In this episode Trent sits down with Protestant Youtuber Redeemed Zoomer to answer his questions about Catholicism.

 

Transcript:

Trent Horn: Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast. I’m your host, Trent Horn.

Joining me today is Richard, aka Redeemed Zoomer. How long have you been doing… You have a YouTube channel and a Twitter account, right?

Richard:
YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. Twitter’s my smallest of the three, basically.

Trent Horn:
Yeah. And your YouTube channel, I’ve seen some of your videos. They’ve gotten, what, like over a million views?

Richard:
Yeah, some of my videos are up in the millions and stuff.

Trent Horn:
So I’m really excited that you’re joining us today because here at the Counsel of Trent, like you guys know, I really enjoy doing dialogues, doing debates. I really like engaging people who are non-Catholic. And Richard, you belong to PCUSA, right, Presbyterian Church?

Richard:
Yes, I’m Presbyterian.

Trent Horn:
Alrighty. So Reformed theology-

Richard:
Yes.

Trent Horn:
… talked about that. A lot of people wanted us to sit down and chat about Catholicism.

Richard:
Yes, I am a Calvinist.

Trent Horn:
Alrighty.

Richard:
Yes.

Trent Horn:
Full five points and all, right?

Richard:
Yes. Westminster Confession, and all that.

Trent Horn:
Alrighty. So that should be fun. And Richard actually had a few questions that he wanted to go over with me, so he’ll kind of be more interviewing me, if you will, and we’ll go back and forth.

But I’m very grateful you’re here. I’m grateful your flexibility and I definitely could use your guys’ help because I want to do more of these episodes. We’ve moved into the new office space. I have an entirely separate room I want to turn into a big interview studio.

Right now we’re dealing with, like I had everything set up and I move things and my Thunderbolt dock that connects to the computer, it just fell right as my guest gets here and I plug it back in and the screen’s all staticky. So we’re using my laptop computer right now for the camera and we’re Jerry-rigging everything.

And the light we were going to use, the light went out. So there is a nefarious power that did not want the two of us to chat today.

Richard:
Definitely.

Trent Horn:
So let us pray to overcome him.

Richard:
That’s all right.

Trent Horn:
Yeah. Yeah. So is there anything else you want to share with people to know more about you before we get down to the questions or…

Richard:
Just that I’m a Presbyterian. I’ve been a YouTuber for a little over a year. I mean like a serious YouTuber for over a year and, yeah, that’s basically what I do. I want to try and have conversations about theology topics, help other people start having conversations. And I think in these conversations, clarity is more important than like agreeing with each other or like winning arguments. And that’s what I’m saying because I can’t debate. I’m not very good at that.

But I do like to learn about the differences between denominations. I know a lot of people are really interested in the differences between Catholic and Protestant and all these things these days. So that’s why I have some questions about Catholicism. It’s like I’ve asked other people these questions, but I think the more I talk about it, the more clear of an understanding we can get. I know a lot of people who watch my channel, watch your channel, they’re thinking about this more than ever. I’ve never seen a time in history where people are thinking about the differences among Christians more. So yeah, I appreciate you having me on.

Trent Horn:
Yeah. Well, I’m glad you’re here. So why don’t we start? You’ve got some of the questions here and we can go through and go back and forth. So let’s begin.

Richard:
Sure. Yeah. So there’s a lot of Protestants who are investigating the claims of Rome, and the biggest claim that seems to be the most convincing is this idea of the one true church. Some of my friends would call that Ecclesialism, or whatever you want to call it. The idea that there is one true church that is one specific denomination or institution, as opposed to the view where the one true church could transcend denominations and institutions.

I think it’s pretty easy to sell people on the idea of one true church. That’s pretty easy to find in the church fathers. But then there’s the really difficult question of which one true church is the one true church? I see a lot of people begin to investigate this, and of the people that come to the conclusion that there is one true church, it seems pretty evenly split whether they go Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. I think I’ve seen the greatest number of people be convinced by the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy. So the question I’m always asking is how do we know which one true church is the one true church?

Trent Horn:
Right. I think what I would say right at the outset that I would be concerned about this question creating a kind of analysis paralysis for someone who’s trying to figure out what does God reveal, what is the nature of God’s church. So I’ve had episodes where I’ve talked about this. I had a whole book on it called When Protestants Argue Like Atheists, for example. It’s not meant to be derogatory, but I do notice some similarities in a skepticism towards evidence that’s presented and not being sure where to go.

So for example, someone who’s not Christian, they say, “Yeah, I want to be Christian.” And then they look out at Christians like, “Oh, wait. Well, what kind of Christian should I even be?” Because then they’re like, “Should I be Catholic? Orthodox?” Or even if they say, “I just want to be Protestant. Should I be Calvinist? Should I be Armenian? Should I be, should I?” And there are differences, but they’re not all minor differences. There are important differences amongst the denominations.

So I also think another point that I would raise is when we talk about ecclesiology, like what’s the true church, I think we have to be careful of two extremes. So one would just be that the church, it’s just an invisible union of Christians. The church is just everyone who’s a true Christian united in some way. I feel like that truly is, like I could hardly even call that a church because then it’s like how do you know who are the true Christians and who aren’t, you know? There are people who will say Catholics are Christians with a mistaken theology, and people who say Catholics, no. They’re not even Christian at all because of their theology. So there’s that.

But then there’d be the other view of saying that the Church of Christ only exists in one denomination, like it’s this denomination or bust.

What the Catholic Church has taught and has explicitly taught since the Second Vatican Council, it says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. So it’s a very particular word that’s used there. It’s not saying that the Church of Christ is identical to the Catholic Church, and so the Church of Christ cannot be found anywhere else. It’s saying that the enduring historical reality, like where you can find that visible enduring reality that you can locate is within the Catholic Church of the bishops united to the Pope, but that elements other Christians can have more or less of communion with the church so they can have… Our goal will be that all Christians have a perfect union with the church. Others it’s more or less perfect. So for example, the Eastern Orthodox, we as Catholics would say they are other churches, like we use that word because they still have valid holy orders, valid sacraments, and I would say other Protestant denominations are closer or further away in that communion. Like I would say like there’s a lot of Anglicans that are still pretty close.

So I would say that, first, when we’re looking at that, you have to have that understanding that there’s going to be the Church of Christ would subsist in, other denominations that are closer and further away. And I guess then if someone’s going to make that investigation, if they think, okay, it’s got to be Catholic or Orthodox, it’s one of those things, they’ll have to just examine the historical claims, the authority claims. So I think some big issues might be the papacy. Looking at that doctrine would be a big one. Do you see historically that the Bishop of Rome had a unique leadership position within the church, which would include unique jurisdiction, a kind of supremacy, even if that developed over time? So that’s one route people might take.

One that was really convincing for me was looking at Eastern Orthodoxy and its trajectory on moral teachings. So seeing within Eastern Orthodoxy a change in teachings on whether remarriage after divorce is acceptable or contraception, that when you look at Eastern Orthodox thinkers from like the 1960s, I mean, it’s always hard with Orthodoxy because there’s not like one uniform catechism, you’re trying to figure it out. But I noticed a really big shift there from like the ’60s to like the present day on that issue versus what the Catholic Church teaches.

When it comes to the papacy, a good book I would recommend would be the Papacy, I think it’s called the Papacy, the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox Revisited by Erick Ybarra.

Richard:
Okay.

Trent Horn:
So I think that when you’re looking at that as Catholics, because Catholics and Orthodox were very close, it’s not like, “Oh, it’s just going to be obvious, man.” Like for me, if someone’s a Protestant, they’re not sure, I would take almost like a Pascalian approach. Just give it a try which one seems the most attractive to you?

Richard:
Well, with the Pascalian approach, the issue there is generally Catholics are more affirming of the validity of Orthodoxy than vice versa. So if you take a Pascal’s wager approach to that, then it’s safer. I mean, I like Gavin Ortlund saying you shouldn’t choose your denomination based on where you’re least likely to go to hell. But-

Trent Horn:
Oh, what’s funny about is that’s not actually the Pascalian approach.

Richard:
Okay.

Trent Horn:
A lot of people misunderstand Pascal’s wager, and they think that Pascal is saying, “Hey, look, if you believe in God and you’re wrong, you don’t lose anything. If you don’t believe in God and you’re wrong, you’re going to burn for all eternity. Avoid burning for all eternity.”

Rather, Pascal’s argument was a much more modest one because if that one deals, then you get the wrong hell problem, like which hell do I avoid? Pascal’s approach was a lot more modest. He basically said, “Look, if you’re 50-50 on the fence and Christianity and atheism are the only live options and you want Christianity to be true, go ahead because you’ve got nothing to lose.”

Richard:
Right, right. I understand that, but-

Trent Horn:
Yeah. And so that’s where I would say if someone isn’t sure just which apostolic church seems at least most true to you, give that a try and continue your journey. Because I do think that some Catholics can be a bit triumphalistic. I like Ybarra’s approach in his Papacy book where he says when you examine all the evidence, the Catholic view comes out, but not necessarily by a gigantic margin. And maybe you feel this way, too, about apologetics.

I try to take a very modest approach with the evidence because you never want to oversell something. I do think the evidence points towards the Catholic view, but it is something people would have to look into and study and go over. But like I said earlier, I don’t want that to create analysis paralysis, if that makes sense.

Richard:
Right. Yeah. Going by what you’re saying, like I’m not planning to leave Protestantism, but if I were to convert to one of the one true church churches, I feel just most drawn to Catholicism because it is most similar to Reformed theology. So that’s by far, and I think we should talk about that later.

Trent Horn:
Yes, I’m excited to talk about that. For sure.

Richard:
There’s a lot of similarities between Catholicism and Calvinism that I think go unnoticed. So I would want Catholicism to be true of the three. It’s the one I like of the three main, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental.

But if I take the more simplified Pascal’s wager approach, now I know that’s maybe not what is actually Pascalian, but the logic still holds. If Catholics affirm the validity of Orthodox holy orders, but not really vice versa, then wouldn’t it be safer if someone’s unsure? If someone just wants to make sure they’re in a legit church, wouldn’t it be safer for that person to go Eastern Orthodox?

Trent Horn:
Yeah. But that’s why I wouldn’t affirm this broader Pascalian argument of like trying to avoid hell or trying to avoid damnation, because I think it leads to a lot of other objections that people have raised to the classic Pascal’s wager. So yeah, that is interesting that Catholics, although there are Orthodox that are much more open, but don’t-

Richard:
It’s mixed. Orthodox can’t agree on anything.

Trent Horn:
And I would say that that is another argument to show the importance of the papacy and providing this kind of unity amongst the church. And what’s important here is an understanding of the role of the papacy. Like when you go in Luke’s gospel, when the apostles are arguing with each other, “Lord, who is the greatest? Who’s going to sit at your right hand?” And Jesus never says there won’t be a greatest. He says, “The greatest shall be as a servant to the others.”

And then He turns to Peter and says the prayer, “Simon, Simon, Satan wants to sift you like wheat.” So I think that that argument, that’s why in the early Middle Ages, one of the titles for the Pope was servus servorum Dei, the Servant of the Servants of God. So Pope Saint John Paul II had an encyclical called Ut Unum Sint, where he talked about the role of the papacy and how there needs to be an understanding of papal authority that provides unity rather than become kind of a tyrants club basically over other churches. But yeah, do you want anything else on that or another question?

Richard:
Well, yeah, when you’re talking about how the Catholic Church is like the true church, but there are other like maybe lowercase C churches, that sounds pretty similar to the Reformed approach, outlined in the Westminster Confession where there is a distinction between the invisible church, which is the union of all believers, but it’s invisible. Like you said, we can’t know who is a true believer. We can’t know who is truly the elect of God. So there’s the distinction between the invisible church and the visible church, which is visible. And the visible church, according to the Reformers, is more or less visible in various institutions. So you’d say it’s most visible in the Reformed Church, but it’s still visible in the Catholic Church. It’s still visible in maybe some Anabaptist groups. It’d be like a gradient.

That sounds pretty similar to what you said. That’s exactly what Calvin said. But I’m wondering, is that the historic Roman Catholic position, or is that just the post-Vatican II position? Because I do remember during the Reformation, Martin Luther affirmed that the Greeks, the Eastern Orthodox, were true churches, and the Catholics sort of got mad at him for saying that. So is that the historic view of the Catholics?

Trent Horn:
Well, I’m not, I wouldn’t be sure of the Catholic response to that when it comes to Luther. The church has traditionally recognized, especially in light of the Protestant Reformation, that the Eastern Orthodox have valid holy orders, valid sacraments, and so that would make them a church. That’s why in Catholic theology, the communities that have come from the Protestant Reformation are not called churches in a proper sense because a church, you need to have a priest who has been ordained by a bishop who has apostolic succession. Rather, we would talk about how these are ecclesial communities or communities, things like that, that come from the Reformation.

So I would say that classically the difference between the East and the West was more about an issue, not about being Christian or not Christian or anything like that, but more dealing with the issue of schism. Like are you communion with the Pope or not? And there were of course excommunications that were given on both sides during the Great Schism in the 11th century that were later lifted in trying to find this kind of reunion between East and West.

Richard:
Right. And it could be a bit challenging if the church can excommunicate another church and then realize, “Hey, we were actually wrong about that.” Like I know that with the Oriental Orthodox, the Miaphysites, there are a lot of historic anathemas that are starting to be reconsidered, reexamined.

Trent Horn:
Well, they’ve been reexamined because of the developments that have taken place on the theological issues that divide us. So like the Miaphysites, instead of embracing something heretical like Monophysitism, there can be an understanding of Miaphysitism that is not heretical. But then very quickly when we’re… And there have been recent statements in the Oriental Orthodox from the Catholic Church that have said those issues of Christology seem to have been resolved, which happens the same thing with the Filioque. A lot of this when it comes to the theological differences, is this a difference in substance or vocabulary or emphasis? So I don’t think there’s a problem there if there’s a problem in the past, and then there are developments and dialogue and mutual understanding to overcome the difficulties.

Richard:
Right. And it’s like, I respect the Catholic Church, I respect the Eastern Orthodox Church. I disagree with a lot of my Protestant friends on this. I affirm that Catholics are true Christians. I think we should stop like fighting over that.

But the reason I still am Protestant, one of the reasons, is because when I look at church history, when I look at all these schisms and anathemas, it all seems very human to me. It all seems like a lot of politics and misunderstanding each other, and this happens in Catholics and Protestants alike. But Protestants, I feel like, it gives you a space to be a bit more honest about the fact that the church is fallible, the church is the… That’s why we have Sola scriptura. Only the Bible is infallible and the church makes mistakes. I know there are explanations for how the church is still infallible when it says the really important things, and that doesn’t contradict the fact that it can make mistakes. I just think being Protestant gives you more of a room to be honest about the fact that the church is inconsistent, the church does make mistakes, the church does change its doctrine.

Trent Horn:
What’s interesting is, I know I mentioned this earlier, there is a parallel… Well, it’s not an atheist argument. One can make this parallel argument. They could say, “Look, I really respect people who believe in biblical inerrancy, I really do respect that. But when I read the Bible and when scholars read it and academics go through it, it seems very clear to me there are human elements within the Bible.” There are things that change or there are errors. So for me, it just feels a lot safer to say, yeah, I believe God gives us salvation through scripture, but the Bible is just not infallible. But it can still teach true things even if it’s not infallible in everything that it does. And I know that inerrancy, people will come up with all kinds of explanations like, well, this is without error, but it depends on how this… Do you see the parallel?

Richard:
I get what you’re saying. I know that like if you are Catholic, you can think of a lot of ways in which that everything is consistent, just the same way we have to resolve certain tensions in the Bible. So yeah, that makes sense.

I think it’s a good transition into the question of what is the status of Protestants according to the Catholic Church, because I seem to have gotten a lot of different answers, and it seems that the Catholic Church has evolved in its understanding of Protestants going from, if anyone says salvation is by faith alone, let them be anathema at the Council of Trent to being departed brethren at Vatican II. So what is the status of Protestants? Are Protestants true Christians? Are Protestants’ sacraments salvific in any sense? So yeah, what do you think about that?

Trent Horn:
Well, what the Catholic Church would say, and this goes back all the way, the question of who is a Christian or not goes far back into church history. Like you have, for example, the church was trying to discern whose baptisms are valid. Like is an Aryan baptism even valid? Are these people Christian, even if they have an incorrect theology? Is this sect of a valid baptism or that sect? So that is something that everybody does have to grapple with and the church has grappled with.

So traditionally, the church would say that a Christian is just someone who has a valid baptism. So something where the baptism is done with the correct matter and form so water and the words and that the words are done in a way with the mind of the church. It doesn’t have to be exact theological parallel, it rarely ever is. It just can’t be something like, for example, Mormons have the right words-

Richard:
But they don’t mean the same thing.

Trent Horn:
Well, it’s just so radically, radically different. Even if like the Orthodox, the father, son and Holy Spirit, the precise nature of the relations in the Godhead might be different essence, energy, distinction. It’s still one Catholic theologian said that the Mormon understanding of those words is just a different matrix.

Richard:
Yeah, I would agree. I completely agree.

Trent Horn:
So that’s why the vast majority of Protestant denominations, I think a lot of Catholic Churches keep a list of which-

Richard:
I saw the list because I was wondering-

Trent Horn:
Oh, really?

Richard:
…. My initial baptism was in a heretical sect so I was wondering if my baptism was valid. I checked the Catholic Church’s list of valid baptism. I used the list for help. And what I was baptized in originally was the Christian community of Rudolf Steiner, this agnostic-

Trent Horn:
Oh, wow.

Richard:
… anthroposophy-type sect. So then I realized, yeah, I need to get a valid baptism. So that’s why I got a baptism in the Presbyterian church. So you would say a Christian is just anyone who’s baptized?

Trent Horn:
Yeah, a Christian is someone who has a valid baptism.

Now, when you’re referencing things, for example, like the Council of Trent, when it’s declaring anathemas, the formula there is being used to declare that certain doctrines or denials of doctrines are heretical. And this actually, you had another questionnaire we skipped over, but it’s still pertinent to it about the authority, what the church teach. Do I have to believe everythin... Read more on Catholic.com