessary by necessity of means, and it's not necessary by necessity of precept.

Now, I'd like to look at church history, the church fathers, and make my case for the Catholic position. Remember, the Catholic position is not that the Eucharist must only be received in one kind. That would be silly. Historically, we're not claiming that communion under one kind only was the universal practice or the ordinary practice. We can see that the ordinary practice was communion under both species for the majority of church history. Now, a Protestant might say, "Well, you're just admitting that you're departing from from universal practice." But remember, something could be a practice because it's necessary by divine precept or simply because it's a practice that was received from a previous age. For example, in the book of Acts, we see that people who repent are baptized immediately. However, soon after the apostles, the church begins to set in place certain time periods that must elapse between someone believes, repents, and is baptized. This is called the catechumenate. But obviously, a Protestant would just say, well, yeah, but there's no divine precept that you have to be baptized immediately like we see in the book of Acts. This is what we call an ecclesiastical tradition, not a divine tradition.

Did any of these church fathers say that receiving or administering in both kinds was a divine precept? We're actually going to see the opposite. This is what we see in the early church history. The ordinary practice at mass is reception in both kinds. However, there are other examples in which communion taken to the sick or private communion at home during times of persecution are in one kind only. Tertullian speaks of this practice in his work *To His Wife*, in which private communion was being taken home by Christians and in their own time they would partake of the of the Eucharist only in one kind. St. Cyprian gives testimony to this practice and how the body of the Lord was stored in a box by the faithful. St. Basil the Great gives testimony to this practice as well, and he says that it is a great practice when it comes to taking the Eucharist to the sick. Eusebius, the church historian, records that Serapion, or St. Serapion, received communion only in one kind in his mouth.

Now, the Protestant objection is, well, these, these are extraordinary cases. These are not the common case. But I would say these are extraordinary practices. These are not extraordinary scenarios. We have East and West giving testimony to communion to the sick and private communion at home in one kind. And none of them bad an eye. None of them say that they are transgressing a a command of the Lord, that the clergy by only letting the faithful take home the eucharistic bread, that they are somehow going against divine mandates. That is what I'm saying. We could say that it was a universal practice that at mass you receive both kinds. But when they did receive in one kind, which was pretty common in these extraordinary practices, did any of them say that this was against divine precept? That is what we would expect in the Protestant position.

We see something similar in St. Ambrose when he was about to die. Uh, he received communion only in one kind, in the eucharistic bread. We also have St. Gregory Nazianzen who, recounting the life of St. Basil, says that he received communion in one kind multiple times on the last day of his life. Going back to the West, St. Jerome again gives testimony to communion in one kind in private communion at home. Sulpicius Severus, another church historian writing in the fifth century, speaks of a similar situation that Tertullian speaks of, in which a woman brought the eucharistic bread from home that she had kept and reserved.

Now, something interesting is that a lot of these cases uh involve the Eucharist being reserved after the liturgy, which is rejected by the reformed tradition, a little bit by the Lutheran tradition, not so much. Uh, but I have a video on that if you want to see. So really, all of these universally uh contradict the reformed position in that for the early church fathers, universally, the presence of Christ persists past the liturgy. I have a video on that if you want to go check that out. And we also do have very rare, but we have a few uh cases. For example, St. Gregory of Tours records that the Eucharist was administered in one kind at a liturgy. You also have St. Columbanus, who wrote a monastic rule, and he actually, in his monastic rule, uh retained the eucharistic cup from those who had just joined the monastery, those who were new.

Now, again, I don't, I just want to remind you, for Protestants saying these are all one-off cases and this and this and that. But what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to build a holistic argument in saying that none of them, none of these are saying that they're going against a divine precept that the Protestants are later reading into scripture, reading into the Last Supper narratives, reading into maybe John chapter 6. We can say that communion in both kinds was the normative practice, was the ordinary practice. Sure, there's no problem with that. The problem is that when communion in one kind does happen, and it does happen, none of them are saying what the Protestants are later saying. That is my argument here.

You also have the liturgy of the pre-sanctified. It started in the 400s. It was celebrated during Lent in both the East and the West. And in this liturgy, only the bread was pre-consecrated. Very clearly, if we read the Roman Missal, it says that the chalice had unconsecrated wine. We see the same in the East. For example, St. Theodore the Studite, he recounts the liturgy of the pre-sanctified and how only the bread was pre-sanctified or pre-consecrated. Later on, to the 11th and 12th century, we see the very same thing still being practiced in the East. How there are no consecratory prayers said over the chalice for this. So, it's communion in one kind. The only thing worth mentioning here, I guess, in support of the Protestants, would be that in the East, there seemed to be a tradition in which they thought that when they dipped the consecrated bread or the body of Christ into the unconsecrated wine, some of them thought that it would consecrate the wine. So for them, in their mind, they weren't receiving communion in one kind. But we can see why that's not really a, a valid uh belief or valid objection.

Now, reading through Protestant theologians on this, there are several objections brought forth from the fathers. I don't particularly think that many of them are very good. So I'll only address the two that I think are are pretty good. The first comes from Pope St. Leo. And the second comes from Pope St. Gelasius. Now, Redeem Zoomer appeals to both of these in his video. He claims that St. Pope Gelasius was against communion under one kind because people in his day were being superstitious and not wanting to drop part of the communion wine on the ground. I'm not really sure where he got this reading from, but we'll read the full quotes and we'll even cite a Protestant who agrees with our reading.

So, Pope St. Leo is arguing against the Manichaeans who detested wine and they were sneaking into the mass, into the liturgy, uh, hidden and undercover, pretending to be real Christians. So St. Leo says that for they, the Manichaeans, turn away from the sacrament of human salvation and do not believe that Christ our Lord was truly born, truly suffered, and so on. When they dare, in order to cover their unbelief, to join our assemblies, they so conduct themselves in the communion of the sacraments that to avoid being completely discovered, they sometimes with unworthy mouth receive the body of Christ, yet altogether refuse to drink the blood of our redemption. This we make known to your holiness, that such men may be revealed to you by these signs, and that those whose sacrilegious hypocrisy is detected may be cast out from the fellowship of the saints by the priestly authority. So St. Leo here is saying, do not permit communion in one kind, or for them to receive communion in one kind, because these, this is a sign that they are Manichaeans that are receiving sacrilegiously. But what's interesting is that, as, as Father Emmanuel Duronzo notes, these Manichaeans could not have remained undetected for long if communion under both species had been commonly practiced by all the faithful. In other words, it seems like they were already receiving communion in one kind for a while, and and no one batted an eye. Therefore, Pope St. Leo had to step in so that they could be detected as Manichaeans. And also, Father Duronzo notes that the pope is not condemning them for abstaining from the cup period, but for doing so out of sacrilegious purposes.

The next objection is from Pope St. Gelasius. What he says is a little bit tougher to reconcile, but I think the other testimonies of the fathers, first of all, blow it out of the water. But I mean, we can, we can deal with it anyway. He says, "We have learned that certain people in that region have received only the portion of the holy body, abstain from the blood of the holy chalice. Without doubt, they are bound, I know not by what superstition. Let them either receive the whole sacraments or be kept away from the whole. For the division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege."

Now, this obviously sounds way stronger, but this is actually all we have. It is really a fragmented letter. It is also from uncertain authorship. We're not sure 100% that it belongs to St. Pope Gelasius, but that's fine. We can, we can uh, we can concede for now that it is actually authentically his. But that's all we have. This is the entire fragment of the letter that we have from him. Now, the first thing to note is that he mentions again a superstition that is going on here with these people who he doesn't name, presumably Manichaeans. He was writing not long after Pope St. Leo. So presumably it could have just been the Manichaeans again. And to this, as a Catholic, we would just say, yes, 100%. If you abstain from any of the Eucharistic species out of superstition, you are sinning. And again, if we want to read the last few words in which he says, "The division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without a great sacrilege," as against the Catholic position, we would also be reading this against the Protestant position because again, they allow people to abstain, whether it be a sick man or someone who, who um, who is a struggling alcoholic. So, so really, the Protestant argument here hinges on a fragment of a letter that we don't have the entire text of. It's against the testimony of so many other fathers who are fine with communion in one kind. And third, it seems to indicate that he's just talking about the same thing that Pope St. Leo was talking about decades earlier about the Manichaeans, which is not really a, which is not at all.

What the Protestants and the Catholics are debating here. This is also the reading that the Lutheran got freed. Will him lies takes.

"Quote that it was free in the fifth century for individuals to abstain from the chalice and that many persons did abstain from it appears from the fact that such was the uniform practice of the Manaches who were mixed up and concealed among the rest of the faithful and the Roman pontiff Leo with a view to their detection commanded that both kinds should be received by communicants in the same sea. A short time afterwards, Galatius repelled from his communion all those persons, a remnant, I suppose, of the Manatees who received only the sacred body and abstained through some superstition from the chalice of the hallowed blood." End quote.

Now, that's all for this video. I hope I made my case pretty clear, but maybe I missed something. So, let me know below what you thought. Make sure to leave a like and subscribe, and God bless you.

I know you've seen dozens of videos called Protestants cannot answer this question or Protestants have this and that contradiction that they cannot resolve. And many of these times you've been rightly disappointed in these videos. But here and today, I am humbly asking you for an open mind to what I have to say and put forward. I will be citing traditional Protestant authors as I usually like to do. This is of course in order to not straw man the other side. And even if you do not agree with my conclusion at the end of this video immediately, it is still something to meditate on in the presence of God.

So my main argument for this video is that Protestantism as a whole defined as, you know, the traditional branches coming from the Reformation, Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed allow for the breaking of God's precept within their own system. Now, this is basically a part two to my previous video on communion under both species or under one species. But in this video, I am arguing that Protestants within their own position actually contradict themselves gravely.

Now, since then, Dr. Jordan Cooper actually responded to my video. I will not be making a response to that, at least not in the foreseeable future. Um, I think if anybody would like a response, there are plenty of Catholic authors who have addressed this topic. Uh, with all due respect to to Dr. Jordan Cooper, I I think like people like St. Robert Bellere have addressed uh Martin Kennet's arguments who pretty much is is the basis for Dr. Cooper's video. And I know you could always go back and forth. Well, Ghard responded to Bellereamine and and then this Catholic author. We can go on forever. I mean, there's responses to responses for responses. Um, but my point is I will not be making myself a response video, at least not in the immediate future. I might revisit this topic maybe later on and and go over some of the passages that Dr. Cooper executed. But I am thankful and humbled that Dr. Cooper watched my video and made a response. So really, that's a pretty big deal for me.

Now, Protestants contradict themselves and in their own system, they break a divine precept because they hold that one, it is a divine precept to receive communion in both kinds. Two, they allow those who cannot receive in both kinds to abstain from one element. For example, those who might be extremely sick and cannot swallow bread. Or if somebody is a struggling alcoholic, for example, they allow them to only receive the Eucharistic bread. And my third point, the conclusion is that this is a contradiction. This is a breaking of the divine precept within the Protestant system.

Now, Catholics don't fall into this because, as I pointed out in my last video, it is a divine precept to consecrate in both kinds to show forth the sacrifice. But the Catholic Church has never considered a divine precept to receive in both kinds or to administer in both kinds. As we see from the early historical evidence, we can sure make an argument that it was the ordinary practice to receive in both kinds. It is much more fitting to receive in both kinds. Just like for example, baptism by full immersion is more fitting. But the early church in allowing for extraordinary situations and practices such as private communion at home or the liturgy of the pre-sanctified in which the faithful received communion in one kind implies their belief that they did not see it as a divine precept to receive both kinds which is the Catholic position. And this would of course go against the supposed Protestant precept.

Now I know there could be plenty of objections going through your head right now and that's fine. That's expected. But first, if you're not subscribed, make sure to subscribe, leave a like, comment after the video, share your thoughts, and share the video with others. Let me know what you think. Whether you love my videos, whether you despise them, and you want me to stop making videos, just just subscribe. It helps me a lot. It really does. Um, and thank you. God bless you.

Now, before we continue to more of the argument, we have to understand the nature of divine law. Divine law has God himself as the legislator. And because God is the supreme being, the supreme legislator, it follows that no other lower authority, which is pretty much everything else, whether the church, governments, or individual people, can overrule or break his precepts, his laws. To break a divine precept is to sin against the divine legislator since we are subject to him, and we are bound to obey his laws. However, an important distinction is between breaking a precept and being unable to fulfill a precept.

Here would be a helpful example. Protestants and Catholics both agree that good works from the Christian are required by at least a necessity of precept. In other words, Christians are commanded to do good works. But obviously, we have the famous example of the good thief on the cross who was unable to do any good works after his conversion. He was just kind of up there. He couldn't do anything, right? He's not going to be held liable for not doing any good works after his conversion. But he was unable to fulfill this precept of good works upon the cross. And so, he is not held guilty for it.

Here's another example. It is divine precept to keep the Lord's day holy. And as Catholics, we go to mass in order to honor this. However, let's say you have a farmer who lives an hour away by driving from mass, and his only car breaks down. And of course, there's no other nearby parishes. Now, a 1-hour drive turns into like a 14-hour walk. So, obviously, he's not going to walk to mass. So, he is not held guilty for that Sunday because he was not able to fulfill his Sunday obligation. But if he takes that time that he would have used going to mass to actually begin working on his farm when he didn't have to on a Sunday, sure, he is not held guilty for not going to mass, but he would now be breaking the precept of not doing hard labor on the Lord's day, at least unnecessary hard labor. So, as we can see, being unable to fulfill a precept does not allow you to actually break it.

It is my contention here that although Protestants accuse us of breaking divine precept, it is actually them within their own system that suffers from this log in the eye. So, here is the Protestant position. Johan Gearhard Lutheran Scholastic says, "We do not say that communion under both pieces is optional, but that it is necessary if we wish to celebrate the Eucharist according to Christ's institution. We do not say that the drinking from the consecrated chalice is necessary only for priests. Rather, we affirm that it is necessary for all communicants." End quote.

Another Lutheran, Peter Habercorn, he was writing a little bit later. He says, "Papists fundamentally heir on this most serious article in maintaining that the holy eucharist can be administered under one species with the blessed chalice withheld for it is absolutely clear that the blessed chalice is required with the same necessity as the blessed bread as has been demonstrated to the papist up to this point from the words of institution." End quote.

So again, if you want to see how they would argue for this and how we would argue against that necessity, we can go back to my last video. But basically, going from the words take, eat, take, and drink in the last supper, Protestants would say that there's a necessity to receive in both kinds. This is a command not only to the apostles there and then, but this is a command that extends to all the faithful throughout all times. There's there's a precept to receive in both kinds.

Now, here comes the contradiction because Protestants allow those who cannot receive both elements to receive just one. Now he's writing a little bit later after the reformation but an interesting point here would be William Linets. He's a Lutheran and he concedes that the early church did not see it as divine precept to receive in both kinds and he also say that Protestants of his day allow for exceptions. Right? So those who for example may have a natural abortance of wine or maybe an abuse of past with alcohol and would rather abstain from the chalice. He says the use of the church continued for so many ages and it proves that even from the earliest times it believed that it was allowable to dispense with the use of the chalice for approved reasons. There are Protestants today that have a natural borns of wine and he's allowed to receive only the bread. And then he says that it is not a sufficient reason to schism from the church uh because of the retention of the chalice.

Now I know liveness is not as authoritative as other Lutherans. He's not a uh a pillar of Lutheran orthodoxy. He's he's more of a a philosopher I believe. But my point here is that he's noting that Protestants in his day allow for this to happen. So sure if you want to ignore his points about the early church and whether they saw it as a precept or not. I know Dr. Cooper said in his video that he does not agree that the early church did not see it as a precept. So if you want to ignore that point, fine. But my point is he's pointing out that other Lutheran of his day allow for this to be dispensed. But another Lutheran, for example, we could point to his Georgees Kixtus, he also makes exceptions for the reception of the chalice. But even going back to a more key figure in the reformation like Johans Brent in his second part of his apology of the Whittenberg confession, he also makes this exception as well that those who cannot receive the chalice because maybe for example they have an abortance of wine that they are able to abstain from the chalice and only receive the bread.

So, communion in one kind. This practice has been retained up to the modern day. For example, the ELCA says that for pressing reasons of health, individuals may commune under one element. And even though that's just the ELCA, other Lutheran denominations, from what I can tell, speaking to other Lutherans who are well read in their tradition, would say the same thing. You're allowed to abstain from one element if you cannot receive uh that element.

Now, going over to the reformed side, it actually becomes a little bit even more interesting. We have this account from Theodore Beza, a key reformed the theologian and reformer, a good friend of John Calvin, who said that John Calvin actually gave permission to reformed missionaries in America to not use bread and wine for the Lord's supper. This is because at the time it was very difficult, I guess, to get wine in America. But this is what Basa says. A man of pious memory, Master Calvin, was once asked by brethren who were in America where there is no use of wine, whether in the Lord's Supper it would be lawful to use in place of wine, either plain water, which is there commonly drunk, or some other beverage not unusual in those parts. He replied that in instituting this sacrament, Christ's purpose was that spiritual nourishment, that is, his very own body and blood should be represented to us under the symbols of common food and drink. Then he keeps going. He approves of this use of of not following the Lord's institution with bread and wine. And then he goes on to say that the reply of master Calvin, our assembly so thoroughly approved as being founded on the best reason and agreeing with Christ's purpose. So this was not just Calvin and Beasa, but really a whole group of reformed theologians who at the who during the beginning of the reformation agreed with this.

Now I've talked to reformed Christians today and they would say they would disagree with this. So I'm not saying this is a universal agreement in the reformed tradition. But I think it's a little bit hypocritical here, right? To accuse the Catholic Church of departing from divine precept because of not administering the chalice to the people when the Catholic Church has never seen this as a divine precept to receive in both kinds only to then change up the elements. There's an interesting situation that St. Cyprian the church father deals with with the Aori who actually stopped using wine and communion. They would only consecrate bread and water. And St. Cyprien says that we should use wine because we cannot depart from the Lord's institution. And this quote is actually quoted quite a bit by both reformed and Lutheran Protestants against the Catholic Church when on this on this discussion of communion under both kinds. But this is ironic. This this applies more to the reformed position at least in that day in the early reformation than it does to the Catholic Church.

Now a bit later, the ecclesiastical discipline of the reformed churches in France, that's a bit of a mouthful. Allows those who cannot receive the wine to to basically abstain, but they still have to come up to the chalice, you know, bring it as close to their mouth as possible to avoid scandal. But again, this is not communion in both kinds cuz you are ultimately abstaining from the cup even if you only bring it up to your mouth. It also doesn't seem to view communion in both kinds in general as a precept. It says the churches shall be advertised that it belongth to the ministers to administer also the cup as far as it is possible. And not just in France, but also you have Walter Stewart of Paravan, I think that's pronounced right, a Scottish reformed in the 18th century. He affirms this as well. He says, "By the seventh article thereof, the bread of the sacrament is to be administered to those who cannot drink wine. They protesting that it is not through contempt and they doing what they can towards it by putting the cup as near to their mouth as they may do it to avoid giving any manner of offense."

So very clearly the Protestant position is that it is divine precept to receive in both kinds. However, those who cannot receive both elements uh are not bound by this precept and they can receive only one. This is the problem as we observed in the nature of divine law. You are not bound by something you cannot fulfill. But being unable to fulfill a precept does not allow you to break a precept. So the consistent position here with the Protestants would be to just abstain from the Eucharist as a whole. If you're a sick person who cannot swallow bread, I mean like a really sick person, just don't receive this time. Wait until you get better and then you can receive the full sacrament. So if you're a Protestant and you're thinking to yourself, it sounds absolutely absurd to not allow somebody who cannot receive both elements to not receive at least one, to not receive any elements at all. This is the logical conclusion if we want to be consistent with the nature of divine law of your position.

Now this is what the Wallenberg brothers say. The Wallenbergs were irrenic Catholic theologians and apologists writing in the 17th century and they were responding to you know people like Ghard, people like Clovius uh in the Lutheran tradition. Uh and they were very well read in the Protestant tradition. They say nor can the reformed evade this by appealing to necessity claiming that obstainers those who cannot drink wine are exempt for necessity does not grant the power to violate a divine law. The Catholic theologian Peter Martyr that is Vermeiggley rightly observed that necessity may excuse one from observing a commandment but it does not give the right to break it. Thus if obstainers cannot fulfill Christ's commandment they are not bound to it but they are certainly not granted the power to transgress the divine precept under the pretext of piety. Similarly the sacramental theologian father Donzo says the reformers however easily dispense with this observance with the obstainers and those who are horrified by sharing the same cup. However, in matters of divine law, no human authority can dispense. So, it's not enough to say, "Sure, you're not bound by not receiving both kinds because you can't receive both kinds for whatever reason." But that does not allow you to break the supposed precept that Protestants hold to to receive in both kinds. It would just be best to not receive at all in order to not break that precept.

Now, as a parallel example, envision a medieval village that has absolutely no wine or maybe no bread, whichever one of the elements is lacking. Now, it's a precept to celebrate mass, right? But if the priest of that village says, "If you can travel to another village, go. But if you stay here, there will be no mass because we don't have any wine yet." That priest and the people in that village will not be held guilty for not fulfilling the precept on Sunday. But that doesn't give the priest the right to use different elements than wine or to just consecrate the bread and not consecrate the wine cuz that would be an illicit and invalid mass. Notice how much sense this makes and how much continuity there is here with the early church and the Catholic tradition. It is a divine precept to consecrate in both kinds for the sacrifice of the mass. But it is not a divine precept to administer or to receive in both kinds. This is why the early church always consecrated with bread and wine in both kinds to show forth the sacrifice. I'm not aware of any situation in which only one element was consecrated uh and people were okay with this at least. But there are plenty of examples of people receiving or or being administered one kind only.

Now, as I said in my previous video, you can say sure but the ordinary practice was communion in both kinds or it's more fitting to give both kinds. That's fine. You you can point that out. I would agree with that 100%. But that's different than breaking a divine precept which Protestants claim that is happening. So the Catholic position doesn't fall into this contradiction because for us it's a precept to consecrate both kinds. And if you cannot do that, you simply don't celebrate mass. You don't break the precept. But it is not a precept in Catholicism in continuity with the early church to receive in both kinds. In Protestantism, in order to refute the Catholic Church, they adopted the position that it is a precept to receive in both kinds. But then they break the precept by allowing those who cannot receive both kinds to abstain. This is what the Wallenberg brothers say. Thus, according to the reformed, Christ has commanded that the Eucharist be received under both species and it is unlawful to violate this command. Consequently, the reformed are teaching contradictions in this matter. They cannot refute the Catholic position without also contradicting themselves. If they claim that their discipline has superseded their public confessions and the French Catechism, then no cause for schism remains, nor any controversy at all.

Now, that's pretty much my case, but I want to get to at least an objection. So before that an obvious one would be well you're not held guilty for not fulfilling what you're unable to fulfill. So that is receiving in both kinds. So you can only receive one kind. But if it is a precept to receive in both kinds and you can't break it. You're not bound to fulfill it but you can't break the precept.

Now here's a better objection that I anticipate from Protestants and they might say well it is not only a precept to receive both kinds but it is also a general precept to receive the Eucharist. So we have this general larger precept more important precept of receiving the Eucharist from Christ. And we also have the precept of receiving in both kinds. And because these two are kind of like in contradiction to another if someone is sick or if someone can't receive wine and because you are fulfilling the divine precept of receiving the Eucharist in general, you are not held guilty for not receiving it in both kinds.

Now this logic and principle is fine. Here's how the reformed theologian Peter Martyr Migley would put it. When two precepts of God seem one to be repugnant to another, so as the one is a hindrance to the other, that they cannot both at one time be observed, yet rather it is necessary that the one of them for the time being be omitted, then that which shall be judged weightiest and greatest must be retained. But yet in the meantime that other which is reckoned to be less and lighter is not violated because in the same there is nothing done against the will of God. And he gives this example. He says the law commands that everyone should have respect to the safety of his neighbor and if one be a magistrate that he by arms defend a city but the same law commands that we must not labor on the Sabbath day. And he gives the example of if your city is raided on Sunday and you have to defend your family and your citizens and all that obviously you're not held guilty for laboring on the Lord's day. But this would only apply if being unable to fulfill that smaller precept is unavoidable like in the example that were meekly gives like defending your family on the Lord's day. It is surely a divine precept to receive the Eucharist in general, but not every single time you go to church. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul says that it is a precept to examine oneself before partaking of the Eucharist. However, let's say you don't have time to examine yourself and you go to church. You don't break the precept of examining yourself just to fulfill the precept of receiving the Eucharist. You simply abstain this time and examine yourself next time you go to church and then you can receive. These are basic principles of divine law. But it seems like in this issue in order to own the papists the Protestants just forget it.

Similarly to the Protestants we can say if receiving in both kinds is a divine precept then we cannot break this precept in order to fulfill the precept of receiving the Eucharist. Here we are only being consistent with the other example of examining oneself. We're only using consistent logic in applying divine law. Thus Protestants are left with two solutions. Either one concede that it is not a divine precept to receive in both kinds and therefore their own denomination does not contradict itself when it allows abstainers to abstain from one element. This would of course be conceding the entire traditional Protestant position on this issue. Or the second option for Protestants here is to concede that there is a contradiction in their system and that their system allows the breaking of a divine precept. You're left with either conceding that the Catholic Church was right on this and not contradicting itself or breaking divine precept. You can say that it departs from ordinary practice. You can say it is unfitting to do so. That's fine. That's not disallowed in the Catholic system. But you can concede that the Catholic Church is right. Or you can conclude that your own denomination is contradicting itself and breaking divine precept.

Now, regardless of which option one takes, the Catholic Church is waiting for you with open arms. I hope you enjoyed this video. God bless you. Leave a comment, share with others, and thank you for watching.

John chapter 6 is probably one of my favorite chapters in the entire Bible. Obviously, as a Catholic, it has the bread of life discourse, and from it, we can expound our Eucharistic theology quite well. But I also like it because it heavily emphasizes God's sovereignty, his providence, his efficacious grace, and it even has a pretty great Petrine confession at the end. However, lately, I've been thinking about or meditating on a one particular verse that we always just glance over when we read John chapter 6. We just read through this verse. We don't think much about it and we just miss the deep trinitarian mystery that is waiting for us to unpack in meditation. This verse is John 6:57 which reads, "Quote, 'As the living father hath sent me and I live by the father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.' End quote."

This is a pretty weird verse. I mean, just as Christ lives by the father, so we are going to live by him when we receive the eukarist. I mean, what does that even mean? Throughout the entire gospel of John, which is obviously a very trinitarian gospel, we have these sections in which Christ teaches us about his relationship with the father. In John 5:26, he says, "Quote, 'For as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to have life in himself.' End quote." In John 10:30, "Quote, 'I am my father or one.' End quote." In John 14:11, "believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. End quote." in John 16:15, "Quote, 'All things that the father hath are mine.' End quote."

So what does this mean for me? What does this mean for us when we receive the Holy Eucharist? Obviously, Christ is a divine person. The father's a divine person. We are not. So what does this mean? Well, what we see here is that our Lord is trying to draw some sort of similarity to give an example or analogy. God the son receives the entire divine nature from God the Father when he proceeds from the father. So there's not a single thing that the father knows that the son does not know. There's not a single thing that the father can do that the son cannot do. God the father is all holy. God the son is all holy. So obviously we're not going to become omnipotent. We're not going to become omnisient because we are not divine. However, Christ became flesh. And as St. Augustine says, he gave us that very same flesh to eat. So this verse is better understood that just as God the son in his divinity has all that the father has we will have all that God the son has in his humanity when we eat his flesh. This is exactly what St. Augustine says in his confessions. He writes "Quote I am the food of the mature. Grow then and you shall eat me. You will not change me into yourself like bodily food but you will be changed into me. End quote."

So we eat bodily food every day. We take it into our body and our body converts this food into nutrients for our own body. However, the holy eucharist which is Christ himself transforms us into him. All that the father has is the sons. All that the son has in his humanity is ours. The eucharist conforms us to Christ. Cornelius alaped says, "Quote, 'Because I receive godhead which is pure life from the father, therefore he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. for my Godhead abiding in him will continually breathe into his soul the breath of life and his body shall after death be raised up by it to the beatotific life end quote."

Another renowned commentator from that time period Juan de Maldonado comments extensively on this but I think this really helps to see what the evangelist John is trying to say here writes "Quote but whoever understands the nature of Hebrew expression will easily grasp it the Hebrews often emit the word use for comparisons like just as and use and instead A usage very frequent in John's gospel who more than any other evangelist delights in Hebrewisms. For example, in John 10:15, as the father knows me and I know the father, that is just as the father knows me, so I know the father. And in 15:9, as the father has loved me and I have loved you. That is just as he has loved me, so I have loved you. So too in this place, as the living father has sent me, I live because of the father. which means just as the father who sent me lives, so I live because of him. Now that's just the first clause. With regard to the second clause, Juan writes, 'The same phrasing is used. And whoever eats me, he too shall live because of me. Meaning, just as I live because of the father, so he shall live because of me. This sense is confirmed by John 5:26, where the same truth is expressed in the very same words we use to interpret this verse. Just as the father has life in himself, so he has granted the son to have life in himself. And also 5:21, just as the father raises the dead and gives life, so also the son gives life to whom he will. End quote.'"

And this manner of reading John chapter 6 is very very popular, very common in Catholic tradition. St. Sir of Alexandria comments on this "Quote As the father hath sent me, so that I am become man, yet I live by the father. that is, I perfectly preserve the Father's nature. So he who shall receive me by eating my flesh shall surely live, being made holy like unto me, who am able to give him life because I am of the living father. End quote."

So when we receive the Holy Eucharist, who is Christ himself, we're not receiving sanctifying grace in the same manner that we do in the other sacraments. This way is extremely, you know, significantly more intimate. If you want to imagine just how intimate receiving Christ the Lord is, think about divine procession. Think about the holy trinity. God the son is the perfect image of God the father. He is in the father and the father is in him. This is why Christ says, "If you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will abide in me and I will abide in you." This should also stir up extreme humility in us because as Christ says, "All that the father hath is mine." And we should be humbled that the God man is willing to communicate all of his goodness, all of his grace to us if we accept it with humility and with a clear conscience. It should further humble us because this means that everything good that we have comes from Christ in the Eucharist. He is that bread of life. He is our spiritual sustenance. As St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you glory as if you have not received it?"

Now, yesterday was the feast of Corpus Christi, so I am like a day late, but hopefully you can take this to your next mass in meditation. And hopefully you can ponder the Eucharist with the Trinity in mind. For in a sense, in the way that I've described in this short video, the Eucharist and our manner of receiving it is an image of the Holy Trinity. If you enjoyed this video, then make sure to like, subscribe, share, comment, and God bless you.

The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord Jesus Christ elevated matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament in the new law. Although St. Jerome's Vulgate renders Ephesians 5:32 to "quote sacramentum hug magnum estqu this is a great sacrament." The original Greek says this is a great mystery and not sacrament. Was the medieval church misled by this translation into adopting matrimony as one of its sacraments? This was actually an accusation of some Protestants like John Calvin and Martin Kemnets. John Calvin writes, "Quote, the thing which misled them was the term sacrament. But was it right that the whole church should be punished for the ignorance of these men? Paul called it a mystery when the Latin interpreter might have abandoned this mode of expression as uncommon to Latin ears or converted it into secret. He preferred calling it sacramentum but in no other sense than the Greek term mysterion was used by Paul. End quote." Martin Kemnets also uses this argument in his examination of the council of Trent.

Easy to see that this claim this critique of the Catholic Church by the Protestants doesn't hold up to scrutiny because the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches also consider matrimony as one of their seven mysteries or seven sacraments. Even though they do not use the Latin vulgate which says sacramentum in Ephesians 5:32. So this is a red herring. It's a silly argument by the Protestants. Instead, I want to look at scripture. I want to look at the church fathers and the tradition of the church and the liturgy and answer the question is matrimony one of the seven sacraments of the new law. I have released a much shorter video going into the biblical argument for why matrimony is a sacrament. This video will first briefly cover matrimony in general and a common protestant error regarding natural marriage. Then I will go over the biblical argument, the petristics, the scholastics and several objections.

Throughout the history of Christianity, many groups have aired on marriage and the Catholic Church has taken up the duty to defend it. Extremely early on in Christianity, the Gnostics rejected the goodness of the material world and thus rejected marriage, teaching it was evil. Shortly after, the Montinists, not rejecting marriage itself, recommended not to marry and for people to dissolve their marriages since they expected the second coming to be soon. The Brazilianists similar to the Gnostics taught that salvation was in the liberation from matter and thus rejected marriage. Many more followed and in the 1500s the Protestants not only deny that marriage was a sacrament of the new law but further aired in believing that it is altogether a civil affair. Luther for example wrote "Quote no one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing like clothes and food, house and home subject to worldly authority as shown by so many imperial laws governing it. End quote." Calvin compared matrimony to shoemaking and hair cutting, saying, "Quote, God's ordinance is good and holy. So also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair cutting, legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments. End quote." Chemist in an examination of Trent admitted that some cases regarding matrimony between two Christians were to fall under the church, but only in so far as marriages includes matters of faith. But he also concluded that marriage is a secular thing. Against this view, the Council of Trent issued canon 12 at its 24th session saying, "Quote, If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to the ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema. End quote."

This is because matrimony is not a secular institution. It's religious one, even natural marriages. Protestants were virtually unanimous that matrimony is not a sacrament of the new law. However, they concede that marriage was divinely instituted in the natural law even in the state of innocence and later was commended and restored by Christ. They also acknowledge that it bears a certain relationship or conformity to the union of Christ with the church and is a state of life in Christian society that provides an opportunity and obligation for Christians to sanctify themselves. Many Protestants like Calvin and Kem also accused the church of wanting to reserve the legislation of the marital contract for itself. According to them, this was the reason that the church made marriage a sacrament in order to be able to control it. But actually, and this is another point where the Protestants aired, even if Christ had only restored marriage to as it was in the beginning by abolishing divorce and had not elevated it to one of the seven sacraments, marriage contract should still fall under ecclesial legislation. It's not altogether a secular thing.

So before addressing the sacramentality of marriage, it would be helpful to first begin by understanding the essence of a marriage as it exists in nature among non-Christians. We call this a natural marriage. From the essence of what a natural marriage is, it follows that marriage is not merely secular as the Protestants contend, but that the authority concerned with it is per se religious. Matrimony is a true contract. Two people consent to the same thing which produces an obligation. That is from this marital contract just as from every contract obligations and rights are the result which bind together those making the contract and therefore there is a certain bond between them that unites them. Now it's clear from scripture that God instituted this contract among humans and gave humanity the precept to be fruitful and multiply that procreation is the primary end of marriage is clear from scripture. For example, in Genesis 1:27-28 male and female he created them and God blessed them and God said to them be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And he repeats this blessing for Noah upon leaving the ark. And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful multiply and fill the earth." Genesis 9:1. And because of this, he ordered that the animals two and two, male and female, should enter into the ark. Genesis 8:9. And Noah should enter with his wife and his sons together with their wives.

Next, in Genesis 2:18- 24, where scripture describes the formation of Eve from Adam's rib, God created woman as a helper for man, saying, "It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him." As St. Augustine points out in his work on the literal sense of Genesis, another man would have been a better help for Adam if the help he required was working the land. If what Adam required was someone to keep him company, a man would have also been better only for procreation and the upbringing of children was a woman a more fitting companion for Adam. From the primary end of marriage, which is generation, it follows that the primary object of the marriage contract is the right to the body of the other. This is why St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7 through4, "Quote, 'The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.' End quote."

But because each person is totally subject to the dominion of God, it would be illicit to transfer over one's own body to the power of another without the consent of God. It would be like if a son who always borrows his father's car sells the car to his friend without first consulting his father for permission. So there's no such thing as a secular marriage even among non-Christians. This is why our Lord says in Matthew 19:6 "what therefore God has joined together let no man separate. End quote." And the fathers the theologians acknowledges for example St. Bonaventure writes "Quote the consent of both persons is the proximate cause of matrimony but together with the divine institution end quote." St. And Thomas writes, "Quote, 'The conjoining or relation itself, which is matrimony, is always from God.' End quote."

So Calvin and Luther's comparison of marriage to other things like shoemaking and farming is silly. It's comparing apples and elephants. Second, it's not only in the nature of marriage, but also in its immediate institution by God. For God created Eve and brought her to Adam for him to marry. In Genesis 2:22, unlike farming and other natural activities, God reserved to himself the rights of matrimony. So there's no reason for Protestants to be comparing marriage to farming or agriculture or as Verigi says shaking dust off your feet. So because of the religious nature of even natural marriages, the church automatically has supervision over the marital contract. And this is seen continuously throughout even the early church as early as St. Ignatius who forbids Christians to marry without permission from the bishop. Tertullan in the third century records that Christian who marry secretly who make "quote connections that is not first professed in the presence of the church run the risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication end quote." Not that natural marriages among non-Christians are invalid they are valid but that because even natural marriage is immediately from God unlike shoemaking and farming as Luther and Calvin contend then the religious authority ought to oversee it.

We now come to marriage as a sacrament of the new law before we get into it a very common objection that Protestants bring forward is that Early fathers attributed the name sacrament to many things not just to matrimony but also to foot washing the sign of the cross etc. That's because the sacrament broadly speaking is simply a sign of a sacred thing. So clearly we can see how many things are called sacraments with this definition. The body is a sign of the invisible soul. Christ is a sign of the invisible God. The sign of the cross is a sign of our Christian faith. Vatican 2 and lumingentium calls the church a sacrament because it's a visible sign of the invisible Christ. So Protestants what they're going to do during and after the reformation in their pmics against us is use this definition and say that if marriage is a sacrament because it's a sign of a holy thing then there aren't just seven sacraments but millions. And this is true actually if we were to deduce the sacramentality properly speaking of marriage because it is simply and merely a visible sign of a sacred thing then we wouldn't have seven sacraments but millions. But the definition to use for something to qualify as a sacrament properly speaking is that it must be one instituted by Christ to signify this and two a visible sign of invisible sanctifying grace. This distinction is not just made by medieval theologians, doctors and scholastics but even made by St. Augustine. This is actually what I think is the most consistent definition of a sacrament in the strict sense and automatically gets you to the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. For example, baptism is a visible washing sign of the invisible washing of the soul, which occurs through sanctifying grace. In the Eucharist, one visibly eats on the body of Christ, which signifies the invisible spiritual feasting on the body of Christ, which occurs through sanctifying grace. In penance, the visible confession and absolution signifies the invisible absolution of sins, which occurs through sanctifying grace. This definition excludes the millions of other things that are merely signs of sacred things. For the body is not joined to the soul by sanctifying grace. The sign of the cross was not instituted by Christ and neither does it signify sanctifying grace per se. Footwashing as Christ does in John 13 does not signify sanctifying grace per se etc. So with this definition we can proceed to marriage in the New Testament.

Although not demonstrative, Reverend Durzo offers this as an introductory argument on the fittingness of matrimony as a sacrament. "Quote, Above all, the entire scripture from Genesis to Revelation explicitly and insistently presents under the symbol of marriage the relationship between God and humanity, between the Lord and Israel, between Christ and the church, the very marriage between Adam and Eve, or the distinction and union of the sexes, and consequentially all marriage from the beginning according to at least the interpretation of a Catholic tradition in the ecclesiastical magisterium is presented by St. Paul in Ephesians 5:32 as a prophetic symbol of the union between Christ and the church. Now this divine preferential love for the institution of marriage and its original symbolic sanctification calls for and suggests that Christ in the New Testament wished to elevate this holy institution to a higher dignity in harmony with the perfection of the New Testament in which the rights and symbols instituted by God no longer merely bear the sign of a thing but also serve as the vehicle and cause of the sanctity they signify. In this the very rationale of its properly called sacramentality is found. End quote."

Our first proof is from scripture. So let me give you a syllogism for the argument from scripture. Scripture teaches that matrimony among Christians is a right that signifies sanctifying grace. In the new law, rights that signify sanctifying grace are efficacious in causing such a grace. This is instrumental causality and not principle. Therefore, matrimony is a sacrament of the new law properly speaking. St. Thomas wrote this in his sumac contraentilas "quote and just as in the other sacraments something spiritual is symbolized by external actions. So in this sacrament, the union of husband and wife signifies the union of Christ with the church according to the saying of the apostle. This is a great mystery or this is a great sacrament and I mean in reference to Christ and the church end quote." Let's examine the major premise before getting to Ephesians 5 where St. Paul says matrimony is a great mystery. It's important to first understand the context of the letter to the Ephesians. St. Paul uses the word mystery in the epistle six times. Chapter 1:9, chapter 3:3, 4 and 9, chapter 5:32, and chapter 6:1 19. For example, in the first chapter, he writes, "Quote, 'Wherein he has abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known unto us the mystery of his will, quote."

To his good pleasure, which he has purposed in himself." In chapter 3, he writes, "quote, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery, whereby when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ."

From his own usage, we see that for St. Paul, a mystery is something that was once hidden and only known to God, but is now revealed to the church in the coming of the gospel. Since the mystery is now revealed, St. Paul calls Christians to a new way of life. This includes avoiding sins, as is seen in chapter 4:2 through chapter 5:1, and how Christian relationships ought to be. St. Paul describes relationships between friends, parents, and their children, and slaves and their owners.

But St. Paul only attributes the title of a great mystery in the context of matrimony between two Christians. Although all relationships ought to be reconsidered in the light of the gospel, St. Paul goes into greater detail regarding matrimony using special language. This is seen in Ephesians 5:22 through 33. I will quote some of the verses but not all.

"Husbands love your wives as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the lav of water and the word of life. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself because we are members of his body of his flesh and his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great mystery or sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself and let the wife fear her husband. End quote."

From this text, marriage is a great mystery and its meaning is revealed in the union between Christ and the church. The culmination of this is in verse 32 when he says, "This is a great mystery." But the sacramental character of it is in the preceding verses as St. Paul says cardinal marriage of Christians ought to mirror the spiritual marriage.

Peter Lombard explains it thus: "quote, and so since marriage is a sacrament it is both a sacred sign and the sign of a sacred thing namely of the joining of Christ in the church as the apostle says for it is written a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh and this is a great sacrament but I say in Christ and the church for just as there is between partners to a marriage a joining according to the consent of souls and the intermingling of bodies so the church joins itself to Christ by will and nature because she wills the same as he is and he took a form from human nature and so the bride is joined to the bridegroom spiritually and corporally that is by charity and the conformity of nature end quote."

One objection might be that the apostle Paul is only providing an example or an analogy that's fitting of what marriage ought to be like. He is only using the example of Christ in the church for his current purpose. This would disqualify marriage from being a sacrament because it was not instituted by Christ to signify his union with the church.

Response: But this objection does not hold once one considers the way that St. Paul uses the word mystery throughout Ephesians. As we have shown, these mysteries are made so by God in his providential plan. So St. Paul is not merely creating a fitting analogy for his purpose. He is instead teaching that God himself imparted this significance and this meaning into marriage.

St. Augustine for this reason in his literal commentary on Genesis writes: "quote, finally when Adam awoke full of prophecy and saw his rib now turned into a woman brought to him he immediately exclaimed which the apostle commands as a great mystery this is now bone of my bones and flesh in my flesh end quote." Pope Leo I wrote in epistle 167 that "since the beginning matrimony contained not only the union of the sexes but also the sacrament of Christ and the church end."

This now brings us to the common Protestant reading of Ephesians 5:32. Although not unanimously, the majority of early Protestants denied that the great mystery of Ephesians 5:32 is matrimony. Instead, they said that the great mystery was the union of Christ and the church. Calvin writes, "quote, 'At length, he breaks out into the exclamation, this is a great mystery. And lest anyone should be misled by the ambiguity, he says that he is not speaking of the connection between husband and wife, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the church.' End quote." Francis Turin gives the same objection in his institutes.

St. Robert Belleramine, however, rightly explains why the great mystery of Ephesians 5:32 is matrimony. He writes: "quote, for when the apostle says, 'This is a great sacrament,' the pronoun this must necessarily refer to what immediately precedes, for it is demonstrative of the matter at hand. But what immediately precedes is 'quote, 'A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' End quote.' Therefore, Paul's meaning must be this. This sacrament, namely that a man leaves his father and a mother and clees his wife, and they become one flesh, is great because it represents the union of Christ in the church. End quote."

Father Dominico Pali was a Jesuit priest. He was a 19th century Italian scholastic theologian and probably wrote the best tractate on the sacrament of matrimony. He explains Adam's words like this: "Quote, 'Therefore, the words of Adam, which literally signify the marital union of a man and a woman, mystically through Paul, signify the union of Christ to the church. Marriage then is a sign of this reality.' End quote."

Interestingly enough, the 17th century Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry actually interprets the pronoun this correctly, unlike many of the early Protestants. St. Bruno of Cologne, founder of the Carthusians in the 11th century, comments thus on Ephesians 5:32: "Quote, 'Accordingly, this that a man shall leave his father is a great sacrament, a sacrament of a great reality. For the statement, 'a man shall leave his father,' signifies that the son of God left the father when he who was invisible in his divine nature, like the father, presented himself as visible under the appearance of a slave. He also left the mother who had nurtured him, the synagogue, and cleaved unto his wife, the church, whom he betrothed to himself with the ring of faith. Now this I am saying is a sacrament but I am saying that the reality of the sacrament exists in Christ and in the church as has been said even if there were nothing else to recommend it. So according to Bruno and this is the medieval position after him marriage is worthy of reverence because it signifies Christ in the church despite not being proportional to this union. Therefore we can conclude that God instituted matrimony to be a sign of sanctifying grace. For the union of Christ with the church occurs through sanctifying grace as the apostle explains in the same place. Quote, 'Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word that she might be holy and without blemish.' End quote. Therefore, if marital union signifies the union by which Christ is joined to the church, it necessarily also signifies sanctifying grace, which is the bond that unites. This is what Christian Pesh writes in his prelection dogmatic."

One may further object that St. Paul teaches all matrimonies are equally a sign of Christ in the church. The response is first the fathers of medieval scholastics frequently admit natural marriage is a sacrament of nature although it does not confer grace. Further we know that in this text of Ephesians 5 St. Paul has specifically Christian marriage in mind. First we know this from the entire context of this section of the epistle to the Ephesians for as I already stated the larger context of chapters 4-6 is the new life in Christ. So he's not speaking about secular or pagan marriages. Absolutely. Particularly from Ephesians 5:21 to the beginning of chapter 6 St. Paul instructs on how relationships ought to be between Christians. Second, we know this because in verses 22-30, St. Paul demonstrates a certain proportion between husband and wife and Christ and the church. Third, the word mystery is consistently used throughout Ephesians to refer to a hidden thing which God imparted meaning onto but is now only revealed in Christ. Third, the word mystery, as has been shown, is consistently used throughout Ephesians to refer to a hidden thing which God imparted meaning onto but is only now revealed in Christ. So if he was talking about pagan and natural marriages absolutely then this would not be a mystery that is now revealed. Finally the father certainly interpreted the great mystery in Ephesians 5:32 as referring to matrimony. You can read this for instance in Clement of Alexandria who wrote in the second century. "Quote, 'Therefore this mystery leads to Christ and the church. Just as that which is generated from flesh is flesh so that which is from spirit is spirit not only in bearing children but also in speaking.' End quote." This interpretation is found in many places throughout the fathers. But here are just a few if you'd like to read more.

Now, the minor premise of this argument was that the signs of sanctifying grace cause the grace that they signify in the new law. While this gets into the topic of the difference between the old and new covenant, it suffices to point to Galatians 4:9 in which St. Paul calls the rights of the old law weak and needy. However, this is a topic I plan to address in a future video. For now, it's sufficient to invoke the authority of St. Augustine who says that in the sacraments properly speaking it is through "quote, 'the visible form of the sacrament' end quote" that God "quote, 'grants the invisible grace' end quote" and holds that the new law sacraments are superior to the ones of the old law and efficacy he writes "quote, 'the sacraments of the new testament give salvation the sacraments of the old testament promised a savior' end quote." Further the duties inferred loving and submission by St. Paul are supernatural because they signify something supernatural namely the love between Christ and his church which is through sanctifying grace. However, for St. Paul, however, for St. Paul, these duties of husband and wife, specifically Christian husband and wife are to be found in the essence of the sacrament of matrimony itself. This is why he says "because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be subject to their husband in all things. Therefore, matrimony is a sacrament of the new law."

Since we have shown that one, the union of the spouses signifies the union of Christ in the church. Two, this signification was assigned to it by God. Three, St. Paul speaks particularly about Christians. And four, signs in a new law cause what they signify. We now get to the argument from tradition. Father Duranzo summarizes the argument thus. According to many fathers, you can see the list of fathers on the screen, but basically the fathers say that Christ's presence at the wedding at Cana was not mere approval of marriage but also sanctification of it. There is some strengthening or reinforcement of marital chastity in it. Some fathers say that in marriage there is a grace imparted that remedies defects and provides consolation. By recent of this grace, marriage can be compared to baptism according to some fathers and marriage is assimilated to the mystical union of Christ in the church as its figure. Frequently in marriage liturgies, the miracle at the wedding of Cana is compared to Christ's baptism in the Jordan River in the sense that just as Christ sanctified the waters, so also did he sanctify marriage. For example, in the Gothic missile, it says, "quote, 'Let us implore, dearly beloved brothers, the God who sanctified the streams of the Jordan and bless the unions of marriage, so that by his grace alone, we may merit the forgiveness of sins who whose miracles we commemorate yearly.' End quote." In the Gregorian Hadrian sacrament from the 8th century, it says, "quote, 'May the spirit of sanctity descend, O Lord, from your throne upon the heads of your servants, that spirit who at the Jordan, when John baptized the Lord, was visibly seen descending as a dove. Amen. Fill their souls with the wine of righteousness. You who today by your word transformed the taste of water into wine.' Amen. End quote." And in the Mosarabic sacrament of the 9th century, it says, "quote, 'Christ entered the waters of the Jordan to sanctify them by his baptism for the cleansing of all nations. He performed his first sign at Canaa of Galilee where at a wedding feast he transformed the water into wine teaching through this profound and marvelous mystery that he had come to unite to himself as bride the church whose faith in the truth would be changed into the wine of spiritual wisdom.' End quote."

St. Sarah of Alexandria says: "quote, 'When a wedding was celebrated of course chastely and honestly the mother of the savior was present but he himself also came with his disciples not so much to feast as to perform a miracle and thus sanctify the very beginning of the birth of man. I mean, so far as per pertains to the flesh, for it was fitting that he, who was renewing the very nature of man, and refashioning it all for the better, should not only impart his blessings to those already called into being, but also prepare before grace those soon to be born, and make holy their entrance into being. For he, the delight and joy of all, honored marriage with his presence, that he might expel the old shame of childbearing. For if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation, and old things have passed away.' End quote."

St. Maximus of Tren writes: "quote, 'So the son of God goes to the wedding to sanctify with his blessing of presence those whom he had long ago established by his power.' End quote."

St. Epipanius writes: "quote, 'In Canaa of Galilee, there were celebrated weddings and the water was truly turned into wine for two reasons. First, to restrain the disordered lust of men in the world through the chastity and honor of marriage, and secondly, to remedy what was lacking and to comfort them with the sweetness of the most delightful wine and through grace.' End quote."

St. Augustine writes: "quote, 'The Lord was invited to the wedding to strengthen conjugal chastity and to show the sacrament of marriage because the bridegroom of those weddings symbolized the person of the Lord to whom it was said, you have kept the good wine until now. For the good wine, namely the gospel, Christ has kept until now.' End quote."

St. John of Damascus writes: "quote, 'This we say without speaking ill of marriage, God forbid.' For we know that the Lord blessed marriage by his presence. End quote."

Secondly, the fathers either explicitly or implicitly teach that matrimony among Christians confers grace. Some of these have already been quoted above like St. Augustine and St. Apanius when they say that Christ strengthened conjugal chastity. St. Ambrose writes: "quote, 'We recognize God as the protector and guardian of marriage, who does not permit the marriage bed to be defiled and if someone does so, he sins against God whose law he violates and whose grace he anols and because he sins against God he loses participation in the heavenly sacrament.' End quote."

St. Pope Innocent the 1 in epistle 36 provided instructions on what should happen if a man's wife is captured by barbarians and he marries another. He gives an example of this situation with a certain Fortunian who married another woman when his wife Ursa was taken and then declares that it is the first marriage "quote, 'founded on divine grace' end quote" which is the legitimate one.

Now although I would love to go in depth on the doctrine of St. Augustine on matrimony. I have already made a video on that you can go watch in my channel. It's a good video that summarizes his doctrine on the marital contract and implicitly teaching that grace is conferred.

Now following the thought of St. Augustine and the earlier fathers. Many medieval theologians referred to matrimony as a sacrament. Obviously, this in and of itself does not prove that they held matrimony to be a sacrament in the strict sense. Each quote must be looked at in context to determine such a thing. For the sake of time, here are just some clear examples that teach that there is grace in the sacrament of matrimony.

The statues of Sanadius, Bishop of Reams, whose authenticity and antiquity are seriously questioned and which at least in their present form should likely be dated to a much later period, suggest the sacramentality of marriage, saying, "quote, 'In marriage, the image of the sacred union between Christ and the church is manifest, and therefore the bond is divinely strengthened, which greatly contributes to the happiness of the family, to peace between parties, and to the reception of children.' End quote."

St. Peter Damian in the 11th century compares matrimony to baptism, confirmation, and ordination and distinguishes Christian marriage from pre-Christian marriage as "quote, 'a higher mystery' end quote." He ends with "quote, 'And these were in ancient times as we said aimed at propagating offspring. But now, as the world is growing old and the doctrine of him who is the virgin born shines forth, marriage undoubtedly aims to avoid fornication. For then, keeping the higher mystery, it was said, "Cursed is the man who does not have seed in Israel." But now it is said husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.' End quote."

Pope Lucius III at the council of Verona in 1184 issued a decreed which says: "quote, 'All who regarding the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or regarding baptism or the confession of sins, matrimony or the other ecclesiastical sacraments do not fear to think or to teach otherwise than the most holy Roman church teaches and observes. We bind with a like bond of perpetual anathema.' End quote."

And some of Lan wrote, "quote, 'Since all sacraments began after sin, and because of sin, only the sacrament of matrimony is also believed to have been instituted before sin, not for a remedy as the others before an office.' End quote." And all throughout this time period, matrimony is consistently presented in the list of sacraments along with baptism, the eucharist, confirmation, etc.

We now move to the third proof, which is from the consensus of theologians. Since the 12th century, theologians have unanimously taught that matrimony is one of the seven sacraments of the church. And they present this not as a new idea but as something always handed down by the church. However, there were three classes of opinions on this question. First, some denied that grace was in the sacrament like Peter Lombard and Petrus Cantor. Some admitted grace broadly and in some sense like St. Bonaventure and Alexander of Hales. And third, some admitted that grace was conferred strictly speaking like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great and other theologians. All three views existed concurrently. There's not one view that's older than the other, but they dominated in prevalence in that order. In other words, the view that grace was not conferred was first prevalent, then the view that grace was admitted in some sense, and finally the view that grace was admitted strictly speaking.

Peter Lombard, the master of the sentences, while affirming that the sacraments of the new law confer grace and that matrimony is a sacrament of the new law, teaches that matrimony does not confer grace in the same way that the Eucharist and holy orders do. He says that some sacraments "quote, 'offer a remedy against sin and confer helping grace like baptism. Others are only a remedy like marriage. Others fortify us with grace and virtue like the Eucharist and orders.' End quote." He is not alone in this denial of grace. For example, the anonymous author of Isogue and Theologium says, "quote, 'This sacrament pertains more to indulgence and remedy for evil than to any other gift.' End quote." The epitome Theologia Christian written in around the year 1139 writes, "quote, 'It does not pertain to salvation. Now, concerning marriage, it is indeed a sacrament, but it does not confer a gift like the others. It is a remedy for evil given to restrain incontinence. This sacrament is, as we said, a remedy for evil, even though it does not confer a gift.' End quote." Petrus Canour from the 12th century writes, "quote, 'Marriage was instituted for remedy, not for increase.' End quote." He also writes, "quote, 'The grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred or increased by ecclesiastical sacraments except matrimony.' End quote." Similar denials can be found in Haguchio, Gaido of Orkellis, Rolandis chromis, and please forgive my pronunciation, Guricus de Santoino.

Another opinion is that matrimony does not increase sanctifying grace like the other sacraments but serves as a remedy against sin. And further Alexander of Hales for example seemed to deny ex opere operato power in matrimony but instead taught an increase in grace ex opere operantis. More on this can be found in his gloss on the sentences book four distinction 26. Another significant figure is Dandis. By the time of Dandis in the early 1300s the majority opinion is that grace is conferred in matrimony. Durandis is an outlier. Though he admits the majority view is that grace is conferred. Even contrary to many of the Protestants who deny that Ephesians 5:32 refers to matrimony as a great mystery, Durandis says, "quote, 'Second, matrimony is a sacrament in the sense that it is a sign of sacred reality. To say otherwise is likewise heretical since it contradicts the words of the apostles just cited.' End quote." He further writes, "quote, 'However, modern theologians almost universally hold that grace is conferred through the sacrament of matrimony unless the contracting parties place an obstacle as is the case with other sacraments. Matrimony is therefore equated with the other sacraments in this regard because otherwise it would seem they could not maintain that marriage is a sacrament of new law.' End quote."

But for these theologians who are denying that grace is conferred in matrimony, I think father Emanuel Duronzo points out a very obvious contradiction. He writes, "quote, 'Nevertheless, these doctors face a double and thorny difficulty that seems to reveal the internal fragility and invincible contradiction of their entire system. The first is the inclusion of matrimony among the other sacraments of the new law or among the means of sanctification, which the solemn ecclesiastical magisterium consecrated early on. The second difficulty is the inclusion of marriage in the septinary catalog of the properly called sacraments which based on the laboriously acquired and universally accepted definition imply both the signification and causality of grace.' End quote." After listing several theologians, father Duranso concludes: "quote, 'Thus they are forced to revert to the glaring anomaly of some right or sacrament of the old law which persists in the new economy.' End quote." In other words, what he is saying and this is what St. Thomas Aquinas also concludes is that these theologians who are accepting matrimony as a sacrament of the new law strictly speaking are in a weird anomaly where there is a right of the old testament of the old law that did not confer grace. It was merely a sign of grace but is now a remnant here in the new law and it's not conferring grace.

It should also be noted that this was not the universal view as Dandis notes. Even in the 12th century shortly after Lombard sentences, Peter of Poier did not distinguish matrimony from the other sacraments like other theologians do but held to it as being another one of the seven sacraments. Hugo St. Victor writes about the sacrament of marriage being like the others that it is sustained by "quote, 'spiritual grace' end quote" and allows for the participation in it. Matrimony also contains "quote, 'spiritual virtue and effect' end quote."

St. Albert the Great, teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas and commonly known as Albertus Magnus, comments on the fourth book of the sentences that there are three views. The first is that marriage does not confer any grace. The second is that marriage confers grace. That is to withdraw from sin but not in order to do good. And the third is that marriage confers grace in order to do good. Not just any good but this good which the spouse must do. And this is that he faithfully assists his spouse. St. Albert the Great concludes that this third view is also very probable. However, in another work of St. Albert which was only recently found called the sacramentes written before this commentary on the sentences, he more clearly attributes grace to matrimony. In tractate one on the sacraments in general he writes: "quote, 'And this grace is given in the sacraments. Therefore, just as there were seven in the redeemer in which he worked our salvation so there is a seven-fold sacramental grace. Baptismal grace configures us to Christ dying. Marriage configures us in the same way as he is the bridegroom of the church.' End quote." In tractate 9 on matrimony he writes: "quote, 'Marriage is a sacrament of the new law where it signifies and causes interior grace. For from the actual union of natures in Christ, grace is caused in the sacrament of marriage, promoting the goods of marriage and the mitigation of concupiscence.' End quote."

We now come to St. Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctrine. In a summa contra Gentiles, he writes: "quote, 'And because the sacraments cause what they symbolize, it must be believed that those who marry through this sacrament are conferred grace by which they pertain to the union of Christ in the church, and this is especially necessary for them, that they may tend to the carnal and earthly without being separated from Christ in the church.' End quote."

In his commentary on the sentences, he writes: "quote, 'For certain people said that marriage is in no way a cause of grace, but it is only a sign. But this cannot stand. For according to this, it would not differ at all from the sacraments of the old law. And so there would be no reason why it should be enumerated among the sacraments of the new law, for the remedy that it offers by satisfying concupiscence, it possessed also in the old law by the very nature of the act.' End quote." So what he's saying here is that those like Peter Lombard who say that matrimony only serves as a remedy, they would be saying that matrimony does nothing new in the new law than it did in the old law. But this would not be in keeping with the nature of the new law.

St. Thomas continues: "quote, 'And thus others have said that grace is conferred here in order to withdraw one from evil. For the act which would have been a sin without marriage is excused from sin. But this would be scarcely anything for this was also the case in the old law.' Further on he writes: 'For it is the same grace which impedes sin and which inclines to good just as the same heat which removes cold also warms. This is why others say that marriage in as much as it is contracted in faith in Christ is able to confer grace that helps in doing the things which are required for marriage and this is more probable. For wherever a certain faculty is divinely given help is also given by which man can fittingly make use of that faculty.' End quote."

Now much more can be said regarding the theologians after St. Thomas leading up to the Reformation, but this will suffice. We now move on to objections.

Objection one: The sacraments must be of ordinary and perpetual use in the New Testament church alone, but matrimony exists among Gentiles by nature. This objection is brought up by Francis Turin. Therefore, it is not a sacrament.

Response: This definition is arbitrary, but baptism was practiced in the Old Testament church in temple washings and in John the Baptist baptisms. Therefore, it would not be a new law sacrament by Francis Turitan's objection. And circumcision was practiced among pagans. Therefore, it would not be an old law sacrament. So, this Francis Turitan objection is just not good.

Objection two: The sacraments confer what they signify, but matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the church, which it does not confer. Therefore, matrimony is not a sacrament.

Response: St. Thomas actually anticipates and responds to this very objection in the supplement question 42 article 1 response to objection four and five. We must distinguish the sacraments do not need to cause the exact effect in an immediate and perfect way. No one, whether Protestants or Catholics, actually holds to this definition. And here's why. Just as the consecration of bread and wine do not cause Christ to have a body, but they affect the conversion of the elements. Further, the actual reception of the body and blood of Christ, which is when the reality of the sacrament is affected, also do not cause Christ to have a body. Fruitful reception of the Eucharist affects an increase in charity which strengthens the union between the Christian soul and Christ in the mystical body, his church. Similarly, contracting marriage does not cause Christ to be united to the church, but causes the spouse to be conformed to the image of Christ in the church. The STS says: "quote, 'But matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the church and confers the grace whereby the spouses can always remain united so that they really are a reflection of that supernatural union of Christ with the church.' End quote."

Objection three and objection four are kind of similar. They go like this: The sacraments were instituted by Christ, but matrimony was not instituted by Christ or matrimony already existed as a natural contract. Therefore, matrimony is not a sacrament.

Response: It was actually Antinine Bruss of Mohani, the bishop of Prague, who had the council of Trent, suggested that the first canon of the 24th session read that matrimony was instituted by Christ and not simply by God. Now, the major premise is admitted, but the minor must be distinguished. As a natural contract, matrimony was instituted in the beginning of the human race before the incarnation. But as a sacrament, it was instituted by Christ. But just because the Bible does not record this institution does not mean it did not happen. Multiple fathers point the wedding at Cana for Christ's sanctification of the marital contract as has been cited above already.

Objection five: The apostle also states that other mutual relationships like that of fathers and children and slaves and masters should contain love and submission. But these relationships are not sacraments. Therefore, matrimony is not a sacrament.

Response: St. Paul "quote, 'presupposes that the union of spouses is taken by God as a sacrament or a sign of union of Christ in the church and from this he infers their duties this cannot be said about others' end quote" in other words father pal Mary is saying that St. Paul explicitly tells us that God imparted the meaning of Christ and the church into matrimony but he does not say this about other relationships.

Objection six and this is from Peter Martrley. He says if we accept matrimony as a sacrament because it is a sign of a holy thing we must accept "quote, 'an infinite number of sacraments such as are the washing of feet the shaking of dust from the feet the embracing of young children in arms and in a matter all the actions of Christ' end quote." But these are not sacraments. Therefore, matrimony is not a sacrament.

Response: God imparted the significance of Christ's union with the church unto marriage according to St. Paul. The same cannot be said about washing of feet, shaking dust from feet, etc.

A final objection is that one might say that the grace in matrimony is external and found in the order of providence. That matrimony provides the occasions for sanctification just like the religious life or parenting. But those so-called graces are not intrinsic to marriage but a result of the situations that marriage puts one in. This is the kind of grace that Martin Kemnets seem to admit to marriage.

Response: The grace in matrimony is intrinsic because of the teaching of the apostle wherein he says that Christ nourishes and cherishes the church which is done through sanctifying grace. He says "quote, 'because we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones.' End quote." Thus two Christians who get married signify the grace whereby they are sanctified with Christ.

To conclude we have discussed the following. First, the common, though not universal, Protestant reading of Ephesians 5 is inconsistent with the text and the reading of the fathers. Two, not only is Christian matrimony not secular, but also non-Christian marriage is not altogether secular due to the primary object of marriage. Three, scripture speaks of matrimony among Christians as a sign that points to the union of Christ in the church, and this significance was imparted by God. Four, Christ's presence at the wedding at Cana mystically represents the good wine of marriage in the New Testament. Five, the fathers of the church using St. Paul's teaching in Ephesians 5 and the wedding at Cana saw matrimony in the new law as strengthened and sanctified. Six, some fathers even consider it to be founded on grace and a participation in grace. And seven, the scholastics were virtually unanimous that matrimony is a sacrament of the new law, although they differed in how matrimony served as an aid merely as a remedy by actual graces only, by sanctifying grace, etc.

This has been a pretty long video. If you'd like to support me, please make sure to leave a like, subscribe, comment. Let me know your thoughts below. Let me know if you have any requests for future videos. I hope you enjoyed this and this was helpful in some sense. I think our scholastic tradition is truly beautiful and especially in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. So, with that said, I hope you have a great day and God bless you.

So, if you follow me on Twitter or or X, um you've noticed recently that I've been posting quite a bit on the sacrament of matrimony. I just been reading uh a lot on it recently, uh obviously the Bible, um but also patristics, medieval theologians, scholastics, um and then reformation and then recent theologians in the 19th and 20th century, mostly Jesuits recently. Um and and I think uh father pal Dominico Pal Mary has been really helpful a Jesuit um very probably the best treatise on this and he goes about he goes over matrimony in general as a natural office but also as a sacrament and um I just wanted to I will be making more videos on this uh later this week and next week a small video on St. Augustine's theology of of the sacrament of matrimony, but also a bigger video where I go over the biblical, traditional and uh just the case for the sacrament of matrimony, why the Catholic Church teaches uh matrimony as a sacrament and going over a bunch of objections from like Francis Turin, Francis Bunny, um Kemnets uh systematically like I I typically like to do in my videos. Uh but for this video, no script or anything, pretty informal. I just wanted to go over the biblical case for um the sacrament of matrimony. Why we teach the sacrament in the strict sense? In the strict sense, I mean it's uh you know like with baptism, the Eucharist, it's one of the seven sacraments of the church. And because what happens is uh Catholics are going to get asked very frequently by Protestants, why do you guys teach that matrimony is a sacrament? Um and the reason typically for doing is that the uh Protestants are going to define sacraments in the strict sense as you know uh gospel signs. um and and they're they're signs that show forth the gospel, not just signs. Obviously, Lutherans, reformed are going to talk about that differently and and their different uh effect and power, but or virtue, but minimum it's a sign of the gospel. And so, they're going to look at matrimony and they're going to say, "Well, matrimony has always existed uh since the garden, since the Old Testament. Um there's nothing necessarily uh at least at first glance about the gospel within it. So, where are you guys getting this from?" And what Catholics are typically going to respond with is they're going to respond with Ephesians 5:32 or they might quote the whole passage verse 22 through 33. Um, and they're just going to drop that in there and not give any explanation. And I think we could do a lot better than that actually. Um, and I think when when when a Catholic just quotes Ephesians 5:32, um, I think it's fair to say the Protestant has the right to push back because it doesn't get you anywhere if you don't explain it. Now I think the sacraments are the seven sacraments are very clearly uh all biblical but I think matrimony is kind of the more difficult one to to uh I guess deduce from the text but I do think I do think it's clearly there and I think uh father Paul Mary uh makes it the clearest for our theologians but basically uh in Ephesians 5:32 St. Paul says, "This is a great sacrament, and I speak in Christ and in the church." Um, in the Dewey Rees, I love the Dewey Rees. Um, which, you know, it's translated from the Vulgate. Excuse the sun and my face, please. Uh, but then I'm pretty sure every other English translation is going to say this is a great mystery, which is totally fair. It's actually more uh legitimate with the text because St. Paul uses the word Mysterion in the original one. And it doesn't really matter which one you use. Um, in fact, I think Mysterion is actually you can make a better case uh from the word Mysterion uh from the word mystery. And here's why. Because uh again, an objection that that Protestants are going to make is that that one that matrimony is there's nothing new in it. So why call it a sacrament? The other thing they're going to say is that when St. Paul says this is a great mystery, uh that St. Paul is speaking about Christ and the church, which I don't think makes grammatical sense. um because it's like if I told you this is great and then I actually tell you what it is. But the the pronoun this um necessarily talks about what's preceding it. So what's immediately preceding this is a great mystery is verse 31 which um quotes Genesis 2:24 where Adam says uh for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become uh in one flesh. And that's what immediately precedes it which is a very general message about all marriages. Um, but what what more generally precedes it is the whole discussion about husbands loving their wives, wives loving their husbands. And this is done in relation to uh or in a certain proportion to uh although smaller to Christ and the church. And so Protestants are going to object and say not all of them actually like I was I was looking at Matthew Henry. He's a Presbyterian commentator and he actually takes this as a great mystery as talking about marriage. Um, which is is the patristic reading. I found like one or two fathers, maybe three. Um, I'd be open to to if anyone can post other other fathers that interpret this as a great mystery strictly as a Christ in the church because I know if you have like St. Augustine or other fathers, they they'll have all different interpretations, but consistently or at least the most consistent interpretation of the fathers is um even in the ones that interpret some sort of mystery in Christ and the church, they'll say the mystery, the sacrament is the union of of the spouse's marriage pretty much. And I think that's very clear in Augustine. It's Augustine St. Them um and St. Ambrose. So I think once that objection is dealt with the next objection that Protestants come up with is say or not come up with but they'll bring forward is they'll say that St. Paul is only applying a fitting analogy to to marriage and saying well husbands ought to do this like like Christ to the church you know Christ died for the church and hus and wives should submit to their husbands like um the church submits to Christ u but they'll say St. Paul is using a fitting analogy. He's not actually um saying that God gave this meaning to marriage. The reason that fails and the reason I like the translation mystery is because in the context of Ephesians, the way St. Paul uses the word mystery, he uses the word mystery six times and it's always uh God creating or instituting a mystery in the Old Testament and in older times and now revealing it finally unveiling it fully in the new law in the New Testament and the apostles being able to announce this particularly St. Paul. So it's always something that that God himself uh imparts onto things uh and the mystery of the gospel of Christ which now is revealed. So the word mystery here with context and the other five times that uh the word mystery is used in Ephesians, it's something that God imparts. It's it's a it's a meaning. It's a mysterious meaning that God himself imparts which gets you to marriage uh really does signify the union between Christ and the church. And this meaning is imparted by God. That's the way the word mystery is used in the other uh the other times it's used in Ephesians. So that's why I don't think that that uh I don't think that objection works from the Protestants uh when they say it's just a fitting analogy but not that's not not a meaning that God is imparting. The next objection is they're going to say well uh but St. Paul immediately quotes Genesis 2:24. You know, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and the two shall become one flesh. And that's talking about all marriages. Um and in a sense that's true. You have the fathers talk about all marriages being a sacrament of Christ in the church. You even have the scholastics the Catholic scholastics. You have modern theologians or modern theologians. There's no problem with saying that all marriages even like pagan ones are sacraments broadly speaking because marriage is intrinsically a holy thing. Um and that's just you can get that very clearly from Ephesians 5. Um, but if we're talking about broadly speaking, because the sacrament, broadly speaking, and I think we can agree with Protestants on this, in fact, they're actually going to use this as an objection to us is anything that's sacred or anything that's a sacred sign of something. Um, so like this crucifix is is a sacrament. Holy water is called a sacrament by the fathers, the sign of the cross, the nine creed, so on, right? Anything you have millions of sacraments. The church is a sacrament. Um, so so we modern theologians, we can, you know, the natural marriage, non-sacramental marriage, you know, among two atheists is in a sense a a sacrament of nature. That's the that's the word we would use pretty much. So there's nothing wrong with calling it that. The question is, does this text teach that matrimony is a sacrament in the strict sense? Now, in the strict sense, we're going to differ uh a little bit slightly from Protestants because they're going to say uh that the sacrament conveys or shows forth the gospel and they're going to look at matrimony and say, well, matrimony has always been there. There's nothing particularly new about it, so why call it a sacrament? Whereas I think the more consistent reading of it and now this is this is a topic for a different video so you're going to have to trust me on this one but I think the more consistent reading with scripture with the fathers uh with the Catholic tradition even lowercase Catholic tradition is that a sacrament is a sign invis is a visible sign of an invisible grace and obviously sanctifying grace uh not like actual grace or gratuitous grace because uh sanctifying grace is what actually is what the purpose of the sacraments is to to unite you to Christ to to confer salvation as St. Augustine says to actually give salvation. And so once that definition is given to the sacraments in the strict sense, you you very obviously the scholastic very obviously agree on seven uh unanimously. You you arrive at seven automatically from from the Bible alone. I think um although matrimony takes a little bit more uh than the others, but you you get past just two is what I'm trying to say. Um I don't think with that definition uh consistent with the fathers, consistent with scripture, you can get you can limit yourself to two. So how are we getting this from the text in and matrimony? Um the reason is that St. Paul is saying that matrimony this is a great mystery or this is a great sacrament. Uh this carnal union of the spouses signifies it's a sign a visible sign of the invisible grace that subsists uh in the union between Christ and the church. Not just subsists but uh is the basis you could say uh between Christ and the church because that's how you're united to Christ. Sanctifying grace. If you don't have if you're if you're in a state of original if you have original sin or uh if you're in a state of mortal sin, you're not in the invisible church. You're not united to Christ. You're not part of the bride of Christ. If you have sanctifying grace, if you're justified, you do. It's that simple. Um so you we have St. Paul saying that carnal marriage is a sign of sanctifying grace uh of a of a spiritual marriage pretty much. Now again the objection can come up and say well why aren't all marriages signs of this and therefore they all cause grace

They're all sacred, you know. The pagans had the sacrament of marriage. Strictly speaking, because again, we can agree that they had a sacrament of nature. And again, Protestants will admit this. This isn't controversial, saying that pagans had a sacrament of nature and have a sacrament of nature. Now, modern Catholics, that's not a problem. That's not the problem. The problem is, is it a, is it in the new law among Christians, is it a strict sacrament in the strict, proper sense? The answer is yes, because in the new, the new law, signs of sanctifying grace, like baptism, like the Eucharist, like confession, cause what they signify. They cause the grace that they, the grace that they point to, that they, that they signify. And that's just all throughout the New Testament. That's all throughout, I think, the Gospels and the teaching of baptism, very clearly in Paul's letters. When it comes to St. Paul, he, he talks frequently about the old law being unable to justify. And in Galatians 4:9, he, he says that the old rights in general, but also particularly, he's talking about circumcision. He has circumcision in mind, saying that it's a weak and beggarly element. So, I know the reformed are going to disagree on this. They're going to say that the new law and the old law sacraments don't differ in their efficacy and their virtue of justification and moral causation. But that's a topic for a different video, different day. But I, I think the consistent reading is, and it's actually a dogma of ours, is that the sacraments of the new law are superior to those of the old law and actually causing what they signify. And so that's how you get to matrimony being a sacrament of the new law. It's a visible sign of invisible grace, invisible sanctifying grace. I think that's very clear because the church is joined to Christ by sanctifying grace. And St. Paul is not just giving a fitting analogy. He's not just trying to find some meaning in matrimony and so the reader can be a better husband. He is, he is specifically saying God gave matrimony this meaning. And once you have that matrimony being the sign of the invisible spiritual union through sanctifying grace and all these signs cause what they signify, then matrimony is a, is a sign of the, is a sacrament of the new law, strictly speaking. I don't think there's been any objections, any good objections to this argument. Although there's plenty of objections that could be brought forward. But that I'll do that in the big video that I'm going to do later this week or next week. But I'm more than open. I'm very excited if you guys have any objections. If you have any questions you would like me to clarify on in the comments, please do so. I'd love to engage in the comments on this. So just let me know. But I hope this was helpful. Hopefully we can, we can, I explained this pretty well and not just like thrown Ephesians 5 out there and said, you know, St. Paul calls it a mystery or a great mystery or a sacrament. And hopefully this can move the conversation forward and I'm interested what you guys think about this. So, thank you. I hope you this helped and God bless.

No early father develops the theology of Christian marriage more than the Doctor of Grace. Although St. Augustine obviously calls matrimony a sacrament, it must be clarified if he uses the term in the strict sense, as he does with baptism and ordination, or merely in the broad sense, like he does with the sign of the cross or even the Nicene Creed. The significance of this question is evident, for although sufficient evidence for the sacramentality of marriage can certainly be gathered from other testimonies of tradition, such an argument loses weight if it is deprived of the authority of such a great doctor. Ultimately, St. Augustine does not explicitly say that matrimony confers grace, like he does for baptism. However, his doctrine of matrimony contains such a conclusion implicitly. For St. Augustine teaches that the sacraments of the new law surpass those of the old law and that they confer grace as opposed to merely signifying it. Commenting on Psalm 72, he writes, "The sacraments are not the same, because some sacraments give salvation while others promise the Savior. The sacraments of the New Testament give salvation; the sacraments of the Old Testament promised the Savior."

St. Augustine also limits the sacramentality of marriage in some proper sense and its sanctity to those in the church, teaching that it is a sign of a holy thing. Although St. Augustine attributes the name sacrament to marriage among non-Christians, he is very clear that it is only a sacrament in a very unique sense in the church. It's also important to note that modern Catholic theologians also call non-Christian marriages a sacrament in the broad sense, like a sacrament of nature. This can be found primarily, though not only, in two texts of St. Augustine, namely *De Bono Conjugali* (On the Good of Marriage) and *De Nuptiis Concupiscentiis* (On Marriage and Concupiscence). In these texts, the Bishop of Hippo first explicitly calls Christian marriage a sacrament, as in a sacred sign of the union between Christ and the church, in contrast to non-Christian marriages. This is seen in *De Bono Conjugali* chapter 21 and *De Nuptiis Concupiscentiis* chapter 11, where he consistently refers to marriage as the *sacramentum nuptiarum* or the sacrament of marriage.

However, one must clarify what St. Augustine meant by sacrament. In his writings, marriage is a sacrament properly speaking only among Christians, and this is because of its indissolubility. In *De Nuptiis Concupiscentiis*, he writes regarding Christian marriages, "It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond in marriage, which is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly, it is enjoined by the apostle, saying, 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church.'"

He says in *De Fide et Operibus* 7:10, "Therefore, let it not be the case that we grieve in a manner that is clearly not human, but utterly vain, when wrongdoings are corrected, as if marriages were dissolved, especially in the city of our God, on his holy mountain, that is in the church, where the bond of marriage is not only commended, but also the sacrament, in such a way that it is not permitted for a man to give his wife to another."

Second, St. Augustine grants the sacrament of marriage a certain sanctity pertaining to the supernatural order. He writes, "Therefore the good of marriage for all nations and all people lies in the cause of procreation and in the faith of chastity. But that which pertains to the people of God is also in the sanctity of the sacrament, by which it is wrong even for one who has been divorced to marry another while her husband lives, not even for the sole cause of procreation." He then adds that regarding the sanctity of the sacrament, St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 that if a Christian couple separates, they cannot remarry, discussing the strength of matrimony's indissolubility. He writes in *De Bono Conjugali* after 7, "I do not think this bond could have been so strong unless it were some sacrament of a greater matter introduced due to the frailty of human mortality, which would remain unshaken for those who abandon their partners and desire to dissolve it, serving as a punishment for them."

Here, St. Augustine affirms that marriage among Christians is not only a sign of the union of Christ and the church, but that this meaning was imparted by God himself in order to uphold its indissolubility. This is very different from the typical Protestant position that holds even Christian marriage as a secular institution, despite granting a certain holiness to it. For St. Augustine, it is clear that adultery would not only constitute sin but also sacrilege, the profanation of a sacred thing.

Third, St. Augustine compares marriage to baptism and ordination. For St. Augustine, the effect of matrimony among Christians was an indissoluble bond among the spouses, akin, but not the same as, a sacramental character imprinted by baptism and ordination. He writes, "In like manner, as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the ordained persons the sacrament of ordination. And if for any fault any be removed from his office, he will not be without the sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation."

He further writes in *De Nuptiis Concupiscentiis* chapter 10, "In like manner, the soul of an apostate, which renounces as it were its marriage union with Christ, does not, even though it has cast away its faith, lose the sacrament of its faith which it received in the lustration. It would undoubtedly be given back to him if he were to return, although he lost it on his departure from Christ. He retains, however, the sacrament after his apostasy to the aggravation of his punishment, not for meriting the reward."

Here, it's important to note that although St. Augustine never explicitly writes about grace as an effect, it does not therefore follow that he denied such a thing. For when he compares matrimony to baptism, he uses the baptismal character in his example and does not speak about the grace of baptism. It is thus evident that St. Augustine's concern was not to defend the grace of matrimony but the goodness and indissolubility of the sacrament in his two highly polemical works against the Manicheans.

Finally, St. Augustine implicitly teaches that the sacrament of matrimony contains grace. First, in *De Bono Viduitatis* chapter 8, he writes, "Therefore the good of marriage is always good, but among the people of God it was once an observance of the law. Now it is a remedy for infirmity and in some cases a consolation for humanity. Indeed, to be engaged in the beginning of children, not after the fashion of dogs by promiscuous use of females, but by honest order of marriage, is not an affection such as we are to blame a man. Yet this affection itself, the Christian mind, having thoughts of heavenly things in a more praiseworthy manner, surpasses and overcomes." Similar language can be found in *De Genesi ad Litterum* book 9.

Second, St. Augustine also affirms the strengthening of marriage in the new law, commenting on John 2 and the wedding feast at Cana, as did many other fathers. He writes, "And for this cause, therefore, did the Lord, on being invited, come to the marriage to strengthen conjugal chastity and to show forth the sacrament of marriage. For the bridegroom in that marriage, to whom it was said, 'You have kept the good wine until now,' represented the person of the Lord. For the good wine, namely the gospel, Christ has kept until now."

If you would like to see a scriptural and biblical argument for the sacrament of matrimony, please see a previous video I have uploaded on my channel. Make sure to subscribe, like, share this video with others, and stay tuned for similar content on the sacraments and other things regarding Catholic theology. Thank you and God bless you.

The bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is one of the most beautiful mysteries of our Christian faith, and it produces endless spiritual fruit when contemplated in prayer. Unfortunately, however, this mystery is often attacked and criticized by Protestants due to the apparent lack of support in the text of scripture and the historical record. If asked to defend the bodily assumption of Mary, I think the average Catholic would just point to Revelation 12 and the woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, who is in heaven. However, as top Mariologists point out, such as Fathers Gabriel Oshini and Martin Juggy, this is not a proof text for the assumption in any way. For example, some complications are that the fact that this woman is in heaven, which is not being assumed into heaven, and the dragon is also in heaven. And third, this woman is giving birth to Jesus in heaven. So clearly, this verse is not as clear as many people make it out to be.

From a Protestant perspective, and probably in the mind of many Catholics as well, the only reason we believe in the assumption is because the Magisterium has pronounced it. We know that the Magisterium can teach without error, and therefore it must be true. While I don't think there's anything wrong with being a faithful child of the church and giving the assent of faith, today I want to defend the bodily assumption of Mary with more than just Revelation 12 or papal infallibility. I want to defend the assumption with the arguments that our traditional Catholic authors actually use, which I think are much stronger than what you find online and also are much stronger than the Protestant objections you find online, because these Protestants do not read our traditional authors, and unfortunately, neither does the average Catholic. So, while this video is meant to deflect Protestant arguments against the assumption, it also serves pedagogical purposes for Catholics seeking to understand our theology better. Before we continue, though, make sure to leave a like, subscribe, and share. And after this video, comment down below what you thought and if you'd like me to clarify anything.

There are two difficulties or objections with regard to the assumption. First, scripture nowhere explicitly teaches the assumption. Father Jose Maria Bover, a 20th-century Spanish Jesuit, writes the following when addressing the question of how the assumption was revealed: "Of course, if it is an explicit revelation, it is clear that it is not found in sacred scripture."

Second, there is a giant elephant in the room when we look at the first centuries of the church, as Protestants like Doctors James White and Gavin Orland frequently point out. It seems that the assumption of Mary was, by the historical record, unknown in the first four centuries of the church. Sermon after sermon, father after father, not one tells us that Mary was assumed to heaven. When St. Epiphanius attempted to investigate the end of Mary's life, he could not even come to a conclusion. "In one passage, Simeon says of her, 'And the sword shall pierce through thine old soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed.' And elsewhere, the Revelation of John says, 'And the dragon hastened after the woman who had borne the manchild, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her.' Perhaps this can be applied to her. I cannot decide for certain, and I'm not saying that she remained immortal, but neither am I affirming that she died. Her scripture went beyond man's understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her."

So how can something like the assumption be defined by Pope Pius XII as having been revealed by God and necessary to be believed with divine faith? It's important to begin by addressing the role of history here. The most common Protestant objection to the dogmatization of the bodily assumption of Mary comes from an appeal to history and how no Church Father before so-and-so century seemed to be aware of the bodily assumption of Mary, and no Church Father listed her as being assumed, especially when we would expect them to list her.

"Today, in regards to the bodily assumption of Mary, utterly, absolutely unknown to the early church. Unknown. But they simply have to assume it. Well, because Rome has said so. Because Rome has said so. And that's the problem, the Marian dogmas."

But this is actually a grave misunderstanding of Catholic theology on the Protestant side. Now, I'd like to conduct an interesting speculative exercise for us to think through this more clearly. Imagine if we found above Mary's tomb an engraving that we could accurately date to the first century that said, "Here lies Mary, but she was taken up into heaven by God." Or what if we found a letter dating back to the first century, which we could figure out through carbon dating, that said Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, and we saw it with our own eyes? Would any of these be sufficient evidence to teach the bodily assumption of Mary and to dogmatize it in the church?

Now, what if the bodily assumption of Mary actually happened as an event, but the apostles never taught it and it was not taught in sacred scripture? So, a tomb engraving that said Mary was assumed, an actual letter from the first century that said Mary was assumed, and the event actually happened. Would any of these be sufficient to teach the bodily assumption of Mary in the church today and to make it a dogma of faith? As we're going to see, all these are insufficient to teach the bodily assumption of Mary. Even if the event really happened, even if we had plenty of evidence from the historical record to show that Mary was bodily assumed, none of this would suffice to teach the bodily assumption of Mary. This is a little odd because Protestants are always demanding historical evidence for an event like this. And yet, we see that even if we had this evidence, the church would not teach the bodily assumption of Mary, as we will see why.

In fact, as I read and prepared for this video, reading our traditional authors, theologians like Father Shaven actually concede all the points that Protestants bring forward against the historical record for this event, for this dogma. Not only so, but Father Shaven actually gives even more evidence against the bodily assumption of Mary from the historical record that Protestants such as Gavin Orland give in their videos against this. So, they actually end up steel-manning the Protestant arguments from history only to show why these arguments fall flat on their faces because they're irrelevant.

The 19th-century theologian, Father Joseph Pohle, writes, "As we have already observed, there is no historical argument to prove the fact. In the 4th century, St. Epiphanius, after a careful investigation of the available evidence, confessed himself unable to arrive at a definite conclusion." He later says, "There is no historical tradition on the subject of sufficient authenticity to furnish the basis for a dogmatic argument. The first five centuries present an empty void, and no historic bridge connects us with the eyewitnesses of the event. The fact that her tomb was found empty and that no relics remained of her body gives color to the belief that she was assumed bodily into heaven, but does not afford a dogmatic basis. It would be useless, therefore, to try to decide the question on purely historical evidence."

However, just because there is no historic record of the assumption does not mean that there was no assumption. Father Austin Woodbury writes, "But this absence of writings, or rather of writings which are extant, does not prove that the belief in the assumption was not then even explicit in the church. Ecclesiastical writers of that period wrote almost exclusively upon apologetic and controversial subjects, for example, the divinity of Christ and an answer to the great Trinitarian and Christological heresies. And furthermore, on account of dangers such as that of polytheism, it may be that the Holy Ghost guided the church to refrain for a period, until such dangers would be passed, from explicit preaching of Mary's prerogatives."

We actually see something very similar to this in the sacred text of scripture. If it was only about the historical record, then the apostles would have been prepared to go and preach Christ the very day that Christ ascended into heaven. If we were merely historians or archaeologists, then we would see no problem with that. If the church was merely about history, then yes, the apostles could have gone and preached Christ that very same day or the next morning. Instead, Christ tells them, "And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you, but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

So, even if we had an abundance of historical evidence for the assumption of Mary, like engravings, letters, all of these are insufficient to have certainty about the bodily assumption of Mary when it comes to faith. Since historical evidence isn't even a criterion for believing the bodily assumption of Mary with faith, then it makes no sense for Protestants to argue against it by appealing to a lack of the historical record. Since if we had historical evidence, it wouldn't matter anyway.

Father Shabin writes, "Indeed, all doubts about this fact, the assumption, originated through this, that the matter was viewed from a false standpoint, as if in order to ascertain its certainty, it must be established by ecclesiastically guaranteed and historical means or by a Catholic history."

Father Bover writes, "It is clear that it would be insufficient to consider the fact of the empty tomb or any other similar historical circumstance. This is not a mere historical event perceptible to humankind. It is the glorious and definitive resurrection of the Virgin, or, if you will, her present glorious life, body and soul, in heaven."

So then, how can we have certainty about this belief? Before that, however, let's quickly address the doubts that arose in the medieval ages about the assumption, as this will be important for our argument. In Dr. Gavin Orland's book, *What It Means to Be Protestant*, page 158, he argues that the assumption did not quickly become universally accepted. He references Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll's book, *Theotokos: Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary*, on page 57, in which he writes that the apocryphal literature caused many doubts, and thus figures like St. Epiphanius, Speusippus, Ammonius of Iona, Bede, and many more expressed uncertainty. However, what Dr. Orland leaves out from the very source and page that he quotes is that while doubts existed in the West, the East fully accepted the assumption by the 8th century. To his point, though, there still remains some doubts in the East, although to a lesser degree and for less time, as we will see later on in the liturgies.

A widely circulated letter formerly attributed to St. Jerome, but now recognized as not truly written by him, warns of apocryphal works circulating regarding the passing of Mary. The letter mentions that Mary's tomb was empty and that some believed Mary was in fact resurrected, and others held that her corpse was simply taken somewhere else. He writes, "Nevertheless, we are unsure which of these is true. It is better, however, to entrust the whole matter to God, for whom nothing is impossible, rather than to rashly define anything by our own authority which we cannot prove, which since nothing is impossible for God, we do not deny to have occurred with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although for the sake of caution, with faith preserved, it is more fitting to hold it as a pious desire rather than rashly define what is unknown without danger."

However, when reading this quote in context, it's quite clear that the author is talking about the lack of historical evidence for this, which, as we have already pointed out, is never sufficient to establish dogma. The Benedictine monk Usuardus, in the 9th century, writes, "Where that venerable temple of the Holy Ghost, that is Mary, is concealed by divine will and decree, the church devoutly preferred not to know rather than to teach something frivolous or apocryphal which had to be held."

Thus, we see that between the 8th and 12th centuries, many in the West expressed doubts about the assumption due to the apocryphal literature surrounding it. This actually disproves the common Protestant objection that the belief in the assumption originated from apocryphal sources. On the contrary, the church's belief in the assumption was weakened by the acknowledgement of apocryphal sources.

Father Bover writes, "But neither do the apocryphal accounts of the assumption provide a sufficient basis, nor for that reason can they offer us a satisfactory solution. The Apocrypha do not create the original core of truth. Rather, they work upon the pre-existing primitive nucleus and embellish it capers. They did not originate the primitive tradition, but transmitted the tradition they had found, more or less disordered. And when later on some learned men were confronted with this disordered tradition, they expressed doubts and even rejected it. Thus, far from being based on the Apocrypha, the church's belief was at times even weakened by them. Moreover, from a theological standpoint, we could not admit that such a universal, constant, and firm persuasion, so closely linked to dogma, rests in the church upon the shifting sand of legendary narratives."

In other words, the Protestant argument on this is that the church was fooled by myths and legends found in apocryphal works to universally celebrate and believe in the assumption of Mary for centuries. But we'll get to that later. So, if it's not by the historical record that we can have certitude of the assumption, then how?

Father Pohle, writing before the dogmatization of the assumption, says, "It may be objected, if the assumption of our Lady cannot be demonstrated to be a historic fact, how can theologians speak of it as certain and express the hope that it will eventually be raised to the rank of dogma? The answer is that an insufficiently attested fact may be as surely proved by the dogmatic as by the historical method. Thus, for instance, there is no historic evidence by which we could establish the Immaculate Conception or the sinlessness of our Lady. Similarly, belief in the assumption did not originate entirely in historic documents, but mainly in dogmatic considerations connected with our Lady's prerogatives as Theotokos and confirmed by an apostolic tradition which at first lay hidden but came to the surface about the sixth century and continued its course to the present time with all the marks of a revealed tradition."

Father Bover similarly asks, "This being so, what is required for the assumption to be defined as a dogma of faith? First of all, it must be a truth revealed by God. Of course, the mere fact of the empty tomb and other similar considerations would not be enough. The testimony of the word of God to the truth of the doctrine is so essential to the object of divine faith that it would be impossible to replace it with anything. Furthermore, to establish the dogma of the assumption, just any divine revelation is not enough. A public revelation would be necessary, that is, one intended by God for the entire Christian community. And since public revelation is exclusive to the apostolic age, and consequently that positive revelation has not grown objectively since the death of the last apostle, we must assume as a limitation for the definability of the assumption that its knowledge has come to us by virtue of an apostolic tradition."

Pohle writes, "The most reliable source of Catholic belief in the bodily assumption of Mary is ecclesiastical tradition, which became crystallized as early as the sixth century, and despite the elimination of apocryphal legends, persisted up to the present time. A proof that the belief of the faithful did not originate in nor owe its diffusion to the Apocrypha. The tradition that our Lady was assumed bodily into heaven emerged into broad daylight in the sixth century and manifested itself practically in the liturgical celebration of the feast of her assumption and theoretically in the homiletic teaching of the fathers in connection with this festival."

We're now going to go over some of the clear testimonies that we have of the assumption. The earliest in the West that we know of is St. Gregory of Tours, who writes, "The Lord commanded that the holy body of Mary be borne on a cloud of paradise, where reunited to its soul and exalting with the elect, it enjoys the never-ending bliss of eternity."

In the East, for example, the amount of sermons are too many to list, but examples include those by men like Bishop Theotimus, St. Andrew of Jerusalem, St. John Damascene, St. Theodore the Studite, etc. St. Simeon of Jerusalem writes, "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and our God, and the Giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by Him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with Him, who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to Himself in a way known only to Him."

The Gothic Gallican Missal, which was in use until the 8th century, says on the feast of the assumption, celebrated on January 18th, "She neither contracted the stain of corruption nor underwent decay in the tomb, free from pollution, glorious in offspring, secure in the assumption, nor was she dissolved by the force of nature. Rightly you were happily taken up in the assumption, by Him who you piously conceived through faith, so that the rock would not enclose you who were not familiar with the earth."

The Mozarabic liturgy, which originated in Spain after the 5th century, says, "Exaltate, Father on high, who has conferred such great prerogatives upon the glorious Mary, as she merited to be assumed today into the choirs of the angels and virgins, or to be gladdened by the gift of incorrupt flesh. So do Thou extirpate carnal desires in us and admit us to that same place. Oh, ineffable chastity, oh, immaculate virginity, which deserved to be admitted to the abode of the blessed in this noble and unspeakable manner."

The Gregorian Sacramentary, also from around the same time period, says, "This is the feast day worthy of veneration, O Lord, on which the holy Mother of God underwent temporal death and yet could not be crushed by the bonds of death, for she gave birth to Your Son, our Lord, incarnate from herself."

Another witness would be from John of Dabe in the mid-8th century. He writes, "Which indeed we celebrate the feast of that venerable dormition after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven and the descent of the most holy and life-giving Spirit upon the blessed apostles, which is called the last and great feast, as being the completion of the goodness of the Lord and the divine dispensation of all justice."

In other words, I want to make something clear. I'm not just saying, "Yeah, we don't have any early testimony before the fifth century or the sixth century, but let's look at all these other testimonies." No, what I'm appealing to here is the liturgy of the church, one of the instruments of transmitting divine revelation. But we'll get more into that a little bit later.

Nicephorus Callistus, the 13th-century Greek church historian of the late Byzantine Empire, wrote that Emperor Maurice, in the year 600, ordered this feast to be celebrated on August 15th, not because he instituted the feast, but because he propagated a cult that was already in existence. The celebrated German Jesuit Jacob Gretzer writes in his work on Christian feasts, "Emperor Maurice did not institute this feast because he commanded its observance and introduced it to places where it was not yet celebrated. It is one thing to institute a feast, another to command that it be observed."

Then it's very clear that by the 13th century, this is unanimous with no pushback, with no questions. Conrad of Saxony writes in the 13th century. He was, by the way, a 13th-century Franciscan friar. He writes, "Indeed, the holy doctors assert and reasonably endeavor to prove, and the faithful piously embraced this belief, namely, that the Blessed Virgin Mary has already been assumed with her body, and that her body is now fully glorified together with her soul."

Later on, the Jesuit theologian Adam Tanner wrote, "The Blessed Virgin, after completing the course of her life, was gloriously taken into heaven according to her soul, and shortly thereafter according to her body, as well as the whole church believes, and the universal celebration of the feast of the assumption testifies in accordance with the common consensus and tradition of the ancient fathers. All the scholastics and other pious writers agree, regardless of any doubts some might have held in the past. So much so that this truth can no longer be denied without error."

The renowned Dominican who was present at Trent, Melchior Cano, wrote to state that the Blessed Virgin was not assumed into heaven with her body, although it is not contrary to faith, would be a rash and insolent thing, because it contradicts the common consensus of the church.

The renowned German Jesuit theologian, Father Christian Pesch, writing more recently in the 20th century, says, "The church has defined nothing on this matter, but this opinion is now so accepted that no pious Catholic can doubt it or deny it without rashness."

Now, Father Pesch writing before the dogma of the assumption, but the same conclusion follows from when the assumption was already universally taught, preached, and held centuries before. We see then that the bodily assumption of our Lady becomes the true consensus of the Christian faithful for centuries. It is present in the church's preaching, her liturgy, and the belief of the laity.

Father Bover summarizes it well here: "Indeed, for centuries now, in her liturgy, in her preaching, in her schools, in the simple sentiment of the Christian people, the church has upheld beyond all question the fact of the bodily assumption of our Lady. We ourselves have said something, albeit briefly, about the current faith of the Catholic episcopate and the ordinary Magisterium of the church. In the first part of our work, there exists, therefore, a universal consent in the church, a consent that has endured for centuries, expressed in the most varied forms in the teaching church and in the learning church, according to which there can be no doubt about the fact of the bodily assumption of Mary. Therefore, this fact cannot be false, and the doctrine of the assumption is at least certain."

So here he makes reference to the learning church and the teaching church, which we'll get to a little bit later, but basically it refers to both the faithful and the teaching church refers to the Magisterium, the bishops, priests. So, although there are actually some theological and scriptural arguments we could bring forward for the assumption, Father Pohle writes, "The theological as well as the scriptural argument seem in this question to have but a secondary and subsidiary value, and the case for the assumption rests mainly on an ecclesiastical tradition which has all the distinguishing characteristics of apostolicity. In our humble opinion, the argument from tradition is so strong that the formal definition of the assumption is but a question of time." This was, by the way, obviously before the dogmatization of the assumption.

Father Pohle beautifully continues, "The opportuneness of a solemn definition will hardly be disputed. Perhaps the church will see fit to obviate certain difficulties by formally defining the bodily assumption of our Lady and leaving her physical death to be taught as a theological conclusion. The definition of the assumption would be the last jewel in the crown of our Blessed Lady."

Thus, the assumption of Mary is truly a part of sacred tradition, as it is and was taught and preached by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and believed by the laity through sermons, the church's liturgy, and her common preaching. The church of Christ truly believed and believed this despite doubts that arose in the past. This actually presents a very interesting case study in how Catholics and Protestants see history differently. From the Catholic point of view, the bodily assumption of Mary, as revealed by God, certainly took time to become known everywhere. And even when it did become known everywhere, part of the church expressed doubts regarding the authenticity of this belief due to the surrounding apocryphal literature. Regardless, though, God's divine truth, through the Holy Spirit, prevailed against the failures in human ability and understanding, such as slowness of passing down oral tradition and the inability to discern whether the assumption was true or just an apocryphal legend.

But from the Protestant perspective, as Dr. Gavin Orland implicitly concedes in his book, the universal church was fooled and deceived by apocryphal legends, and it believed, taught, preached, and celebrated this myth as if it was an authentic revelation from God for centuries. I mean, that's really what the Protestant position comes down to. You have centuries of the church of Christ being fooled by powerful legends in the common preaching of the church, in the faith of the layman, in the liturgy.

Although the assumption became universal in the East quite quickly, the Protestant looks at the Western church and sees how they at first expressed doubts about the assumption. The Protestant sees these doubts as an opportunity for the church to fight back and to not be fooled by these myths and by these legends and by these apocryphal texts. But instead, the church for centuries is deceived and fooled and celebrates this as if it was authentic. In the Protestant view, the church was ultimately overcome by these myths. This is contrary to the teaching of St. Augustine, who says, "The church of God, however, being meanwhile so constituted as to enclose much chaff and many tears, bears with many things, yet if anything be contrary to the faith or to holy life, she does not approve of it either by silence or by practice."

Now, I'm aware that even for magisterial Protestants, the rule of tradition is not as important as to us Catholics. Maybe an Anglican or a Lutheran listening to this might say, "Yes, the assumption did become universally taught and believed by the faithful for centuries, but this is one of those scenarios where we simply return to *sola scriptura* and we reform."

Now, I still think there are some problems with this view, but I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up some common misconceptions about the Catholic Church. Many think that when we Catholics say something like, "Oh, I just trust the church," we're only referring to the Magisterium's teachings or her infallible pronouncements. However, the church is not synonymous with the bishops for us. The church is the body of Christ, which, though it consists of a hierarchy, nevertheless also consists of the lay faithful. So, it's important that we look at the promises given both to the church of the *docendi* or teaching, and the church of the *discendi*, learning.

Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles forever, which necessarily extends to their successors. In John 14:26, Christ says, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." In John 16:13, he says, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come." In Matthew 28:9-20, Christ promises to always be with his church in her teaching and her administration of the sacraments. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always to the end of the age."

However, it's important to note that the Spirit is not only promised to the apostles and their successors, as we see in John's Gospel, but he is also said to be with the Christian faithful. This is called the *sensus fidelium*, or the sense of the faithful. Hence, St. John writes in his first epistle, "Many antichrists have appeared. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either. But he who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life."

It's for this reason that Pope Venerable Pius XII, before dogmatizing the assumption, not only asked for the consensus of the bishops of the world but also if it was the desire of the Christian faithful. He says, "Do you, venerable brethren, bishops, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

Cardinal Franzelin comments thus: "This is why it is certain that a consensus of this sort cannot contain error against faith, from the very fact that the whole Christian people cannot believe some doctrine to be revealed unless it is the Catholic sense and understanding of the whole church, as is both evident in itself and clear from the union of the people with their bishops, and by far from the special office of pastors to provide for the integrity of faith. Hence, while the transmission of divine revelation can certainly fail at one point or another, such as certain Church Fathers who erred, it cannot fail as a whole. If the authentic teachers that Christ appointed to teach His faithful were to universally teach heresy and bind the faithful to heresy, or if those faithful were to universally accept heresy, then Christ's promises are made void."

The sacred theology of *Summa Theologica* or the *Summa* says, "But because the liturgy does not generate Catholic faith but rather follows it, and from it, like fruit from a tree, sacred rites come forth, it cannot be said that the origin of faith in the assumption is to be found in the feast, but rather that such faith preceded the feast."

Hence, to consider that the church of Christ would be fooled by myths to universally celebrate the Eucharist around a false doctrine truly ignores all the promises that Christ made to the church and its orthodoxy. Many Protestants say that Christ's promises of the gates of hell not prevailing against the church in Matthew 16 does not mean that error will not overcome the church, but that the church will never die out. There are several problems with this reading, but the authority of St. Augustine suffices, who says, "This same is the holy church, the one church, the true church, the Catholic church, fighting against all heresies. Fight it can be fought down; it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine, but itself abides in its root and its vine and its charity. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So, although the early fathers don't seem to be aware of the assumption, we can nevertheless safely presume that they would have heeded to the authority of the church, again, not only the Magisterium, but also the consensus of the faithful. As St. Augustine says regarding infant baptism, "And if anyone seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole church, and that not as instituted by councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority." He similarly says regarding the universal belief in purgatory, "In the books of the Maccabees, we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit, even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority which in this usage is clear, of the whole church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest, which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commemoration of the dead has also its place."

Now, this is the end of this video, but there are actually a few scriptural arguments that we could put forward. But let me know below if you'd like me to even make a video about this. Let me know what your thoughts are below. If you have any objections, any thoughts, if you'd like for me to clarify anything, leave a like, subscribe, share, all those good things. God bless you and may Our Lady be with you.

Today is the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church teaches that this is a dogma revealed by God and is to be believed by all with divine faith. Now, obviously, there is no passage in scripture that explicitly testifies to this in the literal sense. But is this privilege of Mary found in scripture at least implicitly? Is it at least virtually contained therein? What about in the spiritual senses? While the answer to all of these is yes, today I want to present my favorite biblical argument for the Marian privilege given by Catholic Mariologists. My proposition is the following: While I grant that this exegesis of Genesis 3:15 is not explicitly clear and does not absolutely necessitate the Immaculate Conception, there is no better reading that can properly explain the verse. This dogma was solemnly defined on December 8th of 1854 in Pope Blessed Pius IX's *Ineffabilis Deus*, which says, "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

This dogma must be briefly explained, as it is often misunderstood by many who are either Eastern Orthodox or Protestant. Simply put, the Virgin Mary should have contracted the stain of original...

Sin, which is the privation of sanctifying grace in the soul, like all other descendants of Adam, but was preserved from this stain and redeemed by the merits of Jesus Christ. For a longer theological explanation of the dogma, either watch my live stream on this or read my article linked below.

Before you continue watching, please make sure to like this video, comment your thoughts below after the video, and if you're not already subscribed, whether you're a fan of mine or not, whether you want me to stop making videos or you want me to keep making more videos, go ahead and subscribe because it really does help me out. Thank you.

So, first, we got to do two things. First, I want to disprove a common myth from those outside the Catholic Church regarding the Latin Vulgate and the claim that the Catholic Church was misled by a mistranslation in the Vulgate.

Now, let's get to Genesis 3:15. The verse reads, quote, "The Lord said to the serpent, I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed. He shall crush your head, and you shall strike his heel." End quote. In context, God is setting down the punishments to the serpent, later on to the woman, and then to Adam for having transgressed his law. After saying that the serpent will have to crawl on its stomach for all its life, the final punishment that God gives the serpent is an enmity between him and the woman and between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed.

Now, as we've just read, we see here that it is the woman's seed who crushes the head of the serpent. But in the Latin Vulgate, it records that the woman strikes the head of the serpent, not her seed. We will see why this doesn't matter for our purpose. But an objection which ought to be called a myth must first be addressed. Many outside the church claimed that since the Vulgate translation attributes the defeat of the devil to the feminine pronoun she, which in the original text reads as a masculine he, the church was misled by this translation error to dogmatize the immaculate conception.

Now it is true that in popular Catholic piety going back even to the church fathers both east and west Mary is sometimes said to crush the head of the serpent. This represents Mary's unique and exalted participation in the salvation of the world. It's also true that in the original Hebrew and Septuagint Greek texts of the Old Testament, the correct text contains a masculine pronoun he instead of the feminine mistranslation in the Vulgate expressing the serpent's defeat by the man or the seed of a woman instead of the woman herself.

Now, what's false here is to claim that this mistranslation served as the basis for the dogma's scriptural support. I've seen plenty claim this, even Protestants with PhDs who obviously should know better. Instead, while Genesis 3:15 does teach Mary's sinless conception, it does so in a totally different way than us arguing from the crushing of the head of the serpent being done by the woman in a mistranslation. I could cite plenty of Catholic dogmaticians who concede that the she reading, the feminine pronoun, is not at all essential to the dogma.

But rather than just citing any theologian to prove my point, I could simply cite the theologians in the theological committee that was tasked by the pope to investigate the doctrine, make recommendations, and prepare the dogma's definition. In session four of the committee, they wrote, quote, "Conclusion one, a solid argument for the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin cannot be drawn from the words of Genesis, she shall crush your head. The first reason is that it cannot be considered free from controversy whether the text should read she rather than he. For the reading, ipsa or shei is opposed not only to the original text of both the Hebrew and Samaritan versions, but also by all ancient translations, including the old Latin and by all the Greek fathers and even the Latin fathers up to the middle of the 4th century. The Vulgate itself, in which such a reading appears to originate, contains manuscripts that disagree on the matter. Therefore, one cannot invoke in support of this reading the Trident decree on the Vulgate either because it is not certain that this reading is indeed from the Vulgate or because the Trident decree does not require the rejection of the original text." End quote.

This alone proves that the Genesis mistranslation is not the scriptural basis for the dogma as many like to claim who are outside of the church. I could also, you know, quote the bull itself and show that it uses Genesis 3:15 in the way that I will argue for the Marian privilege here in a second and never to claim that Mary directly and primarily crushes the head of the devil. This should be even more obvious to anyone who picks up a manual of Mariology and reads through the biblical arguments for the immaculate conception. For example, Juniper Carol's Mariology, the Sacred Theologia Summa, I can go on and on.

Now that we have disproven this common myth, we can actually get to the argument for why the proper exegesis of Genesis 3:15 supports the immaculate conception. This text is often called the protoevangelium, the first gospel. Because immediately after the first sin and before God has even issued any punishments to Adam and Eve, he announces the ultimate defeat of Satan, the serpent, by the woman's seed.

How then is the immaculate conception taught in this verse? We have to answer first, who are the woman, her seed, the serpent, and his seed. And second, what is this enmity between them and the serpent with his seed? First, the woman here, and when God says that I will place enmity between you and the woman, could only be the Virgin Mary. And we can only identify her as the Virgin Mary after we know who her seed is. In light of later revelation in the Old Testament and obviously specifically in the New Testament, we know for certain that the woman's seed is the Messiah who destroyed the devil's kingdom, crushing his head by his death on the cross. No one disputes this point.

Now, the woman must be the Virgin Mary for several reasons. To speak of the seed as the woman's points to the virginal conception of Jesus in Mary's womb with the absence of a male seed, a male father. Furthermore, every member of the human race is always spoken of as descending from Adam, the man, and inheriting his sin since he is the moral head of humanity. It would be much more proper to say the man and his seed if God's intention was to speak of Jesus as coming from the first parents, but rather he said the woman and her seed.

Third, in the larger context and what follows after verse 15, God is constituting punishments for the serpent, Eve, and Adam in that particular order. Verse 15 is only a punishment for the serpent, which is then followed by other punishments for Eve and Adam. Verse 16 says, quote, "To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing." And later in verse 17, he says, quote, "And to Adam, he said, because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and so on." End quote.

Now, though it's not universal, there are several church fathers who read the woman of Genesis 3:15 as Mary. The first is as early as the second century. St. Irenaeus, he says, quote, "He has therefore in his work of recapitulation summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam and trampled upon his head, as you can perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, 'And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed.' For from that time he who should be born of a woman from the virgin after the likeness of Adam was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the epistle to the Galatians that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made. This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same epistle where he thus speaks, 'But when the fullness of time had come forth his son made of a woman.' For indeed, the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished unless it had been a man born of a woman who conquered him." End quote. So for St. Irenaeus, very clearly, the Virgin Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15, who fulfills the prophecy.

St. Cyprian writes, quote, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel. This seed God had foretold would proceed from the woman that should trample on the head of the devil. In Genesis, then God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, I will place enmity between you and the woman and her seed. He shall regard your head, and you shall watch his heel.'" End quote. Here, very clearly, he connects Isaiah 7 and the virgin who will conceive to the same woman of Genesis 3:15.

And finally, St. Epiphanius he says, quote, "For in paradise God tells the serpent, 'And I shall put enmity between thee and her and between thy seed and her seed.' But there is no instance of a woman's seed with an enmity toward the physical seed of a snake unless, as the riddle suggests, the enmity here is taken to mean Eve's enmity towards the progeny of the snake itself and of the devil who dwelt in the snake and his envy. And in fact, the whole cannot have its complete fulfillment in Eve, but it will be truly fulfilled in the holy seed, the elect seed, the unique seed, the seed which originated from Mary alone and not from union with a man." End quote.

Thus, the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 is not talking about Mary and Jesus in the spiritual sense. It is talking about Mary and Jesus in the literal sense. Just like, for example, in Psalm 21 where David narrates the events of the passion of Christ. He is not talking about the passion in the spiritual sense, but is actually prophesying in the literal sense about Christ himself.

Next, we may ask, who is the serpent's seed? This doesn't ultimately matter because it could either mean the human descendants born under the effects of the fall or to the dominion itself established by Satan and by sin itself. But regardless, what's clear is that Jesus, the woman's seed, is going to be at enmity with the serpent's seed. Father Schabbin writes, quote, "The meaning of the passage becomes more graphic and more natural if we understand the seed of the serpent to mean not sinners, but rather sin itself, specifically the sin of the earthly world, which was born in Adam through the intervention of the first woman, the sin of mankind, through which and in which all mankind is subject to the devil's dominion." Yet, this interpretation too is not essential for our purpose. End quote.

So we see here so far that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy between a future enmity between a woman and the devil and the woman's seed, Jesus the Messiah, and the devil's seed. And the woman's seed is going to crush the head of the devil. And this enmity that will exist between the devil and the woman, between the devil's seed and the woman's seed, is going to be a sort of punishment for the devil himself in the context of Genesis 3.

So how do we get the immaculate conception from this? Well, God punishes the serpent by promising that Mary's son, the Messiah, will crush his head. Furthermore, Mary and Jesus will be at enmity with Satan and his kingdom. Note that Mary's enmity with Satan is not distinct from the enmity between Christ and the devil's kingdom. They are one and the same enmity. Again, the verse reads, quote, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed." End quote. So, whatever enmity Christ has with the devil's kingdom or the devil's progeny is shared by Mary with the devil himself. If Mary was ever touched by her original sin or really any effect of the fall which is opposed to God, such as personal sin, then there would not be a perfect enmity between her and the devil.

Now you might object and rightly, why does this enmity between the woman and the serpent have to be perfect if the verse doesn't say that it's a perfect enmity? But remember, this enmity between the woman and the devil is the very same enmity placed between Christ and the devil's seed. And it's obviously blasphemous to suggest that Christ had any friendship, any sort of allegiance at all towards the devil's progeny. It then follows according to this prophecy that Mary is going to share this perfect enmity with her son Jesus Christ the Messiah against the devil and his kingdom, against his progeny. And this, of course, makes any stain of sin, whether original or personal, on the Blessed Virgin Mary incompatible because again, if she did, then this text would not hold up. There would, in fact, not be this enmity between her and the devil, but rather some sort of friendship.

This is what makes the problem in the modern Eastern Orthodox teaching apparent, which tends to deny Mary's sinless conception. I say modern because this was not the case historically, at least prior to the 18th and 19th century, but that will be treated in a future video. First, the modern Eastern Orthodox position, though it teaches that Mary never committed a personal sin, places the Mother of God under the kingdom of the devil for some time in her life until she is reborn. Furthermore, if one reads Genesis 3:15 as saying that Mary's enmity with the devil consisted in her never committing a personal sin only, this simply would not satisfy the prophecy which says that Mary's enmity with Satan is going to be the same as Christ's.

Thus, Father Schabbin comments, quote, "Mary, together with Christ, are contrasted to the devil as a human couple with whom he will indeed be at enmity, but whom he will not conquer as he did the first pair. Instead, he is to be conquered by them. And even if, according to the original text, the conquering of the devil is ascribed above all to Christ as the work of his own power, nevertheless, in the enmity generally, the woman is placed first, because in so far as the devil's victory, just as it was won over the woman first, and was mediated by the woman in its spread, so too was to be thwarted with respect to the woman first, and generally defeated precisely through her mediation, together with Christ. Such an invincible and victorious enmity by which the devil was to be punished for leading human beings astray and specifically was to be shamed for deceiving the woman obviously excludes, however, the possibility that Mary ever had any fellowship whatsoever with the devil or was subject to his dominion. Rather, it demands that Mary, with Christ, was always excluded from the kingdom of the devil from the first moment of her existence." End quote.

Now, this is the same logic used in the bull itself, which reads, quote, "The most blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated and at the same time the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted out the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and insoluble bond, was with him and through him eternally at enmity with the evil serpent and most completely triumphed over him and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot." End quote.

We could actually see this position articulated by a few in the early church. For example, St. Augustine regularly affirms against Julian the Pelagian that all children descending from Adam are born under the dominion of the devil and that they are later transferred over to the kingdom of Christ once they are baptized. Again, they are initially under the devil and later they are transferred to Christ, and this is due, according to St. Augustine, to the condition of their birth because they come from two parents who descend from Adam and Eve. However, when confronted about Mary on the question of original sin, St. Augustine accepts her from ever being under the devil at all, and this is due to grace. He says, "We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth, but because the condition itself is resolved by the grace of rebirth." End quote. For more on St. Augustine's doctrine, you can watch my video or read my article also linked below.

In an anonymous sermon addressed to several clergymen, given in North Africa between the late fifth century and 6th century, and this sermon was previously attributed to St. Augustine, the author includes Mary and the human race but exempts her from the sin of the human race. He sees the wedding feast at Cana in John 2 as humanity's marriage to the devil, which Mary was invited to despite her not being guilty with the rest of mankind. The preacher says, quote, "So while the soul and the devil were being excessively exuberant during a foolish meal, after Jesus had been invited, they lacked wine. But the Mother of Christ, who shrank from accompanying the shameful meal, who remained a virgin not only in body, but also in spirit, participated as an invited guest in the condition of the human race, not by sharing in the crime of the human race, but as being a part of the whole race, which had to be born, not by association in the sin. She who refers to Christ, she who is not an unclean person, who refers to the unclean." End quote.

In the future, I'll make more content on the Church Fathers and this Marian privilege. But this video is supposed to focus only on scripture. I want to end in noting how this passage, Genesis 3:15, not only has extremely strong support for the immaculate conception, but also illuminates other Marian passages. So far, it's clear that since the dawn of time in God's plan of predestination, Mary is united to her son's work of redemption and victory over the devil, so that she is not at all included in the devil's seed.

Thus, reading the second chapter of John, in which Mary informs Jesus that the wedding party is out of wine, we see that Jesus responds the following. Quote, "Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come.'" End quote. Now, it's important to note that modern translations will not read in this way, but the original Greek does say, "Woman, what does this have to do with you and me?" So, note here how Jesus reminds his mother that because his hour has not yet come, the absence of wine does not concern him nor her. He doesn't merely say it does not concern him, but also to her. Mary, the woman of Genesis 3:15, is united to Christ and the work of redemption as the new Eve, not to the rest of humanity.

Three decades earlier in Mary's life, when she visited her cousin Elizabeth, we see this pairing occur again in her cousin's greeting, which says, quote, "She called out with a loud voice and said, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.'" End quote. Father Martin Jugie comments on this quote. If Elizabeth had simply said, "You are blessed among women." One might think that these words refer only to the privilege of the divine and virginal motherhood, which would suffice to distinguish Mary from all other women. But she added, "And blessed is the fruit of your womb." The blessing that Mary shares is the very same blessing that applies to Jesus. Mary is blessed as Jesus is blessed. Jesus is blessed, perfectly blessed. There is nothing in him worthy of a curse. The same must be true of his mother. In terms of blessing, she stands on the same level as her son. This parallel between the son and the mother suggests the idea of exemption from original sin and contains a defined dogma implicitly. End quote.

Again, I get it. This doesn't necessitate the immaculate conception. It's not a totally hardcore proof that can have no other meaning. But just because something is not explicitly clear doesn't mean that it's wrong, even if I grant that it's not totally expressly set down.

Finally, we may look at Revelation 12, which depicts the mother of the Messiah, Mary, escaping every attack of the devil. The devil is referred to as that ancient serpent in this passage, clearly alluding to Genesis 3. Father Jugie comments, quote, "What can be drawn from this in favor of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception? The fact that Mary, with the help of God, completely escaped the dragon's attacks, just as Jesus, her son, did, suggests that the devil never had any hold on her at any point in her life, that she was therefore free from all sin." This is only a suggestion, a very implicit and distant argument. End quote.

So, as I said in the beginning, these passages are not demonstrative. But going back to Genesis 3:15, I really don't think that you can come up with a better explanation of this prophecy. Now, if you think you have a better explanation of this prophecy, go ahead and leave your thoughts below. Most importantly, if you have an alternative reading, keep in mind that the woman of Genesis 3:15 is not a part of the devil's seed. Whether you take seed to mean either the kingdom of sin or every person conceived and born in original sin, the woman is not included in it. So, leave your thoughts below what you think.

What I would say is that these verses communicate a more general principle of Mary's uniqueness among mankind, her union with Christ, and her immunity from the devil's venom, which would include all her privileges, not only the immaculate conception, but also her freedom from personal sin and so on. Now, from this more general principle, this total enmity of Mary with the devil, Catholic theologians deduce the specific privilege of her spotless conception in this verse. And while I am truly convinced that these verses written by the Holy Spirit do communicate this principle, this absolute enmity between Mary and the devil, including the immaculate conception, I acknowledge that this is not demonstrative. It is very convincing. It makes sense. It paints a perfect picture, but it is not set in explicit terms. I get that, even as a Catholic, I would never give the assent of faith to this conclusion from these arguments alone because even if they make a great sense of the texts, they still involve a great deal of fallible human reasoning upon which divine faith cannot rest. Nevertheless, I hope I painted a more complete picture of Mary's immaculate conception for the viewer. I hope you enjoyed this video. Like, leave your thoughts below. Subscribe if you're not already subscribed. And God bless you.

A particular person is fairly well read in the Church Fathers, but I remember they made a comment once, and they're always trying to get Catholics, you know, with big gotchas. They succeed a lot if Catholics are just quote-mined, and they, you know, they get them. I've gotten, I've gotten got by them. Um, and so, but there's this one particular comment I remember from him saying, "Yeah, you know, St. Augustine might have held to purgatory, but he does not interpret, you know, the verse in Matthew 5, the in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says, you know, you will pay back every last penny." That's frequently interpreted as purgatory. I think St. Robert Bellarmine does. And I think, you know, today, it's, it's, he's like, he'll point out, well, but St. Augustine did not interpret that verse as purgatory. Which just feels, when we're dialoguing with Protestants, it's a lot of like, it's a lot of like here and there trying to create complications, but it's never, I think, a coherent and holistic system. Which is why I love your video so much on the Church Fathers. It's called, uh, "Orthodox and Protestants Don't Understand This." You know what I'm talking about? It goes to like Pesh, and I think I think Fransen, too. That is one of my favorite videos from you guys. If you haven't watched it, it's called "Orthodox and Protestants Don't Understand This." It's an amazing, you know, video. It's, I think it's a good jumping point to further reading of how we actually read the Church Fathers and how, you know, what type of authority they have, when they have authority, when we can draw, you know, what type of arguments. Uh, because, you know, I hate when people will just, uh, whether it's Catholics or Protestants, Catholics might quote one Father to try to prove an entire dogma, >> right? Or or at least he'll just throw it out there without any implication that tells the Protestant or that tells the Orthodox that they're trying to create an entire, you know, conscience-binding dogma from one guy. Whereas St. Thomas, you know, will say that the, you can appeal to individual or maybe a few Church Fathers as authoritative figures, but not, but, you know, we derive our do our dogma from Sacred Scripture. And and he's, he literally quotes St. Augustine on Scripture as well. Um, and then from the Protestant point of view, uh, they think, a lot of them think, I haven't really met a Protestant who actually understands, I'm sure they exist, uh, even the high church ones, they, they kind of think that when we look at Church Fathers, we're trying to get what you call a historical certainty for a dogma. Kind of like if I were to go back to, you know, Abraham Lincoln, I wanted to read all his letters to to to figure out, you know, did he believe something about something, or or George Washington. Like, that's not at all what we're doing with the Church Fathers. We can, if we want to put forth probable arguments or maybe like a pious opinion for something. But for dogma, um, uh, we're, like you said, we're invoking the authority of the Hol, or the the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We're not trying to do history or archaeology. It's kind of related history, obviously, but, but we're not trying to to do, and I think that's the way that people like Dr. Gavin Ortlund argue, that we're trying to go back as early as possible and trying to, you know, pinpoint this and that. So on the question of, uh, of, like, you know, purgatory and interpretation of like 1 Corinthians 3:15 and and Matthew 5, or whatever, I think that's really important there. Um, uh, I don't think I have any >> question. I have one thing on that. So actually, what's really strange is when you look at the ways in which a lot of these Protestants or even others, like Eastern Orthodox, will do this, and some Catholics, unfortunately, as well, the way that they'll treat ecclesiastical tradition and how we argue from, uh, the Church Fathers as a theological locus. They'll treat it basically as like legal precedent. So if you know anything about legal precedent, legal precedent is basically, uh, if you want to convincingly argue a case, uh, in front of a court, you know, for a certain decision, you might go back and collect five or six older judgments that are somehow in line with how you want the court to judge. And that establishes some sort of legal precedent, uh, which may move the judge to continue this precedent, or overturn the status quo on the basis of this older precedent. So basically, what these Protestants are trying to do is they treat history like a matter of precedent. So if they can point to somebody from the 13th century, let's say, who holds to their view of concupiscence, they will quote that author and they will say, like, aha, look, it existed during this time. You know, I have precedent for my, uh, position before the Reformation. It's like, oh, well, of course you have pre, of course you have precedent. Like, these views don't come out of nowhere. It's not like Luther was kind of sitting there and just made something up off the top of his head. And if he did, it's not like a lot of the, uh, well-educated theologians around him would have just jumped on board. >> Um, really, you have, uh, almost this doctrinal corruption that's always alongside doctrinal development, where you have this split. There are previous generations who are going off of the rails. You always have this. So of course you can seek precedent for falsehood. Um, so like the mere quoting of precedent doesn't actually establish anything because there's a lot of falsehood with actually very strong precedent. Um, so yeah, I, I think that's important to bring up is they just have a completely different idea of the ways in which we look at tradition and what's important about the Church Fathers and when we can actually definitively establish something. >> That's great. Yeah. And one more time, if you haven't seen that video from >> in September of last year, reformed YouTuber Redeem Zoomer released a video called "Every Roman Catholic Contradiction Explained." Many of the points are pretty easy to answer, and there is abundant material to refute Zoomer for those with basic research skills. For example, you can reference my abundant research on salvation and membership in the church across a number of different articles and videos. But there has been an issue that many people on our side of the internet have been scared to touch. The issue of ecumenical dialogue. The reasons for this are numerous, but it usually comes down to two facts. First, most people on YouTube don't really do a whole bunch of independent research into primary sources, and most of this information can only be found by said independent research into primary sources. Second, most people on YouTube are not really willing to defend the seemingly harsh statements from pre-conciliar popes against non-Catholics. They would rather critique them for these statements. Well, I like doing independent research into primary sources and I like defending harsh statements against non-Catholics. So what I wanted to do here is to basically go through everything for an entire century before the Second Vatican Council in order to show that the real history of the Catholic response to the ecumenical movement is completely different from the false history that Redeem Zoomer gathered from a partial reading of the documents through the lens of watching Jay Dy and Vatican Catholic YouTube videos. I want to give a summary before I begin. Rather than a complete ban on participation in the ecumenical movement, there are multiple permitted forms of participation. First, even without permission from the Holy See, Catholics and non-Catholics could gather and collaborate on issues related to a common defense of the natural law or even of common religious principles in defense of the Christian religion. Second, with permission from the Holy See or one's local ordinary in extraordinary situations, one could have ecumenical meetings and become members of organizations where matters of faith or morals were discussed that did not seek some sort of superconfessional union where the Roman Catholic Church would become a part of such and such a federation. Third, while it was completely against divine law and prohibited under every circumstance to join organizations such as the Pan-Christians and branch theorists who sought to make the Roman Catholic Church a part of their new organization, it was never prohibited in principle for other forms of participation to be approved by the Holy See, such as in sending observers who would engage in the discussions. Fourth, in every circumstance, communicatio in sacris was prohibited. Yet common prayers were permitted in certain cases, such as the common praying of prayers approved by the Catholic Church, for example, the Lord's Prayer. This issue will not be treated in full and would require an entire other video. Before we begin, I would like to remind you of my Patreon. An insane amount of work and independent study went into making this video. If you appreciate the work that I put into this video and all my other videos, please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/millittoist or making a donation on my website at christianbwagner.com/donate.

The year is 1892. The United States decided to put on one of the most ambitious affairs in human history, the World's Columbian Exposition. A fair held in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of America by Christopher Columbus. This was a display of American exceptionalism held in Chicago, which was visited by 27 million people. Yet, this fair would spark a little-known controversy surrounding the orthodoxy of one of the most beloved and well-known American clerics of the era, Cardinal James Gibbons. During this World Fair, the organizers wanted to host a massive gathering of all the religions of the world, Christian and non-Christian alike, called the World Parliament of Religions. This type of gathering fit the spirit of the age, which was latitudinarian. The ideology held that none of the religious groups participating held to the entire truth, that the plurality and diversity of religions was a good that ought not to be disturbed. Alongside the other religions invited, the Catholic Church was also invited to send representatives. This was hotly debated within the American Church. Some argued that it was not necessarily evil to present Catholic doctrine at such gatherings as had been done at similar gatherings before, sometimes even organized by Catholics. Others argued that the specific purpose of the gathering was to present religions in the light of the latitudinarian spirit promoting indifferentism. Hence, even if the representatives would give presentations of Catholic truth, it would be done in the context of indifferent spirit and would necessarily give scandal to the faithful and non-Catholics alike. Cardinal Gibbons eventually decided that such a world-famous event must have representation from the Church, and he decided to be the personal representative of the Catholic Church. Even more than this, he decided to personally open up the Parliament by reciting the Lord's Prayer. This event was disastrous for the American Church. To have a cardinal of the Church, who was the most prominent Catholic in America, give such a prayer at an event that was fundamentally based on indifferentist principles gave credence to the indifferent spirit that was already tempting too many American Catholics at the time. One of the opponents of the Parliament, Bishop Bernard John McQuaid, said of the Parliament that, quote, "Of late years a spirit of liberalism is springing up in our body that if not checked in time will bring disaster on the Church. Many a time Catholic laymen have remarked that the Catholic Church they once knew seems to be passing away. So greatly shocked are they at what they see passing around them." End quote. As a side note, Bishop McQuaid was awesome and basically the leader of the anti-liberal faction of the United States during the time. He was asked one time whether he would bury the hatchet with a liberal member of the hierarchy, and he responded, "Yes, in my head." It took two years for Rome to step in and give her judgment on this whole affair. In September of 1895, Pope Leo XIII sent a letter to the Apostolic Delegate of the United States, Archbishop Francis Satolli. In this letter, Pope Leo condemned the participation of Cardinal Gibbons in the whole affair. He wrote, quote, "We know that from time to time there are held in the United States of America, assemblies to which both Catholics and those who dissent from the Catholic Church come promiscuously to discuss together religion and morals. Although these common gatherings have been tolerated hitherto in prudent silence, it would seem more advisable for Catholics to have their meetings by themselves. Nevertheless, in order that the benefit of these assemblies may not be limited to Catholics, they may be conducted in such wise that the opportunity of listening to them will be available to all, including those who are separated from the Catholic Church. It gives us pleasure at the same time to express our commendation of the Institute of the Polish Fathers. They have wisely adopted the plan of addressing our dissenting brethren openly, both to explain Catholic teachings and to refute objections brought against them. If each of the bishops would promote in his diocese the practice of these fathers and the frequent attendance at sermons, it will be most gratifying and acceptable to us. For we trust that it will result in no little profit toward the salvation of souls." End quote.

It is this little-known letter of Pope Leo XIII that would form the foundation for the canonical and pastoral legislation surrounding the limits of Catholic participation in ecumenical gatherings. This highly publicized incident between Leo XIII and Cardinal Gibbons set the precedent for the obligations of Catholics towards such gatherings in the modern world. Yet, we must be careful not to overestimate the representative value of the event for all ecumenical gatherings. Both before and after the Gibbons incident, Catholics were permitted to attend such gatherings in limited circumstances. But what are those circumstances? To begin, let's look at the central law of the Church on ecumenical gatherings from the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1325 states, quote, "Let Catholics beware lest they have debates or conferences, especially public ones, with non-Catholics, without having come to the Holy See, or if the case is urgent, to the local ordinary." End quote. Here we see two activities restricted in law: debates and conferences. I provided a long exposition of the scholastic doctors on the issue of debates with heretics, including notes on the continual validity of the law which does not appear in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I would suggest that if you want to know more about the acceptability of debates with heretics, check out my Substack article on this issue and subscribe to my Substack for more articles like this. Anyways, the one that is important here is the issue of conferences. Conferences refer to those religious gatherings of Catholics and non-Catholics. Obviously, gatherings that are secular in nature have always been permitted by the Church, and this does not fall under any sort of special law in the history of the Church. These religious gatherings referred to were meetings predicated upon bringing about the unity of the Church. Here we see that these conferences are not completely banned and excluded in all cases. Rather, they are permitted in certain cases, but these cases are to be permitted at the discretion of the one giving the law, the Holy See, or in certain circumstances, even the local ordinary is able to permit these conferences. But what the law does not explain is what are the objective standards upon which the lawgiver will or will not permit these gatherings. As we saw in the case of Leo XIII and Cardinal Gibbons, we have two distinct comments. First, it is not permitted to attend these gatherings where one will scandalize others by incidentally implying that they are indifferentists. It is important to remember that the presentations given at the conference did not have any doctrinal errors. They stated the doctrine of the Church and its necessity plain enough. The problem was that the entire conference was predicated on the idea that religious indifferentism is true. Hence why Cardinal Gibbons ought to have denied the invitation. Second, Leo XIII provides an example of appropriate conferences with non-Catholics, that is the Paulist Fathers, who, quote, "addressed our dissenting brethren openly, both to explain Catholic teachings and to refute objections brought against them." End quote. This method has non-Catholics invited to spectate at these gatherings, but not to speak at these gatherings so as not to spread their errors. Yet, as we will see when looking at the commentary of the Church on this canon, this is not the only acceptable solution. First, there were certain ecumenists called Pan-Christians, whose intention was to gather all those who call themselves Christian together into a single religious federation, a new church where they could ignore all of their differences. Clearly, such conferences fell under the same errors condemned by Pope Leo XIII. Thus, there were multiple decrees of the Holy Office against participating in their mission. In 1927, the Holy Office declared that Catholics are not allowed to, quote, "belong to or favor conventions, meetings, conferences, or associations of non-Catholics, which have for their purpose to unite all those who call themselves Christian in one religious federation." End quote. The reason for this is clear. The Church is a supernatural society that has been made necessary by God for salvation. One of the notes that God has given to this society is the note of unity. If we were to pretend that we could join this group that forms a new church by a federation or council or congress, the Catholic Church being a part of it, then we deny these two facts. The Holy Office in this declaration referred back to a similar declaration that it gave in July of 1919, which affirmed the continuing validity of two letters from Blessed Pius IX forbidding membership in similar organizations in England who attempted the same thing during the time of the Oxford Movement among Anglicans who, deluded by branch theory, felt that there needed to be some sort of blending of the Oriental, Roman, and Anglican into a single body without the conversion of the Oriental and Anglicans to the Catholic faith. Hence, on September 16th, 1864, a letter was sent by the Holy Office ordering Catholics to not collaborate with the society since, quote, "It has resulted from a view put forth by it in expressed terms that three Christian communions, the Roman Catholic, the schismatic Greek, and the Anglican, though separated and divided one from another, have yet an equal claim to the title of Catholic." End quote. The Holy Office judged that, quote, "the principle upon which it rests is one that overthrows the divine constitution of the Church." End quote. Beside an ecclesiological error, they were also stained by indifferentism in that they affirmed that, quote, "several points of doctrine in which they differ, each may follow undisturbed the opinions of his own religious profession." End quote. That the active dissensions in which these Christian communions exist are short of any breach of the faith, inasmuch as their faith continues one and the same. End quote. Beside this letter from September 16th, 1864, which was addressed to Catholics, there was an additional one addressed to Anglicans, given on November 8th, 1865, which is a spectacular example of firmness and charity and truth. Both of these are admirably explained by Cardinal Manning in his 1866 pastoral letter titled, quote, "The Reunion of Christendom." Yet, as mentioned above, the occasion for the comments made were the efforts made by the Pan-Christians. After the various interventions made in the early decades of the 20th century, an encyclical was finally written on this problem by Pope Leo XI. An encyclical was finally written on this problem by Pope Pius XI. Here he gives a thorough exposition and refutation of the idea that unity as a note has been lost by the Church, that it will be regained through some amalgamation that can only be achieved through indifferentism in things of faith, which is a, quote, "most grave error by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed." End quote. A main error which was already mentioned by Blessed Pius IX against the Anglicans was that the note of unity was a mere ideal prayed for by Christ and was not realized in fact as a note of the Catholic Church. Quote, "They are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed and does not today exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired, and that it may even one day be attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to the common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as a mere ideal." End quote. Rather than affirming that the Church is a supernatural society with a unity of government, quote, "They understand a visible Church as nothing else than a federation composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines which may even be incompatible one with another." End quote. From this, it is quite clear that for the same reason that Catholics could not participate at the World Fair or with the Anglicans, also applied to the case of the Pan-H. The entire project was predicated on a false goal. Whether it was a visible Church that was a federation with no doctrinal unity, or it was a union of the three branches, or of some admission of the insufficiency of every religion. Hence, Pius IX gave the judgment that, quote, "This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises. For if they do so, they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ." End quote. These same issues arose again and again throughout the early 20th century. In 1948, the Holy Office chastised a number of Catholics for attending these conferences without previous permission from Rome and exhorted them to remember their obligations in this regard. Quote, "And in various places against the prescriptions of the sacred canons, without previous permission of the Holy See, mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been held in which matters of faith have been discussed. All are reminded that it is forbidden to take part in these gatherings without the aforementioned permission. There is still more reason for observing these rulings when there is a question of what are called ecumenical gatherings, in which Catholics may under no circumstances take part without the previous consent of the Holy See." End quote. Father Franz Hürth, moral theology advisor to Venerable Pius XII and consultor of the Holy Office, gave a series of annotations that year on this intervention from the Holy Office, which explains the teaching in more detail. Father Hürth is in a unique place to understand the document in that he was the draft writer for it. First, he clarifies the scope of

The law. It is often forgotten that Canon 1325 is generally concerned with matters of faith and not matters whatsoever. Hence, while a conference on a matter of faith with other religions falls under the prescripts of the canon and requires the approval of the Holy See, a conference on other matters would not fall under the same approval, such as ethical, social, or political conferences. Hurtth states, quote, "The warning deals with mixed religious meetings of non-Catholics with Catholics, that is, with meetings in which matters of faith are discussed. Therefore, the warning does not include mixed meetings in which other subjects are treated. For example, scientific matters not touching religion or purely social, economic, or similar topics. The warning therefore, in general, does not go beyond what is laid down by canon law." End quote.

It goes on to explain what these mixed meetings on matters of faith would have looked like during his day. Ordinarily, there would be lectures given by Catholics and non-Catholics in an attempt to explain both the content and grounds for their doctrine. Then discussions would happen on each side, and reports would be written and presented as to explain the agreements and disagreements present. In some cases, there were even acts of mixed worship, sometimes including the common celebration and reception of the Eucharist. Sometimes these meetings were very private, with only a few competent individuals attending. At other times, it was promiscuously open to all people. Sometimes these meetings were held with the approval of the competent authorities, and sometimes they were held against the approval of the competent authorities.

Beside all this, the end purpose for these meetings are diverse as well. Sometimes these meetings have as their purpose the construction of a new pan-Christian church, that is, an amalgamation of the participating churches. At other times, it is to discover differences or to discuss reuniting the other side with a Catholic church. With this great degree of diversity of matter, form, and end, it is clear that the permissibility and impermissibility of each of these gatherings cannot be either absolutely approved or absolutely disapproved. Contrary to those who think that there were no ecumenical gatherings approved by the Church before Vatican II.

Hence, Father Huth states, quote, "If what is contained in this warning is considered more particularly, the first thing noted is the fact that mixed meetings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been held, a fact which is notorious. What is reproved is not that they have been held at all, but that they have been held contrary to the prescriptions of the sacred canons and without the prior permission of the Holy See. The prescription of the sacred canons lies precisely in this that the permission of the Holy See must be sought." End quote.

A famous example of such a conference that did receive approval is the Malines Conversations, which included Anglicans and Roman Catholics. In fact, the main disputant on the Roman Catholic side was one of the most eminent theologians and philosophers of the era, Cardinal Mercier. This conference was held between 1921 and 1927 and led to many agreements between Catholics and Anglicans. Although it became clear by their fifth conference that such a meeting would not bear the fruit of union.

Of particular interest is one of the agreements reached that sounds strikingly modern. Remember a few months ago when certain individuals cried out for Pope Leo, saying that our union with other bodies "should not involve absorption or domination." Well, one of the agreements was that "union, not absorption, such would seem to be the formula of reconciliation." End quote. This is a striking example of an ecumenical meeting that was good, fruitful, and approved by the Holy See. The reason why it was approved by the Holy See was because it was vastly different from the groups started by the pan-Christians and the branch theorists. These groups and meetings did not have as their end some destruction of the Roman Catholic Church in making it part of some whole. Rather, they had dialogue as their end in order to bring about a union of others into the fold of the Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Beside this, there is another interesting note given by Father Huth that is often not clearly taken into account when considering the degree of participation in such ecumenical gatherings. While it is intrinsically wrong to enter into such groups as the branch theorists or pan-Christians as a member, since it would imply something false by the very act, there are other ways in which the Holy See could and did allow for participation. He states, quote, "The Catholic Church is prevented by divine law from participating in such ecumenical conferences if participation would mean being present as one among many equal churches. For the true Church of Christ cannot either explicitly or implicitly or by factual behavior concede that there are several true Churches of Christ which could and should unite in some higher unity. This Catholic truth, however, does not prevent some Catholics, with the consent of the Holy See, from attending such ecumenical conferences as private observers, from setting forth Catholic doctrine, and from answering questions and doubts posed by non-Catholics about Catholic teaching." End quote.

This practice of sending observers had already been common for decades, even in the gatherings of pan-Christians, whose meetings were predicated on abhorrent errors, as noted by Morota in the paper "The Holy See in the Question of Sending Observers to the World Conferences of the International Ecumenical Movement." Such happened constantly with the approval of the Holy See in the early 20th century. In 1940, Cardinal Savajani, the Secretary of the Holy Office, explained how this role would look like. Quote, "This Supreme Congregation is not averse to your allowing such participation to some Fathers of the Society of Jesus within the limits and under the conditions indicated below, namely: One, to submit to the Preparatory Commission an exposition of Catholic doctrine on the subject to be dealt with at the Congress, so that it may be published together with the other writings in the volume intended for the Congress participants. The author must, however, include a declaration that he does not belong to the association. Two, to attend the meetings of the Preparatory Commission as observers and to speak only in the following cases: A. At the request of the commission to clarify a point which has remained unclear in the written treatment. B. At the request of the commission to illustrate a point of doctrine connected with the main argument. C. To correct the erroneous attribution to the Catholic Church of a doctrine which is not its own." End quote.

Hence, from its founding in 1948, the Catholic Church has desired to send observers to meetings of the World Council of Churches. Yet, unlike the Eastern Orthodox Church, a Syrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church has never, will never, and could never become a full member of this council. At the founding of the World Council of Churches, Father Trump, one of the most famous ecclesiologists of the era and close theological advisor of Venerable Pius XII and most of the Curia, thought that Venerable Pius XII should send a warm letter personally and some observers to the meeting. Venerable Pius XII, while not desiring to personally send a letter to the council, did desire to send observers to participate in the 1948 founding and did desire for another member of the hierarchy to send a letter. It is recorded, quote, "Concerning the papal letter, the Holy Father does not wish with a document of his own to enhance the value of the conference, nor to confer upon it the prestige that a papal act would give it by giving it greater attention in this world. As for the observers, let them be sent with the precautions taken for the Birmingham meeting, but they should not be more than five or six. The Holy Father wants Father Congar to be excluded." End quote.

Yet, the entire process was ruined by Father Congar when he informed the Holy See that the WCC was already working with individual Catholic priests who would attend as members without the approval of the Church. This was obviously unacceptable and, in a large part, spooked the Holy See. From this point, the negotiations between the Holy See and the WCC soured. The entire thing ended up going up in flames after they could not come to an agreement on who to send. The ironic thing about this whole ordeal is that this was the result of Father Congar either lying or not understanding the entire situation. The WCC understood that the Holy See would never be a member of the WCC. It understood that this was against Catholic dogma and wished to respect this. But they also had a vested interest in having observers from Rome in order to add some prestige to the meeting. So the WCC reached out to Congar, who was overly friendly with the ecumenical movement, in order to ask him who the hierarchy might actually accept. This was strategic so that when the WCC proposed some names to the Holy See, the names they proposed would be pleasing to Rome. It would obviously be idiotic for the WCC to propose a bunch of modernists to the Holy See, since this would spook Rome from even sending observers in the first place. But Father Congar took this letter as some sort of secret plan to get member priests without asking Rome.

Yet, the same mistake would not be repeated in the future. A few years later, in 1952, there was another conference of the WCC in Lund. Father Trump personally ensured that these negotiations would not lead to failure. He closely followed the 1948 meeting and saw that the absence of Catholic observers was disastrous and led to an anti-Catholic tone on the whole event. Hence, Father Trump and a handful of other observers, most of them who were converts, were sent by the Holy See to Lund.

Many Catholics who attack the contemporary practice of the Church will often fail to make these three crucial aforementioned distinctions that were clearly latent in the pre-conciliar Church, teaching, and practice. First is this gathering of Catholics and non-Catholics on matters of faith or some other matter. If some other matter, then it can be permissible for Catholics to join. Further, as we will see below concerning the 1948 decree of the Holy Office, if it is on a matter of faith or morals, is it an issue that is common between the members? If so, it is permitted. Second, does this gathering imply falsehoods about the unity and uniqueness of the Catholic Church by its very nature, such as in the gatherings of the pan-Christians or branch theorists? If it does not, Catholics were always allowed and positively encouraged to do so with permission of the Holy See, as we saw in the example of Cardinal Mercier. Third, if it is some gathering that does imply falsehood, what is the manner of participation? Are we simply praying for their success? We have always done this, and the Popes have positively encouraged this, as we will see, especially in the letters of the bishops of the Netherlands. Are we simply participating as observers? Are we participating as full members in parts of their false federation? The former can be permitted. The latter can never be permitted due to the implications. It would imply that we view ourselves as part of some superconfessional church while also part of the Catholic Church.

During the same year, there was a pastoral letter of the bishops of the Netherlands on the same topic, as I mentioned above. The reason for this was the fact that the aforementioned first meeting of the WCC was in Amsterdam, and the Dutch bishops were intimately involved in the negotiation around sending observers. While technically not promulgated by the Holy See, it's commonly cited by Catholic authors as an authoritative expression of Catholic teaching on the issue and was read and approved by the Holy See before publication. Here we see another lucid expression of the traditional Catholic doctrine which, while deploring the lack of unity among Christians, still refuses to participate in meetings that would imply doctrines contrary to the unity of faith and divine constitution of the Church. Here the bishops emphasize the joy they have in the fact that there are many who seek unity and state that they will be praying for their efforts that they may find the true unity of Christ in the Catholic Church. They call the desire of the ecumenists "deep and sincere," reflecting a similar attitude to Cardinal Manning, who decades earlier went so far as to say that these different movements within Protestantism were graces given by God to push them towards unity with the Catholic Church, an attitude that was also inculcated by Benedict XV's aforementioned attitude towards the Episcopalians.

In a turn that may sound shocking to those with an overly simplistic understanding of pre-conciliar views on those outside the Church, the bishops write, quote, "We earnestly invite you all, priests and faithful people, to pray fervently. Pray during these days for those who are taking part in the Congress and for the countless other non-Catholic Christians who eagerly look for unity, who really adhere to Christ and live in his love, who, although separated from the flock of Christ, yet look to the Church, sometimes without fully realizing it, as the one door of salvation. Pray first for those who are in a position of leadership among non-Catholic Christians. They have a great deal of personal responsibility for the simple faithful dependent on their guidance, having often not sufficient talents to arrive at a true understanding of the matter through their own efforts." End quote.

This acknowledgment of the presence of inculpable heretics and schismatics was common in this era. As two examples from Venerable Pius XII, he wrote, quote, "We have learned how vehement is the desire for religious unity that exists among many of the sons of your nation, that is, Germany. Who could feel this desire more vividly than the Vicar of Christ himself? The Church embraces those separated from her in faith with unfeigned charity and with fervent prayers that they may return to their mother from whom very many, whom God alone can count, are separated without personal fault." End quote. And quote, "We lovingly invite each and every one of them, that is, non-Catholics, to yield freely to the inner impulses of divine grace and to strive to free themselves from a state in which they cannot be secure of their eternal salvation. For although by a certain unconscious desire and wish, they are ordered toward the mystical body of the Redeemer, they nevertheless lack so many and great heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church." End quote.

Father Trump is in a unique place to understand the scope and purpose of this document as intimately involved in the entire WCC affair mentioned above and officially sent by the Church to negotiate the sending of observers. In fact, he drafted the original version of the letter with the Utre Curia and gave the official English translation, which was the official translation given to the delegates at the WCC. After giving a history of the background of the time, Father Trump distinguishes between two kinds of participation, as Hugh did above. Quote, "In this earlier part, it is explained in clear words why the Catholic Church cannot take place in the Congress. This does not need explanation. Only this should be noted. It is a question of participation properly so-called, by which the Catholic Church would send official delegates in order to, with equal right, discuss religious matters together with the delegates of the various groups. Strictly speaking, a certain participation in a broader sense would not be repugnant, namely, that the Church might send official representation for a better knowledge of the case and to enlighten separated brethren concerning Catholic doctrine. This, however, certainly will not easily happen." End quote.

This same mindset is quite clear in 1949 when the Holy Office sent out yet another clarification on this matter on the ecumenical movement. It states that, quote, "The Catholic Church, although she does not take place in congresses and other conventions called ecumenical, yet has never ceased, as is clear from many pontifical documents, nor will she cease in the future, to follow with the most intense interest and to promote by earnest prayers to God all efforts toward the attainment of what is so dear to the heart of Christ our Lord, namely, that all who believe in Him may be made perfect in one." End quote. As reflected in Cardinal Manning and by the Netherlands bishops, the instruction states that this desire for the return to unity is something arising from the grace of the Spirit. Quote, "Now, in many parts of the world, as a result of various external events and changes of views on the part of people, but especially in consequence of the common prayers of the faithful through the grace of the Holy Spirit, there has grown constantly in the minds of many people separated from the Catholic Church the desire for a return to unity on the part of all who believe in the Lord Christ." End quote.

The reason for this was stated by one of the most prominent cardinals of the era, Cardinal Dominic Tardini, who told the delegates of the WCC when they stated the Holy See was against their movement, that, quote, "I told him one, that the Holy See cannot but view with satisfaction any initiative that has charitable purposes, is inspired by feelings of unity, etc. Two, that the Holy See and Catholics have their own organizations and act through them. Three, that this is an action that does not hinder others, so vast is the field of charity. Four, that Catholics also help non-Catholics in a spirit of Christian charity." End quote.

This instruction to bishops gives a thorough account of the possible dangers of the ecumenical movement, much of which is quite relevant today. For example, it instructs bishops to be careful of those who downplay matters of Catholic doctrine when speaking to non-Catholics simply because they are not matters of faith. Quote, "They must restrain the dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization, for example, to the effect that the teachings of the encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs should not be given too much importance, seeing that they are not matters of faith." End quote. Yet, this is tempered by the statements concerning the perfection of any graces received as a non-Catholic by their admission into the Catholic Church. Quote, "It should be made clear to them that in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return." End quote.

Most importantly, though, this document provides the most precise account of the occasions and conditions where attendance at such meetings will be appropriate. Four, many are confused by the traditional doctrine of the Church on attendance at ecumenical meetings. Since canon law required permission from the Holy See in order to attend meetings with non-Catholics, they have concluded that it is never permissible to attend meetings with non-Catholics. This is clearly a logical error. Rather, Catholics were condemned for attending such meetings either due to attending meetings that are intrinsically impermissible to attend or intending meetings without the correct procedure in the law. We have already treated this in some detail above. The document states, quote, "On the one hand, these meetings afford the desired opportunity to spread among non-Catholics the knowledge of Catholic doctrine, which is generally not sufficiently known to them. Yet, on the other hand, they easily involve no slight danger of indifferentism for Catholics. In cases where there seems to be some hope of good results, the Ordinary shall see that the thing is properly managed, designating for these meetings priests who are as well qualified as possible to explain and defend Catholic doctrine properly and appropriately." End quote.

Yet, it provides a warning for when participation in these meetings is imprudent, even if not against divine law. As an aside, I think this is where we can put many of the ecumenical gatherings that take place today in which the Church sends observers. Quote, "Where there is no apparent hope of good results, or where the affair involves special dangers on other grounds, the faithful are to be prudently kept away from the meetings, and the meetings themselves are soon to be ended or gradually suppressed." End quote.

Yet, most importantly, this instruction of the Holy Office actually interprets the decree of Venerable Pius XII from 1948 mentioned above on the WCC. As we saw from Huth and Trump, the prescriptions of the Holy See do not and never have given an absolute ban on ecumenical meetings, but only on certain types of meetings and certain types of participation. Quote, "Mixed congresses are not absolutely forbidden, but they are not to be held without the previous permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority. Neither does the said warning apply to these mixed meetings of Catholics and non-Catholics in which the discussions do not turn upon faith and morals, but upon ways and means of defending the fundamental principles of the natural law or of the Christian religion against the enemies of God who are now leagued together, or where the question is how to restore social order or other topics of that nature." End quote.

Here we see an expanded explanation from the Holy See on something that we mentioned above. Frequently, the authors mention working with non-Catholics on political or social issues, but we here see that this extends beyond merely secular issues and also to issues of the religious sphere. We are able to have mixed meetings on common issues of the Catholic religion with non-Catholics. Further, there is another helpful clarification that requires a history of its own. Frequently, documents of this sort will ban the practice of what is called *communicatio in sacris*. Yet the instruction clarifies that some common prayers do not qualify as *communicatio in sacris*. It gives the example of opening and closing the conference in the common praying of the Lord's Prayer. Quote, "Although in all these meetings and conferences, any *communicatio in sacris* must be avoided, yet the recitation in common of the Lord's Prayer or of some prayer approved by the Catholic Church is not forbidden for opening or closing the said meetings." End quote. The question of *communicatio in sacris* or *in divinis* would take an entire video to treat. So I will skip over it for now.

After this point, there is a letter that is commonly quoted by many against Vatican II and the ecumenical movement, written by Cardinal Stretch. Yet, it is to be remembered that this letter was written in 1954, two years after observers were already sent to the WCC in Lund. When this letter speaks about participation in these conferences, it clearly doesn't mean to reject sending observers to such conferences, lest he condemn Venerable Pius XII and some of the most prominent theologians, canonists, and clerics of his day. Rather, participation is to be understood in the sense of membership, which has always been condemned. As a reminder, the Catholic Church to this day only sends observers to the WCC and is not a member of the WCC.

The occasion for making this video is the Octave for Christian Unity, which is held between January 18th and 25th and has been officially sanctioned by every Pope going back to St. Pius X, extended as a celebration of the universal Church by Pope Benedict XV. This was in response, in a large part, to requests sent by Episcopalians who organized the World Conference of Christian Churches. While he stated that the Catholic Church could not be a member of such a conference due to its indifferent presuppositions, he did send a gracious reply and instituted the Octave to pray for the true Christian unity in a brief dated the 25th of February 1960. Father Versmooj, one of the most eminent canonists of the 20th century, notes the friendly history behind the institution of this Octave. Quote, "In the year 1910, the plenary assembly of the American Episcopal Church, in order to promote the unity of all Christians, proposed a congress of the whole world to which it invited many heretical sects from the very beginning. Above all, however, the cooperation of the Catholic Church was sought. On the 2nd of November 1914, the Secretary of the World Conference sent a most courteous letter to Cardinal Gasperi, asking that the Supreme Pontiff might deign to pray to God for the happy success of its efforts. On the 18th of December 1914, His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State replied courteously. His Holiness expresses the greatest wishes that everything may come about according to their hopes. And he implores Christ Jesus in the most earnest terms, so much the more since by Christ's own proclaiming and commanding voice, He knows that He Himself, to whom all men have been entrusted to be fed, is the principle and cause of the unity of the Church. Pope Benedict XV ordered that prayers for the unity of the Church be recited from the 18th to the 25th of January. The World Conference itself decreed that on those same days of the year 1918, prayers for the unity of the Church should be offered. In May 1919, certain selected men of that group were received by the Supreme Pontiff with great benevolence. His Holiness stated that while he could not participate, he did not disapprove the congress itself of men who are not in communion with the Apostolic See." End quote.

During these eight days, we are meant to pray that all men may be united in the Holy Catholic Church. During this Octave, I'll be giving a series of talks for the St. Nicholas Tablish Network, known as Tavet, on related topics about Christian unity. I would encourage everyone to pray for the success of Tavet, who seek to bring about the unity of all men in the conversion of Muslims to the Catholic faith. To learn more about them, visit their website www.tavishnetwork.org or their YouTube channel called Tavet, both linked in the description below. If you're interested in watching these talks, I will be uploading them for my patrons and YouTube members. So, if you are not a patron or YouTube member yet, I would encourage that you become one at the links below. Now, let's get back to the video.

At this point, we have went over many of the official ecclesiastical documents with commentary from prominent clerics who, in many cases, authored the documents promulgated. Yet, during this era, quite a few theologians and canonists also commented on these sources. I wanted to give you just one helpful example: Kander's dissertation, "Discussions with Non-Catholics." His work has two parts. The first on disputations with non-Catholics, which I covered in my Substack article mentioned above, and the second on conferences with non-Catholics, which is the subject of this video. He begins by clarifying the type of conferences that he intends to treat here: "the recognition and acknowledgement of differences between the members of the various religious groups," so that despite these differences, they may "strive for one end by means of common or parallel action."

There are a number of different motivating causes for these types of groups engaging in this type of action, everything from "the fear of a revival of religious persecutions" to "the realization that there can be no social or political unity without religious unity. The theory that a definite step will have been taken towards religious unity if there's unity based on the natural law," to "the erroneous conviction that no one religion exists by divine right to the exclusion of all others." These motive causes are listed in abundance by one of the greatest anti-modernists in the United States from that era, Father Francis J. Connell. I will here be treating of Father Connell's doctrine as well, which is luminous. His two most famous works on this topic are his 1941 article in the American Ecclesiastical Review titled "Catholics and Interfaith Groups" and his 1966 "Catechism on Ecumenism."

In order to judge the lawfulness of participation in particular groups, the Church uses two principles to judge. These are listed by Father Connell. Quote, "The first is Christ's law of fraternal charity. By virtue of this, we are obliged to interest ourselves in the spiritual welfare of those outside the Church, particularly by striving zealously but prudently for their conversion. There are the other sheep whom our Divine Savior yearns to have in His fold. We must labor towards the fulfillment of His desire. We may not be indifferent to the spiritual needs of those who differ from us in religious belief. We may not be content with waiting for them to come to us for information about our faith. We must take the initiative and eagerly seek opportunities of bringing to their notice clear and cogent arguments for the divine origin and the divine authorization of Catholicism. The second principle governing our association with non-Catholics is the fundamental doctrine that Catholicism is the only true religion and that its acceptance is obligatory by divine law for all mankind. From the same principle, it follows necessarily that Catholics may not give any positive approval or assistance to the propagation of a non-Catholic religion. Beyond doubt, every such religion contains some element of truth and of goodness. Yet the religion as such, taken in its entirety, is something false, something opposed to God's will. As far as the divine law is concerned, it has no right to exist. One who dies as a member of a non-Catholic denomination may indeed be saved, provided his separation from the Catholic Church was not gravely culpable. But even in this case, his salvation is due not to his affiliation with a non-Catholic sect as such, but to his personal dispositions, particularly faith and charity, and to his implicit desire of membership in the Catholic Church." End quote.

What follows most importantly from the second point is that we can neither state nor approve the tenets of indifferentism. While these principles are luminous in themselves, in their application, they can cause a great degree of difficulty. A Catholic may zealously hate heresy and strive to fulfill the second principle, yet find himself empty of charity towards that man. Further, a Catholic may strive to love his non-Catholic neighbor, to respect and honor him, yet find himself slipping into indifferentism. Hence, any participation in disputation or common meetings with non-Catholics must be treated with the greatest degree of care.

According to Keller, there are two important questions that the theologian must ask himself when faced with this problem. First, has the Church absolutely forbidden Catholics from participating in some or all of these conferences? Second, if not, is there some sort of additional legislation about participating in these conferences? Must a Catholic use his own reason to determine whether such conduct is in accordance with the natural law and divine revelation, or must he follow the determination of his superior on this point? While these questions may seem similar, they're actually quite distinct. If the Church absolutely forbids something, it is judging that such an act is intrinsically evil and can only be tolerated. This is a question of the determinations of the law of God. Yet, the second question is one of procedure. Is a Catholic allowed to particularize these principles himself in his concrete circumstances? If not, who does he need to talk to? The second point, of course, is mutable. This is a procedural question of positive law that changes in this or that era of the Church. The first question is moral and binding to Catholics of all ages.

After the introduction, he begins to treat the history of legislation on this point. The first affair he treats is the affair with the branch theorists mentioned above. His conclusion on this is, quote, "In condemning societies which are founded for the purpose of uniting all Christians in one federation without the complete submission of one and all to the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals, the Sacred Congregation is merely putting into explicit terms a clear precept of the divine, natural, and positive law. Briefly, the letters prohibit participation in two types of conferences: those which aim at a union of the churches with due allowance for particular differences, that is, on the basis of a lowest common denominator, and those which strive to promote tolerance by imbuing the participants with a respect for the diverse religions of others. It is obvious that these two prohibitions are still in effect." End quote.

The second affair he treats is the affair with Cardinal Gibbons mentioned above. He states, quote, "This letter, in the light of the history of the World Parliament of Religions, appears to be directed against the type of meeting between Catholics and non-Catholics in which a real and immediate danger of indifferentism is present. Such a meeting differs specifically from conferences which aim at union on the basis of the lowest common denominator or strive directly to imbue their participants with a respect for the diverse religions of others." End quote.

In both these affairs, we have virtually contained the entire extent of the opposition of the Church to certain conferences. First, the Church states that it is intrinsically evil to join the first type of group as a member, such as the branch theorists or, as we saw earlier, the pan-Christians, insofar as this necessarily involves the profession of falsehood. Second, the Church does not oppose simple discussions with other religions, whether public or private. Yet, in the case where indifferentism may be spread to the participants or other Catholics, then it ought to be forbidden. Hence, the second would be evil *per accidens*. And whether and how this would be a sin would be determined by a number of different moral factors. As he goes on to write, quote, "Discussions on religion and morality between Catholics and non-Catholics are not forbidden in themselves. These discussions are not always intrinsically evil, but are sometimes to be judged as licit or illicit according to their extrinsic circumstances. Where the circumstances are such, the real and immediate danger of indifferentism is present because of the fact that the different religions as such seem to be placed on an equality. Catholic participation is necessarily forbidden." End quote.

The example of these affairs answers the first question: What does the law of God teach? It teaches that one, membership in groups that would make the Catholic Church a part of some higher union are intrinsically evil, and two, participation in other discussions can be good or evil depending on the circumstances. Hence, as to the second question, it could only be in relation to the second point. How are we to prudently consider these circumstances? Does the Church require recourse to its authority, or are Catholics allowed to decide for themselves according to the 1917 Code? We already know the answer to this question. It is quite clear in the Code itself. It was required that Catholics have recourse to Rome unless it was an emergency. Then recourse could be made to their Ordinary.

Well, that's all that I have for you. I hope that you found this helpful. And as always, God bless.

Ever since Vatican II, a significant point of controversy has been the question of whether Muslims and Jews worship the same God as us Christians. Traditionalist schismatics deny this fact, and recently some modern Protestants have also done so. So, in this video, I will briefly address one of Peter Diamond's arguments, as well as address some arguments by Benjamin Merritt, or the man who runs the Cleave to Antiquity YouTube channel, but I will mostly be putting forward a positive case for Vatican II. So, my proposition for this video is that yes, Vatican II is correct. Muslims and Jews worship the same God as us Christians by way of reference, but not by way of sense. This simply means that when we say God, we are referring to the same being, the one Creator of all things, but we describe Him in different senses. I am not saying that all religions are the same or that Islam is salvific or that Judaism is salvific. I am merely doing natural theology. However, in this video, I will show that Scripture proves Vatican II and that the traditional Christian position on this supports Vatican II. In other words, the traditionalists are not being traditional at all, and Cleave to Antiquity is not cleaving to antiquity. And of course, sadly, none of them are cleaving to Scripture.

The Vatican II declaration, *Nostra Aetate*, or "In Our Times," writes of the Muslims, quote, "They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men." End quote. And the constitution *Lumen Gentium*, or "Light of Nations," says, "Along with us they adore the one and merciful God." End quote. But while they do worship the one God, this does not mean that their worship is conducive to salvation. Because by worship here, we merely mean the act that flows forth from the natural virtue of religion to honor and worship God as all men should. Romans 1:18-22 says, quote, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give Him thanks, but became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." End quote.

So here it is clear that the Gentiles, even though they did not receive divine revelation like the Israelites, were still obligated by virtue of natural law to worship the one true God. To be clear, it's not that they should have known about the Trinity, because that is a supernatural fact and we can only know that by revelation, but we can still know that the one God exists and we can worship Him naturally. Bishop Athanasius Schneider writes, quote, "We can accept the affirmation of *Lumen Gentium*, but then we must give a long explanation. Of course, when a person sincerely adores God the Creator, as I assume the majority of simple Muslims do, they adore God with a natural act of worship based on the knowledge of God the Creator. Every non-Christian, every non-baptized person, including a Muslim, can adore God on the level of the natural knowledge of the existence of God. They adore in a natural act of adoration of the same God whom we adore in a supernatural act and with supernatural faith in the Holy Trinity. But these are two essentially different acts of adoration: the one is an act of natural knowledge and the other is an act of supernatural faith." End quote.

But to be clear, this doesn't exactly answer the question. The real question is, after rejecting the Trinity, do Jews and Muslims still worship the same God? No Christian should be doubting that we can know that God exists and that we can honor Him naturally, because that's clearly what Romans 1 teaches. But the question is, after God has revealed the Trinity, after we have heard the Gospel, if we reject that Christ is God and we reject that God is three persons in one nature, are we still worshiping the same God? Or by rejecting the Trinity and by rejecting the divinity of Christ, are we creating another God in our head and therefore committing idolatry?

Here is Cleave to Antiquity making an argument about this. >> They claim that the Muslims adore the one God. Okay, so they adore the same God. Okay, the important thing to think about this: Are Muslims Trinitarian? Do they worship the same God as us? Do they worship the Trinity? Okay? Because that is what is required according to the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Canon one of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: "If anyone does not confess that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one nature or essence, one power or authority worshiped as a Trinity of the same essence, one deity and three hypostases or persons, let him be anathema." For there is one God and Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things. Defining who God is, the Trinity. If you do not define God in this way, you are anathema. Okay? So you have the Second Vatican Council claiming that non-Trinitarian Muslims worship the same God as Roman Catholics. And then you have the Fifth Ecumenical Council stating that if you describe God non-Trinitarian, you say that this is the same God we worship, then guess what? You're anathema. This is a contradiction.

I agree 100%. If you do not accept the Trinity, you are anathema. However, Ben here fails to distinguish between reference and sense. Vatican II is speaking in terms of reference, and Second Constantinople is speaking in terms of sense. So they don't contradict one another at all. Muslims reject the Trinity and therefore they do fall under the anathema of Second Constantinople because they reject the sense in which we understand God. But this in no way entails that they refer to a totally different being that they've created in their head. Now, when they say the word "God," to suggest that Vatican II is contradicting Second Constantinople is to misread both councils. I mean, do you think the theologians who went to Vatican II and wrote the documents for Vatican II no longer accept Second Constantinople? Do we no longer think as Catholics that people who reject the Trinity are anathema? Of course not. In fact, post-Vatican II manuals, such as, for example, by Emanuel Duronzo, still say that the Muslims are in error, the Jews are in error, and all of these false religions ought to accept the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity. But this is a totally different question of whether they still adore the one Creator of the world.

For instance, consider a hypothetical figure named Cameron who lived thousands of years before Christ and is well known for having produced great and influential poetry. And let us suppose that there is very strong evidence that this poetry actually belongs to Cameron. But what if new and compelling archaeological evidence has found that Cameron was actually a woman, even though previously Cameron was believed to be a man? And suppose that I, despite this new and credible evidence, still want to believe that Cameron is actually a man. And I reject all of the clear evidence that Cameron was actually a woman. When I refer to Cameron, am I now referring to a different person than someone who accepts that Cameron was a woman? This is obviously ridiculous. The divergence in our understanding or in the way that we speak about Cameron does not mean that we are referring to two separate persons. Rather, we are referring to the same person, even though we are speaking about that person in different ways, and even if I am rejecting that that person was truly a woman. This illustrates a key principle: a difference in the way that we conceive or describe a reference (that is what some philosophers call the sense) does not entail a difference in reference. The object of reference remains the same, even if we conceptualize that object differently.

The schismatic Peter Diamond makes a similar error. He says that the true Catholic Church before Vatican II knows that Islam is a false religion. However, Vatican II never says that Islam is a true religion. I don't think Islam is a true religion. I think it's a very false religion. But this is a different question than what is being referred to when they say "God." He quotes Pope Eugene IV, who says, quote, "There is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Muhammad will be converted to the Catholic faith." End quote. Yes. I mean, does Vatican II reject this? What does that have to do with, again, this has nothing to do with the question. I hope all Muslims convert to Catholicism.

But can we find support for Vatican II in Scripture? As I mentioned earlier, Romans 1 and having natural knowledge of God is not enough, because the question at hand is: do we worship the same God even after they have rejected divine revelation? By rejecting the Trinity, do they now refer to a different God? The answer is yes. Scripture does teach this. Here is Cleave to Antiquity quoting Scripture, claiming that this contradicts Vatican II. "Vatican II, as well as John Paul II, state that Muslims have the same God as Roman Catholics. However, the Bible actually says that false religions are inspired by demons. What do you think about this?"

But here, Cleave to Antiquity makes several errors. First, he says that, quote, "False religions are inspired by demons." But this point is relevant because the object of worship, who is worshiped, and the origin of a religion are different. I would 100% agree that Islam is inspired by demons, was started by demons, but this has nothing to do with whether they actually worship God or demons. Just like a Protestant might say that Catholics worship God, even if some of our teachings are inspired by demons. Secondly, Ben, or Cleave to Antiquity, is putting words in the Apostle's mouth and making him contradict himself. St. Paul never says that false religions are inspired by demons. He says that sacrifices offered to idols are offered to demons. If he had said that all false religions are inspired by demons, then he would be contradicting himself from what he wrote in Romans 1. Because in Romans 1, he explicitly expects Gentiles to not have worshiped creation, but rather to worship God. Now, these Gentiles would be having a sort of false religion, since they haven't received any revelation. And if they were to invent their own liturgical calendar or their own rites, it would be a false religion. However, they would not be worshiping animals, idols, demons. As St. Paul says, they could have worshiped the one true God, even though they had no divine revelation. So, this would be a contradiction, which thankfully St. Paul doesn't actually commit.

But actually, these verses prove Vatican II. And here's why. Let's read the entire passage. In 1 Corinthians 10, St. Paul warns Christians of taking part in pagan sacrifices. He writes, quote, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Behold, Israel according to the flesh? Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then..."

That the idol is anything? Or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But I say that the things which Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God. And I would not have that you should have fellowship with devils. You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.

End quote. In this passage, St. Paul draws a distinction between three modes of worship. Christians are partakers of the body of Christ and therefore we have communion with Christ. Israel according to the flesh, that is the Jews who partook of the temple sacrifices in the days that first Corinthians was being written. They do not have communion with God, but they have communion together with the altar. However, what pagans sacrifice to idols, they're actually sacrificing to demons.

Now, St. Paul's point is clear. Partaking of a sacrificial act implies communion with the reference or to whom the sacrifice is being offered. That is why he strongly warns against partaking of the Eucharist and also partaking of demonic sacrifices. It's incoherent. It would imply communion with Christ and with demons which cannot coexist.

But now consider the context. First Corinthians was written approximately two decades after the ascension of Christ. By this time the Jews in Jerusalem, especially the priests who continued to offer sacrifices in the temple, had been sufficiently exposed to the preaching of the gospel. They had heard the apostolic preaching of the divinity of Christ and the trinitarian nature of God. Yet many, especially the Jewish priests who offered the sacrifice in the temple, rejected this teaching. Despite this, St. Paul does not say that those who partake of the altar in Israel are offering to demons or to a demon. On the contrary, St. Paul distinguishes between the sacrifices happening in Jerusalem and those happening among the Gentiles to demons. For if, as some claim, a rejection of the Trinity necessarily entails idolatry, then the temple sacrifices offered by the same Jewish priests, men who had heard and rejected the New Testament revelation, ought likewise to have been described as sacrifices to demons. But St. Paul does not say this.

So, in other words, Jewish priests having rejected the gospel, the divinity of Christ and the trinitarian nature of God, the preaching from the apostles, they are in the same position as Muslims and they are in the same position as modern Jews. Yet St. Paul does not say that they worship demons, but rather that they offer sacrifices to God.

Now I've encountered the objection that perhaps not all Jews were fully exposed to the apostolic preaching and therefore they were not truly culpable yet for rejecting the Trinity. But this objection is actually irrelevant. While this may be the case for some lay persons, it is certain that Jewish priests were aware of the apostolic teaching since they had direct contact with the apostles and were central in the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. If anyone was aware of the claims of the gospel, it was they. And yet St. Paul still treats their sacrificial worship as being directed to the true God, not to false gods or to demons. This objection would also miss St. Paul's entire point since St. Paul judged the intention behind the sacrifice, especially the intended object of worship, to be what mattered the most. His entire point is that even if a Christian attending gentile sacrifices did not believe in those idols, they were still communing with demons because of the sacrificial act itself done by the priest. So just as a Christian who did not believe in idols was still communing with demons if he went to a pagan temple, a lay person in Jerusalem who was not aware of the apostolic preaching would still be guilty of sacrificing to demons because the Jewish priest who was offering the sacrifice certainly knew about the apostolic preaching about the Trinity and rejected it. But St. Paul does not say that. He says that unlike the Jews and unlike the Christians, the pagans offer to demons and not to God.

But am I alone in this reading of 1 Corinthians 10? Let's see how many commentators have read 1 Corinthians in this way throughout the centuries. Now, the commentaries from the Church Fathers are here to show the traditionalists, the modern Protestants, and the Orthodox, whoever might reject this from Vatican 2, that the Church Fathers actually read first Corinthians in this way, and that's how they saw their relationship with the Jews. The commentaries from the medievals and the scholastics are especially for the traditionalists who think that Vatican 2 is a total novelty. And the commentary from traditional Protestant reformed authors is to show that they also side with Vatican 2 and modern Protestants who might disagree with this are departing from their own tradition.

St. Augustine says, quote, "Because in the temple which Israel served according to the flesh, an idol was certainly not worshipped. For if the sacrifices which were offered to God in that temple according to the old law were to be condemned as sacrifices to idols or as offered to demons, then in no way would the Lord himself have said to the leper whom he had cleansed, go show yourselves to the priests."

Prometheus of Adumatum in the sixth century says that the altar in the Jewish temple at the time that 1 Corinthians was written was, quote, "the altar of God." He says, "Look at Israel according to the flesh. Carnal Israel offers carnal sacrifices, spiritual Israel, that is Christians, spiritual ones. And just as those are partakers of the altar of God, so these are partakers of the altar of idols, that is Gentiles."

Ho of Halberstat in the 9th century says, quote, "See, he says, that is consider Israel according to the flesh. That is because they live carnally and still offer carnal sacrifices. At the time when the apostle was speaking these things, the temple in Jerusalem still stood in which Israel living carnally offered sacrifices to God. He calls them carnal because he wished to observe the law carnally and to distinguish them from spiritual Israel."

St. Bruno the Carthusian in the 11th century says, quote, "See now Israel, that is the Jewish people according to the flesh, that is performing carnal rites. For do not those who eat sacrifices offered to God among the Jews become participants in the altar, that is, do they not partake in God whom they offer to on the altar?"

Cardinal Thomas Cajetan writes in the 16th century, quote, "And he says according to the flesh, that is according to their carnal victims, their carnal sacrifices, for the temple of the Jews was still standing and sacrifices were still being offered there. And he begins with the most spiritual sacrifice of the Christians and therefore he then proceeds to present the sacrifices of the Jews, which are indeed carnal, yet offered to the true God."

The great Catholic commentator Cornelius a Lapide in the 17th century writes, quote, "All this is meant to prove that the things sacrificed to idols ought not to be partaken of. And the sense is, see, Corinthians, Israel after the flesh, when they eat of the victims offered to God, are they not deemed to be partakers of the sacrifice offered on the altar to God and to consummate the sacrifice and in a sense therefore to sacrifice?"

Noël Alexandre, a 17th century French Catholic theologian, comments, quote, "Are not those who eat of the victims offered among them partakers of the altar on which one part of the peace offering or the sacrifice of our sin offered to God is consumed by fire?"

We will now get to some Protestant commentators to show that modern Protestants who object to this depart from their own tradition. The German reformed theologian and Bible translator Johannes Epinus comments, quote, "They, Israel according to the flesh, are partakers of the altar. That is, by eating the sacrificial victims, they profess to have communion with the worship of the God of Israel to whom the victims were offered on the altar, and thus they profess to have communion with that God who alone is the true God."

The Presbyterian Bible commentator Matthew Henry comments, quote, "Those who were admitted to eat of the offerings were reckoned to partake of the sacrifice itself as made for them and to be sanctified thereby, and therefore surely to worship God and be in alliance or covenant with him, even the God of Israel to whom the sacrifice was made."

So, just to be clear, these two authors so far say that the Jews only appeared to have a communion with God. They obviously did not because they rejected the gospel, but that the sacrifice itself was offered to the true God.

The Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge in the 19th century comments on the verse that says, "What say I then that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols as anything?" He writes, quote, "This is evidently intended to guard against a false inference from this mode of reasoning. It was not to be inferred from what he had said that he regarded the professed objects of heathen worship as having the same objective existence as the God whom Jews and Christians worshipped, or that he considered the heathen sacrifices as having any inherent power."

The German Calvinist theologian Johann Peter Lange writes, quote, "His meaning is this: I say that ye, by partaking at heathenish festivals, come into communion with devils, just as we, through the bread which we break, come into communion with the body of Christ, or as the Israelites, through their sacrificial feasts, come into communion with the altar, that is, of God's sanctuary."

We see that Vatican 2 is not a novelty but actually upholds the traditional view on monotheistic religions. We're now going to get to church history. In fact, many traditionalists are often shocked to hear of Pope St. Gregory II's letter to Anzer, King of Morotania. Sure, it's a diplomatic letter, but it doesn't negate the theology behind it. In this letter, Pope Gregory writes that he has consecrated bishops around this at the king's request. He thanks him for the gifts sent and for releasing Christian captives. I will put the full letter in the description, but here is the relevant section. Quote, "For Almighty God, who wills all people to be saved and none to perish, finds nothing more acceptable in us than when a person out of love for him loves another human being and refrains from doing to others what he would not wish done to himself." This love then is something we and you owe to each other more than to other peoples, since we believe in and confess the one God, though in different ways, and daily praise and revere him as the creator of ages and rulers of this world.

This was Pope St. Gregory III in the 11th century. I didn't know they had Vatican 2 back then.

But what about the earliest ages of Christianity? Can we find any evidence for this? Well, starting with St. Justin Martyr dialoguing with Trifo the Jew. He writes, quote, "There will be no other God, old Trifo, nor was there from eternity any other existing, but he who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us and another for you, but that he alone is God who led your fathers out of Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other, but in him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob."

Now, having encountered the objection that this is very early on in the second century and in fact Trifo, with whom St. Justin Martyr was dialoguing, was not fully aware of the apostolic preaching of the Trinity. So, fair enough. I'm up for a challenge. What about in the later ages of Christianity after the Trinity has become widely known among non-Christian circles? How do Christians see these Jews who reject the Trinity?

In the 4th century, a presbyter who lived in Jerusalem, known as Blessed Jerome the Greek theologian, not the Latin St. Jerome, wrote a work called Dialogue on the Holy Trinity between a Jew and a Christian. It narrates a dialogue between a Jew and a Christian on the Trinity. And in the very beginning of the work, Blessed Jerome notes that Christians and Jews worship the same God. He writes, quote, "God is a tremendous and incomprehensible mystery. Therefore, we must not always use the same and uniform defense for all, but must respond suitably and appropriately to each questioner. To you then, O Jew, and to the circumcised who with you worship the one God, I say this. Do you confess, O Jew, that God is one, the creator of heaven and earth?"

St. Gregory of Nyssa, also in the 4th century, writes about the Jews in his day. Quote, "We can hear Jews believing in God, and our God too. Even our Lord reminds them in the gospel that they recognize no other God than the Father of the Only Begotten, of whom ye say that he is your God. Are we then to call the Jews Christians because they too agree to worship the God whom we adore?" How much more clear can it really get?

We come again to the authority of St. Augustine. And in his work On True Religion, he writes, quote, "The Jews indeed, though they pray to the one omnipotent God, yet because they expect from him only temporal invisible goods, they have refused with excessive self-assurance to recognize in their very own scriptures the beginnings of the new people rising up in humility, and thus have remained in the old man." So again, this is about people who have rejected the Trinity already, and yet they still worship the same God.

In another work, St. Augustine says that the Jews do not sacrifice to God because God took away their temple. Which of course implies that in the 40-year span between the ascension and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the Jews did sacrifice to God, which is of course what 1 Corinthians 10 says and what many commentators say on this verse.

The 12th century Byzantine emperor Andronikos also wrote a work called Against the Jews, and he writes, quote, "And concerning God the Father, unbegotten and without origin, not only you, but the whole human race, and indeed nature itself and the law that teaches nature will agree. But is there any commentary on the Muslim specifically? Yes, Albertus Pighius in the 16th century wrote in his work On Nature and Grace, quote, "One cannot doubt that in so great a multitude of those who follow the doctrine of Muhammad, being imbued with this by their parents from infancy, there are some who know and revere God as the cause of all things and the rewarder of the good and the wicked, and who commend to him their salvation, which they hope from him, and they keep the law of nature written in their hearts, and they submit their wills to the divine will."

Ludovicus Granadensis, a Spanish Dominican friar, writes in his work On the Christian Creed, quote, "And that such a grand work had to be done through the Savior, as has declared the eternal Father, and the same prophet speaking with his Messiah through these words, 'It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel. I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.' We see this has already been fulfilled, as all the nations of the world, not only the Christians and Jews, but also the Turks and Moors, worship and confess the God of Abraham as the true God. Though in such case they err, as they do not know him as Triune and One as he is."

St. Robert Bellarmine writes in his Third Book of Controversies, quote, "For since in the time of the Old Testament, not only did the Gentiles adore false gods, but also very frequently the people of God turned to idols and strange gods, Jeremiah predicted the future, that in the time of the New Testament, all men would know the one God, which we certainly see now to have been fulfilled. For the Gentiles have been converted to the faith, and also the Jews themselves and the Turks, although they are impious, yet worship the one God."

The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal Juan de Lugo writes, quote, "Those who do not believe with the Catholic Church can be divided into several categories. There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God. Such are the Turks and all Muslims, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the Triune God in Christ, as most heretics do."

Francisco Suárez writes, quote, "In this way is the Jewish religion, and perhaps many religious manifestations of the Muhammadans and other similar infidels who worship the one true God."

Really, we can go on and on. So, to recap, we've shown five things. Scripture agrees with Vatican 2 on this point. The Fathers agree with Vatican 2 on this point. The medievals agree with Vatican 2 on this point. The scholastics agree with Vatican 2 on this point. Even Protestant theologians agree with Vatican 2 on this point. So, really, there's no such thing as being a traditionalist. Modern Protestants are just coping. This is really the biblical view. This is the scriptural view. I am not in defense of Islam. I want them all to convert to Catholicism. But Vatican 2 is correct. Everybody thinks so until recently. St. Augustine thinks so. Are you going to go against him? The medievals, the scholastics, St. Paul himself thinks so. The Roman Catholic Church is always right. If we wish to cleave to antiquity, then we would follow Vatican 2. If we want to follow sacred scripture, we follow Vatican 2. If we want to be a traditionalist, a true traditionalist, we follow Vatican 2. Do you have a better exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10? Do you concede that Vatican 2 is actually the traditional view? If you want to call the church after Vatican 2 the Vatican 2 sect, are you going to concede and put St. Augustine in that sect? Are you going to put St. Gregory of Nissa in that sect? Are you going to put Cardinal Cajetan in that sect? Are you going to put traditional Protestant authors in the Vatican 2 sect?

Before concluding, I will anticipate some common objections brought forward from scripture. First, in John 5:23, our Lord says, quote, "Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." End quote. From this, the adversaries of the church wish to twist the meaning to mean that Muslims or Jews do not worship the same God as Christians, not only in sense but also in reference. But this verse is of no use to them. First, we must note that Christ in this verse does not make the distinction that modern traditionalists make between ignorance of the Trinity and willful rejection, like the Muslims. The Old Testament saints certainly worshiped God the Son in reference, but not in sense, because the Trinity was not yet revealed to them. So if we want to take Christ's words here in the way traditionalists do, we would end up denying that Abraham worshiped Jesus in his day, which is obviously absurd.

Second, St. Augustine comments on this quote, "If you did not yet honor the Son, neither did you honor the Father. For what is honoring the Father unless it be in that he has a Son? It is one thing when you are taught to honor God and that he is God, but another thing when you are taught to honor him in that he is the Father. When you are taught to honor him in that he is God, it is as the creator, as the almighty, as the spirit supreme, eternal, invisible, unchangeable, that you are led to think of him. But when you are taught to honor him as the Father, it is the same thing as to honor the Son. Because Father cannot be said if there be not a Son, as neither can Son if there is no Father." End quote. This verse thus teaches exactly what I've been saying this entire video. Muslims do not worship the same God in sense, because the name Father necessarily implies Sonship. One could not say they honor the Father in the fullest revealed sense if they do not honor the Son. But this has nothing to do with reference. This does not entail a difference in reference.

But what about 1 John 2:22-23, which says, quote, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist. He who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." End quote. Unlike the previous verse, this one does mention willful denial, but it does not change the sense of the text. Again, denying God the Son denies the divine fatherhood of the Father, since the divine name Father necessitates a Son. But if one accepts God the Son, then they already accept the Father, since the divine name of the Son implies a Father. Notice how the text does not say, as the traditionalists wish it said, "Whoever denies the Son has not God," but rather, "Whoever denies the Son has not the Father."

That's it for this video. If you have any thoughts, comments, or objections, make sure to leave them below. This is also a point of ongoing study for me, where I'm collecting many quotes from Church Fathers, medievals, scholastics, Protestants who affirm the Vatican 2 position, which is the true position. So, if you have any quotes that I didn't mention in this video, make sure to send them my way. I'd love to include it in my list. Make sure to pray for Pope Francis, pray for the Conclave, and make sure to subscribe if you're not already subscribed. May God bless you, and may Our Lady be with you.

Have you ever been asked by a non-Christian if the billions of people who never got to hear the gospel are going to hell? I mean, wouldn't this be unfair? Wouldn't this make God unjust? Well, what about that uncontacted tribesman who lived on an isolated island with his family? Is he going to be damned? Even worse, have you ever seen Catholics respond by saying that those people are de facto saved because of their invincible ignorance? Doesn't Vatican 2 say that non-Christians can be saved if they are not at fault for rejecting Christ? Well, in this video, my friend Michael and I will explain the proper understanding of ignorance and the possibility of salvation of non-Christians according to the teaching of the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

When speaking of invincible ignorance and its role in God's judgment, there are two erroneous extremes that must be avoided. First, it's wrong to deny the existence of invincible ignorance so as to claim that men can be specifically judged and punished for failing to fulfill what was truly and properly out of their reach. On the other extreme, it is erroneous to acquit someone of all trespasses on account of their invincible ignorance in just one point. Both of these extremities are irrational and make God unjust. But before we continue, note that I have published on my Substack a very in-depth article covering the scholastic teaching on invincible ignorance. So for a more complete treatment on invincible ignorance, make sure to find the link in the description. Now, be sure to subscribe to my channel, to my Substack, and also subscribe to my friend Michael's channel, which will be linked below. Like this video, comment, share, and all that good stuff.

Before we continue and we understand, you know, how is it even possible that non-Christians can be saved, we have to define what ignorance is. St. Thomas Aquinas defines ignorance as the privation of knowledge due at some particular time. So what's key here is the qualifier "due at some particular time" because it helps us explain ignorance like this. It's essentially the absence of knowledge in someone who should have such knowledge. Thus, a Catholic priest, for example, is said to be ignorant if he does not know the Ten Commandments, since this is something that pertains to his office. But he would not be considered ignorant for not knowing rocket physics, since this is not due of him. Instead, he would be merely "nessient" of rocket physics, which is simply the privation of knowledge.

Now, we may distinguish between invincible and vincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be removed by any morally serious effort, either because the person did not think to investigate what he ought to know, or because he did not succeed in discovering the knowledge despite having seriously sought it. This ignorance is always involuntary. It's not willed by the person. For example, all people are called to the true religion, even pagans. However, an uncontacted tribe on a remote island hundreds of miles from the nearest Christian society would remain ignorant and invincibly so, because even if its members sincerely search for the true religion, they could not discover it unless it were revealed to them through preaching. This ignorance is said to be invincible because the tribe did not have any means of discovering the true religion within the remote island. Here it is important to note that the invincible ignorance of the true religion would only excuse them from the precepts of being a Catholic, believing in Jesus, belonging to the Church, being baptized, and so on, and nothing beyond that. We will discuss that later in the video.

Vincible ignorance is ignorance that can be overcome by a morally serious effort. It is willful. This ignorance is sinful because it is willed by the person. It is voluntary. For example, a man who is uncertain about which day of the week it is and fails to attend Sunday Mass would be vincibly ignorant of the day of the week, since he could have overcome his ignorance through morally serious means. For example, you could have just asked somebody.

Now, we can actually see the existence of invincible ignorance in scripture. During the Last Supper, our Lord tells the apostles the following about those men who saw his earthly ministry but rejected him anyway. He says, quote, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sinned. But now they have no excuse for their sin. If I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sinned. But now they have both seen and hated me and my Father." End quote. Here our Lord says that his persecutors' guilt, which they incurred for rejecting him, is conditioned on the fact that they received Christ's message and saw his miracles. Hence, he says, "If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen." In other words, they would be invincibly ignorant of Christ if he had not come and performed works in front of them.

Now, is he saying that they would have gotten an automatic ticket to heaven? Would they have been acquitted of all their sins simply for being invincibly ignorant of Christ himself? St. Thomas Aquinas comments, quote, "How does this reconcile with Romans 3, which says, 'All have sinned and do need the grace of God'? We should say that our Lord is not speaking here of just any sin, but the sin of disbelief, that is, they do not believe in Christ. This is called here simply sin because it is a prime example of sin, because as long as this sin lasts, no other sin can be remitted, and no one is charged with a sin for not doing what he cannot do at all. Consequently, 'they would not have sinned' means that they would not be charged with not believing in him. This is primarily because faith comes from what is heard, as it says in Romans 10. So if Christ had not come and had not spoken to them, they could not have believed, and no one is charged with a sin for not doing what he could not do at all." End quote.

Thus, those who rejected Christ would have been invincibly ignorant of him if he had not come, and thus they would not be guilty of not believing in him explicitly. But because Christ did manifest himself to them with clear signs and explicit teaching, they are not only not invincibly ignorant, but they are actually just obstinate in their unbelief. Regarding the invincible ignorance that they would have had if Christ had not come, St. Thomas specifies that this would only exculpate them of the particular sin of unbelief. In other words, they would only be acquitted of not believing in Christ. They wouldn't just go to heaven automatically.

This is exactly why no Catholic should be saying that those who never hear the gospel are saved because they are invincibly ignorant of Christ. This makes no sense at all. They obviously would not be acquitted from other sins or from original sin just because they never heard the gospel. St. Thomas says, quote, "Therefore, if Christ had not come, they would not have this sin, the sin of unbelief, although they would have had other actual sins for which they would have been punished. And a similar reasoning holds for all those whom the preaching of God's word could not reach. For this reason, they cannot be charged with the sin of disbelief for their condemnation, but deprived of God's favors because of their other actual sins and original sin, they will be condemned." End quote.

So here we can simply respond to those who claim that it's unjust for God to punish those who never had a true chance of hearing and responding to the gospel. It's true that those who have a genuinely invincible ignorance of Christ will not be judged and punished for their unbelief in Christ. But did these people never fall into pride and vain glory? Shall their lusts, murders, and adulteries be forgiven because of their ignorance of Christ? In fact, as St. Thomas notes, the Apostle St. Paul already gives us the answer to this regarding the Gentiles who, though invincibly ignorant of Christ himself at least explicitly, are invincibly ignorant of the natural law. He writes in Romans 1, quote, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made, so they are without excuse." End quote.

We see then that the Gentiles who rejected monotheism and natural revelation could not be invincibly ignorant of it, since it was clearly manifest to them. Thus, St. Thomas cites this passage from Romans as he continues commenting on John 15. Quote, "He has just dated what could have excused them from unbelief, but they don't have this excuse because Christ showed himself to them in person and taught them. Thus, he says, 'But now since I have come to them and spoken to them, they have no excuse, that of ignorance for their sin.' So they are without excuse, for although they knew God, they did not honor him as God, as Romans 1:20 says. And so their ignorance is of no excuse, because they did not do this from ignorance, but from another root, that is, from hatred and ascertained malice." End quote.

So what we can see here is that invincible ignorance, obviously very biblical, excuses somebody, acquits somebody from a particular sin, not generally. In other words, if you are invincibly ignorant of Christ and you commit adultery, you commit murder throughout your entire life, you're going to be judged for adultery, you're going to be judged for murder, and all these other sins that we commit daily because of original sin, at final judgment, unless somebody repents and believes in Christ. So, it's obviously wrong to say that those who never get the chance to hear of Christ are automatically saved because of their invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance can't save you. It's not a positive, rather a negative. It's not going to excuse you and acquit you from your other crimes, but rather it will simply acquit you from being punished for what you could not truly fulfill. This is why the human sacrificers, for example, who never got to hear of Christ are still going to be judged for their human sacrifice and their adulteries and their murders and and everything else that they did.

So with that said, now that we have a good understanding, I think a very good biblical understanding, of course with the commentary of St. Thomas, of invincible ignorance, I will now let my friend Michael explain the Vatican 2 teaching of how is it possible that non-Christians who are outside, at least explicitly, of the Christian religion can be saved by the grace of Christ.

Now that Kevin has given a great overview of invincible ignorance, let's apply these principles to the possibility of salvation for non-Christians. More specifically, how one is to reconcile Vatican 2 with "no salvation outside of the Church." First, when Lumen Gentium speaks about other religions included in the plan of salvation, this is a simple affirmation that God provides all men antecedently with sufficient grace. "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Furthermore, when Lumen Gentium speaks about the good and truth within false religions, the Church is speaking about the preambles of faith, such as natural knowledge of God's existence and philosophical truths. These preambles of faith are dispositions and remote preparations for the gospel. However, they are not salvific in themselves because these truths are only on the order of nature.

As Cardinal Ratzinger states, quote, "Certainly the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God and which are part of what the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples and cultures and religions. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the gospel in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals in so far as they depend on superstitions or other errors constitute an obstacle to salvation." End quote.

As Cardinal Ratzinger states, the falsities in other religions are impediments to God's salvific grace, whether they be violations of divine positive law or natural law. Let's quote Lumen Gentium in full to give a clear framework for the possibility of salvation for a non-Christian: quote, "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who without blame on their part have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men deceived by the evil one have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore, to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, preach the gospel to every creature, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention." End quote.

Presupposing invincible ignorance, obedience with natural law, and cooperation with sufficient grace, do these in themselves suffice for salvation? No, because the act of faith is a necessity of means per se for salvation and cannot be dispensed. For something to be necessary by a necessity of means is to say the thing in question is the means by which one attains the end, that is, salvation. Hence, even an inculpable violation of a necessity of means is a disqualification from salvation. A necessity of means can be divided into a necessity of means per se or per accidens. The former is indispensable because it is intrinsically tied to the nature of the thing, such as sanctifying grace or the theological virtues, while the latter can be substituted by appropriate means since it is based on the ordination of God. This is the case for the sacrament of baptism, because a baptism of desire can suffice.

Returning to the indispensability of faith, St. Paul writes, quote, "But without faith, it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him." End quote. This is why Lumen Gentium, when referring to those preambles of faith contained in false religions along with an admixture of damnable errors, refers to them as preparations for the gospel. To reject the preambles of faith is a violation of natural law, and to remain in this state is a disqualification for salvation. This is why it is impossible for an atheist to have faith, because faith is an assent of the intellect based on testimony. If one does not explicitly affirm the existence of the agent proposing his testimony, it is impossible to assent to said testimony. And thus, Ludwig Ott writes, quote, "According to Hebrews 11:6, faith in the existence of God is an indispensable condition of salvation. Without it, it is impossible to please God. For he who wishes to approach God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder to them that seek him. But only supernatural faith and revelation is effective unto salvation. Supernatural revelation of the existence of God confirms the natural knowledge of God and enables the existence of God to be known easily by all with certainty and without any admixture of error." End quote.

Now let's go over the conditions laid out for how the invincibly ignorant give the assent of faith, as St. Thomas teaches: quote, "For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or send some preacher of the faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius." End quote. Thus, presupposing everything stated earlier, the non-Christian would either be sent a preacher to propose those truths necessary for salvation or receive an internal illumination in order to make an act of faith. Preachers being sent to provide the means for all to give the assent of faith are why Lumen Gentium stresses the utmost importance of the Church's mission to fulfill the Great Commission. Furthermore, culpable violations of either divine positive law or natural law without perfect contrition for those violations would disqualify someone from receiving an internal illumination. With the internal illumination, they would be revealed directly by God, those truths necessary for salvation by a necessity of means per se, namely that God is and that he rewards the just. Keep in mind, natural knowledge of God does not suffice for salvation, because these preambles for faith are only on the order of nature.

With the act of faith, the non-Christian would receive a baptism of desire and be elevated to the order of grace with the infusion of sanctifying grace. This infusion of sanctifying grace would unite them to the soul of the Church in re or in reality and give them membership within the Church in voto or in desire. This can be realized at a bare minimum by a desire to follow God's will.

Another question that would be commonly asked is how much does God reveal in this internal illumination? We know for certain that God reveals that he is and that he rewards the just. However, whether or not God would always reveal the Trinity or Incarnation is left up for speculation among theologians. I am of the opinion, along with St. Thomas, that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for all men in the age of grace. Quote, "It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh, that he renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and again that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, just as before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity. And all who are born again in Christ have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: 'Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'" End quote.

However, other theologians hold that implicit faith suffices for those who hold to implicit faith. The implicit faith in the Trinity would be contained with an explicit faith that God is. An implicit faith in Christ the Redeemer would be contained with an explicit faith that God rewards the just. In the end, this non-Christian who receives this internal illumination at death would die a Catholic. And therefore, it is contrary to Catholic dogma to posit any man can die a non-Catholic and receive the beatific vision. Every person who dies a non-Catholic goes to hell. As Msgr. Fenton, writing shortly before Vatican 2 and a council father at Vatican 2, states: quote, "One, at the moment of death, a man must be in some way within the Catholic Church, either as a member or as one who desires and prays to enter it, if he is to attain to eternal salvation. Two, there is absolutely no exception to this rule, otherwise the statement that no one at all is saved outside of the one universal Church of the faithful would not be true. And that statement is true. It is an infallible dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Three, any attempt to explain the Church's necessity for salvation by claiming that it is only the ordinary means or by imagining that it is requisite only for those who are aware of its dignity and position is completely false and unacceptable." End quote.

Many of the Eastern Orthodox apologists that you find online will say that you should not be Roman Catholic because the Second Vatican Council teaches that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Now, obviously, the Muslims utter horrible blasphemies. They deny that God is Trinity. They deny that Christ is Lord. But yet, Vatican 2 is still correct. Now, why is this the case? This is because the Eastern Orthodox apologists are unable to synthesize all of scripture, because scripture says very clearly that if you do not have the Son, you do not have the Father. If you deny the Son, you do not have the Father and you do not have the true God. But in the very same scriptures, these Jews who deny the Holy Trinity, they deny Christ's divinity, they deny the entire apostolic preaching, they are said to have zeal for God. In other words, their zeal is ordered towards God, just like St. Paul. We see this in Romans 10 and we see this in Acts chapter 22. So, according to the New Testament, there are times when these Jews apprehend God and there are times when they do not apprehend God. But the Eastern Orthodox apologists don't want you to synthesize scripture. They just want you to commit apostasy. But not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wants you to have a synthesis of scripture in which we uphold all the truths affirmed by scripture, and we don't prefer one over the other just to sound more based or get more converts. So I agree with holy scripture that the holistic object of Islam or say any other false religion that's not Catholicism is not a true being. It's not the true God. And yet there are times when these people in the false religions can make acts of religion towards the true God. Now, how do we do this? Well, let me explain.

But before we get started, if you enjoy my videos or if you despise my videos, if you're Protestant and Orthodox and you don't, you don't like my videos at all, subscribe anyway, 'cause it helps me a lot. Leave a like, comment your thoughts below, and God bless you.

So, when we make acts of religion, such as prayer, we make them through our will, and our will follows upon the intellect. So, whatever object we are apprehending or grasping in our intellect, that is what the act is directed to. Now, God is a perfectly simple being. He is the only simple being. So, any false affirmation about God, since he has no accidental qualities, destroys our ability to actually apprehend him. And in this sense, only Catholicism actually has the true God. So, the Muslims, for example, as Vatican 2 says, have some truth in their religion. They believe in one God, and this God lives and subsists in himself. He is merciful and all-powerful. He is the creator of heaven and earth, and he has spoken to men. So far, all these things are true. And if a Muslim is to make an act of religion towards this being in his head, he would be apprehending the true God. Such a being exists, and there's no falsehood there. However, the Muslim religion also denies that Christ is Lord, and they deny that God is a Trinity. So, whenever a Muslim includes these false affirmations into their intellect, then they are not referring to the

true God. We can get even closer with the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox thankfully affirm the holy trinity. They believe in father, son, and holy spirit. They believe that Christ is lord. So they do not fall into these blasphemies of the Muslims.

However, they deny the filioquay and they deny that the son aspirates the holy spirit along with the father. Now, this is a false affirmation of God. No such being exists in which the third person does not proceed from the father and the son. So, in this sense, the god of Eastern Orthodoxy, with all of its unique affirmations that are contrary to the truth, also does not exist.

Now, the reason that I don't call the Eastern Orthodox idolaters is because 99% of the times that they are making an act of religion, they are not actively affirming a denial of the filioquay. But if they were, then this would not be directed towards a true god because again, no such being exists.

Now, what can be said about God's nature can also be said about other things that he has done in the world. So, for example, if a Protestant was to pray to God but affirms in this prayer that God did not inspire the duo-chronicle books, or that this God is pleased with the reformation, no such thing is true. No such being exists. So this would be a figment of the Protestant's imagination. But again, 99% of the time that Protestants pray, they are praying to one God, holy trinity, father, son, and holy spirit. And the son became man, died for our sins, and so on with all the other true affirmations of God.

Even within Catholicism, there are theological schools that affirm different things about God that the church is not settled. There are niche theological differences between the Thomists and the Scotists and the Suarezian. And even past God's nature, when it comes to something like grace, the Molinists and the Thomists and the Augustinians don't all agree about how grace functions. So, if a Molinist was to actively pray to God, affirming those Molinist affirmations, I believe that Molinism is false. He would not actually be praying to the true God because no such god exists. But again, 99% of the time that this Molinist is praying, he's not praying under these affirmations. What is immediately present in the intellect of this Molinist is the holy trinity.

So, the Vatican document says that Muslims adore the one God living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the creator of heaven and earth. But if I were speaking of the Eastern Orthodox and not Muslims, I could even go ahead and add other true affirmations such as three persons in one nature, the second of which became man and died for our sins. But if I were to suddenly add, and the third person does not proceed from the second as well, then that would be a false affirmation of God. No such God exists. And well, we'd have a big problem. So that's why Vatican II only lists the truths about Islam, not the falsehoods.

So, to put it simply for those who don't understand, the holistic doctrine of God in Islam is false. The holistic doctrine of God in Eastern Orthodoxy is false. Only Catholicism actually has all the uniquely true affirmations of God. And like I said, even some theological schools disagree on issues that have not been settled by the church. These are usually more vague or obscure Trinitarian conclusions, but obviously, they can't all be true. So, if one were to pray under these affirmations and they were false, they would not be actively apprehending God.

But let's see how the early Christians, specifically in the East, answered this question. St. Aristides of Athens was one of the first Christian apologists, and he wrote of the Jews who reject the Holy Trinity. Quote, "The Jews then say that God is one, the creator of all and omnipotent, and that it is not right that any other should be worshiped except this God alone. And herein they appear to approach the truth more than all the nations, especially in that they worship God and not his works." End quote.

You also have Blessed Jerome the Greek, not St. Jerome from the West, who says to the Jew, quote, "To you then, oh Jew, and to the circumcised, who with you worship the one God." End. St. Gregory of Nyssa, another Eastern father, says, quote, "We can hear the Jews believing in God and our God, too. Even our Lord reminds them in the gospel that they recognize no other God than the Father of the only begotten, of whom ye say that he is your God. Are we then to call the Jews Christians because they too agree to worship the God whom we adore." End quote.

Now, he's not an Easterner, but St. Augustine says the very same thing about the Jews. Now, all of this has been about the Jews after the time of Christ, who rejected the Holy Trinity. Now, this is a little funny because I was recently accused by Eastern Orthodox to be appealing to Old Testament Jews who obviously were not rejecting the Holy Trinity. But this is not true. I've only appealed to New Testament Jews and Jews after the New Testament. So, I don't know.

Now, what about after Islam began? How did the early Christians see them? Did they say that it was impossible for them to apprehend God at all? Or did they say something more similar to what the Vatican II position teaches? Now, I must be honest, going back to the 7th century when Islam was taking off and spreading, a lot of these quotes by early Christians actually come from those who belong to the Church of the East. Now, in the 7th century, an Armenian bishop says of the Muslims who converted from paganism, quote, "Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham." End quote.

Now, in the same century, John Bar Penkaye, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, says also that these pagan converts to Islam, quote, "Held to the worship of the one God in accordance with the customs of the ancient law." End quote. In the 9th century, Timothy I of Seleucia, again, a patriarch of the Church of the East, says that Muhammad separated his people from idolatry and from polytheism and attached them to the cult and the knowledge of one God beside whom there is no other god. End quote.

But we could also appeal to St. John of Damascus, who is also a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. He says that the Muslims mutilate God. He says, quote, "We retort by calling you mutilators of God." End quote. Now, how can you mutilate God if you can't actually apprehend them at all? Gregory Palamas, who is not a saint in the Catholic Church, but is in the Eastern Orthodox Church, says, quote, "Watch not to suffer anything like these ill-minded men, that is the Muslims. I do not mean in regard to the reverence of God, but rather in regard to their behavior." End quote.

So, all of these Christians that we've quoted so far, whether they were of the Church of the East, or whether they were later Catholic saints like St. John of Damascus, or whether they were later Eastern Orthodox theologians like Gregory Palamas, they affirm that Islam is bad. They're also not saying that they're worshiping the true God in every single instance, or that the unique affirmations of Islam are true, but rather they are able to apprehend God only in what is true about the religion, which is what Vatican II says: one God subsisting in himself, the creator of the world, merciful, and all these other true things about God, not touching upon the falsehoods in Islam.

Now, that's all for this video. I hope that it helped you understand things better. Make sure to leave a like, subscribe, and God bless you.

Recently, Ben from Cleave to Antiquity converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestantism. Before I get into anything in this video, I just think we should all be praying for Ben because based on his video, this did seem to put a lot of stress on him and his family. It was certainly a tough decision. He had to give up a job for it and, of course, many friends. So, we should be praying for Ben regardless of who we are.

But I noticed something interesting in his channel leading up to this announcement. He had been posting a series of YouTube Shorts and quotes from Church Fathers in which he claims that they contradict the Catholic teaching on the keys of the papacy given to St. Peter in Matthew 16. Funny enough, he titles these videos things like, "This quote makes Catholics melt down. Catholics will not admit this. Catholics will rage at this. Catholics will hate this historical fact." But in reality, his use of the Fathers here is as sloppy as always. I have a suspicion that these quotes were provided to him by those who were in his circle and helped him convert to Eastern Orthodoxy because they are one, out of context; two, usually cut short; and three, even if they were not, they do not contradict the Catholic position, which he does not seem to understand. We will get into that later.

First, let's jump right into the quotes that he uses. First, Ben quotes Tertullian and cuts the quote short. "Roman Catholics will often point to the keys to the kingdom as the sign of unity of the church and the necessity of being in submission to the Roman pontiff. But what if I told you the keys were given to all of the apostles? Let's read this citation from Tertullian. 'If because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build my church, to you I have given the keys of the heavenly kingdom, or whatsoever you have bound or loosed in earth shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing is derived to you?'"

That is to every church akin to Peter. What do you think about this? Tertullian here, who was already a Montanist at this time, denies that Peter's authority extends to any of the successors of the apostles, the pope or any bishop, which challenges both Catholics and Orthodox. Let's read the full quote. Quote, "If because the Lord has said to Peter, 'Upon this rock, I will build my church, to you, I have given the keys of the heavenly kingdom, or whatsoever you shall have bound and loosed on earth shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,' you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is to every church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring this gift personally upon Peter. Upon you, he says, will I build my church, and I will give to you the keys, not to the church. And whatsoever you shall have loosed and bound, not what they shall have loosed and bound. For so with all the result teaches, in Peter himself the church was raised, that is through Peter himself. Peter himself essay the key." End quote.

So, we see here that for Tertullian, Peter's authority of binding and loosing doesn't extend not only to the pope but to any other bishop after Peter. So, it's funny that he cites this against Catholics.

Next, we get to St. Jerome. Again, he cuts the quote short right before St. Jerome says something that is actually of the Catholic position. "Roman Catholics will often point to the keys given to Peter as a source of their authority. But what if I told you that the keys were given to all the apostles? Let me read this from Jerome. 'The church is founded upon Peter. Although in another place the same thing is done upon all the apostles and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the strength of the church is established equally upon them all.'" What do you think about this?

Yet, the full quote, which again he cuts short, affirms that St. Peter is chosen as a head of the apostles. He even denies that St. John had what Peter had. Quote, "The church was founded upon Peter although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the strength of the church depends upon them all alike. Yet one among the 12 is chosen so that when a head has been appointed there may be no occasion for schism. But why was John not chosen?" End quote.

In fact, St. Jerome believed that the special authority of St. Peter did not end in the first century. In his correspondence with Pope Damasus during a debate about whether the term hypostasis meant one or three, he appealed directly to the Pope's authority. He described the Roman See as the chair of Peter, the foundation of the church, and the place where true communion is preserved. He writes, quote, "I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter. Though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest, I demand the safekeeping of the victim. From the shepherd, the protection due to the sheep. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman. To the disciple of the cross, as I follow, no leader save Christ. So I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is the Pope, that is with the chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the church is built. This is the house where alone the pascal lamb can be rightly eaten. If you think fit and act decree, and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. I beg you also to signify with whom I am to communicate at Antioch." End quote.

Again, it's important to note that St. Jerome sees this necessity of a chief leader unless there be schism. Quote, "The well-being of a church depends upon the dignity of its chief priest, and unless some extraordinary and unique functions be assigned to him, we shall have as many schisms in the churches as there are priests." End quote.

So, going back to Cleave to Antiquity, quote, he misunderstands what the Catholic position even is. We affirm the strength of the church does not rest on the pope alone. The other apostles and their successors, the bishops, are appointed as the foundation of the church, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2, quote, "But you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles." End quote. But yet, as our Lord demonstrates, and St. Jerome admits, a head is chosen among them.

We now move to St. John Chrysostom. "Were the keys given only to Peter or to all of the apostles? Let's ask John Chrysostom, 'And how is he set over us so many to reprove, and not only to reprove, but also to punish? For him that hearkens to none of these, he is commanded to be as a heathen man and a publican. And how gave he them the keys also since if they are not the judge, they will be without authority in any matter and in vain they've received power to bind and loose.'" What do you think about this?

Ironically, even St. John Chrysostom affirms that St. Peter had unique authority. Quote, "The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to Peter to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world, and to a mortal man he entrusted such authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the church throughout the world, and declares it to be stronger than heaven." End quote. He also says about St. James, who was another apostle and the first bishop of Jerusalem, comparing him to St. Peter. Quote, "And if any should say, how then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply that he appointed Peter teacher not of the chair but of the whole world." End quote.

So, when it comes to Tertullian, he not only contradicts the Catholic position but he contradicts the Orthodox position. And St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom support the Catholic position. But let's dig into other Eastern Fathers now that, due to antiquity, has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. How did they read St. Peter's apostleship, the keys, and the Petrine passages?

Vitamis of Alexandria says, quote, "The churches are all built upon this rock, that is Peter, against which the gates of hell, that is the arguments of the heretics, shall not prevail. To him were entrusted the keys of heaven, that he might open the doors of the kingdom of God, to those whose faith agrees with that which Peter confessed. Moreover, he received power, or rather all also received it through him, not of rejecting the fallen, but of receiving them back again if they repent." End quote. We will see this come up later, but this is basically the Catholic position. That is, that all the apostles received the keys, but they receive it through St. Peter because our Lord gave it to St. Peter immediately.

St. Basil the Great says, quote, "The overseer of such an important judgment and the minister of such wrath of God against the sinner that blessed Peter was the first of all the disciples to whom alone greater testimonies were given than to the others, who was proclaimed blessed, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted." End quote. That is another Eastern Father.

Here's another one. Macarius Magnus, around the fourth or fifth century, says, quote, "He now knew the king upon his throne and had it in his power to open his knowledge to those who came to him, but to keep it closed from those who were not fit for the beatific vision. Hence, he was said to have the keys of heaven, the power to open and shut it, and to lead men into it or out of it." End quote.

Here is St. Cyril of Alexandria, another Eastern Father. Quote, "And Christ did not allow him to be called Simon anymore, claiming him at that very moment by his power as his own, but with a fitting similarity, it pleased him to be called Peter from the rock. That is, because he was going to build his church on him." End quote.

Here we have Photius I of Constantinople, who is no longer a Church Father because that's too late, but he is an Eastern Catholic bishop. He says that when Peter denied Jesus three times, he was not deprived of his office as the holder of the keys and chief apostle. Quote, "He was not deprived of being the chief of the apostolic choir and has been established as the foundation rock of the church and is proclaimed by truth, that is Christ, to be the key bearer of the kingdom of heaven." End quote.

Even Theophylact, a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy who lived even after the schism, writes on John 21, quote, "The Lord entrusts Peter with the task of protecting his entire flock of believers throughout the world. He gives his responsibility to Peter alone first because Peter is foremost of the disciples and their spokesmen." End quote.

We can now briefly get to some Western Fathers. St. Cyprian of Carthage says that all the apostles after the resurrection received equal power, that is forgiving sins and retaining them. However, this is obviously Catholic doctrine. All bishops and even priests can forgive and retain sins. But that doesn't mean that priests have the same authority as bishops. But what he does say is that from Peter proceeds unity. And if one does not hold to this unity, they cannot hold to the faith.

St. Hilary of Poitiers comments on Matthew 16, calling Peter a porter, that is someone who holds the keys to a door. Quote, "Oh, happy is the foundation of the church on account of the announcement of his new name. Worthy is the rock upon which the church is built, against which the laws of hell and the gates of Tartarus and all the prisons of death are broken. Oh blessed porter of heaven, by whose decrees the keys of eternity's entrance are handed over, and whose earthly judgment with heavenly authority has already been decreed." End quote.

Pope St. Leo the Great says that power did indeed pass also to the other apostles, but it was not in vain that this was communicated and entrusted to one. He says that our Lord in Luke 22 during the Last Supper prayed specifically for St. Peter's faith because even though that the danger of fear was common to all the apostles and they all equally needed divine protection since the devil desired to have them all, St. Peter receives special care from the Lord. Why? Because the mind of the leader, that is St. Peter, could not be overcome.

We have also St. Peter expounding the Catholic doctrine who says that even though all of them can bind and loose, St. Peter received the keys in a special way. This is exactly the Catholic doctrine. What is especially interesting is the Donatist schism in which the question of how one determines the true church was asked. Aside from the mark of the church, the office of the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, was essential to this. St. Optatus accuses the Donatists of separating themselves from the true church. And then he says, quote, "From where then do you, Donatus, content to usurp the keys of the kingdom of heaven, you who against the chair of Peter serve with your presumptions and audacities in sacrilege." End quote.

St. Augustine even records that the Donatists, knowing the importance of the bishop of Rome, tried to set up their own chair in Rome in order to validate and authenticate their schism. However, St. Augustine says that what actually matters is the lineal succession that goes back to St. Peter, who was a figure of the whole church. St. Augustine also writes that the Donatists, in order for them to return to the true church, must return to unity with St. Peter's successor. Quote, "Even a branch that has been cut off from the vine retains the same outward form. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in divine, number the priests from the sea of Peter, and in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the rock which the proud gates of Hades do not conquer." End quote.

Though St. Augustine in his Retractations preferred to read the rock of Matthew 16 as Peter's confession and not him, what he never retracts is this essential primacy of St. Peter's successor for unity and being in the true church, which he affirms also elsewhere. Explaining to the Manicheans why he is Catholic, he says, quote, "The church holds me by the consensus of peoples and nations. The church holds me by the succession of priests from the very sea of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord after his resurrection entrusted the care of his sheep down to the present episcopate." End quote.

To briefly end the video with what the Catholic doctrine is. While it is wrong to say that all of the bishops share the keys equally and immediately, it is also wrong to say that only the pope has the keys. The Catholic Catechism says that although to Peter was entrusted a specific authority, the entire church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom, is able to bind and loose and have authority.

Now, here you might object and say, well, it says here that Peter was the only one who received the keys. But the Catechism is more careful than that. It says that he alone specifically received the keys, and this is just a plain reading of scripture, for the apostles are all given authority, but it is only recorded that St. Peter was promised the keys, as the great St. Robert Bellarmine says, quote, "Even if in Matthew 18 all the apostles are indicated with the words, 'Whatever you will have bound,' still when he said, 'I will give you the keys to the kingdom,' he said it to Peter alone. And without a doubt, the Lord did not promise something to him singly unless he also meant to show something singular to him." End quote.

Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church even quotes St. Augustine, who affirms that the entire church possesses the keys. So, it seems to me like Cleave to Antiquity rejects the doctrine of the papacy from scripture, from the Church Fathers, out of a big misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church even claims, of a proper exegesis of scripture, and a proper understanding of what the Fathers actually said.

But what if I told you the keys were given to all of the apostles? As we saw, the three Church Fathers that he brings forward, he either cuts the quotes short, or they're not even supporting the Orthodox position. I will end this video with a quote from Eric Abara, a prominent Catholic apologist on the papacy. He writes, quote, "In opposition to seeing this as an exclusive power given to St. Peter, many Orthodox have pointed to the text Matthew 18:18, which describes the same power to bind and loose as held by all the apostles and all pastors of the local church." But notice Eric Abara says, "This is most certainly true. Unlike an exclusive possession of authority, the keys of the kingdom that our Lord gives to St. Peter belong to all leaders of the church, not just the apostles. But this reality of participation does not once again oppose the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy. Just because the keys are utilized by all the apostles and bishops does not mean that the authority inherent with those keys is now flattened to be equal in each leader. Do not presume that is simple priests exercise the keys of the kingdom when they absolve sins. But does that now mean that presbyters and bishops are equal?" End quote.

Now, that is all for this video. As I said in the beginning, we should all be praying for Ben because based on his video, this did seem to put a lot of stress on him and his family. It was certainly a tough decision. He had to give up a job for it and, of course, many friends. Make sure to leave a like, subscribe if you're not already subscribed, leave a comment, share, and God bless.