Roman exegetes were forbidden by Pius X to use the historical-critical method--then Pius XII reopened the door and most of the Roman exegetes ran through it.
Actually what's pathetic is that anybody could be ill-informed enough to claim that Jesus- who is better attested historically than, say, Socrates- never existed. Hard to take people seriously who make claims like that.
You want to think of yourselves as livestock? Considering the stupidities and lack of logic in religion, I'd say that "sheep" is about right. You and the Catholics and the Orthodox are all arguing about who's got the words of someone who never existed correct. Pathetic.
The only way you would have a Catholic bishop speaking in the manner that this video portrays is if that bishop were dressed in the outfit that the character is wearing.
Funny response from the Lutheran character though.
It would be great if Lutherans recognized that there is no Bible without there first being sacred tradition. And it was the Catholic Council of Hippo in 393 a.d. that compiled all the books of the bible.
@CatholicAmerican It would be great, too, if Catholics recognized- with Augustine- that the Bible is the place where sacred tradition has its definitive form. If the Church created the Bible, the content of the Bible created the Church.
Christ ascends into heaven. There's no St. Paul yet, what now?
You gather around the disciples and start doing what Christ taught. Christ never commanded people to scribe a bible. The bible is idea of the successors of the successors of the first disciples.
There is no bible until the only Church that God started, decides to scribe and compile one under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
And with the keys to the kingdom that Jesus gave Peter in Mt 16, Christ's Church decided to gather all of the stories about Christ into one volume. They had to make pronouncements on which stories were True and which stories were false. Christ started a Church and gave that Church authority on matters of faith and morals. No Church, no bible. The reverse would not be a true statement.
@CatholicAmerican Exactly. It's rather interesting to think that the only possible source of divinely inspired revelation would be a book that didn't even exist until approximately 350 years after Christ, when that very same book contains statements to the contrary (such as in Timothy where it says something along the lines of "remember to keep the traditions both oral and written", or at the end of John where it refers to the Many things Jesus did that are not contained in the book) and which
(continued) was modified several times, including the removal of books from the old testament. It's rather interesting that until Luther all the bibles were wrong, until he finally turned them into the inerrant, sole sources of divine inspiration that they are today, 1,100 years after they first began circulating.
How about this. In the book of acts. What book did the disciples read which told them that they had to get together and pray about a way to replace the position that Judas once held?
The answer is that they didn't have a book. This is the first instance of apostolic succession. Mathias replaced Judas by an act of sacred tradition. A tradition that thankfully continued until the bible was compiled in 393 at the council of Hippo.
Enjoy your videos, but these are not really the two faces of the Catholic Church. Obviously you are using hyperbole for greater satirical effect, but I'd like to see another where a Lutheran and Catholic are really squaring off on something like justification by faith
Saying that the Church is "denying that faith is necessary for salvation" is misleading. The teaching is that the source of salvation is Christ, and that it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved, to receive salvific grace. If the intention (by way of the aforementioned statement) was to "incriminate" Catholics, it actually "incriminates" a large number of Protestants as well, such as those (generally non-Calvinists) who believe babies -- lack faith-- who die go to heaven.
[From your blog post] "In other words, saving grace can and does come to unbelievers. But it doesn't come to them through faith in Christ because they don't have faith in Christ."
From the Catechism:
"How are we to understand this affirmation [Outside the Church there is no salvation], often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body ...
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, **to that faith without which it is impossible to please him**, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." (asterisks mine, for emphasis) (CCC, 846, 848)
I contend that the worst "face of Rome" is the Society of St. Pius X and their ilk. They are without doubt the most arrogant Papists I have ever talked to, probably due to their indoctrination.
"This disgusted me, I am a faithful Catholic beloning to the True Church, and I used to find your videos funny. When it is an attack against the Church Christ established, which you rebelled against..."
@cjsirrah Christ established the catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. We reformed the Church, you decided to keep the garbage that destroys the Gospel.
@bumnus "Sheep Stealing" is a term that refers to enticing people who belong to a congregation away from that congregation. Or, to put it another way, it's what happens when a shepherd takes as his own a sheep who already belongs to another shepherd.
Both the flawed beliefs that everyone gets to heaven and that Lutherans are definitely going to hell are rather errors made by fallible people after Vatican II and Trent, and are not actually teachings of the councils themselves. And there's nothing wrong with endorsing evolution (or rather, natural selection) as a theory supported by the evidence. The Church's harmony between science and revelation is one of the main reasons I am a Catholic, or even a Christian, today.
I once heard the quote to this effect: "There is no heresy in the church that was not started by a bishop or a priest." but when I looked it up in google I could not find it. It's stands pretty true I think.
Seriously, attributing the destruction of revelation to Q/JEDP is like suggesting that Christ is not God because He grew in wisdom, stature, etc... This is plainly the same error as the liberals, only you hold a docetic Christology. There is no Christologically neutral hermeneutic.
The cause of liberalism is the denial of the true union in Christ, which destroys all revelation. In a sense, it is the failure to stick to Luther's insistence on hoc est corpus meum, and to adopt Calvin's sacramental theology that created the liberal mess. The denial of revelation is the cause, not the result of the modern theological catastrophe. Whether Q or JEDP existed or not has no bearing on the denial of revelation.
For the record (again), I am not Roman Catholic, but a 3rd party concerned that Lutherans get the history right (I'm in your corner). The Fathers most certainly did practice a primitive form of historical criticism. Q/JEDP are not the cause, but the symptom. The root cause is a Nestorian Christology which infected Tubengin (which is which church again? Oh right, Lutheran).
now, where was I? Oh, Yes some Catholic apologists can get heavy handed with the "Protestants can't interpret Scripture properly" bit, but I can't say I've heard a bishop say that. (Love the floating mitre, BTW!) Even so, good work. Now, where can I meet that catholic laywoman? (Gaa! Just saw the link to your blog. Sorry I didn't read that first.)
Endorsement of evolution? True, the Church allows belief in legitimate science regarding evolution, but not the materialism that denies God as creator and we as creatures. Pope Benedict is certainly no fan of higher criticism that seeks to undermine Scripture. Vatican II teaches universalism? Trent didn't say Lutherans are going to hell. It did allow for canonical excommunication, not the same thing. OK, it looks like Blessed John Paul II is kissing the Koran. Don't know about that one. TBC
This disgusted me, I am a faithful Catholic beloning to the True Church, and I used to find your videos funny. When it is an attack against the Church Christ established, which you rebelled against and created new theological beliefs, I can take no more. Good day. My Mass intention today will be for you.
I definitely enjoy your videos (the one on baptism was classic), but - as a Roman Catholic layman and a theologian - I was waiting to hear you talk about Roman Catholicism. All in all, not a terrible critique, but it's just so hard to take this argument so seriously when so much of the historical-critical method has come from Lutheran scholars (e.g. Wellhausen) in the first place. As scholarship it definitely has its uses, but its bad points are a pox on all our houses.
@mattkennel "but its bad points are a pox on all our houses." This is most certainly true. And I know that the current Bishop of Rome is much more skeptical of it than his predecessor. But a greater purge would do us all some good.
I truly enjoy how there are groups of non-Lutherans that really love these vids until the second "their" group/sacred cow is attacked. If we agreed on everything, we would be you or you would be Lutheran.
@Quinntonia I know. It's just horribly and terribly shocking that a Lutheran who firmly believes in the Lutheran faith finds non-Lutheran views to be wrong and subjects them to satire. Gasp, the tragedy!
I'm an Orthodox Presbyterian and disagreed with the Calvinist video, but am not mad at Pastor Feine for being a serious Lutheran. In fact, I respect him all the more for sticking to his convictions.
Awww... Come on. I'm not Catholic and I think that critique is really harsh. Biblical criticism is destroying Christianity? Better tell that to Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius (or even your beloved Luther). I've loved all your videos until this one...
@npmccallum Textual criticism and the historical critical method are not the same. I'm talking about Rome's acceptance of all the Q, JEDP stuff that denies the prophetic and apostolic authorship of the books of Scripture and presupposes the impossibility and absence of inspiration.
Roman exegetes were forbidden by Pius X to use the historical-critical method--then Pius XII reopened the door and most of the Roman exegetes ran through it.
Ken1Lutheran 2 months ago
Actually what's pathetic is that anybody could be ill-informed enough to claim that Jesus- who is better attested historically than, say, Socrates- never existed. Hard to take people seriously who make claims like that.
bobwaters 6 months ago
You want to think of yourselves as livestock? Considering the stupidities and lack of logic in religion, I'd say that "sheep" is about right. You and the Catholics and the Orthodox are all arguing about who's got the words of someone who never existed correct. Pathetic.
NixonisLord 6 months ago
The only way you would have a Catholic bishop speaking in the manner that this video portrays is if that bishop were dressed in the outfit that the character is wearing.
Funny response from the Lutheran character though.
It would be great if Lutherans recognized that there is no Bible without there first being sacred tradition. And it was the Catholic Council of Hippo in 393 a.d. that compiled all the books of the bible.
I'm just saying.
Still enjoy the vids though. Keep em coming.
CatholicAmerican 6 months ago 2
@CatholicAmerican It would be great, too, if Catholics recognized- with Augustine- that the Bible is the place where sacred tradition has its definitive form. If the Church created the Bible, the content of the Bible created the Church.
bobwaters 6 months ago
@bobwaters
Let's take a second and think about that.
Christ ascends into heaven. There's no St. Paul yet, what now?
You gather around the disciples and start doing what Christ taught. Christ never commanded people to scribe a bible. The bible is idea of the successors of the successors of the first disciples.
There is no bible until the only Church that God started, decides to scribe and compile one under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
CatholicAmerican 6 months ago
@bobwaters
Christ started a Church, not a bible.
And with the keys to the kingdom that Jesus gave Peter in Mt 16, Christ's Church decided to gather all of the stories about Christ into one volume. They had to make pronouncements on which stories were True and which stories were false. Christ started a Church and gave that Church authority on matters of faith and morals. No Church, no bible. The reverse would not be a true statement.
CatholicAmerican 6 months ago
@CatholicAmerican Exactly. It's rather interesting to think that the only possible source of divinely inspired revelation would be a book that didn't even exist until approximately 350 years after Christ, when that very same book contains statements to the contrary (such as in Timothy where it says something along the lines of "remember to keep the traditions both oral and written", or at the end of John where it refers to the Many things Jesus did that are not contained in the book) and which
mpalenik 6 months ago
(continued) was modified several times, including the removal of books from the old testament. It's rather interesting that until Luther all the bibles were wrong, until he finally turned them into the inerrant, sole sources of divine inspiration that they are today, 1,100 years after they first began circulating.
mpalenik 6 months ago
@mpalenik
That's some great apologetic work.
How about this. In the book of acts. What book did the disciples read which told them that they had to get together and pray about a way to replace the position that Judas once held?
The answer is that they didn't have a book. This is the first instance of apostolic succession. Mathias replaced Judas by an act of sacred tradition. A tradition that thankfully continued until the bible was compiled in 393 at the council of Hippo.
CatholicAmerican 6 months ago 4
Enjoy your videos, but these are not really the two faces of the Catholic Church. Obviously you are using hyperbole for greater satirical effect, but I'd like to see another where a Lutheran and Catholic are really squaring off on something like justification by faith
dsr9996 6 months ago
Saying that the Church is "denying that faith is necessary for salvation" is misleading. The teaching is that the source of salvation is Christ, and that it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved, to receive salvific grace. If the intention (by way of the aforementioned statement) was to "incriminate" Catholics, it actually "incriminates" a large number of Protestants as well, such as those (generally non-Calvinists) who believe babies -- lack faith-- who die go to heaven.
Livelyanv 6 months ago
[From your blog post] "In other words, saving grace can and does come to unbelievers. But it doesn't come to them through faith in Christ because they don't have faith in Christ."
From the Catechism:
"How are we to understand this affirmation [Outside the Church there is no salvation], often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body ...
Livelyanv 6 months ago
(cont.)
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, **to that faith without which it is impossible to please him**, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." (asterisks mine, for emphasis) (CCC, 846, 848)
Livelyanv 6 months ago 2
I contend that the worst "face of Rome" is the Society of St. Pius X and their ilk. They are without doubt the most arrogant Papists I have ever talked to, probably due to their indoctrination.
AnHonestChristian 7 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Amen, Brother Timothy! :)
USAsoldier1955 6 months ago
"This disgusted me, I am a faithful Catholic beloning to the True Church, and I used to find your videos funny. When it is an attack against the Church Christ established, which you rebelled against..."
Hahah! Ha! HAAAAA!!!!
cjsirrah 7 months ago
@cjsirrah Christ established the catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. We reformed the Church, you decided to keep the garbage that destroys the Gospel.
PRGG24 6 months ago
@bumnus "Sheep Stealing" is a term that refers to enticing people who belong to a congregation away from that congregation. Or, to put it another way, it's what happens when a shepherd takes as his own a sheep who already belongs to another shepherd.
TheLutheranSatire 7 months ago
Both the flawed beliefs that everyone gets to heaven and that Lutherans are definitely going to hell are rather errors made by fallible people after Vatican II and Trent, and are not actually teachings of the councils themselves. And there's nothing wrong with endorsing evolution (or rather, natural selection) as a theory supported by the evidence. The Church's harmony between science and revelation is one of the main reasons I am a Catholic, or even a Christian, today.
asa1342 7 months ago 2
@asa1342 Besides, it was a priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory, anyway. :P
asa1342 7 months ago
What Rome has right, they have profoundly right. What they have wrong, they have profoundly wrong.
the13thof12 7 months ago
I once heard the quote to this effect: "There is no heresy in the church that was not started by a bishop or a priest." but when I looked it up in google I could not find it. It's stands pretty true I think.
FriskyGhost 7 months ago
Lol where can I get a hat that suspends itself in midair?
tehbruka 7 months ago
Seriously, attributing the destruction of revelation to Q/JEDP is like suggesting that Christ is not God because He grew in wisdom, stature, etc... This is plainly the same error as the liberals, only you hold a docetic Christology. There is no Christologically neutral hermeneutic.
npmccallum 7 months ago
The cause of liberalism is the denial of the true union in Christ, which destroys all revelation. In a sense, it is the failure to stick to Luther's insistence on hoc est corpus meum, and to adopt Calvin's sacramental theology that created the liberal mess. The denial of revelation is the cause, not the result of the modern theological catastrophe. Whether Q or JEDP existed or not has no bearing on the denial of revelation.
npmccallum 7 months ago
For the record (again), I am not Roman Catholic, but a 3rd party concerned that Lutherans get the history right (I'm in your corner). The Fathers most certainly did practice a primitive form of historical criticism. Q/JEDP are not the cause, but the symptom. The root cause is a Nestorian Christology which infected Tubengin (which is which church again? Oh right, Lutheran).
npmccallum 7 months ago
now, where was I? Oh, Yes some Catholic apologists can get heavy handed with the "Protestants can't interpret Scripture properly" bit, but I can't say I've heard a bishop say that. (Love the floating mitre, BTW!) Even so, good work. Now, where can I meet that catholic laywoman? (Gaa! Just saw the link to your blog. Sorry I didn't read that first.)
bcsny47 7 months ago
Endorsement of evolution? True, the Church allows belief in legitimate science regarding evolution, but not the materialism that denies God as creator and we as creatures. Pope Benedict is certainly no fan of higher criticism that seeks to undermine Scripture. Vatican II teaches universalism? Trent didn't say Lutherans are going to hell. It did allow for canonical excommunication, not the same thing. OK, it looks like Blessed John Paul II is kissing the Koran. Don't know about that one. TBC
bcsny47 7 months ago
Just keep off the New Church, or we'll take Swedenborg back out of the cathedral.
wlinden 7 months ago
"I want to sheep-steal you so bad." lololol
allegriajoy 7 months ago
Not to mention the supreme ignorance of the Catholic faith.
assasincomedy 7 months ago
This disgusted me, I am a faithful Catholic beloning to the True Church, and I used to find your videos funny. When it is an attack against the Church Christ established, which you rebelled against and created new theological beliefs, I can take no more. Good day. My Mass intention today will be for you.
assasincomedy 7 months ago
I definitely enjoy your videos (the one on baptism was classic), but - as a Roman Catholic layman and a theologian - I was waiting to hear you talk about Roman Catholicism. All in all, not a terrible critique, but it's just so hard to take this argument so seriously when so much of the historical-critical method has come from Lutheran scholars (e.g. Wellhausen) in the first place. As scholarship it definitely has its uses, but its bad points are a pox on all our houses.
mattkennel 7 months ago 4
@mattkennel "but its bad points are a pox on all our houses." This is most certainly true. And I know that the current Bishop of Rome is much more skeptical of it than his predecessor. But a greater purge would do us all some good.
TheLutheranSatire 7 months ago
And yes, you're also right that some bad Lutherans have contributed much to higher criticism.
TheLutheranSatire 7 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire Bultmann was Lutheran I believe. Pope Benedict both praises some of his insights and demonstrates how others are way off.
dsr9996 6 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire "Pseudo-Lutherans" would be better than "bad Lutherans", don't you agree, Brother,
when impugning heresy & apostasy? :)
USAsoldier1955 6 months ago
I truly enjoy how there are groups of non-Lutherans that really love these vids until the second "their" group/sacred cow is attacked. If we agreed on everything, we would be you or you would be Lutheran.
Quinntonia 7 months ago 5
@Quinntonia I know. It's just horribly and terribly shocking that a Lutheran who firmly believes in the Lutheran faith finds non-Lutheran views to be wrong and subjects them to satire. Gasp, the tragedy!
I'm an Orthodox Presbyterian and disagreed with the Calvinist video, but am not mad at Pastor Feine for being a serious Lutheran. In fact, I respect him all the more for sticking to his convictions.
CounterTheory 7 months ago
@Quinntonia Exactly. I'm a trad-ish Anglo-Catholic and just waiting for the vid that takes the mickey out of Anglicanism.
Suffice to say, we have high expectations...
Sapphonouveau 6 months ago
Hey, man. Love your videos. But it's spelled "wacky" and "Popery" should be capitalised. Thanks.
wyclifdotnet 7 months ago
@wyclifdotnet I object! "Whacky" is an accepted alternate spelling of "wacky." I shall, however, meet you half way and capitalize "Popery."
TheLutheranSatire 7 months ago
You guys knew he was going to troll Rome eventually. Don't act so surprised :P
aphidjonesesq 7 months ago
my papist (as he calls himself) buddy would like to contemplate the documentation for these allegations.
theLutheran1 7 months ago
Brilliant!
jaxdale 7 months ago
Perfect!!!
ahhhju 7 months ago
Ow, thats sad. You were on such a roll until this one.
DagurKGJ 7 months ago
Awww... Come on. I'm not Catholic and I think that critique is really harsh. Biblical criticism is destroying Christianity? Better tell that to Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius (or even your beloved Luther). I've loved all your videos until this one...
npmccallum 7 months ago 2
@npmccallum Textual criticism and the historical critical method are not the same. I'm talking about Rome's acceptance of all the Q, JEDP stuff that denies the prophetic and apostolic authorship of the books of Scripture and presupposes the impossibility and absence of inspiration.
TheLutheranSatire 7 months ago 6
@npmccallum I think tou confuse textual critcism with the historical-critical method which actually is the basis for liberal theology
lutherchemnitz 7 months ago
rofl
jdswiney 7 months ago
Wow...this is so spot on! And love the 'stache!
SamaCWNS 7 months ago
Some evangelical hipster with purple horn-rimmed glasses and eighteen seconds of seminary training. Muwahahahah!~
coleridgeboy 7 months ago 16
YES THE 'STACHE OF EPICNESS!!!
Mackay878 7 months ago
bravo
irondawson 7 months ago
The 'Stache!
TheophilusRoger 7 months ago