Pretty sure an infallible bible commentary would also be so long it it would rival Jupiter in terms of mass, even if it was small print

Well said. 1 Tm 3:15 tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Protestants conveniently overlook that

The problem with this take is that yes, jesus is the first source of Christian truth, but everything we know about what he did, and taught through any means comes through the apostles accounts. They were the ones in the first century going from place to place establishing churches in christs name, and all Said churches, and converts heard the gospel message of Jesus teachings, miracles, death, amd resurection as atonement for our sins from the apostles going out to fulfill the great commission. So with this being the case then the accounts, and writtings left by the apostles to the church absolutly become the first source of Christian authority after the death of the last apostle. The pushback on this usually goes something like "well the apostles ordained leaders of churches to carry christs teachings even before they had written anything down, so such individuals would have authority before the wriitings" The reason this is flawed is because the apostles never stated in anything they left us that church leaders had any authority of that kind. The best that gets stated is that they were there to try to keep the churches from straying and that's it. That is miles away from any such aclaimed "first source of authority" becausr the thing they are trying to keep the groups from straying from is precisly the teachings left by christ conveyed by the apostles. So that puts it right back to the fact that the first source of authority would be the accounts of christ left by the apostles. The last pushback tends to be like (but the church has majesterial infalability to teach on the faith) The problem there is that is again unsubstantiated by the accounts and teachings of the apostles. Then gets replied "ah but church tradition is authoritative as well, and our traditions say that the majesterium always had this authority" Well the thing about tradition is you have to be able to substantiate it with historical evidence in order to put any wieght on it as true. Otherwise it just becomes a "trust me bro" level assertion. And what is the farthest back historical record of the Christian faith ? That's right. The accounts given to us from the apostles. You know what is absent from said account? Any such mention of the church majesterium having an infalable authority to teach on the faith, and no such mention of any traditions that would lend that dirrection either. The best prooftext offered for this is that "the keys of heaven" were given to the apostles, but again that is a country mile of a stretch to get that to mean a majesterial infalablity over the faith.

@@anthonypolonkay2681 no, that's not my pushback. My pushback is that scripture is chosen on a liturgical basis, that is, according to what is properly read as part of worship itself, not the basis of what explains Christ and the faith. This is actually the reason the dogma of the infallibity of Scripture was formed. It only exists because logically, the accounts God knew would primarily be used for acts of worship must be protected from error, as he himself is Truth, and wouldn't accept anything less. Scripture can still be abused, and often is, but it's primarily use is as a tool for worship. Not as a guide book. Though because it is provided by the one true God for his purposes, we must conclude that scripture were it can rightly serve as a guide, is entirely reliable, because God gives his children good things, not bad ones

@@marvalice3455 the problem isvyou can't substantiate thag position with historical evidence. All early councils formed that had anything to say on the cannon of scripture never once established things like acts, abd the gospels as scripture, they only ever reaffirmed it. Meaning from all historical evidence we have show the scriptures were always considered scriptures. Nothingbwas established as scripture ecumenically until the apocryphal books were later added to the RCC cannon, which is why everyone besides RCC does not equivocal validate those as scripture since it's obvious those were arbitrarily planted in far after the fact

That means a lot coming from you buddy!

Thanks for that!

Thank you!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you good sir. :)

The Jews gave you the Bible. Remember Jesus said, Salvation comes from the Jew. Know your Bible

I appreciate that!

Much appreciated!

Cool!

Most of that is unnecessary with a living authority but sure. ;) God bless you as well!

I approached your analysis in an analytical way and enjoyed analysing it

Thanks for the visit! Yes, I've read Keating too. :) But calling the Bible infallible is the same thing as calling a papal or conciliar document infallible - it is with reference to the content's origin being infallible. Since God is infallible, His inspired communication is as well. We see this in the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of Scripture: "Gid Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance".

@@DouglasBeaumont I agree God is infallible, His Word is infallible. Man isn't. Therein lies the dilemma. Nice comment. Thanks.

Excellent question! As I said in the video, some Protestant apologists make this claim, so it should be answered. :)

This is false. The Bodily Assumption wasn’t declared due to a controversy or debate.

@@po18guy look up the reasoning behind the declaration. Can you show me which controversy or debate it was in response to? I'd be all ears for that. Here is the reasoning given by Pope Pius as follows: "It is to be hoped that from meditation on the glorious example of Mary men may come to realize more and more the value of a human life entirely dedicated to fulfilling the will of the Heavenly Father and to caring for the welfare of others. We also hope that while materialistic theories [such as Communism] and the moral corruption arising from them are threatening to extinguish the light of virtue, and by stirring up strife, to destroy the lives of men, the exalted destiny of both our soul and body may in this striking manner be brought clearly to the notice of all men." The historical setting for the declaration was just after WW2. Pius XII clearly expresses his hope that meditation on Mary’s assumption will lead the faithful to a greater awareness of our common dignity as the human family.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Indeed it was - the bodily Assumption was declared infallibly to emphasize the understanding of respect for our mortal bodies at a time where our culture was disrespecting that teaching. While it was not specifically Mary’s body that was put into question, the infallible teaching was nonetheless declared as a response to this heresy.

@@lightscameralego950lol. Nice way to spin it. But it was not in response to “heresy”. If you think it was I would like a citation from the Roman church.

Awesome, thank you!

Every baptized person is a saint according to St Paul, but that teaching has been neutralized by centuries of clericalism

Thank you!

Mucho gracias.

Ordered, thanks!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you!

Yes, Scripture is too deep for a settled commentary!

Yes, Ignatius just needs to make a full study Bible with the current notes plus Didache cross references. Sure, it'll be 1,000 pages long and have to be carried by a wheelbarrow but who cares??? :)

Sorry, I don't have that. Sounds interesting though!

@@DouglasBeaumont it seems to be fairly new, published in 2022; there are few reviews here on YT, and it would be great to hear your thoughts on it someday.

Yeah it's funny how our presuppositions can still creep in even after we change our minds about some of their outcomes. :) Thanks for watching!

You should tell that to online Catholic apologists as they are the ones billing the church as an “infallible interpreter”to us Protestants. They are the ones claiming their “infallible interpreter” keeps them unified and prevents them from having 30,000 denominations. So now the church *doesnt* have this status? Which is it.

In the context of the kind of prooftexting Protestants often practice when attacking the Catholic Church it makes sense to speak of an “infallible interpreter” as a kind of shorthand. There are plenty of things the Church has defined as being what the Scriptures do and do NOT mean - but these are known indirectly via theology, not through a verse-by-verse Bible commentary. For example, the Church has not “infallibly interpreted” Colossians 1:15-19 as teaching Christ's deity - but if someone says Jesus is not God and cites Colossians 1:15-19 as a prooftext, we could say that the Church has infallibly declared that to be false.

@@DouglasBeaumont yeah I dont think thats what I am talking about.

I felt it deserved a sound reply. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont Doug, give a short answer for the once saved, always saved folks...

That's a good idea!

Yup! Thanks for watching!

Do you believe in God alone? John 1:1 KJV 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.( vs14) and the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. There you go the word of God alone is our final authority. 1John 5:7 KJV For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word( Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

​@@johnp.6043right, Jesus is the word, and Jesus established tradition and magisterium. Sola scriptura limits the Word to just written word, but Jesus left us more than scripture alone

@@dotdash2284 This is the verse that the Catholic Church uses to establish their doctrine of “ sacred traditions”. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Notice it says; “ ye have been taught”,all this is saying men will teach men the same doctrine that Paul and the inspired writers already knew and spoke orally or written. John 21:25 King James Version 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Every Pope in history taught two “ final” authorities: the scripture and tradition. Then he himself sat in judgment on which one was correct. Notice that this monstrous alibi to overthrow the word of God and make it “ of none effect”( Mark7:7,9,13) is based on a verse that is hypothetical from start to finish. Note the wording : “ IF THEY SHOULD… I SUPPOSE… THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN… Well, they were not “ written,” and since they were not, you can only “ suppose “ If you have a religion that is based on somebody’s suppositions, anybody can “ suppose” that you could “ SUPPOSE” anything.

@@johnp.6043 except scripture and sacred tradition do not contradict ever. The magisterium does not pick and choose between scripture and tradition, it knows that both are sources of truth from the Word Himself. It was also established as the authentic interpreter of scripture and tradition by Christ. Now you won't have any trouble finding people claiming that lies and superstitions are sacred tradition, but once again, the magisterium does not teach these errors because its authority comes from Christ. Even though scripture itself deliberately tells us there is tons of truth not written down but given to the apostles (the first magisterium), you seem to be using those verses to contradict the plain meaning of the text. Can you tell me where you think scripture and sacred tradition are in disagreement? None of the saints have thought so right from the apostles until now.

Somewhere on google images probably haha. Sorry, I don't remember.

Indeed they do. They helped me in my conversion.

Still not a commentary. ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont True. Never bothered me.

Other than the hundreds of disputed doctrines, yes haha. :) Thanks for watching!

The Catechism is a very important source of Catholic theology - but it is not inerrant. Rather it summarizes the Church's teachings whether infallibly declared or not. It is also not a commentary on the (full) meaning of Scripture verses even when they are cited in support of the Church's teachings.

@@paulmualdeave5063 I think you have missed read me. I am a Catholic, I was saying that their arguments are silly.

The Catechism is not an infallible document - it is a collection of Church teachings some of which have been infallibly defined and others which have not. Further, there are consolidations of teachings such as the Catechism in other faiths, especially in Protestantism where they are ubiquitous.

This assumes there is an "it" that is coming along. Watch the whole video for the answer.

Mt 28:18-19 Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples, baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age. Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ MT 16:18-19

Awesome, thank you!

Your assumption that this is the task is misguided. The Church presents the faith clearly via councils, creeds, and canons. Infallibile Bible interpretation means not interpretating against what the faith teaches, but the Scripture is too rich to limit to prooftexting.

@@DouglasBeaumont @@DouglasBeaumont With all due respect, could you please explain what I'm missing? The following quotes from Popes and Ecumenical Councils seem to contradict a later Ecumenical Council. It appears that these statements could qualify as Ex-Cathedra or infallible, yet they are contradictory, which would challenge the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Even more serious than lacking clarity. The Oath Against Modernism Pope Pius X - 1910 "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII - 1302 "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Council of Florence (Session 8 - Nov. 22, 1439) "Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith....The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. “ “This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Council of Florence (Session 11 - Feb. 4, 1442) “[The Holy Roman Church] It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives" [sic] ******The Big Reversal******** Vatican II LUMEN GENTIUM "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

@@DouglasBeaumont forgive me if I replied twice. With all due respect, could you please explain what I'm missing? The following quotes from Popes and Ecumenical Councils seem to contradict a later Ecumenical Council. It appears that these statements could qualify as Ex-Cathedra or infallible, yet they are contradictory, which would challenge the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. At a minimum the following statements are far from clear when taken as a whole. The Oath Against Modernism Pope Pius X - 1910 "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII - 1302 "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Council of Florence (Session 8 - Nov. 22, 1439) "Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith....The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. “ “This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Council of Florence (Session 11 - Feb. 4, 1442) “[The Holy Roman Church] It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives" [sic] ******The Big Reversal******** Vatican II LUMEN GENTIUM "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

With all due respect, could you please explain what I'm missing? The following quotes from Popes and Ecumenical Councils seem to contradict a later Ecumenical Council. It appears that these statements could qualify as Ex-Cathedra or infallible, yet they are contradictory, which would challenge the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. When taken as a whole the message is confusing. The Oath Against Modernism Pope Pius X - 1910 "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII - 1302 "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Council of Florence (Session 8 - Nov. 22, 1439) "Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith....The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. “ “This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Council of Florence (Session 11 - Feb. 4, 1442) “[The Holy Roman Church] It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives" [sic] ******The Big Reversal******** Vatican II LUMEN GENTIUM "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

They would be wrong, though.

Being open to error is not the same as being open to additional or expanded truths. As to which Francis represents....

I felt the same way. Roman Catholic apologists puff up their chests to Protestants about how they have an “infallible interpreter”. But it’s been over 2000 years and only 25 verses have been “infallibly” interpreted by them? And the reasons he gives for this are just cop outs. If you listen carefully to Douglas, this video doesn’t really offer good answers. It just further highlights the same issue.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I think right now when it comes to the topic of infalability in general, the main thing is this. (At least to me) Where are you substantiating this supposed infalability from? Because when you ask catholics the why, and how we should believe them about this you get 1 of 2 answers, amd something a composite of the two. One they'll regularly bring up is some supposed proof texts from scripture like when Peter and Jesus are talking and he supposed says that he will found his church on peter (this rock). But not only do such passages have other, and IMO much better understandings. Such as "the rock" being referred to as the confession/understanding from Peter that Jesus is the only begotten son of god, and the messiah. I think it makes far more consistent scriptural sense for that to be "the rock" in question that the church is founded on as opposed to a single disciple. But even going with the interpretation that Peter is what "the rock" means that is still country miles away from establishing anything like the papacy, or majesterial infalability in any way. There's a gaggle of much more sensible less convoluted interpretations of that. It could just mean that Peter is going to be instrumental, and indesposable in the establishment of christ church in the early days of the first century. Trying to read the papacy, and majesterial infalability into prooftexts like this is simply; even as a lose implication, is very Cleary just an excersize in trying to impose a meaning on the text where they think they can get it. Once you address the issues with their supposed various proof texts like these, the next thing they offer is this defense that christ didn't give a Bible, christ established a church, and that church later established cannon scripture. Even ignoring the fact that official catholic teaching says that they did not "establish" scripture, but simply "recognized" it as from god, defeating this entire nonsense from their own horse. There's still just a straight out logical problem of If that truely is the case, then that puts us right back to where we were at the beginning with asking what kind of verification for you supposed inerrancy can you give us so that we might believe you? They will usually answer in one form or another that it has always been the tradition that the church majesterium Is infalable since christ established it? Then you'll naturally ask what verification can you offer of that? And first they'll give you a handful of early church fathers, not the apostles themselves though (which is very telling). Which there's issues with them doing that. Because once you get back into the first century, abd early second century almost nothing of modern catholic dogma is present in even an implicit way. But if you ask why we should believe these guys got it right, they'll then tell you it's because the earliest of these guys knew, and were taught dirrectly by the apostles. Which then establishes that what the apostles had to say about Jesus, and his deeds, teachings, death, and resurection are our ultimate historical source for those things. And so now that puts us back into the boat we were in in the first issue. If your justification for your infalability is "tradition" then you have to be able to historically verify that tradition otherwise its just a "trust me bro" claim. And if the apostles were our original source after Jesus for the faith, or more accurately the knowledge of the faith, AND if the NT writtings truely do source from said apostles as an accurate record of their teachings, and first hand accounts of jesus teachings, deeds, death, and resurection then those accounts SHOULD be your ultimate verification to prove how yoir traditions of majesterial infalability, and what not reach back to the beginning of the faith. But instead when we read these accounts not only do we not get much in the way of verifying most of the catholic teachings at all, but we actually get many instances that seem to outright run counter to what the catholic dogmas are. Things like Peter having to be rebuked in galatians and what not. Ofcourse there's alwaysca catholic rebuttal to such things, but they are almost always a very nebulous answer or have very nebulous criteria to the answer. Yes

I understand that from a Protestant point of view it may appear that way - but we aren't Protestants, and your demand for something we don't need does not constitute a problem for us.

@@DouglasBeaumont well if you were just content with your belief in such dubious grounds you wouldn't be posting stuff attempting to make your case look better to non-catholics. The goal of this video is clearly to either A. Persuade non catholics that infalabiloty isn't a big circular farce, And/or B. To reasure other catholics who are also sharing similar concerns that keep non-catholics, or just non-Christians in general from believing you. One way or the other you are acknowledging that there is at least on its face a problem. Now here you are claiming yo resolve that problem and explain how it isn't one, but you have done no such thing. You have only highlighted the issue more because by all your own descriptions here the catholics are perfectly capable of producing infalable interpretations on all of scripture, abut they just don't because of not wanting to appear exhaustive when more could be added. This is like theological equivalent of a kid on the playground who constantly brags about being able to do a backglip, but once he is asked to do it and show everyone, he has every excuse under the sun as to why he can't right now.