Jaden Ivey - “Catholicism Is A False Religion”

[BleedBlueGold]

Correct. I understand the chain in leadership from Christ down through the priest logistically. But as you said, the holy spirit is working through them in God's name. I do feel this is something that can be forgiven directly through the holy spirit and I believe in confession with the community of Christ followers.

This is probably just me, but the difference I feel spiritually between a community confession (wife, friends community)vs a priestly confession is night and day different.

Again,not against it, I just feel conflicted with that sacrament

Interestingly, I feel the opposite. I enjoy hearing the prayer of absolution and carrying out penance and feeling that weight of guilt being lifted from me. I know a lot of Catholics, friends and family, who are terrified of confessionals. But over the past year, I've grown to really embrace and appreciate the gift of reconciliation.

I heard a debate once where a Protestant was saying something along the lines of "if you sin, it's just proof you were never actually saved." But the Catholic apologist offered up the defense of reconciliation. To be saved through God's gift, but we still screw up, and Jesus gave us a way back. I'm oversimplifying a two-hour long debate on salvation, but hopefully you get the gist.

 

[Blazers46]

I am offended by arrogant morons all the time

Spoken like someone who just merely has a belief but lacks a foundational relationship with said belief.

 

[Blazers46]

Well, I'm Catholic, so my thoughts follow with the teachings and dogmas of the CC.



The New Testament shows Jesus giving the apostles authority to forgive sins, do miracles, and “bind and loose" (not on their own, but through the Holy Spirit.) In the Old Testament, God gave a similar role to the priests when it came to atonement through sacrifices. Whether you think that carries on today kind of depends on where you land on apostolic succession. If you believe it does, then priests today would share in that same role. Again, not by their own power, but through the Holy Spirit. Either way, it’s ultimately God who’s forgiving the sins.

I’ve always felt the CC still leans Old Testament to me. Under the new covenant, Christ is our sole mediator and high priest (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 4:14-16), and all believers are a royal priesthood with direct access to God through faith and repentance (1 Pet 2:9; 1 John 1:9). ‘Bind and loose’ in Matthew 18 refers to church discipline in the local congregation, not an ongoing sacramental power passed through apostolic succession to a separate priestly class. Forgiveness comes directly from God based on Christ’s finished work, not through human mediators alive or dead.

 

[Blazers46]

I heard a debate once where a Protestant was saying something along the lines of "if you sin, it's just proof you were never actually saved." But the Catholic apologist offered up the defense of reconciliation. To be saved through God's gift, but we still screw up, and Jesus gave us a way back. I'm oversimplifying a two-hour long debate on salvation, but hopefully you get the gist.

I think the argument here is that “once saved always saved”. Which is that Protestants belief and not speaking for all. It’s better understood with the thinking that if you your faith was serious you never would have fallen in the first place. I think some erroneously see that as a security blanket but forget you can still fall off. Ultimately it’s a heart posture not a status.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I’ve always felt the CC still leans Old Testament to me. Under the new covenant, Christ is our sole mediator and high priest (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 4:14-16), and all believers are a royal priesthood with direct access to God through faith and repentance (1 Pet 2:9; 1 John 1:9). ‘Bind and loose’ in Matthew 18 refers to church discipline in the local congregation, not an ongoing sacramental power passed through apostolic succession to a separate priestly class. Forgiveness comes directly from God based on Christ’s finished work, not through human mediators alive or dead.

"What was revealed in the Old, is fulfilled in the New." I'm fascinated with OT typology. Christian ancestry is ancient Judaism. The former can be greatly understood in the context of the latter. The early Church is deeply rooted in this way.

I think you mean Matthew 16. And again, OT typology can help better understand the significance of this passage. Isaiah 22, for example, best explained here: The Papacy in the OT.

You can choose to disagree. But I think it can help clear up many misconceptions if you dig into the OT more while supplementing with early Church writings. Jimmy Akin, Brant Pitre, Joe Heschmeyer are pretty amazing at defending the priesthood, among other Catholic claims.

Edit: It’s also worth noting that the New Testament authors directly quote the Old Testament close to 300 times, with some scholars putting total references closer to 1,000. And most of those come from the Greek Septuagint, which is interesting for anyone questioning the Deuterocanon. I’ve never really understood the idea that the OT is just “old news” and irrelevant. The first Christians, especially Jewish converts, were raised on OT liturgy. Seems pretty reasonable to keep that in mind when trying to understand what the NT authors were actually getting at, imo.

 

[Blazers46]

"What was revealed in the Old, is fulfilled in the New." I'm fascinated with OT typology. Christian ancestry is ancient Judaism. The former can be greatly understood in the context of the latter. The early Church is deeply rooted in this way.

I think you mean Matthew 16. And again, OT typology can help better understand the significance of this passage. Isaiah 22, for example, best explained here: The Papacy in the OT.

You can choose to disagree. But I think it can help clear up many misconceptions if you dig into the OT more while supplementing with early Church writings. Jimmy Akin, Brant Pitre, Joe Heschmeyer are pretty amazing at defending the priesthood, among other Catholic claims.

Edit: It’s also worth noting that the New Testament authors directly quote the Old Testament close to 300 times, with some scholars putting total references closer to 1,000. And most of those come from the Greek Septuagint, which is interesting for anyone questioning the Deuterocanon. I’ve never really understood the idea that the OT is just “old news” and irrelevant. The first Christians, especially Jewish converts, were raised on OT liturgy. Seems pretty reasonable to keep that in mind when trying to understand what the NT authors were actually getting at, imo.

The question for me isn’t whether there’s continuity, but how that fulfillment works. Where I think we differ is that the New Testament consistently points to fulfillment in Christ, not continuation of a separate priestly system. For example, Epistle to the Hebrews goes out of its way to argue that the old priesthood has been surpassed because Christ is our final High Priest… once for all, not part of an ongoing succession. That seems less like a transformation of the priesthood into something new on earth, and more like its completion in Him.

On Matthew 16, I get the Book of Isaiah 22 connection that’s often made, but even if there’s typology there, the New Testament itself doesn’t interpret it as establishing a continuing office like the papacy. When similar “binding and loosing” language shows up again in Gospel of Matthew 18, it’s applied to the broader church community, not just one office. That makes me hesitant to build a whole doctrine of apostolic succession from that passage alone.

The early Church writers, definitely worth reading, but I’d still put the highest weight on Scripture itself. When I look across the New Testament, I see a consistent emphasis that forgiveness and access to God come directly through Christ (like in 1 John 1:9 and Hebrews 4), not through an ongoing human mediator class.

So I’m not dismissing typology… I just think the fulfillment it points to is Christ as the end of the system, not the foundation of a new version of it.

Ultimately I don’t think this is an eternity matter (do you?) If you are a Christ follower, love God and have that relationship and strive to be more like Christ. At the core I think everything goes back to the cross I don’t think God cares about what church you are member of.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The question for me isn’t whether there’s continuity, but how that fulfillment works. Where I think we differ is that the New Testament consistently points to fulfillment in Christ, not continuation of a separate priestly system. For example, Epistle to the Hebrews goes out of its way to argue that the old priesthood has been surpassed because Christ is our final High Priest… once for all, not part of an ongoing succession. That seems less like a transformation of the priesthood into something new on earth, and more like its completion in Him.

On Matthew 16, I get the Book of Isaiah 22 connection that’s often made, but even if there’s typology there, the New Testament itself doesn’t interpret it as establishing a continuing office like the papacy. When similar “binding and loosing” language shows up again in Gospel of Matthew 18, it’s applied to the broader church community, not just one office. That makes me hesitant to build a whole doctrine of apostolic succession from that passage alone.

The early Church writers, definitely worth reading, but I’d still put the highest weight on Scripture itself. When I look across the New Testament, I see a consistent emphasis that forgiveness and access to God come directly through Christ (like in 1 John 1:9 and Hebrews 4), not through an ongoing human mediator class.

So I’m not dismissing typology… I just think the fulfillment it points to is Christ as the end of the system, not the foundation of a new version of it.

Ultimately I don’t think this is an eternity matter (do you?) If you are a Christ follower, love God and have that relationship and strive to be more like Christ. At the core I think everything goes back to the cross I don’t think God cares about what church you are member of.

I think we actually agree on the main point. Catholics fully affirm that Christ is the final High Priest. His sacrifice is once for all. The difference is more about how it's applied in practice, I guess.

From a Catholic view, it’s not a separate priesthood continuing. It’s Christ working through His apostles. So when you see things like forgiving sins (John 20) or “binding and loosing” (Matthew 16/18), that’s understood as participation in His authority, not a replacement of it.

On Matthew 16, I wouldn’t base everything on that one passage alone. It’s more the overall picture I was getting to. And yes, Matthew 18 broadens authority, but that actually supports the idea of a real, visible Church authority. Note the letters written by Paul, James, etc. to the other churches at the time. Also note, there are many other letters from other church leaders which held significant weight in the early Church that were later deteremined to be important, but not inspired (therefore left out of the final canon). Visible Church authority was a real thing, even back then.

On forgiveness, we’d agree it comes from Christ alone. The question is whether He chose to work through the apostles in a specific way (again, John 20).

On your last point, I mostly agree. Yes, it all comes back to Christ and the cross and is not just about church labels. We still have to live out the relationship. But at the same time, how Christ set things up is still worth taking seriously. Catholics believe He established a Church and that Church had structure, authority, etc. If Jesus is the truth, he cannot objectively teach contradictions. If He gave authority to the apostles to teach free from error, they cannot objectively teach contradictions. So why do we see so many contradicting interpretations today that lead to so much disunity?

Question: You say you put the highest weight on Scripture. Others have alluded to that as well. And I asked, where did the Bible (as we know it today) come from? Who determined the canon? And how? The Bible doesn't have a Table of Contents. You trusted someone, in some place, in some time to compile the proper list of books, right? If yes, then you've already put faith and trust in a living teaching authority. Catholics don't dismiss Scripture. They just also acknowledge the teaching authority passed down from Christ to the apostles (Tradition). Both Scripture and Tradition make up a full deposit of faith. See Thessalonians 2 (I believe).

If Scripture is truly authoritative, the next logical question is: whose interpretation do we trust when forming our doctrines? For the first 1,000–1,500 years of Christianity, there was great consistency. Today, though, we see endless debate and growing disunity. Everyone relying on their own reading instead of the living teaching authority. You know, the same teaching authority that preserved and compiled the inspired writings in the first place.

I guess that's my 30,000 foot view, anyways.

 

[irishff1014]

I have not read all of this but he has a point.

But we can’t people just go on about their business. It’s ok not to support or the cultures, sexualities, and so forth but you don’t have to to Twitter to voice that opinion.

 

[Blazers46]

I have not read all of this but he has a point.

But we can’t people just go on about their business. It’s ok not to support or the cultures, sexualities, and so forth but you don’t have to to Twitter to voice that opinion.

Liberals own the entertainment industry. The country is 50/50 on a lot of things but the entertainment world is probably 90/10 which is why award shows and press conference and even ESPN is hard pass for me.

 

[sfk324]

I have not read all of this but he has a point.

But we can’t people just go on about their business. It’s ok not to support or the cultures, sexualities, and so forth but you don’t have to to Twitter to voice that opinion.

He only has a point if you remove all context. Kerr is criticizing the government. What got Ivey cut was bashing his employer. I don't know a lot of employers that are going to tolerate that, no matter the industry.

Beyond that, nobody is going to keep a guy around whose performance is so substantially less of a positive than his headaches are a negative. There's a reason Kaepernick never got an actual look after he was cut. There's a reason Trevor Bauer has been relegated to Mexico and Japan. They aren't good enough for teams to deal with the headaches. Just like them, Jaden isn't good enough for a team to be willing to put up with it. He has been subpar since his rookie year because he can't stay healthy, and now he's telling the world that the old JI is dead, and that God isn't going to ask about basketball on judgment day, so it doesn't matter. Cool beans and he's welcome to that belief, but the Bulls and every other NBA team are (ostensibly) in the business of winning basketball games. Why on Earth would anyone think he's motivated to get better to be productive if the guy who was motivated to be a lottery pick is, using his own words, dead?

 

[ulukinatme]

Pretty standard Protestant view of Catholicism. Many ND staff are not Catholic.

Protestants tearing down Catholics has always surprised me. My wife was raised Baptist, and apparently they've been known in their church sermons to attack Catholics and spread a number of lies. One of the frequent ones is "Catholics worship Mary as a goddess." I've heard a few myself having attended a few services. I don't remember EVER hearing a Catholic priest try to poke holes in other Christian religions, so it's mind boggling to me.

 

[Blazers46]

I think we actually agree on the main point. Catholics fully affirm that Christ is the final High Priest. His sacrifice is once for all. The difference is more about how it's applied in practice, I guess.

From a Catholic view, it’s not a separate priesthood continuing. It’s Christ working through His apostles. So when you see things like forgiving sins (John 20) or “binding and loosing” (Matthew 16/18), that’s understood as participation in His authority, not a replacement of it.

On Matthew 16, I wouldn’t base everything on that one passage alone. It’s more the overall picture I was getting to. And yes, Matthew 18 broadens authority, but that actually supports the idea of a real, visible Church authority. Note the letters written by Paul, James, etc. to the other churches at the time. Also note, there are many other letters from other church leaders which held significant weight in the early Church that were later deteremined to be important, but not inspired (therefore left out of the final canon). Visible Church authority was a real thing, even back then.

On forgiveness, we’d agree it comes from Christ alone. The question is whether He chose to work through the apostles in a specific way (again, John 20).

On your last point, I mostly agree. Yes, it all comes back to Christ and the cross and is not just about church labels. We still have to live out the relationship. But at the same time, how Christ set things up is still worth taking seriously. Catholics believe He established a Church and that Church had structure, authority, etc. If Jesus is the truth, he cannot objectively teach contradictions. If He gave authority to the apostles to teach free from error, they cannot objectively teach contradictions. So why do we see so many contradicting interpretations today that lead to so much disunity?

Question: You say you put the highest weight on Scripture. Others have alluded to that as well. And I asked, where did the Bible (as we know it today) come from? Who determined the canon? And how? The Bible doesn't have a Table of Contents. You trusted someone, in some place, in some time to compile the proper list of books, right? If yes, then you've already put faith and trust in a living teaching authority. Catholics don't dismiss Scripture. They just also acknowledge the teaching authority passed down from Christ to the apostles (Tradition). Both Scripture and Tradition make up a full deposit of faith. See Thessalonians 2 (I believe).

If Scripture is truly authoritative, the next logical question is: whose interpretation do we trust when forming our doctrines? For the first 1,000–1,500 years of Christianity, there was great consistency. Today, though, we see endless debate and growing disunity. Everyone relying on their own reading instead of the living teaching authority. You know, the same teaching authority that preserved and compiled the inspired writings in the first place.

I guess that's my 30,000 foot view, anyways.

I think part of where we see this differently comes back to the word Ekklesia (translates to church) itself. It just means an assembly or gathering, a people called together. We translate it as “church” mostly because of tradition, not because that’s the most precise meaning. Honestly, outside of the word ekklesia (which again isn’t a building or structure of a church) the Bible doesn’t spend a lot of time laying out detailed church structure. Jesus barely addresses it directly, and when the apostles do, it’s mostly about local leadership like elders and deacon not a centralized, infallible system. That makes me think the emphasis was more on a gathered people under Christ than a highly defined institutional structure.

When Jesus mentions “church” in Matthew 16:18, He uses the word Ekklesia, which simply means an assembly or gathered people. That points me first to a community under Christ’s authority, not primarily a centralized, infallible institution.

The Church has real leadership and authority, and that Christ works through people (John 20, Matthew 16/18). I just don’t see those passages establishing a continuing, infallible teaching office or a distinct priestly class. It looks more like leaders serving, teaching, and guarding the gospel, while all believers have direct access to God through Christ.

On the canon, I’d say the Church recognized Scripture rather than created it. Its authority comes from God, and the early Church identified those writings because they were apostolic and consistent with Christ’s message… not because an infallible body declared them so.

And on Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2:15, I do believe in tradition. I just see that as the apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture, not an ongoing, binding authority alongside it.

So for me, Christ builds His ekklesia…a gathered people under Him, with real leadership, but I don’t see clear evidence of a perpetual, infallible teaching office beyond the apostles.

Sorry for the long answer and I appreciate you and this conversation.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Thanks for the response. I enjoy these convos as well. But for now, I'm going to bow out for sake of time. Catholics and Prots just don't see eye-to-eye on these matters and we'll just continue talking in circles.

The main takeaway for me, in closing, is that the two oldest branches of Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) both agree that Christ established a visible Church. I’m not aware of any solid historical evidence suggesting otherwise. So for nearly 2,000 years, you have both East and West affirming that reality. Even some “high church” Protestants (like Anglicanism and Lutheranism) partially agree by maintaining structure and continuity with history, even if they don’t hold to a single, centralized, binding authority. The idea of there being no real visible Church is much more recent, largely within the last few hundred years, especially in more Baptist, Non-Denominational or Evangelical circles. For me it's clear: The former has a way of maintaining consistent, objective, authoritative truths. While the latter leads towards disunity, contradiction, and unsettled disputes. I don't see logical argument that would suggest Jesus is cool with disunity, dysfunction, and teachings that are in some cases an outright rejection of what He taught (the more Liberal Progressive churches, that is).

Cheers!

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I think part of where we see this differently comes back to the word Ekklesia (translates to church) itself. It just means an assembly or gathering, a people called together. We translate it as “church” mostly because of tradition, not because that’s the most precise meaning. Honestly, outside of the word ekklesia (which again isn’t a building or structure of a church) the Bible doesn’t spend a lot of time laying out detailed church structure. Jesus barely addresses it directly, and when the apostles do, it’s mostly about local leadership like elders and deacon not a centralized, infallible system. That makes me think the emphasis was more on a gathered people under Christ than a highly defined institutional structure.

When Jesus mentions “church” in Matthew 16:18, He uses the word Ekklesia, which simply means an assembly or gathered people. That points me first to a community under Christ’s authority, not primarily a centralized, infallible institution.

The Church has real leadership and authority, and that Christ works through people (John 20, Matthew 16/18). I just don’t see those passages establishing a continuing, infallible teaching office or a distinct priestly class. It looks more like leaders serving, teaching, and guarding the gospel, while all believers have direct access to God through Christ.

On the canon, I’d say the Church recognized Scripture rather than created it. Its authority comes from God, and the early Church identified those writings because they were apostolic and consistent with Christ’s message… not because an infallible body declared them so.

And on Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2:15, I do believe in tradition. I just see that as the apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture, not an ongoing, binding authority alongside it.

So for me, Christ builds His ekklesia…a gathered people under Him, with real leadership, but I don’t see clear evidence of a perpetual, infallible teaching office beyond the apostles.

Sorry for the long answer and I appreciate you and this conversation.

Sorry forgot to respond to the bolded in my above post:

I’m not saying the Church created Scripture or just picked books at random. We agree the authority comes from God. What the Church did was compile the recognized inspired writings and officially declare the canon. There were lots of letters floating around, some forgeries, some genuine but not inspired. The Church looked at authorship, usage, and consistency with Christ’s message to decide what belongs. That’s how the canon came to be. This process involved many debates and councils, local and ecumenical. This is largely an argument for a visible, authoritative Church structure, imo, which is one reason why I brought it up.

Jimmy Akin's book The Bible Is a Catholic Book is an awesome resource for researching how the Bible came to be. Jimmy, btw, was a former Calvinist/Presbyterian who converted to Catholicism. His knowledge on this topic is pretty legit. I've yet to come across someone who I felt topped Jimmy, whether in debate or YouTube rebuttal, etc. Wes Huff has gotten a lot of notoriety lately, and some of it for good reasoning, but Jimmy did an entire video breaking down things that Wes is continually getting wrong on the process of canonization. I highly recommend checking out Jimmy's channel. He's very much an "iron sharpens iron" kind of person. Aka - if you think you're right, hear him out, and then see where your argument stacks up after. You still may disagree, but perhaps his points can help make your argument even stronger. That sort of thing. Comes across as a really down to earth dude who's charitable with everyone.

 

[Blazers46]

Sorry forgot to respond to the bolded in my above post:

I’m not saying the Church created Scripture or just picked books at random. We agree the authority comes from God. What the Church did was compile the recognized inspired writings and officially declare the canon. There were lots of letters floating around, some forgeries, some genuine but not inspired. The Church looked at authorship, usage, and consistency with Christ’s message to decide what belongs. That’s how the canon came to be. This process involved many debates and councils, local and ecumenical. This is largely an argument for a visible, authoritative Church structure, imo, which is one reason why I brought it up.

Jimmy Akin's book The Bible Is a Catholic Book is an awesome resource for researching how the Bible came to be. Jimmy, btw, was a former Calvinist/Presbyterian who converted to Catholicism. His knowledge on this topic is pretty legit. I've yet to come across someone who I felt topped Jimmy, whether in debate or YouTube rebuttal, etc. Wes Huff has gotten a lot of notoriety lately, and some of it for good reasoning, but Jimmy did an entire video breaking down things that Wes is continually getting wrong on the process of canonization. I highly recommend checking out Jimmy's channel. He's very much an "iron sharpens iron" kind of person. Aka - if you think you're right, hear him out, and then see where your argument stacks up after. You still may disagree, but perhaps his points can help make your argument even stronger. That sort of thing. Comes across as a really down to earth dude who's charitable with everyone.

Seems like a good read. I enjoy listening to Wes Huff so something counter to Wes would be an interesting.

My heels are dug in so it will interesting to see if this can move the needle. Minds are hard to change and I’m probably not different.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Seems like a good read. I enjoy listening to Wes Huff so something counter to Wes would be an interesting.

My heels are dug in so it will interesting to see if this can move the needle. Minds are hard to change and I’m probably not different.

I like Wes too, but just from my own basic research, I pick up on some things that Wes gets wrong, especially when he's talking about Catholicism. Here's a video of Jimmy breaking down Wes. It's long, but worth the time.