Podcasts about Papal infallibility

Did Jay Dyer Just Refute Catholics on Papal Infallibility?

Many exploring Orthodoxy question whether the pope's authority was recognized in the early centuries. We look at the history behind papal infallibility, plus Catholic answers on the devil, 1 Timothy 2:12, and the Bread of Life discourse. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Questions Covered: 00:20 – Content Creator Spotlight: Desirea Sifuentes, the Uncatechized Catholic  15:98 – Why does God let the devil run around to cause problems?  28:45 – I'm Catholic, considering Orthodoxy. Was papal infallibility practiced in the early Church?  38:30 – What’s the context  1 Tim 2:12 and what was going on for him to write it?  44:28 – What supporting verses do you have for your understanding of the Bread of Life discourse? 

Mike Gormley and Dave VanVickle unpack Church history, explain papal theology, highlight the importance of Rome, and the importance of St. Peter. They also explain papal infallibility, what it is and what it is not. Snippet from the Show "So the Pope is supposed to be this thing of unity amongst the communion of the bishops, but he is not supposed to be the CEO of a bunch of franchises and that is an ugly way to view the Church." We want to hear from you! Email us at eksb@ascensionpress.com with your questions/comments Don't forget to text “EKSB” to 33-777 to get the shownotes right to your inbox! You can also find the full shownotes at www.ascensionpress.com/EveryKneeShallBow

Late day show today wherein we covered the North Dakota abolition vote, Rick Warren's horrific eisegesis, Bill Craig on Jesus' "re-incarnation," Eric Conn and the PWC, and then to a lengthy discussion of Honorius, Francis, and world's most useless dogma, "Papal Infallibility."

Did James White Just Refute Papal Infallibility?

This episode is the third in a series on Vatican I and the dogma of Papal infallibility. In this part, I discuss John Henry Newman's development hypothesis.

Joe Heschmeyer examines Cameron Bertuzi's and Gavin Ortlund's recent videos on the problem of the Biblical Canon.…

Why does the Roman Catholic Church claim that the pope is infallible? Today, R.C. Sproul surveys the historical, political, and doctrinal factors that contributed to the rise of the papacy. Get R.C. Sproul's book Are We Together? and lifetime streaming access to his teaching series on Roman Catholicism for your donation of any amount:  https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/3712/roman-catholicism Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was known for his ability to winsomely and clearly communicate deep, practical truths from God's Word. He was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, host of the Ask Ligonier podcast, and a graduate of Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne, Australia. Nathan joined Ligonier in 2012 and lives in Central Florida with his wife and four children. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Flashback! Tonight we ended up not covering the work by St. Theodore the Studite On the Holy Icons which forms part of the theological basis of the argumentation of the 7th Ecumenical Councils.  Instead we did Q n A that covered Protestant assumptions, ecumenical councils and the canons - are canon laws infallible? - addressing the recent bogus Roman Catholic canard that I "deny councils," the issue of icons as types, typology and hermeneutics, Protestant standards for "revelation" versus "tradition," the issue of the divine ideas and Roman Catholic and Protestant epistemology and much more!Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

Michelle Sagarino joins the show to highlight the Box of Joy program, Jim Papandrea talks Papal Infallibility, and Ellen drops the blogosphere. 

Patrick answers a caller's question about the differences between Catholicism and Christianity. He explains Jesus' Jewish roots and the continuous history of the Catholic Church. Patrick also discusses how Protestantism separated from Catholic beliefs during the Reformation. This episode will help you understand your spiritual journey and where you truly belong.   Annie - What is the difference between Catholic, Christian and Jewish? (00:36) Cesar (email) – What are your thoughts on multigenerational households and how it aligns with our Catholic faith? (17:30) Martin - My daughter and son have fallen away from the Church and are now voting Democratic. How do I ask them if they support abortion? (20:52) Daniel – Can you explain Papal Infallibility and the misconceptions around it.  (30:40) Ruben - I was a protestant most of life.  I came back to Church 5 years ago.  It was an easy decision after listening to your show (40:32) Tom - What if two baptized people who are not practicing their faith get married? Are you using a biblical term of what sacramental means? (44:05) Tim - It's even more important to bring children into the world during times of strife and war (48:13)

This second in our series on Papal infallibility explores the maximal infallibility position taken by Henry Edward Manning.

In today's episode Dr. Anders goes deep into topics as voting Catholic, Papal Infallibility, where does people's rights come from and more.

In today's episode Dr. Anders goes deep into topics as voting Catholic, Papal Infallibility, where does people's rights come from and more.

Canon Benjamin Norman, ICKSP currently serves as Chaplain of the ICKSP Oakland Apostolate at St. Margaret Mary Catholic Church in Oakland, California. He was ordained in 2018.     In Today's Show: Is it possible for someone who has same sex attraction to become a monk or friar but not a priest? Is it wrong to work on Holy days of obligation? During mass why would we say Benedicite as a response to Benedicite? Can you give a overview on Papal Infallibility? If I try to fulfill the first Friday devotion, but a priest did not show up on one of the Friday's, do I have to start over? Why do priests study philosophy and should lay people study it? How does belief interact with knowledge? Why do some people after the sign of the cross kiss their fingers?   Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows, and submit your question for Father!

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/ultraviolet-light-reveals-scientists-hidden-bible-passage-1500-years-later (for Luke) Unique passages: https://www.julianspriggs.co.uk/pages/UniquePassages  Bibleref.com commentary on Mark 6:5: https://www.bibleref.com/Mark/6/Mark-6-5.html  Thanks Biblehub.com's parallel chapters tool.   Words of Jesus ("All the Red Letter Scriptures") https://www.jesusbelieverjd.com/all-the-red-letter-scriptures-of-jesus-in-the-bible-kjv/    Parallel Passages in the Gospels https://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html#sect1     The Eye of the Needle (crossword/sudoku feedback): https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-25583,00.html#:~:text=The%20%22Eye%20of%20the%20Needle,in%20order%20to%20enter%20heaven   Camel needle w/Aquinas citation (of Anselm of Canterbury)-- Anselm of Canterbury as cited in Catena Aurea, Thomas Aquinas, CCEL Edition. https://classictheology.org/2021/10/12/through-the-eye-of-an-actual-needle-the-fake-gate-theory/    The Widow's Mite: https://numismatics.org/pocketchange/the-poor-widows-mite/    Miracles of Jesus reference list: https://sunnyhillschurch.com/3301/the-37-miracles-of-jesus-in-chronological-order/ LINK BIBLEREF.COM MENTIONED IN CHAPTER 8 SECTION (“Can't” do miracles in hometown- keyword absolute for lookup)   Welcome to the Popeular History Podcast: History through Pope Colored Glasses. My name is Gregg and this is episode 0.21f: Sayings of the Savior Part VI: Messages from Mark.   All of these aught episodes are made to let us build our Pope-colored glasses so we can use the same lenses when we look at history together. If you're lost, start at the beginning!   In previous worldbuilding episodes, we looked at quite a few of Jesus' words: the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain, plus all the Parables and miracles on our list, and his sayings closely tied to all those.   All that made for a good start, but if we're going to look at the sayings of the Savior, we should be comprehensive to avoid cherry-picking. So we spent the last of these worldbuilding episodes going chapter by chapter through the first gospel in order of appearance, the Gospel of Matthew, up until things caught up with where our rosary themed tour of the New Testament will carry on when we get to the next mystery. I am aware that what was once upon a time supposed to be a couple quick background episodes introducing my listeners to, well, all of Catholicism has ballooned wildly into wheels within wheels, but hey, I wouldn't have it any other way.   Anyways, next up in the traditional ordering is the Gospel of Mark, so that's our mission today. We'll go chapter by chapter, glossing over what we've already discussed and focusing on the Sayings of the Savior, since, you know, that's the deal here.   MARK 1 opens with a description of Jesus' cousin John the Baptist, and you'll never guess what John does to Jesus when He shows up. Actually you probably will because I was trying to set you up with a fake out where John refuses to baptize Jesus but it turns out that initial refusal is in Matthew but is absent from Mark's generally sparse account. Anyways, we get Jesus' first words in Mark only after he's baptized and had an express version of the temptation in the desert. Sometime after John was arrested, we're told Jesus preached a message that sounded a lot like what John had been saying,   MARK 1:15 “The time has come,” … “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”   GREGG Of course we just got a bit meta, since “Good news” is where the word Gospel comes from. A very “Begun, the Clone Wars have” moment. This urgent call to repentance has been a consistent refrain throughout Christian history, with the good news bring that repentance really can lead to reconciliation with God. Shoutout 0.1 if you need a refresher on why such a reconciliation is needed in the Catholic perspective.   Having begun to declare the Good News, Jesus the Christ soon picks out folks to help him, starting, like all good missions, with a pun. Talking to two fishermen, the brothers Simon and Andrew, Jesus says   MARK 1:   Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men   GREGG When I covered this section in Matthew- we're deep in parallels here- I stuck with my usual NIV translation. Not because I'm an NIV snob, but because the New International Version is the one that shows up first on biblegateway.com and it's good enough, especially when I'm doing a LOT of scripture quoting like I have been with this series.   But because the NIV went for inclusivity, they translated the line as “make you fish for people”, which simply isn't as smooth a pun. I did check with my toddler-level skills and it looks to me like the pun is present in the Greek, so it's worth calling out. Jesus' humor is often downplayed, which is a shame.   If you're wondering why I'm going on about this, well, honestly, Mark is short and we've already covered most of what's there in Matthew. So we might as well take our time. There's plenty there, to be clear, I don't want angry letters from scholars whose primary focus is Mark saying I'm dismissing it offhand.   Alright, enough dilly dallying, what's next? Jesus calls more fishermen–the sons of Zebedee, James and John–but His actual words and possible new pun are not recorded. The next time he speaks he's talking to a demon in one of the healing miracles we discussed in 0.20, followed by another miracle–the healing of Simon's mother in law–later in the same chapter. Then, after assorted other miracles, Jesus goes out to pray by Himself in what's described as a quote unquote “desolate place”. When His disciples track Him down and tell Him everyone is looking for Him, He says   MARK 1:38 Let us go somewhere else--to the nearby villages--so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.   GREGG Though Jesus' disciples did in fact say no to Him on a downright alarming number of occasions, they went along with His plan this time, and another montage of undescribed healings and exorcisms finishes off with the healing of a grateful leper who ignores Jesus' command to tell no one. Mark 1 concludes with Jesus getting mobbed with requests for miracles as a result.   Chapter 2 opens with the healing of the paralytic who had been let in via the roof–a great bit of drama, but something we already covered under our review of miracles. After that, He called His tax collector disciple, who we got to know as Matthew in the Gospel of, well, Matthew, but who's listed as Levi here and in Luke. Using different names in different contexts was absolutely a thing,  but both Matthew and Levi are Hebrew names so the usual Greek vs Hebrew divide doesn't seem to be the culprit here, and what's more neither Mark nor Luke explicitly identify Levi with the apostle Matthew, though the inference isn't a terrible reach over all.   In the end, our main hook in this particular series is the actual sayings of the Savior, and this calling is carried out with a simple “follow me”, so perhaps we shouldn't dive into it too much.   After taking out a section of parables we covered in 0.21c as part of a SYNOPTIC ROUNDUP, we arrive at Mark 2:23, notably without leaving the SYNOPTIC ROUNDUP room because you can also follow along in Matthew 12 and Luke 6. As a reminder if you're rusty on Jewish customs, the Sabbath rest begins Friday at sundown and continues through the day on Saturday. Picking grain as we're going to see here would be considered working on the day of rest and therefore a violation.   MARK (2:23-2:28, NIV)) 23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.   24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”   25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?   26 in the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."   27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.   28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”   GREGG this section is one of the earlier signals of what would become a core piece of Christianity: its distancing from the Law of Moses. There are still aspects of continuity, for example most Christians including Catholics actually do still maintain *a* day of rest, just Sunday rather than Saturday and they'll generally skip the night before business though some of that has carried over in the form of vigil practices, as we'll see when we get there.   Anyways, I've always thought those last couple lines were pretty baller, and it turns out they're one of the few bits unique to Mark, so let's go ahead and hear them again:   QUOTE The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. END QUOTE   This bold claim lies at the heart of what will in time lead to the followers of Christ being seen as a religion separate from Judaism, which is fair enough but also don't sleep on just how much that takes, given there's such a thing as secular Jews and Jewish atheists. There have been other messiah movements in Jewish history; though they fizzled out it's not much of a stretch to imagine a world where Christianity is still seen as part of a wide tent Judaism, indeed there is still a common heritage. But there are absolutely differences as well, principally, of course, centered around Jesus, the Son of Man, Lord of the Sabbath.   That other part   “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”   is the context for the start of the next chapter, serving as a good reminder that, while convenient for finding your place, chapter and verse divisions are not part of the original texts of the Bible, so it's important to not treat them as fences where you have to stop. You see, in Mark 3 we have the healing of the man with a withered hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath:   MARK 3 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone.” 4 Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.   GREGG I mean, it's a bit of a false dichotomy perhaps, are those really the only two options? But obviously I'm siding with Jesus here, mark me down as pro-healing when one can heal. And yeah, we actually already covered that exchange when we talked about the miracle in our miracles roundup, but the words are important there and Mark is short so forgive me for fitting it in here too.   Mark 3 continues with Jesus dealing with crowds now that word is getting around due to His miracles, and simultaneously He's ordering demons not to share the apparent secret that He is quote “the holy one of God”. We don't have his exact words in commanding the demons here so there's more room for interpretation than usual but the general take on these sort of passages is that it's tied to His time not having yet come to be revealed as the Messiah. Of course, unless I missed something, the specific instances where Jesus talks about His time having not yet come are in the Gospel of John, so reading that into Mark is something most modern scholars wouldn't go for- especially since the general consensus is Mark came first by a fair stretch- but that sort of quibble wasn't much of a barrier for most of the history of Christians reflecting on Scripture, so the traditional interpretation is what it is and I don't think it's too much of a reach.   After telling assorted demons to hush up, Jesus appoints the Twelve Apostles starting in verse 13, no direct quotes there so no need to tarry though interested folks are always welcome to check out the naming differences between the Gospels.   Starting in verse 20 we have the house divided parable, covered in our parables series a few episodes back, then in verse 28 we hit “the unpardonable sin” section, and believe it or not it's not being a weeb, it turns out it's, well, let's let Jesus explain:   MARK 3 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."   GREGG When we covered the parallel text of this in Matthew 12–seriously, over 90% of Mark is parallelled in Matthew–I focused on the idea of the sin against the Spirit as being despair. But Mark's telling has a bit of context that has lead to another popular interpretation, especially among–Catholics cover your ears– *whispers* Protestants.   MARK 3 30He said this because they were saying, "He has an impure spirit.”   GREGG Using that verse, which at a glance is simply explaining why Jesus said what He said, the passage is taken to mean that rejecting Jesus as the Son of God slash Savior slash Messiah is the sin against the Spirit being referred to here. And though I called out Protestants specifically a minute ago, it's not like that interpretation is unheard of within Catholicism, typically it's a both/and sort of thing, accepting the despair angle and the “ya'll need Jesus” angle. Nor are the two interpretations unrelated, as someone wholly given to despair will have a hard time accepting Jesus' offer of salvation.   Of course, when I speak of accepting Jesus' offer of salvation, now I really AM getting into the fundamental faith vs works discussion. That's faith and works in the context of salvation from sin. We'll be getting into it in more detail in future episodes, but as an overview all major forms of Christianity agree that faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ is fundamentally necessary for salvation. The disagreement comes in whether anything else plays any role- “anything else” being summed up under the umbrella term of “works”, or it might help to rephrase the question as whether our actions have any meaning when it comes to our salvation.   For Catholics, the answer is yes, while for most Protestants, the answer is no. Generally speaking when there are fights about it, Protestants will take the position that your works having meaning, as Catholics argue is the case, means that you can save yourself through your works. Some people do think that, of course, but not Catholics, at least not Catholics who know their onions, as the Catholic Church condemned that position as a heresy over thousand years before Protestantism became a thing. However, the Church is far from perfect, and in the time of Martin Luther, whose teachings are typically seen as the spark that ignited the Protestant Reformation, it's clear that some within the Church were comfortable blurring the lines for financial gain.   I've got more on faith vs works and Catholicism vs Protestantism planned for future episodes, and I don't want to bury that conversation where no one will look for it, so let's leave that there for now and get back to Mark, with chapter 3 verse 31 to 35   MARK   31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.”   GREGG Thanks to the Marian doctrine of Our Lady's perpetual virginity we discussed back in episode 0.14, the surprising fact that Jesus doesn't immediately attend to his family members isn't the most discussed aspect of this passage when it comes to Catholicism. No, that would be the fact that Jesus' brothers, the Greek term is Adelphoi, show up. Generally these are understood as Jesus' half brothers, via his earthly father Saint Joseph from a previous marriage.   As for the question of whether Jesus just kind of blew off his family here, half brothers or cousins or full brothers or whoever was there with Mary, while I can see how you might get that impression, it's not like His every action is recorded. It's entirely possible that He checked in with them after making a quick positive observation- one that I don't want to lose in the rest of this analysis so I'll repeat it:   MARK 3 “35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.”   GREGG   Anyways, as is the custom with Mark, we're on to the next scene in a hurry, launching into Mark 4 with the next verse as a classic transition:   MARK 4 1 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake.   GREGG I'm not going to go into detail about what He taught by the lake here, because Chapter 4 is made up entirely of miracles and parables we've already covered in 0.20 and earlier in 0.21, respectively. We've got the Parable of the Sower, then the Lamp on a Stand, then the Growing Seed and the Mustard Seed, capped off by Mark's account of Jesus calming the storm at sea.   Similarly, Mark 5 is a string of by-now familiar miracles- and if any don't seem familiar you know by now Miracles are in one of the 0.20 episodes, right? The Gerasene Demoniac, the Bleeding Woman, Jairus' Daughter, they're all there, and in Mark 5 too.   Mark 6 give us a bit more food for thought on Jesus' local life and family dynamic. A sign of how things hit differently at home, it's worth a long quote:   MARK 6:1-6 6 Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.   “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What's this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.   4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.   GREGG Many of Jesus' sayings have become proverbial, and while it's not in the level of turning the other cheek, “a prophet is not without honor except in his own town” has some popularity. It does seem to speak to a common truth of celebrities.   I do like the touch that He was unable to do any miracles there except for the miracles which He did do, which evidently still failed to impress. Of course, the idea of Jesus being *unable* to do miracles is theologically interesting, since He's, you know, God. Of course, God does seem to have had some trouble dealing with iron chariots back in Judges 1:19, so maybe there is some precedent.   But we've got our Pope-colored glasses on, so not only is Jesus God but God is omnipotent, so it's fair to ask: what gives? It could be that old favorite, the translation issue, but I admit my personal Greek skills are basically at the naming barnyard animals level, so I decided to bring in an expert to verify. An expert by the name of bibleref.com, linked in the show notes. Their commentary on the passage notes that in the parallel passage in Matthew, it simply says Jesus “did not” perform many miracles in his hometown, which isn't as controversial though of course it's always fair to ask why God doesn't just fix everything for everyone since he's all good and all knowing and all powerful. But that popular question isn't where we're at today because apparently it's not a translation issue, Mark 6:5 does specifically say Jesus *could not* perform the miracles in the Greek according to the commentary. But it goes on to note that there can be multiple senses of inability, like how you can't touch the ball when playing soccer, or football for my non-US listeners, and yeah, I'm not counting goalies. Anyways, obviously you can physically touch the ball, but you cannot in the sense that it's against the established rules of the game. If that's the sense, it makes some sense that Jesus quote unquote “can't” perform miracles in His hometown because His miracles are supposed to draw people to Him and they aren't having that effect at home. At least not much, keep in mind he did do some miracles there according to Mark, so in any event the whole “can't” thing definitely isn't absolute.   Of course, I personally find it awful to think that God would play games with our salvation- hence my quasi-universalism. I get respecting our free will, but I also know He's omnipotent and isn't going to give up on us, no matter how much we try to give up on ourselves if there's another chance we can get He's going to give that to us. But we have to accept at some point, so don't think I'm downplaying the urgency there.   Anyways, let's get back to Mark 6, now in Verse 8 where He's sending the disciples out in pairs with the following instructions:   MARK 6:8-11   8 Take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.   9 Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.   10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town.   11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”   GREGG As you should by now have come to expect, these instructions do have a parallel in Matthew that we covered in the last worldbuilding episode. But it's not as close a parallel as you might think. Often, as we've talked about before, parallels in the synoptic gospels are so close that you'd get dinged for plagiarism, with maybe a word being changed here or there. But here, it basically reads like two different people were told to write down a speech shortly after they finished hearing it. Which, I mean, matches tradition, for what it's worth. The most obvious difference is that Mark's telling skips Matthew's bit about only going to Jewish households, forbidding visits to Gentiles or Samaritans. Though as we've seen Mark's Jesus was already laying the groundwork for some serious reframing of Mosaic Law by taking on the title of Lord of the Sabbath, I think on the whole it's more likely that in Mark's account that's simply taken as a given and perhaps left off for brevity rather than this being a separate incident or its absence being a sign that the disciples were to ignore those cultural barriers at this stage.   The rest of Mark 6 is taken up by his narrative of the death of John the Baptist, where, unusually for the Gospels, Jesus is offstage, and then there's two banner miracles, the Feeding of the 5000 and Jesus walking on water.   Which brings us to Mark 7, which has Jesus… let's see… excoriating the Jewish authorities… then calling a woman a dog… and let's not forget giving someone a wet willy.   Don't believe me? Let's go.   MARK 7   1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) 5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' 11But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)-- 12then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”   GREGG Note that while there's a close parallel between these passages and Matthew 15, Mark is apparently much more concerned with explaining Jewish custom to his audience, suggesting the intended audience is not Jews themselves.   The rest of the chapter we've covered before, from the Parable of the Heart of Man to the two miracles that give the tibits I teased earlier. Jesus calls the syrophoenician woman a dog in the runup to healing her servant, and he totally heals a deaf guy via wet willy at the end of the chapter. But I already covered both of those in 0.20c, so check them out there for more.   So that means we're on to Chapter 8, which opens with… another miracle! Turns out Jesus did a lot of those! Who knew?   That's the feeding of the four thousand, but you know the drill, we're skipping that and on ahead to verse 12, where Jesus is responding to a group of Pharisees asking for a sign.   MARK 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it."   GREGG Ok. Remembering that by a sign here they mean a miracle, we've got the guy known for working miracles getting annoyed at requests for miracles. Why? You'd think He'd be all about that. Is it another sort of hometown situation, where folk's lack of faith is an impediment?   Well, kind of sort of. But not quite.   In the parallel passage from Matthew 16, which I admit I kind of glossed over last time because I was excited to get to the Papally significant Matthew 16:18, Jesus calls those asking for a sign “a wicked and adulterous generation”, which can help explain why Jesus is refusing the request–after all even in Mark's shorter version their motives are implicitly questioned, with Jesus asking why they're asking for a sign.   The typical interpretation goes that Jesus is refusing the request for a sign because the Pharisees have the wrong *motives* in asking. Unlike those in His hometown, they seem to believe Jesus can work miracles, but they just want to see a show, they aren't interested in Jesus' message beyond that. And Jesus for His part, is interested in signs *for the sake of* His message, He isn't there to entertain.   These various passages that show Jesus specifically not working miracles could be taken to suggest some embarrassment by the authors about Jesus' miracles not being as renowned as they would like, forcing them to give explanations for why that's the case. I can definitely picture some neckbeard arguing if God wanted to make everyone believe he'd make miracles known to all and be undeniable. Which is a reasonable enough thought except unless God removes free will, there's never going to be such a thing as undeniable anyways.   In the next few verses, Jesus warns against the teachings of the Pharisees and Herod. Though technically the “teachings” part isn't spelled out in Mark, so it could be He's actually meaning to go in another direction with things than He does in Matthew's version, though I think their teaching or at least their general influence is His most likely target. Let's hear it and regroup after.   MARK 8 14-15 14The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat.   15"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”   GREGG Certainly He isn't talking about literal bread, as is evidenced from His reaction. Also, it's interesting that Mark warns against Herod's yeast specifically, while Matthew leaves Herod off in favor of tossing in the Sadducees to accompany the Pharisees. If Mark is the rougher, earlier version as most scholars currently argue–and as I'm inclined to believe looking at the two side by side these last few months–then it seems like one can argue Matthew's account has been modified to perhaps be a little more authority-friendly in this case, keeping in mind the Herodians were the client-kings in charge of the area in Jesus' day. Check out 0.13 on the Hasmoneans for more on that.   After a miracle interlude–healing the blind man in a two-step process where the miracle is evidently incomplete at first–a fairly intriguing Mark-only one that is arguably sanitized out of other accounts, but one we already covered so I'm not getting back into it today– anyways after that we hit Mark's account of Peter's testament, you know, with the binding and loosing and the keys and all that. Except actually *without* all that in Mark's version.   Here's the whole exchange as Mark tells it:   MARK 8:27-30 27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?” 28They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah.” 30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.   GREGG Like I said, not a key in sight. Peter does give the critical answer, but none of what would become the principal text for the Papacy is presented here. And again, if you consider Mark as the older account, as most scholars do, it's fair to raise an eyebrow at that. Yet in the end, one way or another, we have a Pope, and I do think there's something to be said for the unifying force of the role. After all, if no one is Pope, then everyone is Pope. But I digress.   Of course, poor Peter can only wish he were simply downplayed in Mark 8. The reality is he does pop up again later in the chapter, in a familiar but unflattering way:   MARK 8:31- 31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”   GREGG So there you go. If you want to make a case for the Pope not always being right, there's an easy one. Not everyone gets called Satan by, well, God. Of course, there's a surprising amount of room where you can accept Papal Infallibility *and* the idea that the Pope isn't always right, but we'll get to that in time.   The chapter finishes with Jesus reflecting on what his stated fate means for his followers, and it's, uh, not the cheeriest image. It bleeds into chapter 9 so don't put your Bible down too quickly If you're following along.   MARK 8:34-9:1   34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels. CHAPTER 9 1And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.   GREGG Goodness, Jesus, it's hard for me to keep my running joke of treating the Crucifixion as a spoiler when you're literally telling your disciples to take up their crosses before it actually happens. Oh well.   Mark 9 continues with The Transfiguration, but like I mentioned in our Matthew discussion, that's it's own mystery of the rosary that we haven't gotten to yet, so pardon me and I'll skip that here too.   After that, we have a miracle- the boy with an unclean spirit that can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. So on to verse 30, where we have more talk of the upcoming Passion:   MARK 9:30-32 “30They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” 32But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.   GREGG Jesus was speaking pretty plainly here, so it's not immediately clear why the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant, but it's probably related to the way Jesus keeps telling folks either to talk or not to talk about things. There's definitely a focus on pacing the spread of the Good News throughout the Gospels, especially in Mark, and it seems like a supernatural barrier to the Apostles' understanding here would fit in with that.   The fear of asking is more easily explained: if someone you know is really good at making predictions and you're pretty sure they just predicted something awful, you may well be hesitant to confirm that with them.   Being hesitant to talk about stuff with Jesus carries us into the next few verses, where Jesus apparently puts His omniscience to good use in a wonderfully passive-aggressive way:   MARK 9: 33-35 33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”   GREGG The first will be last is one of Jesus' recurring themes, and the whole “I'm-pretty-sure-I-heard-you-but-since-you-won't-confirm-I'm-just-going-to-respond-indirectly approach reminds me of dealing with the drama of children, though I suppose a lot of things remind me of interacting with children these days given my current life situation, and that approach is not necessarily one that exclusively applies to children. Either way, Jesus does bring children into the conversation as His next move.   MARK 9:36-37 36He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”   GREGG That passage is one of the more often-remembered portions of the Gospels, in part because it's in all three synoptics [air horn], but also in part because it's a handy pastoral lesson to push back on folks who might complain about the presence of children in worship services. As they say, if no one in your church is cryin', it's dyin'.   Next up we have some verses you might wish had been left off if you've ever gotten tired of hearing “in Jesus' name” a lot:   MARK 9:38-41 38"Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.   GREGG Personally I'm thankful for that passage, because I'm a big supporter of ecumenism and cooperation, and “whoever is not against us is for us” is an immensely helpful sentiment in that context.   For the next section, where Jesus gets pretty intense, there are several verses that simply aren't present in my go-to NIV version, presumably for bible nerd manuscript reasons. Now, the point of the Sayings of the Savior series is to make sure we cover *everything* Jesus said in the canonical scriptures, and those verses are speaking lines for Jesus, so that won't do. Thankfully the King James version has us covered, so I'm going to switch to that for those verses.   So you can tell the difference easily, I'll be switching to a guest narrator as well. Lebron James hasn't responded to my calls, so the King James Version of the King James Version will have to wait, but my brother has come in clutch for podcast purposes. PJHERE MARK 9:42-48 42"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [NIV leaves off verse 44 “44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”-KJV] 45And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [NIV leaves off verse 46 “46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”-KJV] 47And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, NIV leaves off verse 48 “48Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”-KJV]   GREGG So yeah, by “verses” I kind of meant “one verse used as a refrain”, but it's officially verses 44, 46, and 48, so I am technically correct, which I'm told is the best kind of correct.   Thanks to the reference to “leading little ones astray”, the great millstone imagery has had some use in response to the sexual abuse crisis, though the most commonly cited of these evocative instructions is plucking out the eye, thanks in no small part to the frequency of admonitions against pornography in the online era. Cutting off the hand is also referenced, while I think most folks if they're being honest won't even necessarily recall cutting off the foot is among the scenarios mentioned.   Anyways, Jesus finishes this section with a few salty verses that initially bear a strong resemblance to Matthew 5:13- the salt of the earth bit from the Sermon on the Mount. I'm thinking I might have actually pointed these verses out when I was going over that due to the similarity, but just in case, here they are:   MARK 9:49-50 49Everyone will be salted with fire 50"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”   GREGG “Have salt among yourselves” is an unusual turn of phrase, the typical interpretation of this Mark-only phrase is that Christians are supposed to bring out the best in one another, the way salt brings out the best in food.   We're now entering Mark 10, which- surprise surprise, has close parallels to Matthew 19 and 20. I'm not going to give the Matthew sections as a side by side, partly because we've already covered them independently, partly because this episode is already going to be one of my longest despite Mark being the shortest Gospel. But it's worth giving it a thorough treatment since scholars tend to think it's the oldest and also because if I'm going to go all-out it might as well be with the shortest of the bunch. You know, for efficiency.   Anyways…   MARK 10:1-12 1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. 2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”   GREGG This version of Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce notably does not include the exception for adultery we saw in Matthew's account. Additionally where Matthew focused on Eunuchs for the kingdom–and other kinds of Eunuchs–Mark concluded with that extra condemnation of divorce, with remarriage as adultery.   In the next passage, the conversation changes direction:   MARK 10:13-16 13People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.   GREGG We'll meet the Church Father who was allegedly one of the children in this scene as we go about our big timeline, once we get through this worldbuilding and go into that. But for now, it's time for one of the most inconvenient passages in the Gospels, at least if you're rich.    MARK 10:17-31 17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'” 20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy.” 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?” 27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” 28Then Peter spoke up, "We have left everything to follow you!” 29"Truly I tell you," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--along with persecutions--and in the age to come eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”   GREGG There is a surprisingly thorough and ranging discussion of the whole “eye of the needle” bit in the digital edition of the British newspaper The Guardian, in the Nooks and Crannies section of their Notes and Queries page. Which I think makes it the most random thing I've cited here, but hey, it's got it all so let's get a sampling going:   First, the original query: The Guardian.com “I recently read that one of the gates into Jerusalem was named "The Eye of the Needle," and was quite tricky to negotiate, since it was quite small. Does this mean that when Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven," He meant that, far from being impossible, it was merely tricky?” Dara O'Reilly, London, UK   GREGG The first reply is a fairly representative take on the gate theory:   GUARDIAN The interpretation that seems to make sense is this. The "Eye of the Needle" was indeed a narrow gateway into Jerusalem. Since camels were heavily loaded with goods and riders, they would need to be un-loaded in order to pass through. Therefore, the analogy is that a rich man would have to similarly unload his material possessions in order to enter heaven. Rick, Brighton Uk   GREGG But then the plot thickens, as William Elsom of the UK is having none of it:   GUARDIAN No. The failure is in the translation. The original word that should have been translated was "camella" which means rope. (presumably Greek, but I am open to this being corrected.) "It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" makes more sense as a comparison. William Elsom, UK   GREGG There's something of a scholarly telephone game going on in the background, as basically every “mistranslation” take offers a variation on the root word and apparent correct meaning. Which is fairly normal for translations especially when there are different alphabets involved, but still, I chuckled.   GUARDIAN I am currently studying the Aramaic language and indeed the word "gamla" (transliterated) does mean both "camel" and "thick rope." Assuming the original manuscript with that teaching of Jesus was recorded in Aramaic and later translated to Greek, the translator may have been familiar with only the "camel" definition of the word. I have not been able to find any reliable information on a city gate called "The Eye of the Needle." -Xakk, FL USA   GREGG As much as I hate agreeing with someone who spells Zach Xakk–though presumably that's a choice his parents made– anyways as much as I hate to admit it, this overall take seems the most likely to this non-Aramaic specialist. The general meaning is still the same, it's not something you're going to get done.   It's also worth noting that at least as of the return from the Exile, if the Book of Nehemiah is to be believed, there was no “Eye of the Needle” gate in Jerusalem. And I can state that with confidence because as longtime listeners will recall, I had a whole special episode devoted to the topic from July 2020 entitled “Literally A Detailed Description of the Gates of Jerusalem and Who Fixed Them in the Time of Nehemiah”, which, despite being exactly what it says it is, has been a pretty popular episode. In any event, it *could* be that an Eye of the Needle gate was established at a later point, though really the whole gate thing feels like wishful thinking on the part of the rich or the would-be rich to me.   Of course, as you might expect, there are also literalists who agree it's wishful thinking and would rather cut to the chase. Plus people like my man David:   GUARDIAN The translation is irrelevant. We all know in our hearts we cannot love money above God.   David Porter, Orangevale, US   GREGG Let's conclude with my favorite take:   GUARDIAN “Blessed are the cheesemakers?” Mike Conn, San Francisco,    GREGG After the second Gate-Gate scandal we've come across in this show (shoutout Samson if you've forgotten), we arrive at Jesus' third prediction of His own death in Mark   MARK 10:32-34 32They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”   GREGG Mark gives no record of the Apostles' reaction to this third prediction, unless the next verse is the actual reaction, which is a hilarious thought because it would be shockingly tone deaf. But yeah, it's the very next verse without any transition except the word “then”, so you can certainly read it that way:   MARK 10:35-45 35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” 41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.   GREGG It turns out James and John, the Sons of Zebedee, have massive… cojones. But in the end their reward is understood to be martyrdom–perhaps not what they had in mind, they certainly seem to have had more of an earthly kingdom in mind.   In any event, here we have more of the “first will be last” motif popping up, and Scriptural background for why the Pope is considered, at least in theory, the “Servant of the Servants of God”.   Mark 10 finishes up with the healing of the blind Bartimaeus, so it's on to Mark 11, with Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem:   MARK 11:1-11 1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 2saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 3If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'” 4They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, 5some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?” 6They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. 7When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. 8Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” 10"Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest heaven!” 11Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.   GREGG We'll talk more about Palm Sunday in the future, for now just know that this scene is the basis for that. It's also a sign that Jesus is approaching the end of His earthly ministry, though we've still got another couple chapters for today after we finish this one.   We'll skip verses 12-14 as that's the cursing of the fig tree we covered under miracles--and that's right, it's a non-healing miracle. At least His target is a tree and not a human as happens in some of the apocrypha.   Which brings us to Mark's version of the scene with the moneychangers in the Temple:   MARK 11:15-18 15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'” 18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. 19When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.   GREGG Mark's somewhat abbreviated account leaves off Him making a whip, which is a loss, but hey, the core is there. As a reminder, and yes, I'll say this every time, just remember when someone asks “what would Jesus do” that flipping tables is absolutely a valid option.   Then, we're back to the fig tree, seeing the result of the curse on the way out, and this is extra special because this is actually an extended Mark only reflection. Including another King James specific verse that the NIV leaves off. Let's hear it!   MARK 11:20-26 20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” 22"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23"Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." [NIV omits but KJV has] 26But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.]   GREGG Of course, when I said “Mark exclusive”, that may have been a bit of an oversell, because while the now-proverbial “faith to move mountains” doesn't appear in Matthew's fig tree discourse, it does line up closely to another section, Matthew 17:20, several chapters before Matthew's fig tree. As for the rest, the sentiment is overall familiar, but worth repeating so I'll say it again:   MARK 11:25-26 if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." [NIV omits but KJV has] 26But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.]   GREGG Next up we've got an attempted trap that Jesus turns around, Bugs Bunny style.   MARK 11:27-33 27They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?” 29Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30John's baptism--was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!” 31They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'Of human origin' . . . " (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) 33So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."   GREGG Mark 12 opens with the Parable of the Tenant Farmers, which I personally prefer to call the Parable of the Bad Tenants since I think just calling them farmers ignores the amount of murdering they do in the parable. But anyways, we're not covering it here, ‘cause parable. So on to Verse 13:   MARK 12:13-17 13Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. 17Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.   GREGG This tax exchange, which we saw in Matthew and we'll see again in Luke (SYNOPTIC ROUNDUP AIRHORN?) is intended to be a sort of sting operation, with the expected result being Jesus objecting to the tax and therefore being guilty of rebellion against the Roman government. But I don't think Jesus even needed to tap into His omniscience here, they were acting pretty suspicious with the leading flattery and line of questioning. Plus, what does God ultimately need money for?   In the end, of course, everything we have ultimately comes from God, so while I mentioned it with Matthew it's worth mentioning again now- when we give Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's, God gets everything.   Next up we've got Jesus fielding yet another insincere question from religious authorities, this time from the Sadducees:   MARK 12:18-27 18Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising--have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”   GREGG That last bit– “You are badly mistaken!” is a Marcan flourish that helps emphasize Mark's generally less Pharisee-slash-Sadducee–friendly stance, underlining the intensity of Jesus' disagreement with them.   The next section is the part about The Greatest Commandment which we used to open the Sayings of the Savior, so check out 0.21a for that. Then we have a theological question apparently designed to further undermine the Credibility of the Teachers of the Law. This time around, it's Jesus who picks the fight,   MARK 12:35-40 35While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' 37David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight. 38As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”   GREGG “The large crowd listened to him with delight”, we're told, as Jesus excoriated the religious establishment of His day. Sounds like a political rally almost. No wonder He was condemned as a revolutionary.   The last scene in Mark 12 is one we haven't seen before- it's one of the few passages in Mark not paralleled in Matthew- and it's one of my favorites:   MARK12:41-44 41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. 43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on.”   GREGG This scene is generally called the Widow's Mite, not because “mite” was the term for small copper coins in ancient Judea–though they would retroactively be called mites–and not because the mite was the term for small copper coins in 17th century England where the King James Bible was produced, though they would pick up that name, but rather because the King James translation used a Dutch term for some small denomination coins that had originally been picked up for Biblical use by William Tyndale.   For once, I'll spare you a deeper rabbit hole, and move on from the names of coins to the lesson of the coins.   I mentioned before this passage is one of my favorites. While I appreciate the challenge behind Jesus' admonition to be perfect that we saw in Matthew, here we see that if all you have isn't much, God still sees the effort and meaningful sacrifice. There's something comforting in that for extremely inadequate folks like myself.   On the other hand, there's the lesson that giving out of your abundance may be mathematically and physically helpful but it's not spiritually significant. It's the right thing to do, of course, but an even better thing than giving your excess is to give beyond just your excess.   “But I need the rest”, you might argue. And it's certainly true, you may well have just reasons for keeping some aside. It would be irresponsible of me to sell all my worldly possessions and go live in a cave, as even if my wife signed onto it we've got kids too young to voluntarily renounce the world, it's our responsibility to care for them.   So, where's the line? When do we go from taking care of our responsibilities at home to hoarding?   Well, if you have any money, you should be giving. It doesn't have to be all you have, especially if you've got responsibilities to those in your household, but it should absolutely be more than nothing, and everything is best.   Ultimately Christians are not to see money as theirs to use how they see fit, as something they've earned. That simply isn't a Christian mentality. Money is a means by which you can help others–those you have primary responsibility for first, like your children, and those in need should be prioritized urgently as well. The Church speaks of the “preferential option for the poor”.   I'm not saying you need to become a shell of a human, doing nothing for yourself and allowing your own mental and physical health to collapse- though certainly some saints lives point in that direction. But putting yourself first is something that needs to be balanced against your ability to be a blessing to those around you.   This isn't the last time I'll bring up this sort of thing by any means, and it looks like I avoided one tangent only to go into another, so let's get back to Mark, now in Chapter 13, which opens with a prophesy of the destruction of the Temple, then flows into a description of the End Times– keep in mind from the Christian perspective time has not only a beginning but an end–that parallels Matthew.   It's understandable to want to read this as being written after the actual historical destruction of the Temple in 70AD, but as I argued in my chat with Garry Stevens last June, it's not like it was hard to see such a calamity coming during Jesus' life, Rome was already in control of a rebellious Judea with the Temple as a potential center of nationalist resistance. And that's of course if you discount the possibility of actual prophecy, which, remember, we're making our Pope-colored glasses, so Jesus actually prophesying Is the most straightforward explanation. Either way, a post 70AD dating for Mark is really pushing the outward edge of scholarly dating for the work, keeping in mind scholars tend to argue it's the oldest of the Gospels.   Without further ado, here's a long quote, going from Mark 13:1 to 27.   MARK 13 1As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2"Do you see a

Questions Covered: 04:03 – Does the trial of Pope Formosus disprove Papal Infallibility? 10:50 – Does time exist in the Church triumphant and the Church suffering as it does for the Church militant? 17:56 – How can we explain to an animal rights activist that humans have greater value and dignity? 24:36 – What's the morality of interacting with algorithms that can influence others to encounter questionable material? 31:09 – I want to start defending the faith. How do I defend the words “Praying to” when referring to Mary? 36:42 – What is the Catholic perspective of the orthogonality thesis within general purpose intelligence research? 42:29 – In your recent debate with James White on Sola Scriptura you argued the different ways “Word of God' was used. What resource did you use to build that argument? 46:33 – My wife and I both grew up Catholic but never got married in the Church. Do we have to get our marriage blessed by the Church? We now live like brother and sister. 51:05 – My son is in college and questioning whether God is real. How do I start a conversation with him without scaring him away? …

Open call for all opponents to come make their case! Continuing the embarrassing RC fumbles yesterday today we continue the debate! Catholic topics ONLY today! Next LIVE EVENT in Vegas June 22 here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/jamie-kennedy-jay-jamie-isaac-hollywood-conspiracy-comedy-live-tickets-882418596777?aff=oddtdtcreator Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

Open call for all opponents to come make their case! Continuing the embarrassing RC fumbles yesterday today we continue the debate! Catholic topics ONLY today! Next LIVE EVENT in Vegas June 22 here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/jamie-kennedy-jay-jamie-isaac-hollywood-conspiracy-comedy-live-tickets-882418596777?aff=oddtdtcreator Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

Dr. Tony Costa discusses several problematic issues with Pope Francis and analyzes the various problems with the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In this episode, we discuss some of the scandals that Pope Francis has been through including changing views on divorce, universalism, the denial of Hell, being accused of heresy by Catholic theologians and more. We examine the top theological issues with Pope Francis and whether he could be legitimately considered a heretic by both Catholics and Protestants. We also look at reasons why Pope Francis has pushed leftward on many issues and consider whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility holds any weight. This is an episode we hope will help Protestants and Catholics alike think carefully about these issues and equip them for fruitful conversations. Tony Costa earned a B.A. and M.A. in Biblical Studies from the University of Toronto and earned his Ph.D in New Testament and Theology from Radboud University in the Netherlands. He is a professor of apologetics at the Toronto Baptist Seminary. He also teaches as an instructor with the University of Toronto in the areas of Gospel Studies and Archaeology of the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Tony is also an ordained Minister of the Gospel. He is the author of 'Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters' and 'Early Christian Creeds and Hymns'. His forthcoming book 'No King but Christ: The Collapse and Bankruptcy of Secular Worldviews' will be released later this year. Tony is married to a wonderful wife, has 3 children, and a grandson. -----------------

On this episode of Catholic in America, we discuss papal infallibility.

HOUR 1 Audio Download Questions Covered: 05:09 – Papal Infallibility bothers me. 14:30 – Can you explain Transubstantiation? 20:34 – I'm a convert and a former pastor. Can the Church change teaching via ex cathedra? 34:12 – If you believe in a God that would send unbaptized babies to hell then I guess we don't […]

Questions Covered: 05:09 – Papal Infallibility bothers me. 14:30 – Can you explain Transubstantiation? 20:34 – I’m a convert and a former pastor. Can the Church change teaching via ex cathedra? 34:12 – If you believe in a God that would send unbaptized babies to hell then I guess we don’t worship the same God. 38:28 – I’m a protestant and I want to convert. Why are we asked to give up meat for lent? Why does fish not count as meat? 48:40 – Are mortal sins infallibly defined? …

Daniel Markham attended Mass in every state in the country. He shares his journey with us. Also, Al looks at the life of Blessed Pius IX, and we discuss the consequences of nationalized assisted suicide with Wes Smith.

Daniel Markham attended Mass in every state in the country. He shares his journey with us. Also, Al looks at the life of Blessed Pius IX, and we discuss the consequences of nationalized assisted suicide with Wes Smith.

We do laugh a little in this episode. Here we cover topics like the Early Church, Orthodox vs. Catholic, and Papal Infallibility. Get The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism

How do we balance unity and diversity within the Catholic church? Do Catholics have to accept every single one of the official teachings of the church? Does union with the pope mean accepting and believing every single thing he says?In this episode, we discuss unity and diversity within the Catholic church. Support us on Patreon!Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/References and further reading/listening/viewing:John 17Matthew 18Matthew 16Vatican DocumentsMeditations for the Octave of Christian of Christian UnityJohn Paul II, Ut Unum SintCatholic Answers, "Magisterium""What is the difference between doctrine and dogma?""Does doctrine change?""What's the Deal with Limbo?""Papal Infallibility""Can Dogma Develop?"Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life On the Ecclesial Vocation of the TheologianAleteia, "What is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?"Pope John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram, On Truth, Unity and Peace in a Spirit of CharityThe Catholic Encyclopedia, "Unity""Tradition and Living Magisterium""Christian Doctrine"Pints with Aquinas, "What is the difference between doctrine and dogma?"Relevant Radio, "Freedom in Temporal Affairs"

What is Papal Infallibility? Does that mean the Pope is never wrong? In this podcast Fr John Bartunek shares what papal infallibility means, the Catholic magisterium, and the freedom they give us. Find the whole series Built to Last at www.RCSpirituality.org Be sure to share this podcast with friends and family and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.

"[Papal infallibility] is the ultimate triumph of humanism..." -St. Justin Popovic St. Justin expresses the ultimate implications of the dogma of papal infallibility. Regardless of how frequent or infrequent papal infallibility is exercised, the embrace of such an ability for a man, even if supposedly given by God, is why St. Justin is righteously provoked. He perceives the ultimate implications of such a dogmatic pronouncement and shutters, calling to repentance all those hooked by such lies. As St. Justin says, “In writing this, we are not writing either the history of Europe, of its virtues and faults, or the history of the European pseudo-Churches. We are simply setting forth the entirety of their ontology, penetrating to the heart of European conceit, its demonic underground, where its dark sources lie and with whose waters it threatens to poison the world. This is no passing of judgment on Europe, but a wholehearted and prayerful call to the only way to salvation: through repentance.” 0:00 Beginning 0:13 Introductory comments 1:24 Quote from Catherine of Sienna (RC saint): “Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not raise up our heads against him…” 2:24 Quote from Pope John Paul II (RC saint): “the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the gospel…” From St. Justin: 2:52 Papal infallibility dogmatized at Vatican I and upheld at Vatican II 5:25 “The dogma of the infallibility of the Pope is a Nietzschaen affirmation of the entire creation of European humanistic man.” 7:53 The Pope has “proclaimed himself a Church with the papist Church and has become all powerful in it.” 8:30 Three principles falls in human history: Adam, Judas, and the Pope 8:40 What is the core of the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, a man? 10:55 The dogma of the infallibility of the Pope is the “final triumph of humanism” and the “heresy above all heresies” 12:36 Repentance is the only way out St. Justin's teachings in this video are excerpted from "Papism as the Oldest Protestantism - St. Justin Popović": https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/orthodox-wisdom/episodes/Papism-as-the-Oldest-Protestantism---St--Justin-Popovi-e1judki These excerpts are from the chapter “Man or the God-Man" from "The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism” NOTE: The meaning of Theanthropic: divine (in Greek theos = God) and human (in Greek anthropos = man); the Theanthropos = the God-Man, i.e. Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. -BUY “The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism” by St. Justin: https://lazarica.co.uk/bookshop/ -LISTEN to more recordings by Orthodox Wisdom of St. Justin's teachings: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzFKi22k2KYgxvJMJchHwGAWGZebY0s2s -FIND an Orthodox parish and monastery near you: https://orthodoxyinamerica.org/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/orthodox-wisdom/message

What does and doesn't papal infallibility mean?, and is the Catholic Church an organism or organization or both?

What does and doesn't papal infallibility mean?, and is the Catholic Church an organism or organization or both?

Patrick delves into the controversial and thought-provoking topic of blessings for same-sex couples within the Catholic Church. Addressing the Vatican's recent release of the document on blessings and the contrasting perspectives from previous statements, this episode prompts listeners to ponder the complexities and implications of these developments. Patrick continues his conversation with Tiffany from the end of the previous hour. German - The bible talks about the snake being the craftiest of animals. And Satan is a snake. How should we read that? Irene - What is the 'darkness' in John 1:5? (11:59) Patrick explains “Papal Infallibility” and shares an article by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput (33:45) Aaron - How are we supposed to take the newest comments of the pope about gay blessings? Elizabeth - I get monthly magnificent books with reflections. Can I throw them away? What should I do with them? Ted - I think you are splitting hairs about papal infallibility. When the pope speaks, the majority of people will go with what he says regardless of infallibility. Janet - I have a surgeon who is searching for his faith, and he used to be Muslim. What can I give him to help him come into the Church? Charles - I think we are getting down to the crux of the new document. Doesn't it say that the 'union' can't be blessed, which would not contradict the document written 2 years ago. (46:10)

Some Eastern Catholics say that Latin Rite Catholics have their own dogmas and Eastern Catholics have their own. Is this true? Or do all Catholics share the same dogmas? Consider the dogma of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is not unlimited: the Holy Father may not be infallible in his opinion on ice cream flavors, but […]

Do Eastern Catholics Accept Papal Infallibility? Some Eastern Catholics say that Latin Rite Catholics have their own dogmas and Eastern Catholics have their own. Is this true? Or do all Catholics share the same dogmas? Michael Lofton covers this question by examining Eastern Catholic catechisms, bishops, books, canons and councils.

DAY 328 CHALLENGE “The pope is a sinful man who makes mistakes. Therefore, he can't be infallible.” DEFENSE The premise of this challenge is true; the conclusion is false. The pope is a sinful man, but this does not lead to the conclusion that he can't be infallible. Sinlessness—sometimes called impeccability—operates in a different sphere than infallibility does. Sinlessness is a quality pertaining to the moral order: It means not making a mistake in the sphere of one's own moral behavior. Infallibility is a quality pertaining to the doctrinal order: It deals with not making a mistake…

In this episode, Fr. Stephen and John continue to unpack tradition in the framework of the Second Vatican Council's affirmation of Papal Infallibility and Tradition - key doctrines that tie Catholic Church together. They touch on Johann Adam Möhlar's assertion that Church gospel and tradition stand or fall together, and probe the challenges caused by Latin being used as the primary language during the First Vatican Council. With Father Sanchez's enlightening insights, they trace the continuous thread of faith passed down the generations and explore the timeless truths that shape Catholic Christianity. Have something you'd love to hear Fr. Stephen and John talk about? Email us at myfriendthefriar@gmail.com or click here!

In this week's podcast, Fr. Rossi and Shane Page delve deeper into Papal infallibility and the questions and misinformation surrounding the topic.

Today's culture makes it harder than ever to be Catholic. There are so many different choices out there, many of which go against what Catholics say and often what society says is ok. So why be Catholic? The Church certainly has not had a pristine history and many other denominations bring up interesting arguments that certainly make you think. We delve into how our panelists became Catholic, many of whom are cradle Catholics but did not truly come into their faith until much later, and why they chose to stay Catholic once they are old enough to choose instead of going off to another.  Check out our parent network: thequestatlanta Listen On Spotify Listen on the quest app: Android Apple Follow us on Instagram: @honest2god_ya Watch us on Youtube: @Honest2God Stuff Mentioned: Theistic apologetics episode of HTG The Didache – dates to the time of the apostles, the first example of Church Orders. Rome Sweet Home – Scott Hahn. Why We're Catholic – Trent Horn Bible Christian Society The Catechism of the Catholic Church The school of Mary podcast by Greg and Jennifer Willits The Fellowship of the Unashamed poem Guests Socials: Producer Ben: Website

Michael Lofton reviews Fr. Peter Heers’ (Eastern Orthodox) critique of papal infallibility through the use of the writings of St. Justin Popovich. He demonstrates that his view on papal infallibility and papal primacy is contrary to his own ecumenical councils and notes a strong bias against the teachings of saints that confirm these teaching son […]

How can we know when a Pope has spoken infallibly? What are the conditions that must be met? Did Pope Leo XIII speak infallibly in Providentissimus Deus? Did the Pope speak infallibly in Humanae Vitae or Evangelium Vitae? What should we make of the “manifestly evident” criterion in canon law? Dr. John Joy returns to the show to discuss these topics as we look at his recent book Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility. The Classical Theism Podcast aims to defend Catholic Christian ideas in conversation. With the help of various guests, I defend three pillars of the Catholic Christian worldview: (1) the God of classical theism exists, (2) Jesus is our Messiah and Lord, and (3) He founded the Catholic Church. We place a strong emphasis on the first pillar, defending classical theism, drawing upon the work of Thomistic philosopher Dr. Edward Feser and many others.  John DeRosa www.classicaltheism.com/support  Support the show: Check out my book One Less God Than You: How to Answer the Slogans, Cliches, and Fallacies that Atheists Use to Challenge Your Faith >> www.classicaltheism.com/newbook  Support on Patreon to help keep the podcast going and to allow me to produce even more quality content: www.classicaltheism.com/support

Help us spread the message, Donate to the Apostolate Today! » ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://fatima.org/donate/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ An Ask Father session with Fr. Albert Kalio. Watch the video for this podcast: » ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://fatima.org/media/ask-father/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Contact Us: » WEBSITE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.fatima.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » PHONE: 1-800-263-8160 » EMAIL: info@thefatimacenter.com » FACEBOOK: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/Fatima-Center-95998926441⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » YOUTUBE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/thefatimacenter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » TWITTER: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/TheFatimaCenter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » INSTAGRAM: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/the_fatima_center/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ The Fatima Center's mission is to ensure that the entire Message of Fatima is fully known, accurately understood, and deeply appreciated so that it may be followed by all. The Fatima Center has been faithful to this mission since it was founded by the late Father Nicholas Gruner in 1978.  The Message of Fatima is the ONLY solution to the crisis in the Church and the world.Is it OK to Not Pray for Myself? | Ask Father

Transcript URL: https://share.descript.com/view/bbpvEtR771fIn this episode, we delve into the topic of Papal Infallibility, examining the differing views of minimalists and maximalists on the subject. Our guest for this episode is Shaun Blanchard, professor and Catholic theologian. Join us as we discuss the historical development of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which holds that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on matters of faith and morals. We explore the two opposing views on the extent of this infallibility - minimalists who hold that it only applies to specific pronouncements made ex cathedra, and maximalists who argue that it extends to all papal teachings. Shaun helps us to understand the dogma of infallibility and how it relates to the authority of the Church. We also examine the concept of conciliarism, which holds that Church councils are the supreme authority in matters of doctrine, and how it relates to infallibilism. Throughout this conversation, we provide historical examples of how the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has been applied, including the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and the definition of the Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Hashtags: #PapalInfallibility #Minimalists #Maximalists #Dogma #Infallibilism #Counciliarism https://www.newmanstudies.org/ You can learn more about the History of Papacy and subscribe at all these great places: Website: http://atozhistorypage.com/ To Subscribe: https://www.spreaker.com/show/history-of-the-papacy-podcast_1 Email Us: steve@atozhistorypage.com Support Us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/historyofthepapacy Parthenon Podcast Network: parthenonpodcast.com The History of the Papacy on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@atozhistory Help out the show by ordering these books from Amazon! https://smile.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/1MUPNYEU65NTF Music Provided by: "Sonatina in C Minor" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) "Funeral March for Brass" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) "String Impromptu Number 1" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) "Intended Force" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Agnus Dei X - Bitter Suite Kevin MacLeaod (incomptech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Begin Transcript:

Transcript URL: https://share.descript.com/view/eakjio2gIkLIn this episode, we delve into the fascinating and controversial history of papal infallibility, from its beginnings to its establishment during Vatican 1 Council. Our guest for this episode is Professor Shawn Blanchard, an expert in the history of the papacy. We start by exploring the origins of papal infallibility, including its roots in the Council of Trent and its development over the centuries. We also examine the various debates and controversies that have arisen over the doctrine, including the limits of papal authority and the role of councils in church governance. We then turn to the setup for Vatican 1 Council and the intense debates over papal prerogatives that took place during the council. Professor Blanchard provides us with insightful analysis on the various factions involved in the debates and the complex theological and political issues at play. #PapalInfallibility #CouncilofTrent #Vatican1 #ChurchHistory #Papacy #ReligiousAuthority #Theology #Catholicism https://www.newmanstudies.org/ You can learn more about the History of Papacy and subscribe at all these great places: Website: http://atozhistorypage.com/ To Subscribe: https://www.spreaker.com/show/history-of-the-papacy-podcast_1 Email Us: steve@atozhistorypage.com Support Us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/historyofthepapacy Parthenon Podcast Network: parthenonpodcast.com The History of the Papacy on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@atozhistory Help out the show by ordering these books from Amazon! https://smile.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/1MUPNYEU65NTF Music Provided by: "Sonatina in C Minor" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) "Funeral March for Brass" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) "String Impromptu Number 1" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) "Intended Force" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Agnus Dei X - Bitter Suite Kevin MacLeaod (incomptech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Begin Transcript:

In this video I respond to Erick Ybarra on Suan Sonna's channel about whether papal infallibility is in the first millennium of church history. See their video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVH_j22lkrA Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin debate these issues: Justification: how God forgives sin? The main biblical doctrine that divides Catholics and Protestants. Are sins forgiven by faith in Christ alone or faith plus one's good works? What about Papal authority? Did Jesus make Peter Pope over the entire Church to have infallible rule over every…

Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin debate these issues: Justification: how God forgives sin? The main biblical doctrine that divides Catholics and Protestants. Are sins forgiven by faith in Christ alone or faith plus one's good works? What about Papal authority? Did Jesus make Peter Pope over the entire Church to have infallible rule over every…

Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin debate these issues: Justification: how God forgives sin? The main biblical doctrine that divides Catholics and Protestants. Are sins forgiven by faith in Christ alone or faith plus one's good works? What about Papal authority? Did Jesus make Peter Pope over the entire Church to have infallible rule over every…

Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin debate these issues: Justification: how God forgives sin? The main biblical doctrine that divides Catholics and Protestants. Are sins forgiven by faith in Christ alone or faith plus one's good works? What about Papal authority? Did Jesus make Peter Pope over the entire Church to have infallible rule over every…

Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin debate these issues: Justification: how God forgives sin? The main biblical doctrine that divides Catholics and Protestants. Are sins forgiven by faith in Christ alone or faith plus one's good works? What about Papal authority? Did Jesus make Peter Pope over the entire Church to have infallible rule over every…

Where did the Roman Catholic papacy come from? Today, R.C. Sproul looks at the historical developments that have contributed to the rise of the succession of popes and their influence. Get This Romans USB Resource Drive for Your Gift of Any Amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/2379/romans-sermon-series Don't forget to make RenewingYourMind.org your home for daily in-depth Bible study and Christian resources.