History PROVES Catholicism (Full Documentary)

0:00 famously it was said by St john Henry Newman that to be

0:04 deep in history is to cease to be Protestant this statement

0:07 has frequently been misunderstood by many

0:10 Catholics and Protestants alike as they

0:12 claim that history so clearly shows forth each and every dogma

0:15 of Roman Catholicism that anyone with even a basic acquaintance and a degree

0:20 of honesty could not help but to become Catholic if St

0:24 newman meant this he would be rightly criticized since history does not

0:28 provide us with a neat and orderly presentation of dogma that we

0:32 would like yet this is exactly the point that St newman

0:36 intends to make in the messiness and disorder of history what is

0:39 clear is that it is not the principles of Protestantism steering

0:43 the ship rather it is only by Catholic principles that you are able

0:48 to understand it st newman argues that the Protestants who wield history

0:52 against Catholicism end up wielding a double-edged sword a sword which cuts

0:57 them and leaves Catholicism unscathed among

0:59 the arguments commonly employed in apologetical

1:02 debates there are few as misunderstood as the idea of the consensus

1:07 of the fathers yet this problem is not a new one it

1:11 is a problem that Catholic theologians have been dealing with for quite

1:15 some time even in the 1950s the sacred theologia Suma comments quote

1:20 the authors often especially in the manuals argue only from the authority

1:26 rather than from the consent of the fathers they quote some

1:29 fragments of the fathers in which the same doctrine is asserted which

1:33 they are defending but this is nothing other than to confirm

1:36 a doctrine from the authority of the fathers who are cited end quote

1:41 this of course is not to disparage the writing of the manuals

1:44 but to point out certain habitual problems that had affected some

1:48 of the manuals problems which were remedied throughout the early 1900s

1:52 by the writing and citing of monographs and journal articles where the teaching

1:56 of a particular father or the fathers as a whole were treated

2:00 in great detail thus in the same vein Degrroot wrote in his suma

2:05 apologetica in the year 1906 that quote "The water of wisdom

2:09 will be purer if drawn directly from the sources themselves over many

2:13 generations much has been transferred from one manual to another like

2:18 a lifeless and entirely mute mass the mind of the holy fathers lives

2:23 in their original writings where the connection of ideas and the very

2:27 roots of their concepts are visible and if the works of more

2:31 recent scholars are not neglected we will more easily discern what

2:34 should be rejected as false what should be further investigated as doubtful

2:39 and what should be adopted as new even in matters of greater

2:44 importance with the critical tools of prology the monuments of the ancients

2:49 will be as it were renewed and breathe life end quote it

2:53 is with this flourishing of prology in secondary literature that in many

2:58 cases true and proper demonstrations of the consensus of the holy

3:02 fathers were made as the sacred theologia sumo points out quote "Surely

3:07 this proof often can be presupposed completely or partially made already

3:12 by the critical additions by petrology by the history of dogmas and by theology

3:18 whether positive or historical." End quote yet this is not a problem

3:22 that was only in the 20th century but a centuries old

3:26 problem thus Pavius one of the greatest ecclesiastical historians and positive

3:30 theologians that the church has ever produced wrote a series of warnings

3:35 and guides in the introduction to his magnum opus the dogmata Theologica

3:39 the problem with providing only a smattering of individual fathers rather than

3:45 establishing a true and proper consensus is as St augustine points out

3:49 in a number of places that we are not unhesitatingly and irrevocably

3:53 to give our ascent to human writings and thus in the words

3:57 of St thomas quote sacred doctrine makes use of natural authorities

4:02 as extrinsic improbable arguments but properly

4:04 uses the authority of the canonical

4:07 scriptures as an incontrovertible proof and the authority of the doctors

4:11 of the church as one that may properly be used yet merely

4:14 as probable end quote an evident example of this is found in the Petristic

4:19 era with the authority of St cyprien of Carthage who aired

4:23 on the issue of rebaptism st

4:25 augustine while maintaining proper reverence towards

4:28 him states that he ought to hold the determination of the church

4:32 over the determination of a particular author writing be in the church

4:36 which it is well known Cyprien held and preached and then

4:40 dare to name Cyprien as the author of your opinion i do

4:44 not accept what the blessed Cyprian thought for the church does not

4:48 accept this for which blessed Cyprian shed his blood end quote st

4:52 thomas states this succinctly when he writes quote "The custom

4:55 of the church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed

5:00 in all things since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its

5:04 authority from the church hence we ought to abide by the authority

5:08 of the church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome

5:13 or of any doctor whatever end quote further as the 6th

5:17 century North African ecclesiastical author Fakundus points out we ought

5:21 to in their doubtful or unclear statements to read these authors piously

5:26 and in accordance with the clearer statements of other fathers writing quote

5:30 "Just as it is the characteristic of heretical slanderers to misinterpret what

5:35 is certain and clear by using what is doubtful and obscure so

5:40 it is customary for Catholic prudence and piety to use what is certain

5:45 written and evident to clarify and confirm what is ambiguous and hidden

5:49 therefore it is better for us to interpret the writings of learned

5:53 men who died in the peace of the church in the best

5:57 possible way end quote further as St thomas writes quote "If

6:00 there are found some points in statements of the ancient fathers not

6:04 expressed with the caution moderns find

6:07 appropriate to observe their statements are

6:09 not to be ridiculed or rejected on the other hand neither are

6:14 they to be overextended but reverently interpreted end quote yet as St

6:19 augustine demonstrates in his PMICS against Julian the Pelagium that unlike

6:23 the positions of this or that father the common consensus of the fathers

6:29 shows forth the determination of the church he writes that this consensus

6:32 is greater than if a quote syninnod were gathered from the whole

6:36 world thus he tells Julian that such agreement quote ought to move

6:40 you since they represent the quote entire church of Christ as fathers

6:45 sons and judges and therefore Julian is accused of departing

6:48 from the Catholic faith in departing from their judgment so in summary it

6:53 is clear that we cannot simply rely on the position

6:55 of a single author or group of authors since these authors are themselves

7:00 fallible on the other hand when there is a consensus among fathers

7:04 the faith of the church is truly set forth in an infallible

7:09 manner so in determining the weight of a certain demonstration

7:12 of the fathers we ought to consider whether it is simply a smattering

7:17 of individual authors and therefore gives

7:19 some sort of probability to the doctrine

7:22 or is it a true demonstration from consensus that renders the doctrine

7:27 infallibly true in order to understand the meaning of this consensus there

7:31 are three errors that we need to get out of the way

7:34 in the beginning the first two are used to argue against

7:37 the idea of the consensus of the fathers and the third error

7:41 is used to overextend the concept of the consensus of the fathers

7:45 the first error is the consensus of those who do not properly

7:49 understand the matter of consensus which is often invoked by liberals

7:53 and protestants they will often point

7:55 out certain agreed upon scientific and historical

7:58 errors and then reason that such consensus is not infallible and therefore

8:03 any consensus is fallible yet this line of reasoning simply misunderstands

8:08 the teaching we do not claim that the consensus on any

8:12 matter is infallible rather we limit this charrorism to matters of faith

8:16 and morals this is unlike scripture which is infallible due to divine

8:20 revelation on all matters that are truly intended by the human

8:24 author whether of faith or morals or of philosophy history or science

8:29 thus according to the widely cited maxim from Melcano quote the authority

8:34 of the saints whether of a few or of many when supplied

8:39 to those fields governed by natural reason does not provide certain arguments

8:43 it carries weight only to the extent that it aligns with natural

8:47 reason end quote yet we must always keep in mind that we

8:51 must restrict this to only those matters that do not have some

8:54 sort of immediate connection with divine revelation as Pesh points out quote

8:59 "A different case arises with philosophical

9:02 conclusions that are so closely connected

9:04 with revealed truths that their acceptance

9:07 or rejection directly endangers the revealed

9:09 dogma itself." What has been said about the infallibility of the church

9:13 regarding theological conclusions must also be applied to the authority

9:16 of the holy fathers in proposing such conclusions just as it is

9:21 the church's role to judge whether a matter pertains to faith so too

9:25 does the consensus of the fathers bring complete certainty when they

9:29 teach that a particular matter pertains to faith end quote in summary

9:33 the first error is the error of those who extend the matter

9:37 of consensus beyond faith and morals

9:40 to certain natural matters whether scientific

9:43 historical or philosophical that are not

9:46 immediately connected with the apostolic deposit

9:48 the second error is the error of those who object that there

9:52 are basically no matter where every father gives his opinion

9:55 or that in many doctrines there are few fathers who disagree on a certain

10:00 matter yet this completely misunderstands the nature of the consensus which

10:04 is argued for rather than a quote physical consensus which involves every

10:08 single individual in a certain group we require a moral consensus which

10:13 is simply a representative number that far outweighs the contrary to where

10:18 the contrary is simply an exception thus certain fathers like St vincent

10:22 of Luren will use the language of quote nearly all in order

10:25 to signify that there are rarely cases where we have a consensus

10:29 from every single father thus also St vincent writes quote whatsoever

10:34 a teacher holds other than all or contrary to all be

10:38 he wholly and learned be he a bishop be he a confessor

10:42 be he a martyr let that be regarded as a private fancy

10:47 of his own end quote this also practically allows us to determine

10:51 a consensus which we will go over below for it would

10:55 be an impossible task to read through each and every single father

10:58 to see whether they had a teaching on this or that doctrine

11:01 the reason that we hold the consensus of the fathers or theologians

11:05 or bishops to be infallible is not because the agreement of all

11:10 these authors provide us with some sort of historical certainty about a question

11:14 this is a common error and is often reflected in popular critiques

11:17 of Catholicism by for example Gavin Ortland you know they might quote

11:21 Newman to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant

11:24 and just say look if so much becomes accidental rather than essential

11:28 that's acrewing over time then you have a church that becomes unmed

11:32 from history and you're just not tied down to like these fifth

11:35 and sixth century on the ground realities but I think we

11:38 kind of all have to wrestle with that in my book I

11:41 distinguish between two different possibilities for what it means to be deep

11:45 in history mainstream depth and historical depth so mainstream depth is just

11:49 whatever happens to come about as the largest view eventually historical

11:54 depth is what is earliest even John Henry Newman had to recognize

11:58 that mainstream depth is not a reliable guide to truth the simple

12:03 fact is church history is not the words of God church history

12:06 is really messy there are lots of things that almost every

12:10 Christian today regards as error that became big and dominant and had

12:14 a kind of mainstream depth views on sex as only for procreation

12:18 views of women as not equally constituting the image of God with men

12:22 i talk about Augustine's doctrine of the damnation of unbaptized babies

12:26 which essentially reigned between Augustine

12:28 and the Reformation and then you look

12:30 at the Old Testament and you see a similar dynamic of the way

12:32 mainstream depth could be wielded against the true prophets of God

12:36 caiaphas the high priest over and against the apostles could make

12:39 this kind of appeal to mainstream depth so what a Protestant is

12:43 trying to do is go back to what God has said

12:46 the church never dies god's always at work rather the foundation for such

12:50 an assertion is the Catholic conviction that the Holy Spirit guides

12:54 the church by its influence in such a way as to preserve

12:58 the faith in the church through the passing down of divine revelation

13:02 that we call the quote living tradition thus while there may be

13:06 certain individuals who through their human fault may heir

13:09 on this or that doctrine the church as a whole will not spread error

13:14 as the faith or heresy as truth thus there is also mention

13:18 as well of certain authors who lived before versus after a controversy which

13:24 is based on this consideration in summary the second error concerns

13:28 those who misunderstand what is meant by consensus assuming that this requires

13:33 some sort of agreement of each and every individual without any exception

13:36 this is not the case rather such a consensus can arise later

13:41 only in a certain period of time or with certain dissenting individuals

13:45 the reason for this is that we are not seeking naturalistic historical

13:50 certainty when we invoke the infallibility of the consensus of the fathers

13:54 rather we are invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit who will

13:58 guard the preaching of the apostolic deposit whether it be the interpretation

14:03 of scripture or the interpretation of tradition the third error is one

14:08 in which certain individuals will attempt

14:10 to overextend the consensus of the fathers

14:12 beyond the scope that we claim often enemies of the Catholic

14:16 faith will attempt to discredit the teaching by pointing to certain

14:20 topics where there was apparently consensus on and then drawing the conclusion

14:24 that since we disagree on this topic we must then disagree

14:29 with consensus as infallible for example

14:31 Gavin Ortland recently pointed to a number

14:34 of issues like this now obviously I can dispute with Gavin's correctness

14:39 on each one of these points the fathers distinguish between a primary

14:43 and a secondary sense of the image of God the fathers

14:45 held that the marital use could also be done for the sake

14:49 of concupisence and as a good toist I would disagree

14:52 with the theologians following Gregory of Rini

14:54 who argue that the fathers following

14:56 St augustine or St augustine himself held to the developed position

15:01 of the Augustinians on the penisensus for those dying with original sin alone

15:06 yet there are other issues where there was agreement among certain generations

15:11 of fathers or theologians on issues that we have for all practical

15:15 purposes departed from but to invoke this fact as an argument against

15:20 consensus simply shows the ignorance of those making such claims on what

15:25 we actually teach concerning consensus in the Petristic era we see

15:29 that such a consensus following St vincent of Lauren was often given

15:33 a label like quote steadfast or some similar adjective showing that a position

15:39 was strongly held this clearly shows that just not any consensus

15:43 is needed but a solid consensus thus we distinguish between three

15:48 species of consensus if you want to read more about this I

15:51 wrote an article called different types of consensus of theologians that follows

15:55 very closely the exposition of this problem by Father Shaban you can

15:59 find that on my Patreon at patreon.com/milligantois anyways something can either

16:04 be agreed upon as one a common opinion two a certain conclusion

16:09 or three contained in revelation in the first case that is a common

16:14 opinion there is an agreement that something is probable and the author

16:18 may give certain probable arguments for it but it is not

16:22 stated in such a way as to absolutely exclude all other positions

16:27 or all doubts in the second case that is a certain conclusion

16:31 there is an agreement that something is certain and follows on the basis

16:36 of strong arguments yet it is not something that is immediately contained

16:40 in divine revelation and thus not binding on faith in the third

16:44 case that is contained in revelation there is an agreement that something

16:49 is contained in divine revelation and thus is binding on faith

16:52 in the third case that is contained in revelation there is

16:55 an agreement that something is contained in divine revelation whether of sacred

17:00 tradition or sacred scripture and thus is binding on faith it

17:04 is only in the third case that we invoke infallibility as flowing

17:08 from or indicated by consensus thus there can be many issues where

17:13 many generations of theologians have opinions that are simply wrong and are

17:17 reversed by a later age other times there are thesis which are

17:21 common for many generations yet there are theologians in later generations who

17:26 disagree with the former consensus an example of this is the thesis

17:30 that sex and marriage when invoked for the purpose of remedying

17:34 incontinence is never without venial sin in the one who requests

17:38 this is something where it is rare to find one stating it so

17:41 insistently as to rise to the level of a common sentence

17:43 from this it is clear that it was simply the common opinion rather

17:47 than the type of firmness of consent required for a true argument

17:52 from consensus thus the church has tolerated the opposite opinion and both

17:57 opinions exist in the church to this day in summary this error

18:01 does not recognize that there are different degrees of ascent that leads

18:05 to consensus it is only when the fathers stating insistently

18:09 that a teaching is found in divine revelation whether of scripture or divine

18:13 tradition that the infallibility of the consensus can be invoked all three

18:18 of these common errors are errors that many of those who you

18:22 speak to about the consensus of the fathers will have thus it

18:25 is important that you clarify that one the consensus must be about

18:29 matters of faith or morals two the consensus is not a physical

18:33 consensus but a moral consensus and three the consensus must be

18:37 about the fact that something is found in divine revelation rather than

18:41 something is merely certain or probable now that we have went over

18:45 a few common errors on the issue of consensus how do we

18:49 practically determine whether there is a consensus or not first we must

18:53 clarify what is meant by a father of the church the definition

18:57 of father of the church commonly drawn from St vincent of Len

19:01 is an ecclesiastical writer recognized by the church's orthodox who was

19:06 outstanding in doctrine holiness and antiquity

19:08 first they must be an ecclesiastical

19:11 writer an ecclesiastical writer is simply a writer who wrote under

19:16 the Christian profession thus even authors like Ucius Tutoian and origin would

19:21 be considered ecclesiastical writers although

19:23 they are not considered church fathers

19:25 second they have to be recognized by the church it is not

19:29 enough for an author to be in the church and to have

19:32 written rather their works must be

19:34 received as authentically expressing Catholic truth

19:36 and in constant use for this purpose this can either be explicitly

19:41 or implicitly explicitly there have been

19:44 certain decrees that list approved authors

19:46 implicitly the approval of certain authors come from their common use without

19:50 any sort of restriction thus we need to clearly distinguish between certain

19:54 early ecclesiastical authors for example Aristes

19:57 Tatian Aanagoras Tertullian Origin Arnobius Lactanius

20:00 Ucius Ditimus the Blind and Refinus and Trum proper fathers of the church

20:06 on the other hand in summary a church father is an approved

20:11 ecclesiastical author from the early church who is outstanding in doctrine

20:15 and holiness this is important due to a principle we invoked above

20:18 that is the consensus of the fathers isn't merely about a historical

20:22 study of the history of belief rather it is based

20:26 on the protection of the Holy Spirit thus there are many older authors

20:31 who claim to be Christians that are not included including heretics

20:35 and schismatics along with certain Catholic

20:37 authors who are not outstanding in doctrine

20:40 or approved by the church an easy way of determining whether

20:43 someone is a father or not is to look at the reception

20:46 of their doctrine and the explicit teaching concerning their usefulness

20:50 and orthodoxy now to determine whether there is consensus between these fathers

20:54 of the church there are two methods that we can follow first

20:58 the direct method second the indirect method the direct method goes through each

21:04 and every father from every era in order to attempt to establish

21:08 universal agreement this method is very rarely used and is often impossible

21:12 to ascertain yet when this is found to be the case

21:15 as the SDS states quote "If it is discovered that they agree then

21:19 it provides an invincible and full argument that their unanimous consensus

21:23 as from a certain criterion of divine tradition." End quote therefore in most

21:28 cases we use the indirect method the indirect method seeks to determine

21:33 the consensus of the whole from some prominent part as an analogy

21:37 we might only pull a certain representative part of a country

21:40 if we were to wish to determine what the average is

21:43 of that country for example in political poll there are a few

21:47 methods of determining when these fathers

21:49 agree and truly present a consensus first

21:51 is the method of the principal fathers there are certain fathers who

21:55 are eminent for their determination of a certain question and other fathers

21:59 follow their judgment on this matter thus when there is agreement among

22:03 these eminent fathers that a certain matter is divinely revealed and thus

22:07 binding on faith and there is no perceptible disagreement in the church

22:11 then this is an indication that there is a consensus

22:14 on this matter according to St vincent of Luren this was actually

22:18 the method followed at the council of Ephesus where certain of the most

22:22 principal fathers were brought forward and this served as a representation

22:26 of the other fathers who followed their doctrine on this matter this is

22:30 especially fruitful when the eminent fathers in question are those fathers

22:34 who are especially received by the church as opposing some particular heresy

22:38 thus the SDS states quote by demonstrating some main article of doctrine

22:43 from one or other father who is recognized by the church

22:47 as a leader in the defense of this doctrine against the heretics

22:51 as was Athanasius against the Aryans

22:53 Augustine against the Pelagians Sir of Alexandria

22:56 against the Ntorians and from that by concluding indirectly to the consent

23:00 of the other fathers because as the history of dogma shows

23:04 the other fathers together with the whole church applauded these outstanding

23:08 ing men for their defense of dogma." End quote second we have

23:12 the method of the era in certain eras before there was major

23:16 disagreement about a certain doctrine or before

23:18 an adequate solution to a certain

23:20 problem was determined it can be quite difficult to determine consensus

23:24 if there even was a consensus at that point thus for example

23:28 in the antonyy church while there are clear indications of the truth

23:32 of purgatory in the practices of the church yet it took as keen

23:36 an intellect as St a custom to fully formulate the doctrine

23:39 as a complete synthesis of divine revelation and the practice of the church

23:44 so early in the church there are a number of errors

23:47 from those attempting to properly teach what is taught by divine revelation

23:52 on esquetology yet failing but when the more developed solution of St

23:56 augustine is presented there is a clear consensus reached in the existence

23:59 of such in its general outlines although there were particular questions

24:03 that remain unanswered now the basis of the teaching on the consensus

24:07 of the fathers is that the church is unfailing in its universal

24:11 teaching thus where there is a universal teaching of a single era

24:16 it is sufficient to demonstrate such a consensus even where there might

24:20 be disagreement at another era over the teaching even in a later

24:24 era yet the same does not apply for certain locations since

24:28 while particular churches are fallible a particular era of the universal church

24:33 is not fallible thus if I were to demonstrate that such

24:36 and such a teaching was the teaching of North Africa it would

24:40 not reach the conditions required for the consensus of the fathers

24:43 but on the other hand if I demonstrated that such was the teaching

24:47 in the sixth and seventh centuries that would be a consensus

24:50 of the fathers although other authors will argue on the basis

24:54 of the church of Rome's more proximate guardianship over the west

24:58 that an argument from the western fathers

25:00 can constitute an argument for consensus thus

25:03 the STS states quote by demonstrating directly the consensus of the western

25:09 fathers and from that by concluding indirectly to the consensus

25:12 of the eastern fathers also because it cannot happen that in matters

25:16 of faith and morals the fathers of the eastern church do not agree

25:20 with the fathers of the western church which is under the immediate

25:23 vigilance of the supreme pontiff end quote to summarize we can either

25:28 demonstrate consensus directly or indirectly it

25:30 is best to demonstrate consensus directly but often this is impossible therefore

25:36 for practical purposes we demonstrate such consensus

25:39 indirectly this takes a number of different forms including the method

25:43 of the principal fathers the method of the era and the method

25:47 of the western fathers lastly we must be especially careful when considering

25:51 the question of the common interpretations of sacred scripture for when there

25:55 is a consensus on a matter of scriptural interpretation it is

25:59 something that is infallible yet in many cases where one would think

26:04 that there is a consensus it is not properly speaking a consensus

26:08 for such a consensus is quite rare as venerable pest the 12th states

26:13 quote "Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules

26:17 and laws promulgated by the church there is a question of doctrine

26:21 regarding faith and morals and that in the immense matter contained

26:26 in the sacred books legislative historical

26:28 siential and prophetical there are but few

26:31 texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the church

26:35 nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the holy

26:39 fathers is unanimous." end quote this is actually relevant in a modern

26:43 discussion that is the debate over the age of the earth

26:46 often proponents of young earth creationism will argue that a certain

26:50 teaching on the age of the earth was the interpretation of scripture

26:54 given by the unanimous consent of the fathers and therefore such

26:57 an interpretation is binding on all Catholics this is an understandable position

27:02 and primmaaci seems quite probable yet the argument does not follow

27:06 the reason it does not follow is not as some erroneously conclude

27:11 that the interpretation of scripture does not fall under the consensus

27:14 of the fathers due to it being simply and not merely formally a disciplinary

27:19 decree of the council of Trent this is an error caught

27:22 by many who concluding from the fact that the decree of Trent

27:26 on the interpretation of scripture is

27:28 formally disciplinary which they are correct

27:30 about erroneously conclude that it is simply disciplinary which it is not

27:34 in the language of the schoolmen it is formally disciplinary yet fundamentally

27:39 doctrinal in so far as the principle which informs the law is

27:42 doctrinal rather it has to do with what we said above about

27:46 the various types of consensus that can be had the eminent 20th

27:50 century theologian Christian Pesh describes three

27:53 possible situations quote first they reject

27:56 a certain interpretation as completely intolerable

27:59 or propose another as the only Catholic interpretation for example consider

28:03 how they explain the gospel narratives

28:05 about the institution of the Eucharist end quote in this situation he

28:09 writes quote "In the first case

28:11 the interpretation must necessarily be accepted."

28:14 End quote further at other times they propose multiple interpretations and use

28:19 hermeneutical methods to seek the true meaning end quote in this situation

28:23 he writes quote in the second case the interpretation remains open end

28:28 quote further quote "Sometimes they

28:30 simply provide an explanation without indicating

28:33 whether it is the only possible interpretation or whether others may also

28:37 be admitted." End quote in this situation he writes quote

28:41 "In the third case the question

28:43 arises." If a different interpretation were proposed

28:45 to the Holy Father would he tolerate it as Catholic or not

28:50 often this question is resolved by examining the reasoning the holy fathers

28:54 use when they seek argue for or doubt the true meaning

28:58 of a text frequently however this question

29:01 can only be answered by consulting later

29:03 Catholic commentators for if a particular

29:05 interpretation is consistently and exclusively

29:07 proposed as true by later fathers and Catholic writers it indicates

29:12 that the earlier fathers regarded it

29:14 as the only Catholic interpretation conversely

29:16 if later Catholic exedites admit an alternative

29:20 explanation despite contrary interpretations by earlier

29:23 fathers it follows that the earlier interpretation was not considered obligatory

29:27 end quote therefore we must be careful not only to note consensus

29:32 but also the insistence of such consensus thus there can be certain

29:36 texts of scripture that are interpreted in the same way by all

29:40 the fathers yet they did not seek to propose this text

29:43 as the only possible sense of the text as an example many theologians

29:48 mention the interpretation of Hebrews 6 4-6 as referring to the impossibility

29:53 of repeating baptism this interpretation has a moral consensus among the fathers

29:58 yet later Catholic exedites often

30:01 freely rejected this interpretation or proposed

30:04 other interpretations the reason for this has to do with the degree

30:09 of consensus this reading was not set forth in a definitive way

30:13 and thus does not require our ascent thus the sacred theologia suma

30:17 teaches quote in the interpretation of holy scripture in order to obtain

30:21 an argument from the consent of the fathers that is a certain

30:25 criterion of divine tradition it is required first of all that certainty

30:29 is established not only that the fathers agree on this interpretation

30:32 but also that they propose it as the meaning that for the sacred

30:36 author is divinely inspired for often the holy fathers attribute

30:39 to the sacred text a meeting that is fitting for the rhetorical

30:44 or aesthetical effect which they have in mind but when this is

30:48 the case the argument from the consent of the fathers in the interpretation

30:52 of holy scripture in order for it to be a true

30:56 criterion of divine tradition must assume the same conditions which we just

30:59 mentioned above and therefore namely for a lack of some of the given

31:04 conditions it is properly explained why

31:06 contemporary exedites can depart from the consensus

31:09 of the fathers in the interpretation of some texts of scripture

31:12 for example Genesis 7 on the extent of the flood Isaiah

31:16 53:8 on the eternal generation of Christ Hebrews 6:4-6 on baptism end

31:23 quote further as Bane says in his de magisterio vivo tradition quote

31:28 "If the fathers even many of them speak as private teachers even

31:34 in matters of faith whether inquiring opining or doubting they cannot be

31:39 regarded as the certain and authentic voice of the church this often

31:43 happens when they interpret scripture in such cases their interpretation must

31:48 be considered human rather than dogmatic thus it happens that later interpreters

31:53 even cautious and Catholic ones occasionally

31:55 depart from the almost unanimous interpretation

31:58 of the fathers this departure becomes even more likely when the subject

32:03 moves further from matters of faith and morals to other topics

32:07 further it often happens that the holy fathers aim to derive

32:11 a quote word of exhortation from the books rather than to treat

32:15 the matter exeetically end quote

32:17 this distinction between interpreting as an expositor

32:20 of the Catholic faith and interpreting as expressing certain matters of private

32:25 opinion was well known in the preodern era and is not some

32:28 sort of modern cope to get around common errors in biblical interpretation

32:32 this can be proven by abundant citations of St thomas considering the ex

32:37 Jesus of the book of Genesis where he always seeks to protect

32:40 the authority of the holy fathers thus he writes that such

32:44 interpretations were made quote not as asserting it but as using what

32:47 they had learned in philosophy therefore

32:50 their statements hold no greater authority

32:52 than those of the philosophers they follow except in so far

32:55 as they are all free from all suspicion of unbelief end quote thus

32:59 the only effect of such an interpretation is something negative that is

33:04 that such an interpretation while perhaps incorrect cannot be said to be

33:08 against the faith that is heretical so uh first uh when

33:13 it comes to a note on terminology uh this is definitely controversial

33:18 uh there's this sort of uh common I it's a common

33:22 myth uh there's really no truth behind this that the difference between

33:26 the evolution of dogma and the development of doctrine is that the evolution

33:32 of dogma is the evil modernist uh way of phrasing things

33:37 and that the development of doctrine is the true in Catholic way

33:42 of phrasing things and this isn't really uh true uh this isn't

33:47 really true at all uh Catholic theologians actually use both phrases

33:52 uh but evolution of dogma is the more popular phrase to use

33:56 and this is actually seen in the life of Newman uh who

33:59 is going to be a recurring theme because I think Newman while

34:04 certainly groundbreaking on this issue

34:07 and uh even continental Catholic theologians recognize

34:09 uh that he is groundbreaking on this issue uh first uh he

34:14 he does have a few um terminological issues uh he has

34:19 a few uh minor mistakes uh throughout his uh essay and we can

34:24 excuse this because throughout the rest of his life he he

34:27 does clarify in other writings that people don't read that that's all

34:31 to say uh when Newman did write uh the famous uh Peron

34:35 letters uh he did actually use the phrasiology of the evolution of dogma

34:40 because that's just in Catholic theology the more uh popular terminology

34:44 to use so really we're weird uh when we use the phrase

34:49 uh development of doctrine and then uh are scared of using

34:52 the phrase of the evolution of dogma but the distinction uh that is

34:59 present between the Catholic and then the modernist versions of the evolution

35:04 of dogmas between what's known as the homogeneous and then a transistic

35:08 uh evolution so if you think about uh a transformistic evolution

35:13 that would be uh like and we're going to get this get

35:16 into this uh later in a lot more detail but a transmistic

35:19 evolution would be like uh kind of Darwinism uh at least

35:23 how old Darwinism used to think like okay we got a monkey

35:28 and then monkey become man uh that's that's a transformation right there

35:33 they are completely different species

35:36 they're completely different things where uh

35:39 the type of evolution that we're talking about is a homogeneous evolution

35:42 so that would be like the difference between uh Newman uses

35:46 this uh phrase this imagery that we uh in Catholic theology uh generally

35:51 use this imagery between the seed and the tree uh that is

35:56 an example of a homogeneous uh evolution or maybe the history

36:00 of a certain people um that that'd be another example of homogeneous

36:04 uh evolution or uh we can think of a thinker who works out

36:09 uh throughout his entire life um a a certain idea that he

36:14 had when he was younger uh that's another example of a homogeneous

36:19 evolution so again um the modernistic theory was condemned and this language

36:24 of the evolution of dogma uh definitely was taken over by the modernists

36:31 and uh seen as their sole uh property but uh either

36:37 way we should take the advice of St augustine and Datrina Christiana

36:41 where he says if they who are called philosophers particularly the platonists

36:45 have said things that are true and in conformity with our faith

36:49 not only are these not to be feared but they should be

36:52 rested from them as from unjust possessors and turned to our advantage

36:57 so there is some areas of truth that are present

37:01 in some of uh some of what the modernists have said uh

37:06 but again fundamentally they're heretical so what we ought to do

37:10 is we ought to restore it uh in Christ and we ought

37:13 to cleanse away all of the errors and to take it back

37:17 uh for ourselves so we ought not to be scared of the terminology

37:21 or even some of the ideas uh but we ought to recognize

37:25 that every error really has its uh foundation in a corruption

37:29 of truth so uh in in order to uh prove this because

37:34 I can I can already hear uh the very aggressive uh Newman

37:39 hater tread types saying that I am being utterly uh modernistic right

37:46 now and using this language of the evolution of dogma or even

37:49 the idea of evolution of dogma i just wanted to quote some

37:54 principal uh theologians that are uh

37:58 traditional and anti-modernistic so the first

38:00 is Cardinal Bo in his decclesia Christi thesis 17 he says

38:05 quote this law of evolution which rules all living organisms we see

38:09 verified also in the church of Christ which while uh suously uh

38:14 guarding the dogmas entrusted to her detracts nothing from them in treating

38:19 faithfully and wisely the old doctrine she pursues with all diligence

38:23 this one endeavor to determine and perfect that which previously was formless

38:28 in inco Kate to consolidate and firm up that which is already

38:33 expressly stated and explained to safeguard what which is that which is

38:38 already firmly established and defined and then also uh manscior van

38:44 nort in his de fontibus uh revelation he says in the first

38:49 place it is certain that the increase of which we have spoken

38:53 does not involve a change in the doctrine itself but an organic

38:58 unfolding or evolution of the same preaching of the same faith

39:02 just as the adult is not a different man from the child

39:05 in spite of the fact that his bodily members have grown considerably

39:09 in size and strength in like manner the preaching of the church

39:12 remains always the same in reality even if with the passing

39:16 of time it has evolved or become more developed and then uh

39:21 father Berier which uh he was a Dominican theologian not many know

39:26 him unfortunately but he was uh famous for his deois uh he

39:30 says quote hence it is clear that for us the unfolding

39:34 of the doctrine handed down is in no way a uh permutation

39:38 but an evolution or progress of the same truth not with regard

39:42 to its substance but with regard to its explication sometimes in the history

39:48 of theology there are certain important figures that are more or less

39:53 lost these individuals are authors of important theological works and play

39:58 central roles in important controversies yet

40:01 they are ignored for many generations

40:04 thus it is important for each generation of theology to read carefully

40:09 not only those authors that are widely referenced and studied but also

40:13 those lesserknown figures that escape the notice of the masses seeking lost

40:18 gems that can contribute to our understanding of divine revelation one

40:23 of the most egregious examples of an important loss is the church father

40:28 St optatus a North African saint and theological writer who has

40:31 often been called the least known of the fathers of the church

40:35 what is even more unfortunate is that St octatus is one

40:39 of the most important sources that can

40:42 be used against the Protestant understanding

40:44 of the church and is a key to understanding St augustine's

40:47 opposition to the Donatists little is known about St in Octatus's life

40:52 but we do know a few important biographical details we know from St

40:56 augustine that he was a convert to the faith before his conversion

41:00 he was likely a pagan rhetoric which can be gathered

41:04 from his excellent Latin from him only a single book has come down

41:09 his magnum opus against the Donatist which he actually revised throughout

41:13 his life resulting in multiple additions he actually provides us in an appendix

41:18 to his work with invaluable primary source material on the Donatus

41:23 schism and in the first book of his work our earliest historical

41:28 narrative of the circumstances surrounding

41:30 the Donatist schism the entire work against the Donatists answers a question

41:35 that is perpetually relevant and especially relevant

41:38 among many of you how do we distinguish the true church

41:43 from the false churches before the 20th century there was only one vernacular

41:49 translation of the work of St octatus against the Donatists a French

41:53 translation in the year 1564 which was so rare that the English

41:58 translator of the work in 1917 was not able to find

42:02 a single copy in the 19th century there was an announcement

42:06 that the Petristic collection called the Oxford Library of the Fathers would

42:10 include an addition of the work yet the translation never came to pass

42:16 neither did the shaft collection of the church fathers include a translation

42:20 of St optatus even though he is one of the most

42:24 important authors in the Donatist controversy it wasn't until the year 1702

42:29 that there was a Latin edition of the original text in print

42:33 done by Dupin in Paris yet this text was nearly impossible

42:38 to find outside of large research libraries and it wasn't until the year

42:43 1870 that the famous ecclesiastical historian Father Hugo voner remedied

42:48 this and published the text of Dupin in short form with notes so

42:52 that it would be accessible to a wider audience it wasn't until

42:56 1893 that there was a critical edition of the text with serious

43:01 text critical notes the ignorance of St octatus was so bad

43:05 that in the early 20th century the English translator of St optatus commented

43:10 that quote "It is not too much to say that the very

43:14 name of Octatus is barely known even to many students of theology

43:19 and ecclesiastical history." End quote

43:22 this is unfortunate since St octatus provides

43:24 us with a systematic treatment of determining the true church by way

43:29 of the marks of the church and also provides us with a sublime

43:33 example of charity and pmics st optatus is clear in referring

43:38 to the schismatic Donatus as brothers reflecting a pmical methodology common

43:43 among the saints and especially emphasized by the magisterium of the church

43:48 in recent years he writes quote lest anyone should say that without

43:52 thought I call them brethren i would reply that such they are

43:57 for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet Isaiah

44:00 and although they would not deny as all men know well that they

44:05 hold us in abhorance and ban us utterly and are unwilling

44:08 to be called our brethren still we may not depart from the fear

44:13 of God for the Holy Spirit exhorts us by Isaiah the prophet

44:17 saying "You who fear the word of the Lord hear ye

44:20 the word of the Lord to those who detest and curse

44:23 you and are unwilling to be called your brethren say ye nevertheless

44:27 you are our brethren they therefore are without doubt brothers though not

44:31 good brothers wherefore let no one marvel that I term them brothers

44:35 who are unable to escape being our brethren they and we have

44:40 one spiritual birth that is baptism though widely differing in our conduct

44:44 end quote he goes on later in the work to teach

44:48 that the Donatus and Catholics are made brothers by baptism and retain

44:52 some sort of partial communion saying quote you will not have peace

44:57 with us that is with your brothers for you cannot escape being

45:00 our brothers you whom together with us one mother church has borne

45:04 from the same bowels of her sacraments and whom God the father

45:08 has received in the same manner as sons of adoption accordingly

45:12 if things which have been prescribed may not be changed you see

45:16 that we have not been absolutely divided from one another whilst we

45:21 willingly pray for you and you though unwillingly pray for us you

45:26 perceive my brother Parmminian that the bonds of holy brotherhood between

45:30 you and us do not admit of being absolutely broken." End quote

45:34 this is also something that is witnessed to by St augustine who

45:39 also was clear to call the Donatus brothers thus when St augustine was

45:44 refuting Galdensius the Donatus quote "Come now brother Godius do not waste

45:48 the opportunity the Lord has given you even through your own words

45:52 or are you perhaps angered that I call you brother for you

45:55 rejected this term in our conference showing that we are the ones

45:59 to whom the Lord commanded through the prophet say you are

46:03 our brothers to those who hate and detest you but you are

46:06 among those who hate and detest those to whom the Lord speaks

46:09 these words." End quote the charity of calling them brethren is even

46:13 more striking we consider the long history of abuse that the Catholics

46:17 had suffered at the hands of the Donatists these abuses ranged

46:21 from desecration of the Eucharist to murder to the defiling of nuns

46:25 as a few examples first he mentions how Donathus slaughtered Catholic deacons

46:30 writing quote "So soon as they saw that the basilica notwithstanding

46:34 their clamors was closed against them they commanded their followers to climb

46:39 to the top strip the roof and throw down the tiles these orders

46:43 were executed without delay in the defense of the altar a number

46:47 of Catholic deacons were wounded with tiles of whom two were

46:51 killed primus the son of Jenerius and Donathus the son of Nenus

46:56 your fellow bishops whose names I have just given were present

47:00 and urged them on end quote second the Donatus assaulted Catholics at random

47:05 going so far as to slaughter infants and force pregnant women

47:10 to misaryry saying quote "These men upset the minds of quiet people who

47:15 were established in unity and aided by the favor and fury

47:19 of certain officials and the very

47:21 presence of Athenius the magistrate with colors

47:24 flying broke up the Catholic assemblies with bloodshed catholics were driven

47:28 out from their homes their men were wounded their women were dragged

47:33 into captivity their infants were slain mothers miscarried end quote third

47:38 they attempted to feed the Eucharist to dogs but were instead attacked

47:42 by the dogs quote Moreover a hideous crime which seems to you

47:46 something of little importance was committed in such a fashion that your above

47:51 mentioned fellow bishops profaneed everything which is most holy they commanded

47:56 the Eucharist to be cast to the dogs this did not pass

47:59 without evidence of the divine judgment for these same dogs were

48:03 inflamed with madness and tore their own masters in pieces as though

48:07 they had been murderers and attacked with avenging teeth those guilty

48:11 of the holy body as if they had been strangers and enemies they

48:15 also threw a vial of crism out of a window in order

48:19 to break it and although its fall was precipitated by violence

48:23 an angel's hand was there to bring it down gently to earth

48:27 with the support that is from heaven being thrown away it was

48:30 not allowed to feel its fall but by the protection of God

48:35 found its home unbroken amongst the rocks end quote fourth they also

48:40 made a practice of seducing nuns quote "When the Donatus bishops came

48:44 back they found that nuns whom they had seduced from their state

48:49 of chastity had become mothers one of the Donatus bishops among

48:52 his other crimes and horrible misdeeds teased a young maiden to whom

48:57 he himself had given the veil by whom he had a short

49:01 time before been called by the name father and did not hesitate

49:04 in the least to be guilty of shameless incest." End quote

49:08 further St optatus is clear to distinguish between those who are culpable

49:13 for their schism and those who are inculpable for their schism which

49:17 in modern theological terminology we call

49:19 the distinction between formal and material

49:22 schismatics he writes if you do not know this learn if you

49:27 do know this blush Ignorance cannot be attributed to you it follows

49:31 that you know for one who knows to heir is sin

49:35 those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned end quote this distinction

49:40 is especially employed when distinguishing the originators of a schism

49:44 from those who have been born into a schism quote "If as I

49:49 said your forefathers had come of their own accord to the Catholic

49:53 Church perhaps our fathers would have

49:56 hesitated about receiving them because they

49:58 had been betrayers but we have caused for rejoicing that none guilty

50:03 of betrayal have lived down to our times." So today we find

50:07 quite a new state of affairs since we have to deal not

50:11 with them but with you although it appears that a stain has

50:15 passed from them to you by inheritance nevertheless you cannot on this ground

50:20 be held guilty together with your fathers according to the judgment

50:24 of God your fathers who are proven to have done these things

50:28 in the days of unity have fallen away from the number

50:31 of the living leaving you as it were an inherited stain

50:35 which God has already washed away by his providence when he made

50:39 a distinction as we have said above between fathers and their sons

50:44 accordingly since betrayal is a sin your fathers must see to it

50:48 as to what answer they may make in the judgment of God

50:52 but your sin it cannot be since you are living in other

50:56 times end quote although even with these points noted St.atus does not

51:01 mince words against the Donatus or due to the possibility of ignorance

51:06 in the presence of a common baptism pretend that such a schism

51:09 is not a big deal in fact he points out that God

51:13 treats schism with more severity than even murder or idolatry he

51:17 writes quote "By the commandments of God three things are amongst others

51:22 forbidden by him thou shalt not kill thou shalt not go

51:25 after strange gods and thou shalt not commit schism let us see

51:28 concerning these three what should be punished and what it may be

51:32 lawful to pardon." Murder of Keith is the chief sin nevertheless God

51:36 did not strike Cain dead in his guilt but declared that he

51:40 would punish any man who might be his murderer in the city

51:46 of Nineveh 120,000 inhabitants sacriiggiously

51:48 followed after strange gods but when

51:51 by the preaching of Jonah the prophet God had declared his anger

51:55 a short period of fasting together with prayer obtained their pardon

51:59 let us see whether any such forgiveness was granted to those who

52:03 first of all ventured to divide the peoples of God god had

52:07 placed over so many thousands of children of Israel from whose net

52:11 his divine providence had cast away the yoke of servitude one priest

52:16 holy Aaron but his ministers coveting

52:18 and lawlessly usurping a priesthood to which

52:21 they had no right and leading astray a part of the people

52:24 imitated the sacred rights and placed more than 200 of their followers

52:29 who were to perish with them centurers in hand before the people

52:33 whom they had led astray god to whom schism is displeasing

52:38 could not see this and let it pass they had after

52:42 a certain fashion declared war against God as if there were a second

52:47 God who could accept a second sacrifice therefore God was wrathful

52:51 with a mighty wrath on account of the schism which had been made

52:55 and what he had not done in punishment of the sacrilegious

52:59 and the fracticide that he did do in punishment of schismatics the army

53:05 of ministers stood array and the sacriiggious host that together with its

53:10 forbidden sacrifices was to perish in an instant the opportunity for penance

53:14 was denied them and withdrawn for this was not the kind

53:18 of sin that should deserve pardon the earth was commanded to hunger

53:22 after its food forth with it opened its jaws for those who

53:26 had divided the people and with eager mouth swallowed them up

53:30 that had despised the commandments of God within the space of one

53:33 moment the earth opened to devour them seized her victims was shut once

53:38 again and so that they might not appear to reap any benefit

53:41 from the suddenness of their death it was not allowed these men

53:45 who were unworthy to live even to die all of a sudden

53:49 they were shut in the prison of hell and were buried

53:52 there before they died what have you to say to this you

53:56 who having usurped the name of the church both secretly foster

53:59 and without shame defend the schism end quote yet there is

54:03 an obvious difficulty that pops up here the Donatus claimed that they were

54:07 the true church of Christ rather than the Catholic Church how

54:11 were they to determine which group was schizmatic and which were not

54:16 interestingly the Protestant option that they were both parts of the true

54:19 church or that there was not properly a true church with unity

54:23 of governance was not even on the table the option was so

54:27 ridiculous as not even to be discussed between the two groups the method

54:31 that St octatus follows is the same method that Catholic theologians follow

54:35 to this day called the method of the notes the word notes

54:39 comes from the Latin word note which has the idea of certain

54:44 marks or essential attributes that would help you determine what type

54:48 of thing some object is thus for example the notes of being

54:52 a man is to have rationality and to have animality throughout

54:55 the history of the church various theologians have listed different numbers

54:59 of notes for determining the true church this is proper since there are

55:03 many properties which flow from the primary essential notes and can be

55:07 used to determine the nature of something further there are other attributes

55:10 which may not technically be proper to some nature but is

55:14 an accident that is likely to be present in the thing

55:17 or in other cases might be a negative mark that simply excludes

55:21 other options thus there are many marks of the church and some

55:25 of these marks are possessed in some degree by heretical or schismatic

55:29 groups but as noted by St octatus the marks stand or fall

55:32 together if you lack one mark then you lack the full nature

55:36 of the church thus he writes quote these endowments i.e marks are connected

55:42 one with another and are distinct but in such a way

55:45 that it may be understood that one cannot be separated from another

55:49 for they are numerically distinct but with one act of the mind

55:52 we see them joined in their body as are the fingers

55:56 of the hand each of which we perceive to be removed

55:59 by spaces from the others therefore he who possesses one must possess them

56:03 all since not one of them can be apart from its fellows

56:07 we may add that we possess in that in the strictest sense not

56:11 one endowment alone but all end quote thus even while Adonitus

56:15 possess the profession of the creed and the celebration of the sacraments

56:20 which Protestants erroneously conclude is sufficient to be a visible church they

56:24 still lack the marks for most of the marks St octatus is

56:28 simply responding to a list given by the Donatus and showing

56:32 how the Catholic Church is the true possessor of that mark yet

56:35 the first mark is of particular interest for contemporaries this is the mark

56:40 of what he calls the cathedral Petri or in English the chair

56:44 of Peter he introduces the endowment stating quote you cannot then

56:48 deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city

56:53 of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedral on which sat Peter

56:56 the head of all the apostles for which reason he was called

57:00 Cphus that in this one cathedral unity should be preserved by all

57:05 lest the other apostles might claim each for himself separate cathedrals

57:10 so that he who should set up a second cathedral against

57:14 the unique cathedral would already be a schismatic and a sinner well then

57:18 on the one cathedral which is the first of the endowments Peter

57:22 was the first to sit." End quote then he goes on to identify

57:27 this cathedral Petri with the then current bishop of Rome serakius

57:32 writing to Peter succeeded Serakius who today is our colleague with whom

57:37 the whole world through the intercourse of letters of peace agrees

57:40 with us in one bond of communion now do you show the origin

57:44 of your cathedral you who wish to claim the holy church

57:48 for yourselves end quote yet the Donatus objected that they actually did have

57:52 a presence within Rome of a few individuals of their sect

57:56 but St optus mocked this as ridiculous due to the sparse presence

58:00 of the Donatis in Rome which he calls quote a few wanderers

58:04 from Africa and the fact that they do not possess the traditional

58:08 churches in Rome besides this he points to the fact that they

58:12 couldn't even muster up a single Roman citizen to be bishop

58:15 and had to keep sending Africans and that they couldn't even find

58:19 a meeting place among all the churches and shrines in Rome he writes

58:24 quote but you allege that you two have some sort of party

58:28 in the city of Rome it is a branch of your error

58:32 growing out of a lie not from the root of truth

58:35 in a word where your bishop to be asked where he sits

58:38 in the city will he be able to say on Peter's cathedral

58:42 i doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it and schismatic

58:45 that he is he has not drawn nigh to Peter's shrine behold

58:49 in Rome are the shrines of the two apostles will you tell

58:53 me whether he has been able to approach them or has

58:57 offered sacrifice in those places where as is certain are these shrines

59:01 of the saints end quote what is interesting here is the revelation

59:06 that the Donatus immediately after their schism sent someone to Rome

59:11 to be an antipope which clearly

59:13 demonstrates the common understanding of the necessity

59:16 of having a bishop in Rome st optatus comments on this fact

59:20 saying quote Victor that is the first Donatist antipope would not

59:24 have been able had he been asked where he sat to show

59:28 that anyone had been there before him nor could he have

59:32 pointed out that he possessed any cathedral save the cathedra of pestilence

59:37 for pestilence sent down its victims destroyed by diseases to the regions

59:42 of hell which are known to have their gates gates against which we

59:46 read that Peter received the saving keys peter that is to say

59:50 the first of our line to whom it was said by Christ

59:54 to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven

59:57 and these keys the gates of hell shall not overcome how is

1:00:00 it then that you strive to usurp for yourselves the keys

1:00:03 of the kingdom of heaven you who with your arguments and audacious

1:00:08 sacrilege war against the chair of Peter end quote the Donatus

1:00:11 objected to this that even while they might not have the chair

1:00:15 of Peter in Rome we see from scripture that St peter denied

1:00:19 his Lord and therefore they could withdraw communion from him on the basis

1:00:24 of his faults yet St optatus completely refutes this reading of scripture

1:00:28 showing that despite his personal faults the apostles stayed in communion

1:00:33 with Peter and therefore we too must remain in communion

1:00:36 with the Cathedral Petri in Rome despite the faults present in the person

1:00:40 of the pope he writes quote we see that this unity was

1:00:44 preferred to punishment by Christ himself

1:00:46 who chose that all his disciples should

1:00:49 be in unity rather than punish a sin against himself for as he

1:00:54 did not wish to be denied he declared that whosoever should

1:00:58 deny him before men him would he deny before his father

1:01:02 and though this has been thus written nevertheless for the sake of unity

1:01:06 blessed Peter for whom it would have been enough if after

1:01:10 his denial he had obtained pardon only both deserve to be placed

1:01:14 over all the apostles and alone received the keys of the kingdom

1:01:19 of heaven which he was to communicate to the rest so

1:01:22 from this example it is given us to understand that for the sake

1:01:27 of unity sin should be buried since the most blessed apostle

1:01:31 Paul says that charity cover a multitude of sins end quote in fact

1:01:36 this passage is so strong that many anti-atholics have sought to bastardize

1:01:42 this both Gallicans and Anglicans as it says in the text

1:01:46 quote "Blessed Peter both deserve to be placed over all the apostles

1:01:50 and alone received the kingdom of heaven which he was to communicate

1:01:54 to the rest." End quote evie Pusy and Edward Denny both Anglo

1:01:58 Catholics following Basuet a Gallicanin all bastardized this text both adding

1:02:03 Acristo or from Christ after the statement communicate to the rest so

1:02:07 as to change the sense of the passage from Peter giving the keys

1:02:11 to the other apostles to Christ giving the keys to the other

1:02:15 apostles but after Peter evie Pusy attempts to quote the original

1:02:19 version by Dupin mentioned above to show that there is a textual

1:02:24 variant but no such note is found it is clear from this text

1:02:28 as well as earlier in book 1 chapter 10 that St

1:02:31 optatus means to say that Peter received the keys directly from Christ

1:02:35 and the other apostles directly from Peter in the earlier passage

1:02:39 he mentioned quote the keys which Peter alone received end quote further

1:02:44 a second bastardization of this text would need to occur as well

1:02:48 that is whereas St octatus says that Peter alone Solus received

1:02:52 the keys from Christ the Anglican interpreters would need to interpret it

1:02:56 as Peter first primus received from Christ this objective standard of schism

1:03:01 is the one which is followed by Catholic authors to this day

1:03:05 and provides us with a standard for determining where schismatics are

1:03:09 to be found versus where those truly in communion with the church

1:03:13 of Christ are to be found that a man can say such

1:03:20 things as infallible statements this is

1:03:25 not orthodox this is heterodox and that's

1:03:30 the problem with the Catholic Church is it's really just a big

1:03:34 humanist institution there was no western attendance it was presided over

1:03:37 someone who was in schism with Rome who died out of communion

1:03:41 with Rome and you know the Roman Catholic Church uses no salvation

1:03:43 outside the church so how exactly does that work they were

1:03:46 waiting for the pope's magic signature even though there was no western

1:03:50 attendance you can also look at Trulo there's many examples of oh

1:03:54 they weren't just waiting for the pope's signature to magically make it

1:03:57 an ecumenical council you can also look a third ecumenical council where

1:04:00 there is no western attendance they weren't like oh guys we need

1:04:03 the bishop of Rome to sign if we need the bishop

1:04:06 of Rome first off the first council of Constantinople was not the third

1:04:10 ecumenical council was the second it's right there in the screenshot

1:04:15 second the Wikipedia article says directly

1:04:18 that the first council of Constantinople

1:04:20 was not seen as an ecumenical council until Calcidon if one wants

1:04:25 to see how devastating this is to Kyle's claims here's a fantastic

1:04:30 video between two Catholics and an oriental orthodox who agree that Calcedon

1:04:35 was a clear example of the Pope exercising papal supremacy finally

1:04:40 Theodor who preserved a senotical letter

1:04:42 from the council records that the council

1:04:45 fathers in 381 did want to have the council in row

1:04:49 but due to justified reasons they had to keep the council

1:04:52 in Constantinople this at least shows they had some ascent from the Pope

1:04:58 has its states though as we have already said we needs

1:05:03 must labor all the longer since however you showed your brotherly love

1:05:08 to us by inviting us as though we were your own members

1:05:12 by the letters of our most religious emperor to the cinnid which

1:05:17 you are gathering by divine permission at Rome however Carl isn't getting

1:05:22 off this easy it's super clear that the events around thin noble

1:05:26 and the Malaysian schism actually prove papal [Music] supremacy pope St

1:05:34 thanosis the 37th pope in the line of St peter was elected

1:05:41 as pope by a large majority in the month of October in 366

1:05:46 while Pope St dannysus was mostly known as the pope who presided

1:05:50 over the council of Rome and the promulgation of the Bulgate

1:05:53 he was actually quite instrumental in the weed up to Constantinople 1

1:05:57 between 376 and 377 St jerome wrote a letter to pope themesis

1:06:02 on a request for the pope to pronounce some sort of decree

1:06:07 or creed that would be universally binding on the church he states

1:06:12 "If you think fit enact a decree and then I shall not

1:06:15 hesitate to speak of three hypoases order a new creed to supersede

1:06:20 the nyine and then whether we are Aryans or orthodox one confession

1:06:25 will do for us all." The background to this request is

1:06:29 interesting because it shows that contrary to Kyle's claims that I mean

1:06:32 we can see again the bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction all

1:06:35 these like the bishop of Rome the let the choice of the majority

1:06:38 prevail they're not just appealing and the bishop of Rome is not

1:06:41 a dictator of the faith like it is in the Roman Catholic

1:06:45 system there absolutely is a case of universal jurisdiction let's give some

1:06:49 context to this quote in 330 St eustaceius of Antioch a great

1:06:54 friend of St ages and a defender of Nyian creed was

1:06:58 deposed and exiled by a Ucibius of Mikamedia and Ninod and Antioch

1:07:03 on a false charge of modalism or the doctrine that the three

1:07:08 persons are actually just one person from that point onward Antioch was

1:07:12 placed under the jurisdiction of multiple Aryan and semi-aran bishops in 358

1:07:19 a guy by the name of Midius was elected to be

1:07:23 pope of Antioch as the church historian Socrates puts it they sent

1:07:28 for Mletius and invested him with the bishop Rick of the church

1:07:32 at Antioch now he at first avoided all doctrinal questions confining

1:07:37 his discourses to moral subjects but subsequently he expounded to his auditors

1:07:43 the nyine creed and asserted the doctrine of the homosian the emperor

1:07:49 being informed of this ordered that he should be sent into exile

1:07:57 now when Midius's exile was elected there was a man

1:08:00 by the name of Palinus who has consecrated a bishop before his return

1:08:04 and a sort of debate in between the different Nyian Christians erupted

1:08:08 in this letter we read that Jerome believed the Malaysians to be Aryans

1:08:13 for their usage of hypothesis as equating person at this time

1:08:18 many Mistian Christians equated the term hypothesis with essence so the notion

1:08:23 that there are three persons and three hypotheases sound like Aryanism

1:08:28 as Jerome states just now I am sorry to say those aryens

1:08:33 the campenses are trying to extort from me a Roman Christian

1:08:37 their unheard of formula of three hypotheses i ask them what three hypotheses

1:08:43 are supposed to mean they reply three persons subsisting i rejoin

1:08:47 that this is my belief they are not satisfied with the meaning they

1:08:53 demand the term in the whole range of secular learning hypothesis

1:08:58 never means anything but essence it is also interesting to note

1:09:02 that in this letter Jerome appeals to the pope's ineffectability as the basis

1:09:06 by which the Micians would have to accept this correction evil children

1:09:11 have squandered their patrimony you alone keep your heritage intact the fruitful

1:09:17 soil of Rome when it receives the pure seed of the Lord

1:09:23 bears fruit and hundfold but here the seed grain is choked

1:09:28 in the furrows and nothing grows but darn or oats and it gets

1:09:32 better the following quote is a clear affirmation of the divine

1:09:36 institution of the papacy and the necessity to be in communion

1:09:40 with Rome as I follow no leader save Christ so I communicate

1:09:44 with none but your blessedness that is with the chair of Peter

1:09:48 for this I know is the rock on which the church is

1:09:52 built matthew 16:18 this is the house where alone the pascal lamb

1:09:58 can be rightly eaten exodus 12:22 this is the ark of Noah

1:10:04 and he who was not found in it shall perish when the flood

1:10:09 prevails despite Jerome's cle Pope Dammesus rejects this request from Ambrose

1:10:14 and does not produce a new creed which forbids the usage

1:10:19 of the formula of three hypotheses jerome double texting Pope Damasus attempts

1:10:25 again to make a decision on this controversy and states "I meantime keep

1:10:31 crying he who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted

1:10:36 by me." Melius Vitalis and Paulinus all professed to cleave to you

1:10:41 and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one

1:10:46 of them only only by looking at the first portion of the Malaysian

1:10:50 schism we have already established the notion that the pope has

1:10:55 the ability to one promula creed that surpasses my two can enforce

1:11:01 its usage in Antioch three that the pope can do so

1:11:05 on the basis of the indectability of the sea of Rome and four

1:11:09 it can set the visible bounds of the church one name

1:11:13 I mentioned but did not explain was by Talis of Antioch who

1:11:18 is consecrated by Apollina of Leodysier apollerys believed that Christ had no

1:11:24 human soul and thus had no complete human nature both the Malicians

1:11:30 and the Polynous supporters immediately deemed him as a heretic as Father

1:11:34 Clement Rob states a Roman cinnid held in the year 369

1:11:38 under Pope St damascus 366 384 declared that the father and the son

1:11:44 ark of the one divine substance together with the Holy Ghost

1:11:49 in another Roman cinnid held in 374 the pope rejected the teachings

1:11:54 of Macedonius as heretical and here Nedonianism is referenced by St gerrian

1:12:00 Nissa in his on the holy trinity which was originally said

1:12:04 to us as but they reveal more clearly the aim of their argument

1:12:09 as regards the father they admit the fact that he is God

1:12:14 and that the son likewise is honored with the attribute of godhead

1:12:19 but the spirit who is reckoned with the father and the son

1:12:24 they cannot include in their conception of godhead in the year

1:12:28 379 kodosius I became the eastern Roman emperor this changed everything

1:12:34 in 380 Theodosius contracted a deadly illness and began to take his fake

1:12:40 a bit more seriously so he promugated the edict of Thessaloniker which

1:12:45 stated that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the present

1:12:50 declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans and which it

1:12:54 is evident the pontiff Damascus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man

1:12:59 of apostolic sanctity follow that is that according to the apostolic

1:13:05 discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the father

1:13:10 and the son and the holy ghost of equal majesty in a holy

1:13:14 trinity those who follow this law we command shall be comprised

1:13:19 under the name of Catholic Christians now it is interesting that the edict

1:13:24 directly cites the pope of Rome as a successor of St peter

1:13:28 and specifically one who has delivered the faith in fact Franto

1:13:34 Monren states "The edict of Thessalonica that was addressed to the people

1:13:39 of Constantinople recognized officially for the first time and in the East

1:13:45 the exemplary value of Roman communion and Roman primacy justified by apostolic

1:13:51 tradition already recognized by the council of Antioch of 379 which

1:13:56 subscribed to the tome of Damasus it indeed defined orthodoxy as communion

1:14:03 with demisus now certain eastern orthodox apologists such as cried trullia

1:14:07 make the claim that the malicians schism disproves the claim made above

1:14:11 for the following reason ironically St mletius according to a letter

1:14:15 from St jerome never broke communion with the pope yet that same pope

1:14:20 recognized Paulinus and not Mletius it is clear via succession who broke

1:14:26 the peace and was the schismatic Palinus his ilk and the popes

1:14:31 of the late 4th century ironically being that St mlesius's line

1:14:36 of succession eventually won out he was vindicated by history and this is

1:14:41 a crystal clear example that Rome can indisputably go into shism

1:14:46 and no magical mega chair powers can prevent it basically the argument being

1:14:51 made is that since Pope Damsus supported Paulus who is effectively

1:14:56 unconically misstated the fact that the Pope favored Paulus over Malius who

1:15:01 is eventually reinstated as the bishop of Antioch in a council

1:15:05 which was not overseen by the Pope is proof that the principle

1:15:08 of unity with Rome is false but there's a missing piece

1:15:11 of evidence that puts a lot of context to the situation in 379

1:15:16 AD there was a council held by 150 bishops which signed onto

1:15:20 a statement of faith recognized by Rome which defended the Nyian fates

1:15:25 in 377 it was reported as stating that this is the end

1:15:30 of this letter or exposition of the faith of the sin

1:15:33 held at Rome under Pope Damasus and sent into the east

1:15:37 in which the entire Eastern church in a sin held at Antioch believed

1:15:42 with a like faith and all so consenting confirmed this faith

1:15:48 with their signatures i Malichius Bishop

1:15:51 of Antioch consent to everything written above

1:15:55 so believing and teaching and if anyone believes otherwise let him be

1:16:01 Anathema so Malius actually did sign off to a Roman council under Pain

1:16:06 of Ana proving his Orthodoxy he was never actually out of communion

1:16:11 with Rome if you remember before it was only a year

1:16:15 after that emperor Theodosius made it clear that anyone who held Benian

1:16:20 faith was in communion with Rome so the signature of Malevia shows

1:16:23 that with the absence of any explicit condemnation Mius for all intents

1:16:28 and purposes was in full communion with [Music] Rome since the pope

1:16:35 refused to make any clear statement on this matter the quarrel between

1:16:46 Polinus and Midius continued "The supporters of both parties agreed to recognize

1:16:52 either Malletus or Paulinus as the true bishop of Antioch given

1:16:56 the death of one or the other." As Socrates writes "When this was

1:17:00 done a great disturbance arose but afterwards the people were brought

1:17:04 to unite on the following stipulations having assembled such of the clergy

1:17:08 as might be considered worthy candidates for the bishopriick they found them

1:17:13 six in number of whom Flavian was one all these they bound

1:17:18 by an oath not to use any effort to get themselves ordained

1:17:22 when either of the two bishops should die in a recent debate

1:17:26 on the papacy hosted by Reason and Theology Live an Eastern

1:17:29 Orthodox debater sums up what from their side they saw is going

1:17:35 down during the aftermath of this decision made between Colonists and Malius's

1:17:40 supporters what I would contrast that with is the Malaysian schism um

1:17:44 where Rome was on the wrong side and it wasn't until

1:17:48 um in fact they were the only ones that weren't in communion

1:17:52 with the church uh after Constantinople won in 381 um the bishop

1:17:57 that they had appointed Pollenius was not recognized as the true bishop

1:18:01 the true patriarch of Antioch u instead it was uh St flavian

1:18:05 who was recognized as the true bishop of Antioch um and so

1:18:10 the council decides then Alexandria submits

1:18:13 to the council's decision rome attempts

1:18:16 to uh override this and I can actually if you'll let me

1:18:20 I can read their response um uh back to it this is

1:18:24 in the uh the synotical letter of Constantinople 1 this is

1:18:27 their response to to Rome trying to assert this authority it says

1:18:30 although with one voice of consent and respect the bishops of the province

1:18:34 and of the eastern dascese have met together and canonically ordained

1:18:37 this reverend and most religious Flavian as bishop over the most ancient

1:18:41 and truly apostolic church in Syria where the first noble name Christian

1:18:45 was given this rightful ordination was received the sanction of the general

1:18:50 council so again the bishop of Rome tries to appoint his own

1:18:54 bishop in Antioch who's Pollenius the council says "No it's Flavian."

1:18:58 And this was their response when Rome tries to assert that authority

1:19:02 it wasn't until several years later that Rome finally submits to the rest

1:19:06 of the church they were out of communion with the true

1:19:09 patriarch of Antioch but Antioch was still in communion with the true

1:19:11 church so this idea that you have to be in communion

1:19:13 with Rome to be in communion with the true church is is not

1:19:16 found in history it contradicts history as we have demonstrated above

1:19:20 this recollection of history is quite inaccurate first Malidius and Colonus were

1:19:25 both seen as in communion with Rome second Politis was not formally

1:19:30 installed by the Pope rather the Pope simply preferred his nomination without

1:19:35 ever responding to the requests to close the case in Antioch

1:19:39 third the Alexandrians had no love for Flavian originally due to Mius's

1:19:44 rescension of the original deal with Polidus but both the patriarch

1:19:49 of Alexandria and Pope Themesis reconciled

1:19:52 with Flavvenian at the same time nevertheless

1:19:55 those who disliked Flavian on account of his having violated

1:19:59 his oath held their assemblies apart meanwhile Flavian left no stone unturned

1:20:06 as the phrase is to bring these also under his control

1:20:11 and this he soon after affected when he appeased the anger of Theophilus then

1:20:17 bishop of Alexandria by whose mediation he consiliated Damasus Bishop of Rome

1:20:22 also for both these had been greatly displeased with Flavian as well

1:20:28 for the perjury of which he had been guilty as for the schism

1:20:32 he had occasioned among the previously united people fourth the fact

1:20:35 that the insulation was even seen as problematic and Evidarius was being

1:20:38 propped up by certain parties due to the breaking of the oak

1:20:42 showed that the council did nothing to solve the issue at hand

1:20:45 in fact in sources nearly four decades later Rome was seen

1:20:49 as solving the issue under Pope St circus finally choosing Flavvenian

1:20:53 as the rightful bishop of Antioch as Pope bought this rights when

1:20:57 the church of Antioch had been in trouble a long time so

1:21:00 that there was continual passing to and fro for this first under

1:21:05 Malletus afterwards under Flavian it is notorious that the apostolic sea was

1:21:10 consulted by whose authority after many things done by our church everyone

1:21:16 knows that Flavian received the grace of communion which he would have

1:21:20 forfeited forever had not writings gone from hence respecting it so today

1:21:24 we've learned a couple of things about the Malaysian schism the old

1:21:28 adage Roma luta ka panas is quite useful when looking into history

1:21:34 contrary to eastern orthodox claims but first sea is often times

1:21:38 the arbiters of these decisions and two people stretch the evidence a lot

1:21:42 of the case of the militian schism as being an issue

1:21:45 for Roman Catholics is really built out of the inferences from silence

1:21:48 and three the Medians gives them cannot be used as a defeater

1:21:52 for papal supremacist comments in fact if anything it proves our case

1:21:56 i want to close this video with a neat concession I found

1:22:00 by Truglia on this topic our modern debate is always east versus

1:22:04 west Orthodox versus Roman Catholic i don't think we're actually seeing

1:22:08 the bigger point now I think if I were in your your seat

1:22:11 right now you can say well this is consistent with the Vatican

1:22:14 one view of the papacy and you can certainly make

1:22:18 that argument i'm just making the historical point that this was

1:22:21 the relevant point at issue had to do with unity coming from singular

1:22:26 whether the the pope can be a heretic and whether he can

1:22:31 be judged a heretic but really you know how does that work

1:22:35 and that's where the Dominican and Jesuit opinions as Robert Cisco

1:22:38 and I called it in in our book come come into play

1:22:42 because remember uh this is a delicate question because we also know

1:22:46 that the pope has no judge But Christ uh he doesn't have

1:22:50 any earthly authority that can coercively judge him on earth and so

1:22:55 the struggle with all these opinions but most especially uh the fourth

1:23:00 and the fifth deal with that very question the third opinion simply

1:23:05 kind of throws in the towel that says "Hey since the pope

1:23:07 can't be judged even if he is a heretic we got

1:23:10 to wait for him to die because there's nothing we can do

1:23:13 about it." Well that fails to recognize the distinction which Bellereman

1:23:17 and Kadetin and Jonath St thomas and Suarez in Lori and Bo

1:23:23 and all the great minds that have addressed this make which is

1:23:28 uh the church because of the power of the keys and this is

1:23:32 I don't know if this is something I've I've mentioned before

1:23:34 or not but the the power of the keys give the church

1:23:39 the right uh to make judgments um you know concerning uh knowledge

1:23:44 and and power or authority or jurisdiction the clavis uh shenseier which

1:23:49 is the keys of knowledge versus the the clavis potencier which is

1:23:54 the keys of of power or jurisdiction the the the the keys

1:23:59 of of knowledge allow the church without judging the pope to make

1:24:06 a judgment as to whether uh the material and formal uh

1:24:11 elements of the canonical crime of heresy exist and Bellererman is crystal

1:24:17 clear about this he calls it a discretionary judgment and even s

1:24:21 John uh John St thomas even St thomas himself refers to these two

1:24:27 um elements of the keys of knowledge and power in terms

1:24:31 of the key of knowledge the church because the church has

1:24:35 a right to provide for her head uh and because scripture reveals

1:24:41 that the church is supposed to uh avoid a heretic that means

1:24:47 the church would necessarily have the right under divine law to determine

1:24:52 whether the pope is a heretic she does that without coercively judging

1:24:57 the pope by exercising the power of the keys which the college

1:25:02 of bishops share in this case in in determining whether the pope

1:25:08 is guilty of the canonical crime of heresy again I want

1:25:11 to emphasize this this is not consiliarism this is not elevating

1:25:14 the bishops over the pope it's not the pope being judged directly

1:25:18 but as John St thomas says the pope is actually being judged

1:25:22 indirectly because the church has a right to determine in a judgment whether

1:25:27 the matter and form of heresy exist it's a factual judgment

1:25:31 okay are the canonical crime elements of the crime of heresy present

1:25:36 the church has every right to do that you know Bellereman says

1:25:40 one of the um reasons why the college of bishops could convoke

1:25:45 a council even against the pope's will is to provide for the head

1:25:49 to determine whether the pope is a heretic this is uh

1:25:52 a divine right that Christ has given to the college of of bishops

1:25:55 and this is very consistent among all the commentators and so

1:26:02 you distinguish that discretionary judgment and by the way you know

1:26:07 the state of Aantis are are keen to quote de Romano Potifiche

1:26:11 uh on the Roman pontiff but I don't know if they've

1:26:14 read his other works on the councils and on the church militant

1:26:17 and on the marks of the church because Bellererman actually gets

1:26:20 into more detail about uh when you can uh determine that a pope

1:26:25 is a manifest heretic and it's

1:26:27 through the discretionary judgment which Bellereman

1:26:30 says then leads to a conviction of heresy bellererman specifically says and we

1:26:36 have an article Cisco and I on our our website

1:26:39 on this Bellereman says that the church can invoke an imperfect council if

1:26:44 it's against the Pope's will and make a judgment discretionarily that the pope

1:26:49 is guilty of heresy that is a conviction now still Christian

1:26:53 this is not a coercive judgment this is only the exercise

1:26:57 of the church's right to exercise the keys of of knowledge to determine

1:27:01 whether this man is a heretic it's non-coercive they're not uh

1:27:04 judging the pope but because the church has a right to provide

1:27:08 for the head once it makes this determination um both Bellereman

1:27:13 and the Jesuits and uh the Dominicans recognize that Christ is the one

1:27:19 who severs the bond okay now under the Jesuit opinion we're

1:27:23 not I know we're not quite there yet but in the Jesuit

1:27:28 opinion uh this would happen when the discretionary judgment is made

1:27:32 and the pope is convicted of heresy then in the in the Jesuit

1:27:37 opinion Christ would sever the bond and then the church because he's

1:27:42 no longer the pope can make a coercive judgment over him you

1:27:47 see by excommunicating and dep and and deposing him uh overseeing

1:27:51 his deposition and and removal so um that's kind of a long- winded

1:27:55 answer but I wanted to tee that up because it's important

1:27:59 as we discuss the fourth and the fifth opinion to recognize this distinction

1:28:04 between a discretionary judgment which is a judgment of the facts

1:28:08 which is non-coercive and then uh and and results in a conviction

1:28:13 and the coercive judgment which then oversees the punishment and deposition

1:28:18 of the former pope so uh that if if I'm getting this correct

1:28:24 okay so we have the the pope i I'll use a random

1:28:29 pope from history i don't want to use Pope Francis and I

1:28:32 know that'll get clipped or something i don't know uh Pope Pas

1:28:35 I 7th uh let's say so I don't know i I've never

1:28:39 read anything about Pope Pius the 7th so nothing personal against him

1:28:42 uh Pope Pius the 7th he's he's you know he's an occult

1:28:47 heretic and he starts you know preaching different heretical things yeah

1:28:52 and then at at this point in order to go from a cult

1:29:00 and publicly expressing that to notorious by law you would need

1:29:06 somehow the intervention of the church and the um and this process

1:29:13 is through a sort of investigative process this would be like analogous

1:29:18 to the way in which um various investigators of a crime function

1:29:22 and then bring it to prosecution versus like the actual you know

1:29:27 um judgment of guilt in court like is that is that kind

1:29:30 of a a good distinction to make between the two yeah

1:29:33 al although in the civil context we have to remember that you

1:29:37 know the courts do have a course of authority over the defendant

1:29:41 although it's right to say that it's it's similar in that the jury

1:29:46 doesn't right the jury is nothing more than a finder

1:29:49 of fact and doesn't have a course of authority but after they

1:29:52 render the judgment the judge then renders the sentence so there

1:29:56 is a similarity there is a similarity there but just stepping back

1:30:00 a bit again I want to emphasize that the church has these are

1:30:04 opinions we're talking about and I think the fourth and the fifth

1:30:08 opinion are the are one of them is correct and I

1:30:11 and I tend to think the Dominicans got it right as usual

1:30:15 but um the process is actually rooted even though this hasn't been

1:30:20 dogmatized the process is rooted in scripture in divine law and revelation titus

1:30:25 3:10 St paul's letter to Titus where uh he says after you

1:30:31 know two admonitions uh warn uh warnings you know avoid the heretic

1:30:36 and so the opinions which hold that the church has a right

1:30:42 to judge whether the pope is a heretic and and and then

1:30:47 oversee his removal from office both those opinions even though they

1:30:52 differ in actually how the process is is completed they all agree

1:30:58 that the process has to start with ecclesiastical warnings because that's

1:31:03 the only way to establish the matter in the form which are

1:31:06 the elements of the canonical crime of heresy and so as you

1:31:11 know Cardinal Burke called it a formal correction well I think he

1:31:15 was referring to uh a a a warning in the context

1:31:20 of the holy father these would be warnings that are issued in fraternal

1:31:25 correction again they would not be jeritically coercive over the pope

1:31:30 as and St thomas Aquinas talks about this as as being warnings

1:31:35 of fraternal correction because inferiors have a right to and even

1:31:39 a duty to warn their superiors when their salvation is at stake so

1:31:44 the church would issue ecclesiastical warnings

1:31:47 which would constitute warnings of fraternal

1:31:49 correction hopefully to get the pope to repent if if uh

1:31:53 if the pope would refuse then the church has a right

1:31:56 and Bellereman and and John St thomas are very clear about this they

1:31:59 would have a right uh to invoke what they call an imperfect

1:32:03 council john St thomas goes into a lot of detail about

1:32:06 this imperfect it could be perfect if the pope calls the council

1:32:10 and agrees to it it's imperfect if it's you know called against

1:32:13 his will but the but the church has a right to do

1:32:17 that uh after the warnings were not heeded then the church has

1:32:21 the right to issue this discretionary judgment whereby it would in Bellereman's

1:32:25 words not my words in Bellereman's words it would convict the pope

1:32:30 of heresy and then the question becomes what happens next

1:32:34 but my point Christian there is in these two predominant opinions they all

1:32:39 agree that there is a process of warnings ecclesiastic warnings from proper

1:32:44 authority that would lead to either the pope's repentance um or conviction

1:32:50 and we have an example of this with Pope Marcelinus uh

1:32:56 in uh around 30 304 AD where Marcelinus and and the circumstances are

1:33:01 often debated but the bottom line is he engaged in an act

1:33:05 of false public worship he offered incense to pagan deity Jupiter okay

1:33:11 um putting the circumstances aside um he was called a heretic

1:33:16 for that and the uh the bishops got together uh and summoned him

1:33:22 to confront him about you know this external act of heresy

1:33:25 and when you read this this is a long time ago this goes

1:33:29 all the way back you know you know into the 300s

1:33:33 but uh even back then the church knew that they didn't have

1:33:37 any jeritical or course of force over the pope so they told

1:33:40 Marcelinus "We do not judge you judge yourself judge yourself." And Marcelinus

1:33:46 did judge himself and did resign in shame but guess what happened

1:33:51 he repented he was reelected to the throne of Peter and died

1:33:55 a martyr St marcelina so this is a beautiful example of where

1:34:00 the process of ecclesiastical warnings and this imperfect council uh resulted

1:34:05 in uh his his repentance um but that's the that's the process

1:34:11 that all the theologians agree to you know warnings based on revelation

1:34:15 to establish the actual fact uh that the uh the pope

1:34:19 is a heretic okay so at once we get to the fact

1:34:24 level so Pas the 7th let's say he's preaching something crazy

1:34:29 about some dogma and then there's the so at at this point

1:34:35 right when we get to the preaching to the ecclesiastical factf finding

1:34:38 mission is there any dispute that's going to go on with who

1:34:43 who finds the facts is it the cardinals ecumenical council a local

1:34:47 council who are the factf finders because I can I can imagine

1:34:51 that this um this question of uh whether this or that council

1:34:56 or this or that body of uh individuals are allowed to have

1:35:00 the authority i can I can assume that this is going

1:35:03 to be something which is contentious yeah that's a great that's a great

1:35:08 question i mean it would some theologians have held that it

1:35:11 would be the elector cardinals but I think uh the more uh

1:35:16 likely and predominant opinion is it would have to be an imperfect

1:35:21 council because an imperfect council will

1:35:23 actually represent the universal church okay

1:35:25 and and so that would be um that would be the distinction

1:35:29 that I would make uh there and I would say that because

1:35:34 um both Bellererman and um and Jonath St thomas you know said

1:35:39 it and they were kind of the you know the the two

1:35:43 predominant theologians of their respective you

1:35:44 know groups you know that address

1:35:46 the question so uh again it's an opinion but the opinion

1:35:51 would be would have to be a representation of the universal

1:35:54 church because the pope is the universal shepherd you know and teacher

1:35:58 of the the entire church and so uh an imperfect council again

1:36:01 an opinion but an imperfect council u meaning the pope wouldn't be

1:36:06 heading that council would be required yeah I can imagine that this would

1:36:11 uh um because I'm aware of Suarez's opinion that a even

1:36:15 a local council could do this but I can imagine

1:36:19 the the difficulty that this would pose because uh we we could think

1:36:23 about you know a group of 20 bishops and five cardinals

1:36:27 could they come out and then anmatize the pope and you know

1:36:30 how how do we go here it would seem like it would

1:36:32 need to be some sort of council like Vatican 2 that has

1:36:36 basically every bishop in the world there um participating in this council

1:36:41 a vast vast moral majority of the bishops um supporting

1:36:44 this and all the cardinals and everything like that i I could

1:36:48 imagine that it would have to be something like that even for it

1:36:50 to be feasible i agree and that and that's why I think

1:36:54 you know Bellereman held held that position along with uh Janna St

1:36:59 thomas a representation of of the universal church mhm so we have

1:37:03 at this point uh we have the ecclesiastical find factf finding mission

1:37:07 and they they go in and they um judge that um there

1:37:12 is this issue so how do we get from that to now

1:37:17 pope is no longer pope where where this is this is

1:37:22 where unfortunately um our our two great doctors uh St robert

1:37:27 Bellereamine and John of St thomas depart from one another is

1:37:31 is kind of this these steps although to clarify as we've clarified

1:37:34 before the practical steps are basically the same it's kind of a question

1:37:38 of uh of a more speculative matter of what happens between

1:37:43 those two points correct so we've established that and and Cisco

1:37:47 and I kind of came up with this um distinction between Jesuit

1:37:52 and Dominican opinion to our knowledge that was wasn't out there we

1:37:55 just thought that was kind of a a useful way to do

1:37:58 it and actually I want to mention when I wrote

1:38:02 an article on sativantism going on 10 years as I was studying

1:38:06 this for a very long time i actually noticed Christian that while

1:38:10 the sativantists were saying that Bellereman disagreed

1:38:13 with Suarez on this I didn't see

1:38:16 that in the writings and I I had written an article

1:38:19 on s of a contantist and I put a footnote in that article

1:38:23 saying that they only held seemingly in opposite opinions but they

1:38:26 actually agreed with each other even though not only all say just

1:38:29 all say of a contantist but other theologians like wors and bal

1:38:33 and even uh uh des Salvera held that they differed in their opinion

1:38:38 they didn't understand Suarez's opinion and in in Bellereman's opinion at least

1:38:42 on the question of the heretical pope and when he loses

1:38:45 his office they were in complete agreement uh they held that uh

1:38:50 after the warnings and after the conviction um at that point Christ

1:38:56 would then depose the pope and Suarez is clear that after the conviction

1:39:04 there has to be a declaration to the church and the state

1:39:10 of Aantis have said well Bellereman never required a declaration Suarez did

1:39:16 so Bellereman disagrees with Suarez president

1:39:18 were going to side with with Bellereman

1:39:21 that's not the case uh Jorre even says and actually Jonath

1:39:25 St thomas even says that both Bellereman and Suarez held that after

1:39:30 the conviction the church would have to declare that the pope

1:39:34 is encouraable okay so Bellereman did hold that there has to be

1:39:39 a declaration after all how would the church know about it

1:39:42 if it wasn't declared and when Bellererman says that the pope loses

1:39:46 his office ipsso facto without a you know judicial sentence here's where

1:39:50 we get into the misunderstanding that the state of econ bellererman wasn't

1:39:54 saying he loses his office without an antecedent judgment of the church

1:39:58 all of this is based upon the uh process of canonical warnings

1:40:03 and a canonical conviction okay which is an antecedent judgment of the church

1:40:09 that then results in Christ deposing the pope at that point

1:40:13 Bellereman and Suarez and the Jesuits held that that's all that needed

1:40:19 to happen once the conviction and declaration were rendered uh Christ

1:40:24 then as the efficient cause would come in and sever the bond

1:40:30 at that point the Dominicans were much more careful uh and much

1:40:35 more nuanced and I I love how Cardinal Joure says "The Dominicans

1:40:40 um were more uh their their opinion is more penetrating they were

1:40:44 very careful about dealing with this delicate question of of not

1:40:49 wanting to to judge the pope." And so the Dominicans agree

1:40:55 with the Jesuits cadetin and Jon St thomas agree with Bellereman and Suarez

1:41:01 uh regarding the process of ecclesiastical

1:41:03 warnings because after all that's part

1:41:06 of divine revelation avoid the heretic after the warnings and the the absolute

1:41:11 requirement of the church to convict uh or to establish

1:41:16 the fact of the crime and conviction of heresy but whereas the uh

1:41:22 the Jesuits said at that point Christ comes and severs and he

1:41:27 therefore by the fact if facto by the fact of what

1:41:31 by the fact of the church's anticcedent judgment which is a condition

1:41:35 for the losses office by the fact of the conviction he loses

1:41:40 his office without a further uh judicial sentence or jeritical act bellereman

1:41:47 was arguing against Kagetin who actually required an additional jeritical act

1:41:53 um by the church and what Kagetin and and John St thomas

1:41:58 in in great clarity and lucidity said is because we want to be

1:42:02 careful here about the church actually judging the pope we are not

1:42:07 going to hold the the the Jesuit opinion which says

1:42:11 that the church judges uh um or separates from from the pope let

1:42:16 me put it that way we hold the position that the pope

1:42:19 is actually separating on his own from the church and they held

1:42:24 Christian because after the conviction

1:42:26 they didn't believe Christ automatically severed

1:42:28 the bond at that point they believe that there was an extra

1:42:32 step a ministerial yet jeritical step whereby the church now has

1:42:37 to communicate to the faithful that this man is a heretic and he

1:42:42 must be avoided and they base it on revelation i mean it's

1:42:45 beautiful how the Dominicans have tied their opinion specifically to the plain

1:42:49 meaning of the revealed scriptures how does the church avoid uh

1:42:54 the heretic pope if it's not commanded to do so right so

1:43:00 the church has to have an ability to understand if he's

1:43:03 a heretic and that he must be avoided so in the Dominican opinion

1:43:06 there's this extra step where the church issues a what's called

1:43:10 a vitandus declaration it's a jeritical act not over the pope but it's

1:43:15 a jeritical act over the faithful telling the faithful you must

1:43:19 avoid the pope as a heretic and you know the way John

1:43:24 St thomas you know explains it and you beautiful uh Dominican theology

1:43:27 he says here's where the church acts upon uh uh directly upon

1:43:31 the matter uh but not the form the matter is the man

1:43:35 and the form is the pontificate uh what what John St thomas

1:43:39 says is by declaring to the church that this man must be

1:43:44 avoided we're not coercively judging this man we're telling you to avoid

1:43:48 the pope the the the fallen pope it's by that declaration

1:43:52 of avoiding him that renders the man impotent to govern the church

1:43:58 so the the declaration renders him impotent or unable to carry

1:44:03 the form of the pontificate and that's under the Dominican opinion where Christ

1:44:09 then severs the bond and the Dominican theologians often use you know

1:44:13 procreation and death as an example where you know the generative act

1:44:18 of of procreation that doesn't create the form right of man it

1:44:22 doesn't create the soul and neither does death directly touch the form

1:44:26 or the soul the matter is is simply incapable of sustaining

1:44:30 the form and so the vitandus declaration of the Dominican opinion renders

1:44:35 the matter incapable of sustaining the form it renders the pope incapable

1:44:41 of of um governing as pope of the pont pontificate and so

1:44:46 you see that subtle but most beautiful distinction there where the church's

1:44:51 conviction is only the dispositive cause of the pope's falling just

1:44:57 like the cardinal electors and the pope's consent of accepting the pontificate

1:45:01 is the dispositive cause of his election it's Christ who joins

1:45:05 the matter in the form and it's Christ who severs the matter

1:45:08 in the form so sorry for the long- winded discussion but it's

1:45:12 important to note that there are subtle distinctions here but none

1:45:16 of this helps santis because all of this is done under the authority

1:45:22 of the Catholic Church often you'll hear Protestants set of a contests

1:45:29 and other enemies of the church quote a certain passage from St

1:45:35 paul's epistle to the Galatians and this passage in St paul's

1:45:40 epistle they will use as a foundation for their approach to reading

1:45:45 the documents of the current magisterium they'll read them and they'll

1:45:50 judge whether this is in accordance with previous teaching and if they

1:45:55 judge this is in accordance with previous teaching then they'll accept it

1:45:59 but if they judge that this is contrary to previous teaching then

1:46:03 they will reject it and they think that this supposed right is

1:46:07 based on what St paul says in Galatians 1:es 8 and 9

1:46:13 there St paul renders anathema the teaching of even apostles or angels

1:46:19 if they contradict the previous teaching therefore these authors will reason

1:46:24 that it is perfectly within their right to look at the contemporary

1:46:29 teaching and see that the modern Catholic Church has departed

1:46:33 from the teaching of the previous Catholic Church or if you're a Protestant

1:46:38 they'll say that the church of Trent the trident church the church

1:46:42 of the post-reformation the medieval church has departed from the early

1:46:47 church and they will feel free to give all of these anathemas

1:46:52 of the teaching of the magisterium because according to this teaching from St

1:46:58 paul it's even possible for apostles to depart from the teaching of Christ

1:47:03 from the original divine revelation then obviously it's also possible

1:47:08 for the magisterium so therefore we should be able to depart as much

1:47:13 as we can as much as we wish as much as we're

1:47:15 able to discern that they are out of line with the previous

1:47:20 teaching but is this exactly what the passage means does this passage

1:47:24 provide any sort of justification

1:47:27 for considering the possibility of the contemporary

1:47:30 magisterium of departing from the previous

1:47:33 magisterium is this present in the text

1:47:36 or is this not present in the text obviously since I'm

1:47:40 doing this video and since I'm stating in this way and since

1:47:44 I'm defending the magisterium of the church obviously I don't think

1:47:48 this is possible but it is easy to see how this is

1:47:52 possible when we look at the context of the text when we

1:47:55 look at what is meant to be accomplished by the text

1:47:59 and finally when we look at the historic interpretation of this text both

1:48:04 from the fathers and the medievals

1:48:07 and also even the post-reformation theologians

1:48:10 but first let's read this text it states quote "But even if

1:48:16 we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel

1:48:19 contrary to the one we preached you let him be accursed."

1:48:22 As we have said before so now I say again if anyone

1:48:26 is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received

1:48:29 let him be accursed." End quote in order to read this text

1:48:33 properly we need to know what was the occasion for the text

1:48:36 why did St paul even write this epistle to the Galatians

1:48:40 in the first place well we see that the reason for him writing

1:48:43 the epistle which we can see both in this epistle in the acts

1:48:48 of the apostles and then also from the other epistles was

1:48:52 to oppose a certain heretical group and this heretical group was known

1:48:57 as the Judaizers the Judaizers basically thought that in order to receive

1:49:02 the grace of Christ in order to be justified to pass

1:49:06 from a state of sin to a state of righteousness or a state

1:49:10 of justice that you needed to somehow practice the old law

1:49:14 and this practice the old law primarily took the form of circumcision

1:49:19 circumcision was what grafted people into the old covenant so therefore

1:49:25 in order to become a member of the new covenant according

1:49:28 to these individuals you would need to first become a member

1:49:31 of the old covenant gentiles couldn't

1:49:34 just become Christians gentiles for them had

1:49:36 to first become Jews when it comes to this epistle in particular

1:49:41 we see some of the most heated rhetoric from the other Paul

1:49:45 and for good reason i mean he goes so far as to tell

1:49:50 the Judaizers to castrate themselves if they think that we need

1:49:54 the old law in order to be justified in fact

1:49:57 in this epistle he goes so far as not only to say

1:50:01 that the old law does not currently justify but that the old

1:50:04 law never justified rather he argues that justice righteousness is not found

1:50:09 in the works of the law whether they be ceremonial works

1:50:14 or moral works rather we can't change ourselves we can't bring ourselves

1:50:19 into a state of justice rather what's needed is the grace of Christ

1:50:24 to transform us to work within us both to will and to work

1:50:28 and to infuse within us by grace in virtue of the merits

1:50:32 of Christ faith which works by love and this is true justice

1:50:36 not the works of the law st thomas in his commentary

1:50:41 on Galatians explains this well he says quote "Works are not the cause

1:50:45 making one to be just before God rather they are the carrying

1:50:49 out and manifestation of justice for no one is made just before

1:50:53 God by works but by the habit of faith not acquired

1:50:57 but infused and therefore as many as seek to be justified by works

1:51:01 or under a curse because sin is not removed nor anyone

1:51:04 justified in the sight of God by them but by the habit

1:51:08 of faith vivified by charity." End quote and this is substantially simply

1:51:13 the teaching of the council of Trent which can be read in session

1:51:18 six and also what is helpful is the explanations given by the trident

1:51:23 father Domingo deto who is explicitly explaining the teachings of Trent

1:51:27 in responding to the teachings of the Protestants anyways chapters 1

1:51:31 through 4 of this epistle are meant to refute these teachers st

1:51:36 paul brings forth many arguments both from authority and from reason

1:51:41 in order to refute the Judaizers now he splits this into two

1:51:46 sections in chapters 3-4 he refutes on the basis of the old

1:51:50 law especially on the basis of the example of Abraham to prove

1:51:54 that it was never works that justified it was always faith

1:51:58 that justified but in the first two chapters he does something interesting

1:52:02 and these first two chapters since obviously the quoted hand is

1:52:06 from the first chapter are going

1:52:07 to provide the immediate context of the interpretation

1:52:11 of the passage in the first two chapters he doesn't argue

1:52:16 from the Old Testament he argues from the apostolic witness verses 8-9

1:52:22 actually function as the beginning of this section after the greeting

1:52:26 that you get in the first five verses so this right here is

1:52:30 the introduction that you get to the section where he proves

1:52:33 from the apostolic teaching that we are not justified by works of the law

1:52:38 but by grace through faith he says quote but even if

1:52:41 we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel

1:52:45 contrary to the one we preached to you let him be

1:52:48 accursed as we have said before so say so now I say

1:52:52 again if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one

1:52:56 you received let him be accursed end quote now as I

1:53:00 said before this is a passage which is the preface

1:53:04 to an argument from apostolic authority

1:53:07 so obviously to interpret this as somehow

1:53:10 questioning authority since he includes the apostles in the anathema if they

1:53:16 teach against the gospel then they are to be anathema he's including

1:53:20 these apostles before he goes on to prove this teaching by apostolic

1:53:25 authority so obviously it is from the beginning quite silly to use

1:53:28 this in the way that the Protestants or the set of accountantists

1:53:31 use this because if they were to be consistent they would

1:53:35 actually have to admit the possibility of the apostles themselves going against

1:53:40 the teaching of the apostles or angels themselves going against the teaching

1:53:45 of angels really it is quite obvious that this is a hypothetical

1:53:48 statement as we'll get to in a second so from the beginning

1:53:52 it's obvious that it would completely overturn the entire argument

1:53:55 of St paul if we were to interpret it in the way

1:53:58 in which the set of accountantis and the Protestants interpret this rather

1:54:01 there's a much simpler way of reading this that not only is

1:54:05 in accordance with the placement of the passage in the entire epistle

1:54:09 and the purpose of prefacing it to a discussion of apostolic authority

1:54:13 it also is the reading that was traditionally taken by Catholic exed

1:54:17 so it's the traditional position of the church fathers what we have

1:54:21 to realize is that these false teachers as is reported by St

1:54:26 johnum were quoting the authority of the apostles in order to bolster

1:54:31 their claims they were saying that they had heard St james

1:54:35 or St john support this teaching they quoted them in support of Judaizing

1:54:40 now St paul had two options of how he would respond

1:54:44 to this he could either go through and refute them one by one

1:54:48 he could get the testimony of St james get the testimony

1:54:52 of St john and he could also refute the individual statements and that's

1:54:56 how he could write this epistle he could do that which

1:55:00 would be obviously impossible due to the limits of the ancient world

1:55:04 and communication or on the other hand he could head off

1:55:07 the objection and rather than choosing the former he chose the latter he

1:55:12 headed off the objection which was given from these figures he said

1:55:16 that really you quote as many quotes from the apostles as you

1:55:20 want you could appeal to the authority of all of the apostles

1:55:23 you could appeal to the authority of me you could have

1:55:26 a quote from me disagreeing with myself you could have quotes

1:55:30 from angels you could appeal to anybody's authority it doesn't matter because if

1:55:35 these authorities notice the if there if these authorities happen to disagree

1:55:40 with the gospel once preached let them be anathema i don't care

1:55:44 what they say because they're disagreeing with what was once preached

1:55:49 now obviously this doesn't somehow imply that it's possible for an angel

1:55:54 or that it's possible for an apostle to disagree with the teaching

1:55:59 once preached rather it's simply heading off all of these objections and saying

1:56:03 "Hey we can all agree that this is what we once preached."

1:56:06 So it doesn't matter if they quote this author or that author

1:56:10 even if it's real which it isn't real but even if

1:56:14 it's real who cares it doesn't really matter because we already have

1:56:18 the preaching that we once laid down at the beginning this is

1:56:22 the argument that St paul is bringing forward in this passage

1:56:25 it's quite a brilliant argument but I wanted to go over three

1:56:29 devices in particular that he is using in these two verses first

1:56:34 he's using a conditional statement what is a conditional statement a conditional

1:56:38 statement is an if then statement for example if I said

1:56:42 if pigs fly then they have wings that would be a conditional

1:56:46 statement it doesn't mean that it's possible it simply means that if

1:56:49 one happens to be true then the other happens to be true

1:56:53 both of those could be false and both of those could be

1:56:57 impossible rather it's simply looking at the linking between what's called

1:57:01 the antecedent and the consequent second

1:57:03 the teaching is hypothetical what is hypothetical

1:57:06 hypothetical means that you posit some sort of hypothesis that if

1:57:12 I were to concede that the condition is true in the conditional

1:57:16 if I were to concede that the angels themselves were teaching against

1:57:20 the gospel then let them be anathema that's the hypothetical right there

1:57:25 if I were to concede that pigs were flying then I

1:57:29 would equally concede that they had wings that's what a hypothetical is

1:57:33 a hypothetical is never meant to state what is uh absolutely possible

1:57:37 it's never meant to state that it's even true rather it's meant

1:57:42 to simply posit a hypothesis third you have hyperbole hyperbole is very

1:57:48 important hyperbole is really meant

1:57:50 to overexaggerate oral effect and actually here

1:57:54 it's placed next to what's called an aforori argument an afori argument

1:58:00 is basically an argument where you argue from the stronger to the less

1:58:05 so if I said for example I am above 6 ft

1:58:09 therefore I am above 5 ft that would be an afori argument

1:58:13 i'm arguing since I meet the higher condition therefore the lower condition

1:58:17 is obviously true and there's something very interesting going on here because

1:58:21 he's connecting the hypothetical the conditional and the hyperbolic in order

1:58:25 to make a very strong afor argument he's stating that if an angel

1:58:30 which obviously angel higher than apostle which is higher than false

1:58:34 teacher if an angel says this if even an angel comes down

1:58:38 from heaven in fact Cornelius Alaped takes us further and he even

1:58:42 says if God himself said this if God himself contradicted the previous

1:58:47 teaching then obviously we go with the previous teaching if the angel

1:58:51 himself comes down from heaven and contradicts the former teaching we

1:58:56 keep with the previous teaching we offer anathema to anything and anybody

1:59:01 who wants to go against the previous teaching so this completely

1:59:05 neuters all of the arguments that are being brought forward by the Judaizers

1:59:10 the Judaizers could bring forth any authority they felt like it

1:59:13 wouldn't matter because the apostle Paul in a very intelligent in a very

1:59:18 brilliant move has cut off all of them right from the beginning

1:59:23 so that's the purpose of this passage but what does this imply

1:59:27 about the argument that the Protestants and the set of accountants

1:59:30 bring forward what this implies is that it's a very stupid argument

1:59:34 because really what their argument is is since there is this conditional

1:59:39 hyperbolic hypothetical statement made by St paul therefore as a practice we

1:59:45 should expect this obviously this is a completely ridiculous argument to make

1:59:50 it's not like St paul was telling the Galatians "Hey u

1:59:54 I'm giving you this conditional hyperbolic

1:59:56 hypothetical statement and therefore you should

2:00:00 routinely expect the apostles to possibly

2:00:03 contradict the previous teaching and therefore

2:00:05 you should just stop listening to the apostolic authority." This is ridiculous

2:00:08 we see throughout the entirety of the New Testament that the apostles

2:00:13 are binding authentic authoritative sources

2:00:15 of divine revelation that hold the highest

2:00:19 place of authority in the New Testament church so obviously this does

2:00:23 not at all imply that the ecclesiastical magisterium is defectable and therefore

2:00:28 the ecclesiastical magisterium we always need to keep in our minds

2:00:32 this possibility that it'll defect from the truth we always need to be

2:00:36 prepared to lay anathema against the ecclesiastical magisterium and we can't

2:00:40 uh ever trust it it's obviously a ridiculous implication because this is

2:00:45 merely a condition this is merely hypothetical this is merely hyperbolic

2:00:49 this is obvious to anybody who is reading this in the context

2:00:53 of the epistle to the Galatians in accordance with the reading

2:00:57 of the holy fathers of the theologians and of our best exites

2:01:01 as a bit of a side note this argument from St paul

2:01:06 actually could be quite helpful

2:01:08 for arguing against certain individuals especially theological

2:01:11 liberals who want to overturn the previous teaching of the church the previous

2:01:16 teaching of tradition with some sort

2:01:19 of appeal to contemporary magisterial statements

2:01:22 or contemporary theologians let's use

2:01:24 for an example something like homosexuality

2:01:27 or female priests or female deacons or whatever it may be let's

2:01:33 say they appeal to contemporary trends in theology or contemporary statements

2:01:38 from the magisterium in order to say that it's actually lawful to hold

2:01:42 these beliefs or it's lawful to do this or that action now

2:01:46 you could go into each one of these statements and you could

2:01:50 show that they're quoting as bogus uh usually they don't quote any

2:01:54 of these contemporary documents fairly you could do that uh but that's

2:01:57 a lot of work so what you could also do is

2:02:01 you could do what St paul does you could say well actually

2:02:04 it doesn't really matter uh what you say this is the traditional

2:02:08 teaching of the church and it doesn't matter because if I

2:02:12 were to concede let's pretend

2:02:14 hypothetically that the contemporary magisterium was

2:02:16 stating these things against the historic teaching of the church then it

2:02:21 would be condemned by the historic teaching of the church it would

2:02:24 be overruled and overran of course if it's a lesser weight teaching

2:02:28 by the traditional teaching of the church so it doesn't matter

2:02:31 how many of these documents you quote you could quote documents all

2:02:35 day it doesn't really matter because if somebody is going to go

2:02:39 against the tradition of the church if a contemporary figure is going

2:02:43 to try to overturn a higher weight teaching that has been traditionally

2:02:47 taught in the church then it doesn't matter let him be anathema

2:02:50 it really doesn't matter so this type of argument actually interestingly enough

2:02:55 could be a quite effective argument against individuals who are attempting to do

2:03:00 the same thing that the Judaizers were doing not only is

2:03:04 this reading the most sensible one but this is also the reading

2:03:07 held by the fathers the medievals and the exedites first I'm

2:03:09 going to go through a few from the fathers then I'm going

2:03:13 to go through a few early medieval authors then a few medieval

2:03:16 authors and then a few modern

2:03:17 authors technically modern just means postreformation

2:03:19 so I'm going to go through a few post-reformation authors as well

2:03:23 and show how this is just the traditional reading that has always

2:03:27 been given to this passage first we have St john Christom

2:03:32 he states quote as they betook themselves to authority that of James

2:03:37 and John he mentions angels also saying tell me not of James

2:03:41 and John if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt

2:03:46 the gospel let him be anathema commentary saint John Chrissum here

2:03:50 St john clearly agrees with us on two points first he shows

2:03:56 that this is an afori argument and then second he also shows

2:03:59 that this is meant to head off an objection which is given

2:04:03 from an appeal to the apostles authority second we have St

2:04:08 jerome he states quote "This could be understood as hyperbole and not

2:04:11 to mean that an apostle or angel could preach otherwise than they

2:04:15 had already spoken but even if this were possible it would not

2:04:19 justify the Galatians straying from what they had received all the more

2:04:23 so be cause because the apostle demonstrates in another passage that his own

2:04:27 faith is stable." These are not the words of one who

2:04:31 can ever deviate from his faith in and love for Christ commentary

2:04:36 St jerome the logic that St jerome brings here is clearly

2:04:39 in line with everything that I've been saying it's meant to be

2:04:42 conditional it's meant to be hyperbolic it's not meant to assume somehow

2:04:46 that this condition is even possible and it's not meant to be

2:04:51 some sort of precept for continual

2:04:53 distrust of the ecclesiastical magisterium third

2:04:55 we have St vincent of Luren he states quote "Not that the holy

2:05:00 and heavenly angels can sin but supposing it were possible that they

2:05:03 should if any one of them were to attempt to change

2:05:07 the faith once delivered let him be accursed." Commanatorium lived on now

2:05:12 if you read the surrounding context it's very interesting how St vincent

2:05:17 actually applies this because St vincent holds that this isn't about

2:05:22 a possible departure of the ecclesiastical

2:05:25 magisterium from the teaching of the apostles

2:05:27 he actually says the way that this applies is to have

2:05:32 certain teachers certain individuals who

2:05:34 are theologians departing from the teaching

2:05:37 of the ecclesiastical magisterium so actually

2:05:39 St vincent interprets the departing to be

2:05:43 departing from ecclesiastical teaching this is the exact opposite of the way

2:05:46 in which the set of accountantis and the Protestants attempt to apply

2:05:50 this and interestingly enough this is also something that St thomas

2:05:54 frequently brings up as well in order to support the adherence

2:05:57 to the contemporary magisterium of the church now that we have these fathers

2:06:00 out of the way let's get into the early medievals first we

2:06:03 have Claudius of Turin who is a very popular author that many

2:06:08 Protestants will often quote because he was an iconoclast anyways he says

2:06:12 quote "Thus if Paul declares that even the apostles of Christ who

2:06:16 were so well known for performing signs and wonders and even

2:06:20 an angel from heaven whose spiritual status might commend him would be

2:06:25 anathematized for teaching otherwise than what Paul had taught how much more

2:06:29 would those be anathematized who have no such testimony to commend them

2:06:33 and attempt to deceive?" This could also be understood hyperbolically not

2:06:38 that the apostle or an angel could actually preach differently than what they

2:06:42 had already said but even if it were possible for the apostles

2:06:46 and angels to change they should still not turn away from what

2:06:50 was once received claudius of Turin second we have Robenus Morris

2:06:53 who is one of the greatest figures of the Carolinian Renaissance he

2:06:58 with blessed Aquin basically saved the Latin heritage of the church

2:07:02 and passed it on to future generations and on top of that they

2:07:05 were absolutely brilliant theologians who laid

2:07:08 much of the groundwork for medieval

2:07:11 scholasticism he says quote "This can also be understood hyperbolically not

2:07:15 that the apostle or an angel could preach something different than what

2:07:19 they had once said but that even if it were possible for both

2:07:23 the apostles and angels to change they the Galatians should not

2:07:26 turn away from what they had once received." Commentary St rabanis Morris

2:07:30 third is Otto of Vchelli who is a great reforming bishop

2:07:35 of 10th century Italy he states

2:07:38 quote "This passage is understood hyperbolically."

2:07:41 The apostle was not saying this because he or an angel could

2:07:45 actually be changed or preach something different but he speaks by exaggeration

2:07:49 as if saying "If it were possible for me or an angel

2:07:54 from heaven to preach something different than what I preached even though

2:07:58 this cannot happen you should not have departed from what you

2:08:02 had once received." He also calls down a curse on the angel

2:08:06 so that Peter's and the other apostles preaching would not be esteemed

2:08:09 too highly if they preached otherwise for if an angel who holds

2:08:13 greater authority were to preach differently and fall under anathema how much

2:08:18 more would the apostles atau of Verelli after the early medievals all

2:08:23 of the high medievals basically speak in the same vein we can

2:08:26 see this in the three great glosses on scripture the gloss ordinaria

2:08:30 the gloss of media and the gloss of magna all three

2:08:34 of these were basically study Bible notes of the medieval church the glosso

2:08:40 ordinaria agrees that this is merely an a42i argument it states

2:08:44 quote since I would excommunicate even myself or an angel how much

2:08:48 more should the false apostles be excommunicated glossa ordinaria the gloss

2:08:53 media is very clear about the hypothetical nature of this argument it

2:08:57 states quote Ambrose comments that though we or an angel from heaven

2:09:01 should be understood as an impossible event this is also to show

2:09:05 that one should not easily submit to the false authority imputed

2:09:08 to Peter and James by the pseudo apostles since even I who

2:09:12 taught them before and not even an angel who is greater than

2:09:16 the apostles would be permitted to preach otherwise glossa media the gloss

2:09:20 of Magna which is the most interesting to me because it comes

2:09:24 from the master of the sentences Peter Lombard it states quote note

2:09:28 that he does not say this because it could actually happen but he

2:09:32 is so certain of the truth of his gospel that even if

2:09:35 an angel were to announce something different he would not believe it

2:09:39 but would curse the angel a Foriori we could say that if

2:09:43 I would excommunicate you or an angel much more should the false

2:09:48 apostles be excommunicated glossa Magna besides the three great glosses we

2:09:53 also have an excellent excellent exedite of the medieval church Nicholas

2:09:56 of Lyra who is a Franciscan who actually dabbled a bit into rabbitic

2:10:02 interpretation of scripture he states quote "Concerning this we should know

2:10:07 that a conditional proposition can be true even if each part of it

2:10:12 is nevertheless false or impossible as in this example if man

2:10:17 flies man has wings this is true and yet it is false

2:10:22 that man flies and has wings so it is with what

2:10:25 the apostle proposes for the true apostles were confirmed in grace and still

2:10:30 more were the holy angels on account of which it is

2:10:34 false and impossible concerning each part both that they would preach against

2:10:38 the truth of the gospel and that they would be anathematized and yet

2:10:43 the conditional proposition is true namely that if they were to do

2:10:47 this they would be anathematized nicholas of Lyra now after the medieval

2:10:52 age we have the modern age and here we see three

2:10:56 excellent exedites who basically say the same thing that I'm saying first

2:11:00 we have the Dominican cardinal and hammer of the Protestants Thomas Deio

2:11:04 Kagetim he states quote "The conditional statement is true even though both

2:11:10 the antecedent and consequent are impossible if an angel from heaven were

2:11:14 to preach a gospel besides the gospel of Christ he would be

2:11:19 anathema Thomas Devioan." He's basically arguing

2:11:22 along the same lines of Nicholas

2:11:24 of Lyra and also the points that I made above second

2:11:27 we have the Dominican historian Noel Alexandre he states quote "This is

2:11:33 an impossible and hyperbolic supposition for it is impossible that a holy

2:11:38 angel sent by God would announce a different gospel than that which

2:11:42 the Apostle Paul preached Noel Alexander lastly we have the king

2:11:48 of the exedites Cornelius Laped he proves in very much detail many

2:11:52 of the same points that I went over above and he provides

2:11:55 a very good synthesis of the ecclesiastical

2:11:58 tradition in interpreting this passage

2:12:00 first he follows what I said above about saints Vincent and Thomas

2:12:04 when it comes to the departing from the teaching being the departing

2:12:08 of contemporary ecclesiastical teaching he quotes

2:12:10 St augustine to support this who

2:12:13 says quote I do not accept what the blessed Cyprien held

2:12:16 on the baptism of heretics because the church for whom Cyprien shed

2:12:21 his blood does not accept it contra cresconium liver secundis capitulum trigenta

2:12:27 duo sanctus augustine second he interprets the statements about the apostles

2:12:35 to be hypothetical impossibilities he states as a matter of fact it is

2:12:40 impossible for the angels are established as in bliss so in all

2:12:45 truth it is an hyperbole to state an impossibility if God

2:12:50 were to reveal a faith contrary to that which we have received

2:12:54 and which he originally revealed himself we should be bound to believe

2:12:57 the first and not the second for if he should reveal

2:13:01 one contrary he would be changed and would cease to be God

2:13:06 and the first and infallible truth but since this is impossible it

2:13:11 follows that God cannot give a contrary revelation and hence that those who

2:13:15 teach contrary doctrine get it not from God but from their own

2:13:20 heads or else by revelation from devils cornelius aled in conclusion

2:13:24 there are many many many other authors that I read to prepare

2:13:30 this video i could have quoted double or triple the authorities who

2:13:34 are basically saying the same thing over and over and over

2:13:38 again but what's clear about this is that this text in no

2:13:42 way is going to uphold any sort of anti-atholic principle of magisteriology

2:13:48 or even some sort of argument that the set of aontists make

2:13:53 about consistently questioning the teaching of the magisterium in order

2:13:56 to discern whether it has fallen away or even indicating a possibility

2:14:01 of this falling away it indicates none of that and it gives

2:14:04 no groundwork for any sort of principle but anyways as always God bless

2:14:08 if you've been in internet theology circles for any time you've probably

2:14:12 heard the name James White mr white has been attempting to refute

2:14:15 the teachings of the Catholic Church for the better part of 30

2:14:19 years having debated such figures as Jimmy Aken Trent Horn and many

2:14:23 others going all the way back to the '90s anyone who's

2:14:27 familiar with his works knows that one of Mr white's favorite defenses

2:14:30 of his own authority is that he quote teaches church history some

2:14:34 of you may know that uh the first the first class I

2:14:39 ever taught after I graduated from seminary at uh Grand Canyon

2:14:42 back then and was it university yet or was it still just

2:14:46 Grand Canyon College i can't remember at that point in time was

2:14:50 church history this appeal is brought forward to guard his lackluster historical

2:14:54 arguments from relevant criticism brought forth from a rigorous study of primary

2:14:58 source materials one of these claims that Mr white defends in this way

2:15:03 are the terrible calumnies he levels against Pope St zimmus it

2:15:08 was Roman pontiff from 417 to 418 mr white claims that Pope

2:15:12 St zazmus fell into the heresy of Pelagianism when he had

2:15:17 supposedly exonerated his follower Kalistius in the year 417 as I point

2:15:21 out Augustine not only never said but the entire context of that was

2:15:27 in the context of demonstrating that the uh church in North

2:15:33 Africa stood firmly against Pope Zosimus who claimed I have fully

2:15:38 examined this pelagius and Celestius they're they're fine they I I restore

2:15:43 them and the church in North Africa said no further than

2:15:46 this he claims that the great doctor of grace St augustine of Hippo

2:15:50 accused the pope of heresy convincing him eventually to change his mind

2:15:54 the next year through the work of the Senade of Carthage

2:15:58 in the year 418 contrary to these calumnies from Mr white the doctor

2:16:03 of grace always was the greatest defender of Pope St osmus recognizing

2:16:07 that Calacius was a liar who had a history of purposefully misrepresenting

2:16:11 his own views in order to try to be exonerated which according

2:16:16 to Marius Marcato an early ecclesiastical writer he tried this in Carthage

2:16:21 Ephesus Constantinople Jerusalem and finally

2:16:24 in Rome anyone who reads the primary

2:16:27 sources the documentation from St augustine Pope St zazmus the Senate

2:16:32 of Carthage and early historians who wrote on this matter would know

2:16:36 this yet unfortunately Mr white does not read any of these primary

2:16:40 sources but only a smattering of anti-atholic pmical works which blind him

2:16:45 to the simple truth present in the historical narrative but first

2:16:49 let's get some background information about the situation for a fuller treatment

2:16:53 of this era of church history you can view my video

2:16:56 called quote "The downfall of the blinds." But here I will outline

2:17:00 the basics many have heard the name Pelagius who was a Hezi

2:17:03 that opposed the traditional teaching of the church on justification grace

2:17:07 and original sin but less have heard the name Clesius klesius was

2:17:12 basically the propagandist for Pelagius who

2:17:14 went throughout the Roman Empire defending him

2:17:17 yet after years of being subject to the scrutiny of many

2:17:20 senods and the skillful pen of St augustine things began to crack

2:17:25 in the year 415 in 4:15 Pelagius had been caught in a trap

2:17:29 pstius was far more explicit about the implications of the teaching

2:17:33 of Pelagius whereas Pelagius was more reserved about being able to state

2:17:37 things in such a way as not to be condemned pelagius had

2:17:40 been called to a syninnod at Diaspoolis where he did his normal

2:17:45 act of equivocation yet the bishops at Diaspoolis had a way around

2:17:50 this rather than presenting the more

2:17:52 reserved statements of Pelagius they presented

2:17:54 to him the more explicit words of his friend Callesius in response

2:17:58 to this Pelagius was caught between a rock and a hard

2:18:01 place he could either condemn his friend and save his own skin

2:18:04 vainly claiming that Calacius's teaching was different than his own

2:18:08 or on the other hand he could stand behind his friend and himself be

2:18:13 condemned pelagius took the coward's way out and condemned his friend before

2:18:16 the Senade and in a letter to the pope and so was

2:18:20 exonerated by the Senade news of this reached St augustine and he

2:18:23 recognized the trickery at hand and sent to St john of Jerusalem

2:18:27 the head of the Senade a Greek copy of his own work

2:18:30 against Pelagius on nature and grace and a copy of the acts

2:18:34 of an earlier Senade at Carthage which condemned Pelagius so

2:18:38 that they could make a more informed decision on the matter along

2:18:41 with this he asked for the acts of the sinod from St

2:18:44 john of Jerusalem so he could confirm his suspicions upon receiving the acts

2:18:48 from St john of Jerusalem he wrote a work called

2:18:51 on the proceedings of plagius where he confirmed these suspicions by the very

2:18:55 text of the acts beyond this sinods were called in Carthage

2:18:59 in Malay to renew this condemnation

2:19:01 of Pelagius and St augustine personally wrote

2:19:03 a letter to Pope St innocent the first begging him to formally

2:19:08 condemn Pelagius with his apostolic authority in order to finally stamp out

2:19:12 Pelagianism for good recognizing the supreme authority of the pope to judge

2:19:17 in these matters in January 417 the condemnation would come from Rome

2:19:22 where Pope St innocent I would condemn Pelagius and Calstius as heretics

2:19:27 and excommunicated them unless they recant their errors famously upon hearing

2:19:31 the news St augustine preached a sermon sermon 131 where he stated

2:19:37 quote "About this case two councils were sent to the apostolic sea

2:19:41 whence also responses came the case is finished if only the error

2:19:45 were at some point finished therefore we warn that they may turn

2:19:49 we teach that they may be instructed let us pray that they

2:19:52 may be changed." End quote a more extensive treatment of this is

2:19:56 found in his epistles now that Calacius had basically been left

2:20:00 out to dry he had one last attempt to clear his name

2:20:03 in March of 417 Pope St innocent I had died and Pope

2:20:07 St zimmus was elected as his successor so Callesius traveled to Rome

2:20:11 and told Pope St zimmus that he agreed with the letters

2:20:15 recently issued by Pope St innocent so upon hearing this Pope St

2:20:19 zimus sent letters to Africa telling them that he saw no reason

2:20:23 why Callesius couldn't be reinstated if he claimed to agree with Pope

2:20:27 St innocent so Pope St zazmus asked for them to send

2:20:30 material showing that Classius was lying or else he would be reinstated

2:20:34 the North Africans obeyed and there was a Senotic Carthage called

2:20:38 in 418 once the material from the Senade was sent to Pope St

2:20:42 zasmus he clearly saw that Calacius was a liar and revoked

2:20:46 the agreement to reinstate him beyond this he actually promulgated a document

2:20:50 that showed the broad extent of papal authority during the time

2:20:54 the epistol tractor which was promulgated to the entire world with the help

2:20:59 of the emperor emperor Hanorius and signed by bishops throughout the entire

2:21:03 world those refusing such as Julian of Eclanu were condemned so

2:21:07 rather than being some sort of argument against the papacy as we

2:21:12 will see the situations of Pope St innocent and Pope St zazmus

2:21:16 show the eminent authority accorded to the pope so here we see

2:21:20 that there are three central lies that uphold Mr white's reading one

2:21:24 Mr white claims that Calacius presented Pelagian doctrine to Pope St zimmus

2:21:29 and that Pope St zasmus became a Pelagian he did not rather

2:21:33 he presented the teaching of Pope St innocent and lied about agreeing

2:21:37 with it which is evident from the primary sources from Pope St

2:21:40 zmus's own words the recollection of St augustine the recollection of Marius

2:21:45 Marcato and the letter of Pollinus the deacon to Pope St zasmus

2:21:50 two Mr white claims that Pope St zasmus supported the teaching

2:21:54 of Clelesius he did not rather he conditionally agreed to reinstate him if

2:21:59 the evidence given from the African sinods did not definitively show

2:22:02 that he was lying about his position and truly did agree with what

2:22:05 Pope St innocent wrote due to the lack of standing that was

2:22:09 in the original Senade in Palestine three Mr white claims that St

2:22:13 augustine in the Senate of Carthage condemned Pope St zazmus for heresy

2:22:18 rather they recognized the tricks of Calstius and just as St

2:22:22 augustine had done a few years before with St john of Jerusalem

2:22:26 St augustine presented the evidence in obedience to the Pope as a bonus

2:22:29 point to expose his utterly absurd reading of church history Mr

2:22:33 white also claims following Eric Svenson that Pope St exosmus only condemned

2:22:38 Pelagianism when he quote found out that his predecessor Pope St innocent

2:22:43 had condemned them about a year earlier and eventually once the civil

2:22:48 authority got involved and we can theorize as to how that is

2:22:54 um he did a full turnaround there have been many times

2:22:59 the bishop of Rome has said this okay later on not

2:23:04 this this reading is completely absurd

2:23:07 as the condemnation of Calius and Pelagius

2:23:10 by Pope St innocent was widely known when it was issued not

2:23:13 some sort of private matter it is absurd to pretend that Pope

2:23:17 St zazmus who was a priest in Rome before his election

2:23:20 would not have known about it further the entire discussion was predicated

2:23:23 on the fact that Calacius lied about his affirmation of Pope St

2:23:27 innocent's letters now that we have the background information out of the way

2:23:31 let's get into the actual comments that St augustine himself make

2:23:35 about this controversy he comments on the situation both during the controversy

2:23:38 and at the end of his life in his work against

2:23:41 Julian showing that he kept a consistent view of the situation throughout

2:23:45 his entire life which is reflected in other primary sources during

2:23:49 the time he summarizes the situation well in his work against Julian

2:23:52 where he states quote why do you accuse Osmus of blessed memory

2:23:56 bishop of the apostolic sea of proverication to protect your own baseness

2:24:00 he was in accord with his predecessor Innocent whom you feared

2:24:04 to mention you preferred Zazmus because he dealt more leniently with Calacius

2:24:08 at first when Calstius promised to correct any of his statements that were

2:24:13 unacceptable and agreed to abide by the judgment of innocence letters end

2:24:17 quote notice there are two important clarifications that St augustine makes

2:24:21 first he clarifies that the decision was not doctrinal since he affirms

2:24:25 that Pope St zasmus was quote in accord with his predecessor innocent

2:24:29 end quote second he clarifies that Calstius had presented himself as agreeing

2:24:34 with Pope St innocent he comments on this issue at length

2:24:37 in his on the grace of Christ in original sin book two first

2:24:42 he introduces the topic stating quote "The Bishop Zazmus however who presided

2:24:46 over the sea upon seeing him hurrying headlong and so great presumption

2:24:51 like a madman chosen his great compassion with a view

2:24:55 to the man's repentance if it might be rather to bind him tightly

2:24:59 by eliciting from him answers to questions proposed by himself then

2:25:02 by the stroke of severe condemnation to drive him over the precipice down

2:25:07 which he seemed to be even now ready to fall i say

2:25:11 advisedly down which he seemed to be ready to fall rather than

2:25:14 over which he had actually fallen because he already in the same

2:25:19 book of his forecast the subject with an intended reference to questions

2:25:23 of this sort in the following words if it should so

2:25:26 happen that any air of ignorance has stolen over us human beings

2:25:30 let it be corrected by your decisive sentence end quote here he

2:25:33 states the original interaction between Pope St osmus and Callesius which we'll

2:25:37 see more about later in the letter of Pinus the deacon callesius

2:25:41 wrote an overview of his statements and was dociled a correction so

2:25:45 Pope St zazimmus hoped to heal him from his error there is

2:25:49 absolutely no sense of some sort of condemnation of Pope St zazmus

2:25:53 here in fact St augustine is very clearly defending him in this passage

2:25:57 this agreement along with other details which I presented above are

2:26:01 clear in the next chapter where St augustine writes quote "The venerable

2:26:05 Pope Zazmus keeping in view this deprecatory preamble dealt with the man

2:26:09 puffed up as he was with the blast of false doctrine

2:26:13 so as that he should condemn all the objectionable points which had

2:26:17 been alleged against him by the deacon Polinus and that he should

2:26:21 yield his ascent to the rescript of the apostolic sea which had

2:26:25 been issued by its predecessor of sacred memory." The accused man

2:26:29 however refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon yet he

2:26:33 did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed

2:26:36 pope innocent indeed he went so far as to promise that he

2:26:40 would condemn all the points which the apostolic sea condemned thus

2:26:43 the man was treated with gentle remedies as a delirious patient who

2:26:48 required rest but at the same time he was not regarded

2:26:52 as being ready to be released

2:26:54 from the restraints of excommunication the interval

2:26:56 of two months being granted him until communications could be received

2:27:00 from Africa a place for recovery was conceded to him under the mild

2:27:05 restorative of the sentence which had been pronounced for in truth if

2:27:08 he would have laid aside his vain obstinency and be now willing

2:27:12 to carry out which he had undertaken and would carefully read

2:27:16 the very letter to which he had replied by promising submission he would

2:27:21 yet come to a better mind but after the rescripts were duly

2:27:25 issued from the council of the African bishops there were very good

2:27:29 reasons why the sentence should be carried out against him in strictest

2:27:33 accordance with equity what these reasons were you may read for yourselves

2:27:36 for we have sent to you all the particulars end quote he

2:27:40 actually adds interesting details in the next chapter going on to describe

2:27:44 Pelagius's attempts to trick Pope St zazimus st and Augustine writes

2:27:47 in the next chapter quote "Wherefore Pelagius still if he will only

2:27:51 reflect candidly on his own position in writings has no reason

2:27:55 for saying that he ought not to have been banned with such

2:27:58 a sentence for although he deceived the council in Palestine seemingly

2:28:02 clearing himself before it he entirely failed in imposing on the church

2:28:06 at Rome where as you well know he is by no means

2:28:10 a stranger although he went so far as to make the attempt

2:28:14 if he might somehow succeed but as I have just said he

2:28:18 entirely failed for the most blessed

2:28:20 Pope Zasmus recollected what his predecessor

2:28:22 who had set him so worthy an example had thought of these very

2:28:27 proceedings nor did he omit to observe what opinion was entertained

2:28:30 about this man by the trusty Romans whose faith deserved to be

2:28:34 spoken of in the Lord and whose consistent zeal in defense

2:28:38 of Catholic truth against heresy esau saw prevailing among them with warmth

2:28:42 and at the same time most perfect harmony end quote st augustine

2:28:47 always indicates that this move by Pope St zazmus was one

2:28:50 of prudent consultation not some sort of error since the church in Carthage

2:28:55 had dealt with the issue more extensively he writes quote "But I

2:28:59 would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius endeavored

2:29:03 by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of the apostolic

2:29:07 sea on this very question of the baptism of infants he

2:29:10 sent a letter to Rome to Pope Innocent of Blessed Memory

2:29:13 and when it was found him not in the flesh it was handed

2:29:17 to the Holy Pope Zazmus and by him directed to us."

2:29:20 End quote in his work against two epistles of the Plagians addressed

2:29:24 to Pope St bonafice St augustine exposes the lie that Pope St

2:29:29 zasmus supported Calacius as a Pelagian

2:29:31 error quote "Moreover they accused the Roman

2:29:34 clergy the Pelagians had conceived with a false hope that the new

2:29:38 and detestable dogma of Pelagius or Calstius could be made acceptable

2:29:43 to the Catholic intelligences of certain

2:29:45 Romans when those crafty spirits however

2:29:48 perverted by a wicked error yet not contemptable since they appeared rather

2:29:52 to be deserving of considerable correction

2:29:54 than of easy condemnation were treated

2:29:57 with somewhat more of leniency than the strict discipline of the church

2:30:01 required for while so many

2:30:03 and such important ecclesiastical documents were passing

2:30:06 and repassing between the apostolic sea and the African bishops and moreover

2:30:11 when the proceedings in this matter in that sea were completed

2:30:14 with Klesius present and making answer what sort of a letter what

2:30:19 decree is found of Pope Zazmus a venerable memory wherein he prescribed

2:30:23 that it must be believed that man is born without any taint

2:30:28 of original sin absolutely he never said this never wrote it

2:30:32 at all but since Calstius had written this in his pamphlet among

2:30:35 these matters merely on which he confessed that he was still in doubt

2:30:40 and desired to be instructed the desire of amendment in a man

2:30:43 of so acute an intellect who if he could be put

2:30:47 right would assuredly be of advantage to many and not the falsehood

2:30:50 of the doctrine was approved he Callesius replied that he consented

2:30:54 to the letters of Pope Innocent of Blessed Memory in which all doubt

2:30:59 about this matter was removed and in order that this might

2:31:02 be made fuller more manifest in him matters were delayed until letters

2:31:06 should come from Africa in which province his craftiness had in some

2:31:11 sort become more evidently known and afterwards these letters came to Rome

2:31:16 containing this that it was not sufficient for men of more sluggish

2:31:20 and anxious minds that he confessed his general consent to the letters

2:31:23 of Bishop Innocent but that he ought openly to anatize the mischievous

2:31:28 statements which he had made in his pamphlet lest if he

2:31:32 did not do so many people of better intelligence should rather

2:31:37 believe that in his pamphlet those poisons of the faith had been

2:31:40 approved by the Catholic Sea that is Rome when his presence was

2:31:44 demanded in order that by certain and clear answers either the craft

2:31:48 of the man or his correction might plainly appear and remain

2:31:51 doubtful to no one he withdrew himself and refused the examination neither

2:31:55 would the delay which had already been made for the advantage

2:31:59 of others have taken place if it could not be of advantage

2:32:03 to the pertinacity and madness of those who were excessively perverse

2:32:06 but if which be far from the case it had been so judged

2:32:10 in the Roman church concerning Callesius or Pelagius that those dogmas

2:32:14 of theirs which in themselves

2:32:16 and with themselves Pope Innocent had condemned should

2:32:20 be pronounced worthy of approval and maintenance the mark of proarication would

2:32:24 rather have to be branded on the Roman clergy for this but now

2:32:29 when the first letters of the most blessed pope innocent

2:32:32 in reply to the letters of the African bishops would have equally

2:32:35 condemned this error which these men are endeavoring to commend to us

2:32:40 and his successor the holy pope Zazmus would never have said never

2:32:44 have written that this dogma which these men think concerning infants is

2:32:48 to be held nay would even have bound Calasius by repeated sentence

2:32:53 when he endeavored to clear himself to a consent to the abovementioned

2:32:57 letters of the apostolic sea assuredly whatever in the meanwhile was

2:33:01 done more leniently concerning Clesius provided

2:33:04 the stability of the most ancient

2:33:06 robust faith were maintained was the most merciful persuasion of correction not

2:33:11 the most pernitious approval of wickedness and then afterwards by the same

2:33:16 priesthood Calstius and Pelagius were condemned

2:33:18 by repeated authority was the proof

2:33:20 of a severity for a little while intermittent at length of necessity

2:33:25 to be carried out not a denial of a previously known truth

2:33:29 or a new acknowledgement of truth end quote there are quite

2:33:32 a few important notes to note here besides what we already have

2:33:36 gone over above first and foremost St augustine clearly notes a level

2:33:40 of agreement with Pope St zazmus there isn't a hint of critique

2:33:43 in this overview rather he notes that the senot of Carthage simply

2:33:47 encouraged Pope St zazmus to include additional condemnations of what Calius had

2:33:51 said previously what was stated above about the letters to Carthage being

2:33:55 one of consultation becomes evident as well since those in Carthage had

2:33:59 more experience with Calstius since they were the ones who had

2:34:02 originally condemned him a few years prior whereas Rome had more experience

2:34:06 with Pelagius since he had resided there for many years he mentions

2:34:09 letters going back and forth of consultation not some rebuke from the North

2:34:14 Africans to Pope St zazmus he continues in the next chapter

2:34:17 quote "Who does not see in what degree Calstius was bound

2:34:20 by the interrogations of your holy predecessor Zazmus and by the answers

2:34:25 of Calstius whereby he professed that he consented to the letters of Pope

2:34:30 Innocent and fastened by a most wholesome chain so as not

2:34:33 to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants

2:34:36 is not put away in baptism because these are the words

2:34:40 of the venerable innocent concerning this matter

2:34:42 to the Carthaginian Council what could

2:34:45 be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the apostolic

2:34:49 sea to this Calius professed that he asented when it was

2:34:53 said to him by your holy predecessor Zosmus "Do you condemn all

2:34:57 those things that are bandied about under your name?" And he himself

2:35:01 replied "I condemn them in accordance with the judgment of your predecessor

2:35:05 innocent of blessed memory." But he showed that he had answered deceitfully

2:35:09 by the final event when he withdrew himself from the examination lest

2:35:13 he should be compelled according to the African rescripts absolutely to mention

2:35:17 and anmatize the very words themselves concerning this question which he wrote

2:35:22 in his trackctate end quote so it is completely dishonest to even

2:35:25 speak of a quote disagreement rather the sonat of Carthage gave

2:35:29 a helpful suggestion so that the genuiness of Calacius's orthodoxy could be

2:35:34 more particularly tested this suggestion has been passed down as the cannons

2:35:39 of the council of Carthage 418 which can be read in Denzinger

2:35:42 or a number of places online now that we have went

2:35:45 over St augustine's recounting of the events which is the claim given

2:35:49 by Mr white we can look at the actual epistles which support

2:35:53 this reading but before we get into these particular letters we need

2:35:56 to know more details about the Senade that had condemned Calstius

2:35:59 in Palestine in the year 408 Emperor Constantine III had usurped the throne

2:36:04 of the Western Roman Empire in 411 this usurppation was put

2:36:09 down by Constantius III as a result many of the bishops appointed

2:36:13 by Constantine III were exiled including two very important figures Lazarus

2:36:17 of A and Heroes of Ars both of these bishops were exiled

2:36:21 to the east in the year 415 St john of Jerusalem called

2:36:25 a senade in order to resolve the Pelagian crisis this sonade was

2:36:29 spurred on by letters written by these two exiled bishops yet for unknown

2:36:34 reasons they did not show up to the Senade when summoned st

2:36:37 augustine had heard that this was due to illness but there

2:36:40 are other reports given in the historical literature either way this led

2:36:43 to an odd situation where Pelagius and Calstius had to be examined

2:36:48 by 14 bishops under St john of Jerusalem without the accusers present

2:36:52 which is known as an accusation done in absencia which to a Roman

2:36:57 was thought of as a terrible violation of due justice where

2:37:00 one had a right to face their accusers the entire situation was

2:37:04 a complete mess with accusations done in absencia by foreign bishops who

2:37:08 were considered suspect due to their exiled status deceptive behavior from both

2:37:13 Calacius and Plagius and the rejection of Calacius's doctrine by Pelagius

2:37:17 as mentioned before rather than condemning St john of Jerusalem and the Senade

2:37:22 St augustine recognized the difficulty in chapter 39 of his proceedings

2:37:26 of Pelagius understanding how shady

2:37:28 the entire situation sounded writing quote "They

2:37:31 Lazarus and Hero might perhaps have reminded him St john of Jerusalem

2:37:35 of something he had forgotten or something in which he might have

2:37:39 been deceived by the Latin interpreter not to be sure for the purpose

2:37:43 of misleading him by untruth but at least owing to some

2:37:46 difficult the occasion by a foreign

2:37:48 language only imperfectly understood end quote

2:37:50 st and Augustine even admits in chapter 41 that he concedes

2:37:54 that in such difficult circumstances he

2:37:56 himself might have also exonerated them stating

2:37:58 quote the same feeling might have occurred to ourselves also if

2:38:01 we had sat with them at the trial end quote now 2

2:38:05 years after this entire messius decided to travel to Rome and a letter

2:38:10 was sent by St john's successor Prolus speaking well of Pelagius

2:38:14 along with a confession given by Pelagius in order to decide

2:38:18 this whole matter which to this point suffered from lack of due

2:38:22 process St zamus decided that there needed to be a long

2:38:25 and deliberate process of investigation so he sent two letters mainly focusing

2:38:29 on the case of Calacius besides this he was informed of Lazarus

2:38:34 and Hero in very negative terms pointing to certain moral faults this was

2:38:39 made even worse by their involvement in the cases of St bryce

2:38:42 of Tors and Bishop Proclusi st bryce of Tors the spiritual son

2:38:47 of St martin of Tors had been accused by Lazarus and others

2:38:52 of various crimes upon traveling to Rome the case was investigated

2:38:56 and St bryce was found innocent

2:38:58 bishop Proclusia committed various canonical crimes

2:39:01 and was very resistant to the authority of the Roman pontiff while

2:39:05 St augustine calls them our quote holy brethren he had only heard

2:39:09 of them from report the first letter was written before September 21st

2:39:14 417 and the second on September 21st 417 both of which were

2:39:18 sent to St aurelius of Carthage who was responsible for the North

2:39:23 African church in these letters St zosimus rebukes the shenanigans

2:39:27 that took place at Diaspoolis especially the behavior of Lazarus and Hero

2:39:31 and requests that Africa send documentation so that he can make

2:39:35 a right judgment he begins the first letter letter 45 by first recognizing

2:39:39 the great responsibility and prudence he must show to his great authority

2:39:44 as pope writing quote "A great

2:39:46 responsibility and judgment requires great preparation

2:39:49 so that the balance of judgment may not fall short of the matters

2:39:53 themselves that are under consideration." To this is added the authority

2:39:57 of the apostolic sea which in honor of the most blessed Peter

2:40:00 the decrees of the fathers have

2:40:02 established with particular reverence." End quote

2:40:04 he then introduces the topic which was the improper condemnation that took

2:40:09 place in the synogloss quote "Calstius

2:40:12 a presbyter presented himself for our examination

2:40:14 seeking to clear matters concerning himself that had been presented

2:40:18 to the apostolic sea in an improper manner." End quote after this he

2:40:22 tells them that he had examined the circumstances surrounding the hospitals

2:40:26 and found it wanting being content for the time being with the confession

2:40:30 of Caliius who as we will see had sworn to uphold

2:40:34 the previous definition of Pope St

2:40:35 innocent and subjected himself to the correction

2:40:38 of the Apostolic Sea quote "We examined all that had been previously

2:40:41 done as you will learn from the records attached to this letter

2:40:45 callesius presented his petition which he had given us and we

2:40:49 had read it aloud not content with this we repeatedly investigated whether

2:40:53 what he had written he truly believed in his heart or merely

2:40:57 spoke with his lips end quote the last phrase of quote

2:41:00 whether he truly believed in his heart or merely spoke with his lips

2:41:04 is important since it indicates that Pope St zazmus considered plagianism

2:41:07 to be heretical and it was merely a factf finding mission

2:41:10 that he was on which was already evident from the witness of St

2:41:14 august although we will see the same from the witness of Polinus

2:41:17 the deacon this is evident when he continues to describe his chief

2:41:22 complaint which is the lack of due process considering the inabsencia

2:41:26 accusations of Hero and Lazarus who according to Calacius had never even

2:41:30 met him except in passing he was even told that Hero

2:41:34 and Lazarus had withdrawn their accusations

2:41:36 which explained this absence he writes quote Callesius asserted that he had

2:41:41 never had any discussions with the affforementioned

2:41:44 persons regarding such matters and claimed not to have known them

2:41:47 before they wrote against him he said that he met Lazarus

2:41:51 only in passing and reconciled

2:41:53 with heroes who acknowledged through the explanation

2:41:56 that he had judged him wrongly as someone unknown and absent heroes

2:42:00 even added a gesture of satisfaction

2:42:03 withdrawing any prior misunderstanding end quote

2:42:05 further he notes the incredible difficulty present with an absencia accusations

2:42:10 quote "It is enough to note that the accusations against an absent

2:42:14 person made by such individuals through letters should be met with skepticism

2:42:18 when the accused is present explaining his faith in challenging his accuser."

2:42:22 End quote rather than the mess which happened at Diaspools St zamus

2:42:26 wants to hold a proper investigation which are in line with the careful

2:42:31 consideration necessary for such an important matter which of course is

2:42:35 understandable quote "Rarely does prolonged

2:42:37 and carefully considered deliberation fail to arrive

2:42:39 at the truth it is a sign of the best mind

2:42:42 to be slow in believing what is evil for often when trust is

2:42:46 denied to a good confession individuals are driven into despair and harm

2:42:51 becomes irreparable." In the present case we deem nothing premature or rash

2:42:55 but wish your holiness to know the outcome of our examination

2:42:59 regarding Calacius's faith." End quote in order to have a proper investigation

2:43:04 he needed a proper accuser present now due to the fact

2:43:08 that the main combat against Pelagianism had taken place in North Africa it

2:43:12 was obvious that he needed to have documentation from North Africa

2:43:16 and namely from the original accuser that is Palinus so he wrote

2:43:20 to them that he needed such documentation within 2 months writing quote

2:43:25 a prior petition from him within Africa should have been available as testimony

2:43:29 before us therefore within two months let those who accuse him

2:43:33 come forward and demonstrate that he holds beliefs contrary to what he

2:43:37 has declared in his petitions and profession otherwise after such open

2:43:41 and manifest declarations your holiness may

2:43:43 know that doubts have been resolved." End

2:43:46 quote he also adds a note that he had chastised Classius

2:43:50 for his silly behavior now this wasn't the only letter that was written

2:43:53 an update was sent on September 21st 417 where he wrote about

2:43:57 the case of Plagius who had recently been supported in his cause

2:44:01 by the bishop of Jerusalem and sent a libelus outlining his views

2:44:06 pope St zazmus states that the libellus expressed orthodoxy which is

2:44:10 probably true or at least had enough of an appearance of orthodoxy

2:44:14 the idea that this contained Pelagian doctrine is an absurd notion both

2:44:19 from what Pinus the deacon says from what was said in the previous

2:44:23 letter from the ordinary behavior of Pelagius and from the interpretation

2:44:26 of St john of Jerusalem's behavior given by St augustine when

2:44:30 he wrote his work on the proceedings of Pelagius he goes

2:44:33 on to state more about what he had heard about heroes in Lazarus

2:44:36 now whether these statements are true or not is up to debate

2:44:40 although it should be noted that after these letters were sent there

2:44:43 was no defense of Heros and Lazarus given by the North Africans

2:44:47 or anyone else rather the only defense comes from a brief statement

2:44:50 in on the proceedings of Pelagius written before the letters of Pope

2:44:54 St zazmus had been sent while the original epistles are written

2:44:57 on or before September 21st 417 the response did not come until

2:45:02 November 8th 417 via the libellus written by Paulinus the Deacon friend

2:45:06 of St augustine and former scribe of Ambrose who wrote an early

2:45:10 heography of the saint the reason that Polinus the deacon in particular

2:45:14 was the one who responded in the name of the African

2:45:17 church was as Marcus Marcato notes the fact that he was

2:45:20 the one who had originally accused him in the African senade years before

2:45:24 so Pope St zimmus was particularly asking for the accuser to witness

2:45:28 which had failed to happen in the case of Lazarus and Heroes

2:45:32 now were Mr white's description of the situation correct we should see

2:45:36 some rebuke of Palinus the deacon of Pope St zazmus for supporting

2:45:40 Pelagianism well what we actually see is the opposite he begins

2:45:44 the epistle with a powerful acknowledgement of the Pope's authority to judge

2:45:47 this matter quote "The true faith is never disturbed especially in the apostolic

2:45:52 church where the teachers of false faith are quickly and truthfully

2:45:56 punished they are made to put to death within themselves whatever

2:45:59 they have conceived wrongly and brought forth worse so that the true

2:46:02 faith taught by the apostles and held by the Roman church along

2:46:06 with all the teachers of the Catholic faith may live in them

2:46:09 if like other authors of heresies who have already been judged

2:46:12 by the apostolic sea or the fathers and cast out of the embrace

2:46:16 of the Catholic Church to perish in eternal death these individuals

2:46:20 now detected or being detected persist in their perity let them be

2:46:24 handed over to the spiritual sword for destruction end quote he

2:46:28 then goes on to recall the condemnation given by Pope St innocent

2:46:32 and actually affirms what St augustine would later record that is

2:46:36 that Pope St zasmus only agreed to exonerate them if they were

2:46:40 to ascend to the judgment previously given by Pope St innocent which

2:46:44 they agreed to quote following this judgment

2:46:46 of Pope St innocent your blessedness

2:46:48 that is Pope St osmus when hearing Calstius at the Apostolic

2:46:52 Sea commanded with these words among others do you therefore condemn all

2:46:56 these things contained in Polinus's petition regarding the issues and elsewhere

2:47:01 have you understood what letters the sea has sent to our brothers

2:47:05 and co-bishops of the African province it was added do you condemn

2:47:09 all we have condemned and hold to what we hold and again

2:47:13 do you condemn all those things raising concerning your name and further

2:47:17 what about the matters exposed in Polinus's petition end quote here he

2:47:22 is describing the process in which Klesius was investigated by Pope

2:47:25 St zazamus which St augustine noted earlier a rigorous process that involved

2:47:30 a fullthroated condemnation of Pelagianism going on he writes quote "When you

2:47:34 declared through the authority of the Holy Spirit that I could be

2:47:39 approved as orthodox while rejecting

2:47:41 and suppressing the insane and slanderous words

2:47:43 of one raving you gave a decision which could heal him Calstius

2:47:47 if you wished your judgment that is Pope St zimmus was

2:47:51 as follows i do not want you to evade the issue condemn all

2:47:56 these things attributed to you by Polinus or spread through rumor

2:48:00 who would not be satisfied with such a judgment who would reject

2:48:04 the wholesome agreeable and pious decision that is the decision of Pope

2:48:09 St zimmus except one who had deviated from the faith end quote

2:48:13 in fact rather than interpreting this as a support of plagianism he

2:48:16 interprets this as a second condemnation of plagiianism writing quote "I give

2:48:20 thanks to God and to Christ our Lord who has willed

2:48:24 that the cause of his church be conducted so that the apostolic sea

2:48:28 through the voice of two of its pontiffs has condemned heresy

2:48:32 and commanded the condemnation of these things." I'd accused Calius of "I

2:48:37 have always and still desire not his condemnation but his correction."

2:48:42 end quote this is something supported by Marius Mecatur the great historian

2:48:46 of the plagian controversy who defended St augustine in both Greek

2:48:50 and Latin and was commended by the council of Ephesus in his commandum

2:48:55 he writes quote Callesius after being excelled from there as well went

2:48:59 in haste to the city of Rome during the pontificate of holy zasmus

2:49:04 of blessed memory there in proceedings of which we possess copies

2:49:08 he was interrogated though somewhat intimidated

2:49:11 by the examiner his repeated responses and explanations gave the impression

2:49:15 that he intended to condemn the propositions

2:49:18 for which he had been accused at Carthage this was something he

2:49:22 was firmly urged to do and for this reason he was

2:49:25 treated with great degree of leniency by the holy priest and obtained

2:49:29 a letter of goodwill addressed to the African bishops however he abused

2:49:33 and perhaps continues to abuse this letter to deceive many ignorant people." End

2:49:38 quote he then goes on to describe the remedying of the judicial

2:49:42 impediment by his own appearance to accuse Calstius in person yet

2:49:46 Calstius did not show up so he was not able to have

2:49:49 a proper hearing of the case which Palina states as evidence

2:49:52 of his deceptive behavior quote "At that time I could do nothing

2:49:56 because the one who had appealed to the apostolic sea failed to appear

2:50:00 he should have substantiated the merits of his appeal especially since even

2:50:03 by human law the superior party is always the one who prevails

2:50:07 when the appalent fails to act what further concern did I

2:50:11 have to support his false doctrine before your reverence when I could

2:50:15 instead rejoice if he had merited absolution by condemning what I had

2:50:19 accused him of as the judgment of the apostolic sea has confirmed

2:50:23 but he has always been a cunning fox intent on fraud he

2:50:26 cannot change his nature believing he cannot be detected because he always

2:50:31 places his confidence in his hiding places where he tries to conceal

2:50:35 his guilty conscience but he can no longer remain hidden his deeds

2:50:39 are now manifest and are being cut off by the spiritual sword

2:50:43 of your blessedness so that the Lord's flock divided by his ravenous

2:50:47 teeth may no longer be torn apart." End quote in order

2:50:50 to better deal with the situation a syninnod was called by St

2:50:53 a of Carthage various different letters

2:50:55 and other information was collected together

2:50:57 by the North African bishops who at this point had been dealing

2:51:01 with this controversy for over 5 years these were sent to the apostolic

2:51:05 sea and in March of 418 St zazmus sends a letter

2:51:08 back this letter begins with a restatement of his supreme authority

2:51:12 to judge in this matter yet his prudence in consulting the bishops

2:51:15 of North Africa he writes quote Although the tradition of the fathers

2:51:19 has granted such authority to the apostolic sea that no one dares

2:51:23 to dispute its judgment and this has always been upheld by canons

2:51:27 and rules the ecclesiastical discipline that continues to function under its

2:51:31 own laws pays the due reverence to the name of Peter

2:51:35 from whom it also descends canonical

2:51:37 antiquity through the judgments of all willed

2:51:40 that this apostle should have such great power rooted in the promise

2:51:44 of Christ our God that he might bind what is loosed

2:51:47 and loose what was bound equal power was granted to those who

2:51:51 with his consent merited the inheritance of his sea indeed he has

2:51:56 care not only for all churches but especially for this one where

2:52:00 he sat he does not allow the privileges he established to waver

2:52:04 or the judgments he fixed to falter having laid the firm

2:52:08 foundation of his name which remains unshaken by any storms with Peter

2:52:12 as the head of such authority and the rulings of all

2:52:16 the great ones following him it was established by human and divine law

2:52:20 that the Roman church which occupies his place should retain the power

2:52:24 of his name end quote he goes on to assure the Africans

2:52:28 that he is taking into consideration all the information that is being

2:52:32 sent from them and that he

2:52:34 wasn't uncritically believing everything that Callesia

2:52:36 said writing quote "After receiving the letters sent through your subdeacon

2:52:41 Marcelinos we examine the entire volume upon reading it thoroughly you seem

2:52:45 to interpret the entirety of the correspondence as if we had

2:52:48 granted uncritical faith to Calstius in all things agreeing to his every

2:52:52 word without examining it down to the last syllable." End quote he

2:52:56 then encourages them to patience since such examinations if done prudently take

2:53:00 a long time as he noted earlier although if you recall

2:53:04 from the letter of Pinus the deacon

2:53:06 the foundations were already crumbling for Clastius

2:53:08 since he had refused to face his accusers when sent on April

2:53:13 29th 418 the letter from Zmus is received finally Carthage was able

2:53:17 to issue its cannons sending them a few days later to Rome

2:53:21 in order to help with the examination of Clastius yet during

2:53:25 this time something significant happened

2:53:26 the emperor Hanorius condemned Pelagius and Calstius

2:53:29 and ordered that they be placed under house arrest not being permitted

2:53:34 to leave Rome pelagius who presumably was in Rome at this time

2:53:38 stays while Calstius flees Rome as St pacidius in his life

2:53:42 of Augustine witnesses this was something that was in response to a judgment

2:53:47 made by Pope St zimmus therefore presumably the judgment was already

2:53:51 made by the time the final examination took place via the cannons

2:53:54 of the council of Carthage he writes quote when they perversely

2:53:58 tried to their flattery to persuade the apostolic sea of their false

2:54:02 doctrine it was most positively resolved by successive African councils of holy

2:54:06 bishops first to convince the venerable innocent the holy pope of the city

2:54:10 and his successor the holy Zimmus when the most pious emperor

2:54:14 Hanorius heard of this judgment which had been passed upon them

2:54:18 by the Catholic Church of God influenced by it he in turn decreed

2:54:22 that they should be condemned by his laws and should be

2:54:25 regarded as heretics accordingly some of them returned to the bosom

2:54:29 of the Holy Mother Church which they had withdrawn from end quote

2:54:33 marius Marcato also described this in his commandatorum

2:54:36 stating quote when the African

2:54:38 bishops wrote back explaining the entire case that had taken place

2:54:42 before them and sending the relevant records that had been drawn up

2:54:46 regarding himas was summoned to a fuller hearing he was asked

2:54:50 to fulfill his promises by condemning

2:54:52 the affformentioned propositions so that he might

2:54:55 be absolved from the sentence of the African bishops by which

2:54:58 he had been excluded from communion not only did he fail

2:55:02 to appear but he also fled from the city of Rome

2:55:05 for this reason he was condemned in the most extensive and severe writings

2:55:08 of the affformentioned Zasmus of blessed

2:55:11 memory which included the very propositions

2:55:13 of which he was accused and narrated the entire case concerning both

2:55:17 Kstius and his even more corrupt teacher Pelagius we have copies

2:55:21 of these writings in our possession

2:55:23 and similar writings were sent to the bishops

2:55:26 of the eastern churches the dascese

2:55:28 of Egypt Constantinople Thessalonica and Jerusalem

2:55:30 end quote now when the cannons were received from Rome St zamus

2:55:35 attempted to call Calstius to answer whether he asented to these accusations

2:55:39 or not but he as I mentioned had already fled and did

2:55:42 not come back further Pelagius refused to ascent therefore in order

2:55:46 to resolve this whole controversy St exosimus wrote his famous tractoia sent

2:55:50 to the bishops of the entire world that they might sign

2:55:54 on to Austinian doctrine now there are other topics related to the papacy

2:55:59 that are quite interesting to discuss such as the mission which was

2:56:03 given by Pope Zazmus to St augustine in 418 or the other

2:56:07 comments made about papal authority after the condemnation given by Pope

2:56:10 St innocent the first or the nature of the tracia but I

2:56:14 will save those for a later video as always God bless

2:56:23 and when it comes to the first and foremost big difference it

2:56:28 is the doctrine of the filioquay this is the addition to the creed

2:56:32 which occurred over actually over many centuries in the west there's

2:56:35 a um there's a clear way to distinguish the persons

2:56:39 in the trinity and for us that's called hypothatic properties and as we

2:56:44 said in the other video on the councils the Capidosians their theology

2:56:50 is confirmed at Constantinople one right

2:56:53 this ecumenical council that follows Nika

2:56:56 explicitly lays down in what sense we understand the father to be

2:57:00 the cause and all of those capid capidosians are explicit that it's

2:57:05 the father as the sole cause right they're uh unambiguous on this question

2:57:11 if you read Sashinsk's book uh on the filioquay the modern

2:57:16 academic treatment from a uniate at the time Sashinsky is very clear

2:57:20 that the capidosians absolutely believe that the father alone is the cause

2:57:25 of the son and the spirit uh therefore there's no secondary causal

2:57:30 role there's no additional causal role that the son participates in or shares

2:57:35 in with the father of the spirit's personal origin wow that's

2:57:42 a lot of words too bad I'm not reading them so first

2:57:51 will be St gregory of Nissa so who was St gregory

2:57:56 of Nissa he was one of the Capidosian fathers and uh he really

2:58:01 brought about the Capidosian fathers uh really brought about the fundamental

2:58:07 uh formulation of the trinity uh they're very very important they were

2:58:12 between Nika and Constantinople one so Constantinople one which kind of um

2:58:17 dealt with all of the weird uh trinitarian beliefs that they were

2:58:23 already dealing with at Nika except they decided all to like go

2:58:28 into hyperdrive and you had like 500 different heretical offshoots of 500

2:58:32 different ones and so he's had all of these weird uh

2:58:35 beliefs on the trinity and the capidosians had to kind of deal

2:58:39 with them all and defend what would eventually become um nice

2:58:44 constant constant I can never say that word orthodoxy so he's actually

2:58:49 the younger brother of St basil so St basil and St gregory

2:58:54 of Nissa were brothers and then St gregory Nazanzus was a friend so

2:58:59 St gregory of Nissa actually uh was at the second ecu ecumenical

2:59:04 council so he was actually at uh the first council of Constantinople

2:59:08 where the nying creed uh was completed or probably where a version

2:59:12 of the ning creed that was kind of in use was uh

2:59:17 had this had a stamp placed on it uh for the whole

2:59:22 church so the seventh ecumenical council which is the seven uh

2:59:26 second council of Nika calls him the father of fathers so St

2:59:30 gregor of Nissa he is very important so the first place uh

2:59:33 which he talks about this talks about this um is uh

2:59:37 in his uh first book of against enomium so he states there

2:59:43 that the persons of the trinity only differ from one another

2:59:48 in terms of origin principle or cause which as we'll see is going

2:59:53 to result in a obviously a belief in the fioquay and I

2:59:57 think he actually states this directly here which uh I have I

3:00:01 have the Greek text uh right up there I put in parenthesis

3:00:05 because there are some special words uh that some of the east

3:00:09 online Eastern Orthodox think uh just

3:00:11 absolutely obliterates the Latin sentence say

3:00:13 "Oh well the fathers say this but they never say that the fathers

3:00:17 say this but they never say that." But actually you know