Lest anyone be confused here: this guy is a straight-up evangelical protestant attacking “traditional Catholicism” like that “Catholic Answers”, etc.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing aside, let’s look at the his foundation - because it is just so much vanity and striving after wind. I’ve indented his “argument” for ease of reference.
Such groups, although they constitute a small portion of the Roman Catholic Church, are guilty of the Galatian heresy, and are therefore unsaved unbelievers, a sort of cult if you will.
FYI the “Galatian heresy” is from Galatians 6:12-13 shown here from an Evangelical site with their interpretation, just so we know where our antagonist is coming from.
Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, THEY CONSTRAIN YOU (gentile proselytes) TO BE CIRCUMCISED (in accordance with the Passover passage in Exodus 12:48) ; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; BUT DESIRE TO HAVE YOU CIRCUMCISED , that they may glory in your flesh.
He continues on.
And therefore it is very important for all believers to learn how to argue against them. I am going to give you a Rabbinically inspired argument against the Roman Catholic claims to Papal authority.
Okay - this is just silly. If you want to step onto this playing field and give this guy any credit when he compares Catholics to people who insist on circumcision (a very Protestant practice), I’m really not sure where to go from there. It’s an inductive leap worthy of Superman or the Hulk.
BUT - I’ll give him a pass, just to see if there may be something worth merit here. For ease of reference, the red is my commentary.
As I mentioned in a previous video, you need to look for consistency when evaluating arguments. Holding one standard for your own arguments and another when evaluating another side’s arguments is a fallacy so commonly used that it has its own name: special pleading. Blah Blah, logic, Blah Got it. Remember this when evaluating Roman Catholic arguments for the existence of an authoritative teaching magisterium. Yep. Still got it. Are these Roman Catholic Apologists willing to hold Rabbinic claims to authority to the same standard in which they hold their own arguments? And here is where he shoots himself in the foot
Clearly our antagonist is confused about “Rabbinical Authority” and what that means.
Here’s a good (objective) resource:
Especially interesting is this section on “Dissenting Rabbis”.
“No rabbinical court can abrogate laws and institutions made by any other court, unless it is superior in both wisdom and number” ('Eduyyot i. 5)
Superior in wisdom - I think Jesus founding the Church covers that and if an Evangelical wants to say that Jesus lacks wisdom well we do have a problem but not with this refutation.
Superior in number. Again, I find it strange that an Evangelical would try to undermine all of the Apostle’s efforts and claim them to be false. Do I really need to pull up statistics here?
Ah, lets go out to the end of this travesty of a foundational argument’s paragraph shown here. Again, the red is me.
Furthermore, if they believe that God replaced Israel with the church, What, hunh WHAT??? Did I miss something? Where do we say this? on what consistent basis can they say that God did not replace the church with someone else? I propose to you, there is none.
No. It *PROTESTANTS *that claim Christ’s *Church *is replaced with someone else.
Good grief. This is not interesting or even worthwhile. Please save yourself the headache of giving it any more thought. I know I intend to.