Transcript

In today's episode, I wanna share with you a highlight from my recent discussion with Dr. Leonardo de Chirico on the issue of Catholicism that was hosted on the Unbelievable Radio program.

Uh, it's also hosted on YouTube as well.

Click on the link in the description below to watch the full episode there.

But I think you'll really enjoy this highlight today.

Dr. de Chirico planted a Protestant church in Rome, Italy, and he's written multiple books about Catholicism.

So, we had an excellent and insightful discussion about Scripture, about Mary, about the Pope, about the nature of the church.

I think you'll really like it.

So, here's part of my discussion with Dr. de Chirico.

Welcome back to the second part of today's Unbelievable discussion between Trent Horn and Leonardo de Chirico.

I'm your host, Andy Kyne.

We're discussing Catholicism and Protestantism, and, uh, part one was left on a real cliffhanger.

Uh, Leonardo talking about some of the problems that Protestants have with, uh, Mary.

And I'm sure we'll want to go back and forth on this quite a lot.

But le- Trent, let's come, uh, to you and give you the, uh, chance to have a first response to what Leonardo was saying before the break.

Sure.

And I would say that Mary is so important because if you have bad Mariology, you're going to have bad Christology.

Uh, Mary is so important because she's the key to understanding who Christ is.

And I agree with Dr. de Chirico that we respect Mary and we honor her as the most blessed among creatures.

If you think of all the creatures that God created, who is the most honorable of God's creatures?

Well, it would be the creature who gave birth to the creator.

That's why the Council of Ephesus dogmatically taught that Mary is the mother of God, Theotokos, the God-bearer.

And when you see that and see, and I agree with him also saying that Mary is really the first disciple.

She was the first person to receive Christ, to follow Christ, and so she becomes a role model.

And her role in the economy of salvation is to lead people to her son, Jesus Christ.

And so she humbly accepts such a magnificent role.

Uh, Mary herself says though, in the Gospel of Luke, uh, All generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me.

So, we should call her not just Mary, but the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And I would say that Dr. de Chirico and other Christians do also believe in the Ma- in some of the Marian dogmas.

And many of the problems that modern Evangelicals have with Mary, those are actually not shared by the Protestant Reformers.

So, the idea that Mary is the mother of God, to use the title Mother of God, the Protestant Reformers had no problem with that.

And many Christians today who are not Catholic or Orthodox have no problem.

If you deny Mary is the mother of God, then you're denying Jesus is God, and that leads to the Nestorian heresy.

Uh, the idea that Mary is ever-virgin.

Uh, Dr. de Chirico would say that the virgin birth, that Mary never had intercourse before Christ's birth, I would s- I think he would hold that to be dogmatic.

But the idea that Mary was ever-virgin through her whole life, well, that's something even most of the Protestant Reformers believe in, that Luther believed in it, Zwingli believed in it.

That was the standard view in the church's history aside from a few heret- like one or two heretics here or there for 1,500 years and even going past the Protestant Reformation.

You have even people like Heinrich Bullinger, who was a Protestant Reformer, who said, The pure and immaculate embodiment of the mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say, her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels, referring to her bodily assumption.

In the early church, you had the earliest liturgical prayer that we have discovered, uh, traditionally has been dated to the third century, is a prayer to Mary.

Like I said, what moved me to being Catholic was seeing the deep historic roots of these practices.

Third century Christians praying to Mary, Beneath thy compassion, we take refuge, oh Theotokos.

Do not despise our petitions.

Rescue us from dangers, oh pure one, oh blessed one.

And here, we're not saying that Mary of her own power can do anything.

But just as you ask a friend to pray for you, or if you know someone who's very holy, you ask them to pray for you.

James 5:16, The prayers of a holy person are very powerful.

Catholics see the same thing with Mary.

Now, are there abuses?

Absolutely.

In the early church, Saint Epiphanius condemned those who offered sacrifices to Mary, the Collyridians.

True worship, offering sacrifice, can only be given to God.

But we give honor and respect to God's creatures, especially his mother who is now the mother of all believers that wants to lead those believers to her son and to eternal life.

And that's something really interesting.

I don't normally engage in autobiography on Unbelievable, but I was, uh, speaking at an event recently for, um, the Anglo-Catholics, the Catholics within the Anglican Church here in the UK. And I was obviously asking them all the questions that a, a British Evangelical would ask them.

And, um, they made that point at Trent which was that the assumption is And it's a nice story.

I re- I really found it compelling as a, as a story.

Um, the idea is that the saints in heaven are alive at least as much as the saints on Earth.

And so, when we're praying and asking the saints to pray, it's no different to asking your close friend to pray for you on an issue.

And that's not something that I, as a Protestant, had, uh, considered.

But I, I did find that a, a very compelling story.

But, um, Dr. de Chirico, we'll, we'll come to you because there's lots for you both to say on this.

So, um, how do you want to bat the ball back into Trent's court?

Well, I we- I agree, we all agree on the, on the rec- humble recognition of Mary being the mother of God.

And, uh, it's, uh, something that belongs to the dogmatic pronouncements that are biblically grounded.

And that is why they are dogmatic, not because they were, uh, pronounced by a, a council or a church- um, institution, but because they- they are biblical.

Uh, Christ, Jesus Christ is God and s- and is fully God.

And there is a sense in which the matter of Jesus is the matter of God.

The problem with the use of the title, not the title itself, but the use of the title, or even the abuse of the title, is that it has become the springboard for an ever-growing, ever-expanding Mariology.

Out of that title, that again, I repeat, it is biblically grounded and I fully, uh, believe in it.

Uh, every other step in the growth of Mariology has been has become legitimate and, uh, ha- has expanded out of it.

And so, uh, even to the point of becoming of making two Marian, uh, statements, doctrines, having dogmatic value, that is, uh, be- becoming part of the depos- of the deposit of faith, that needs to be something that has to do with the core of the gospel.

And now we are talking about Marian doctrines that are obscure and, uh, are not to be grounded biblically, but grounded as a result of many, uh, uses of analogies and la- and- and processes that go way, way beyond the simple, direct and immediate reference to, uh, biblical passages, biblical texts and bi- biblical themes.

And having become, uh, a defining dogmatic and changing, uh, statements of the Christian faith.

This is something that goes way, way beyond, uh, the sober realist, uh, portrait of Mary in- in- in the Bible.

And then I also want to make a point in what, uh, Trent Horn, uh, said, uh, in talking about the origins of Mariology in- in the devotional practices, in the so-called Lex Orandi, the- the practices of the church, the prayers, the devotions.

And out of those devotions, then the doctrines came after.

They were theologized.

They were rationalized, so to speak.

Now, that is something that is problematic because of course we want, uh, the devotional practices to be, uh, part integral part of our Christian lives and- and experiences, but we don't want them to define our doctrines.

We want the Bible to be the safeguard and the guide of what we believe and what we do.

And finally, I would say, yes, it's a good story that, uh, the saints are alive, eh, in- in waiting for the resurrection, the final resurrection.

But nowhere in the Bible we are told to, uh, pray to the dead and pray tho- to those who are, uh, waiting for the resurrection.

We can p- uh, exchange prayer requests.

We can pray for one another.

We can send out, you know, prayer requests and pray for one another, but the only one who- whom we can pray to is the one who has come back from- from the from- from the dead and is alive and is Jesus, and is the all powerful mediator.

And he is the one who completely understands us and, uh, he has no need to be reminded of, uh, through other sub-mediators.

So I agree they are alive and they're waiting for, but they're not we're not supposed to, uh, uh, pray to them because the only one we can pray to is the one who has saved us and, uh, was a who is alive, as fully man and fully God.

And He is totally, uh, capable of lis- hearing our voices, even those who are not verbalized and responding according to his will.

Trent, straight back to you.

Sure.

Well, I do have a question for Dr. de Chirico.

Would you say that Christians can pray directly to the Holy Spirit and not just Jesus?

We pray in, uh to Jesus by the Holy Spirit as Romans 8 sa- tells us.

The Holy Spirit is involved in our prayer, yeah.

Well, well, can I say this prayer?

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful, enkindle in them the fires of your love.

Would that be a valid prayer for me to say as a Christian?

In the name of Jesus.

Okay.

So I think that this is starting to reveal, and I'm actually glad that you're being consistent here, 'cause I met other Protestants who aren't.

When you're talking about the Saints and Mary, I don't think that's the biggest thing that's dividing us.

I think the biggest thing that's dividing us is Sola Scriptura.

And from a- the principle you seem to be operating from, and you can correct me if I'm wrong-

Yeah.

seems to be that Christians may only believe or practice what is explicitly taught in the Bible.

So if the Bible doesn't show an example of praying to the Holy Spirit as I just did, Christians can't do that.

Or they can't ask for the intercession of the Saints.

The word prayer, by the way, comes from the Latin precare.

It means to make a request.

So I think that's the big difference here, that many of these Catholic doctrines, you are saying that Christians can't do this.

It's- it's operating out of the assumption of Sola Scriptura, that a Christian may only believe or practice what is expressly taught in the Bible.

And yet my question for you would be, where does the Bible explicitly give that teaching?

Well, it- it's, uh you know, Romans 8, uh, clearly involves the Holy Spirit in, uh, the way we pray and how we pray, and to whom we pray .

plus, the Holy Spirit is as God as Jesus is God, as the Father is God.

And so, it is appropriate that the, uh, G- God whom w- we pray to is God the Father in the name of the Son, through the help of the Holy Spirit but in the exercise of prayer, in the discipline of prayer, uh, we can approach the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus to the glory of the Father.

And so, there is a Trinitarian biblical, uh, dynamics, uh, operating there, and there is an explicit reference of Romans 8.

Well, my question though was, where does the Bible C- it seems like you're operating under the principle that a Christian may only believe or engage in practices, like prayers, that are found explicitly in the Bible or are explicitly taught.

Christians may only believe or do what is explicitly taught in the Bible.

So, well, where does the Bible explicitly teach that?

And I repeat it, it teaches to, uh, direct our prayers to the triune God-

No, I'm not talking about prayer.

I'm just talking about the principle of what we believe is L- do you believe Christians should only believe as a matter of faith what is explicitly taught in the Bible?

Well, in Uh, if you talk- if you're talking about dogmatics, it means that you are actually binding yourself to something that is- that belongs to the core of the deposit of faith.

Yeah.

And, uh, if it is not part of what is explicitly taught, uh, and if you dogmatize something, you elevate to a dogmatic state of something, you are taking responsibility way, way beyond what is written and what are the boundaries of what is written.

And so, I- I- I- I do, I do believe that what is written defines the perimeter of what we, uh, believe, and, uh, if we say that this is dogmatic, that is binding and belonging to the core of the gospel, uh, that link and relationship to what is clearly taught in the Bible is even stronger.

So, you said what is written defines the perimeter of what we believe.

Where is that statement or sentiment found in the Bible?

Jesus himself and the, uh and speaks about the, uh, what God has said, what is written, uh, God speaking, and all these, uh, references to the word of God, uh, be it written, be it, uh, m- contained in the, in the law, uh, in the prophets and the writings and in the New Testament, uh, recognizing that the whole of Scripture is inspired and useful in teaching, uh, rebuking, uh, training, uh, so that every Christian i- uh, is, um can perform what God has prepared for him or her.

And, uh, uh, the, the Apostle Peter talking about the importance of the, uh, prophetic word, but most importantly, the things that, uh, were written.

So, there is a, a, is- a, a web, a combination, a, a, uh, accumulation of, uh, texts all referring to the self-understanding of Scripture as the inspired word of God, authoritative for teaching and practice, and to be received as the word of God written, uh, and to be followed.

Sure.

And I would say that I agree with all of that.

I think where we disagree though is that Protestants add onto that, that Scripture is a revelation of God, that it is the only binding revelation of God for people today.

And that simply is not found in Scripture and it, and it couldn't be found there, because the very first Christians received divine revelation both in a written form, like in apostolic letters, but primarily they received that through oral teaching.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul told the Thessalonians, What you receive from u- us, you received not as the words of men, but as they are the very words of God.

And in his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul told his listeners to, Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions given to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Yep.

So, as a Catholic, I would say yes, God's revelation in the first century was given o- in written and unwritten forms, and there was a teaching office.

The apostles were the ones who had the authority to be able to teach, not others.

And what I would say is that there is nothing to say that that paradigm later changed.

And when we look in the early Church, we see that people aren't told to go follow your Bible.

There is no Bible.

They're told to follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father.

To Augustine, when he debated heretics, he didn't debate them just on the Bible.

He said, Show us the list of bishops that you succeeded from, 'cause we can show you ours.

So, and in fact, I think all of that cum- culminates especially that the Bible itself never tells us, well, what books belong in the Bible.

Scripture doesn't tell us what books belong, or even, uh, this is what you should look for to determine if something is scripture.

That itself is a tradition beyond what scripture says that the teaching office of the Church has guided us to.

So, I think when we try to use sola Scriptura to create, uh, a theology on its own, I think it's gonna be ultimately inconsistent and self-contradictory.

So, for you then, uh, Trent And this is fascinating, chaps.

Thank you s- so much for this.

Um, for you then, Trent, you wouldn't be saying that Sola Scriptura is, uh, completely heretical in the sense that, um, Protestants have a very high view of Scripture.

That's a good thing for you as a Catholic.

But would you simply want them to widen out their idea of revelation and ongoing revelation?

Well, I, I would just say that I would want sola Scriptura to prove itself by its own method.

If the doctrines we are obliged to believe are only those explicitly taught in Scripture, and if sola Scriptura is a doctrine we're obliged to believe, then I would like someone to show me where it's explicitly taught in Scripture.

Not just that Scripture is good.

In Second Timothy 3:16, Paul does say all Scripture, or more accurately, every Scripture, is inspired.

And he, he then says, though he doesn't say it's sufficient, he doesn't say it's all you need, he says the Greek word eutelimos.

He said it's useful for teaching, reproof, correction, training, and righteousness.

And here, of course, he's talking about the Old Testament with Timothy.

So, I agree.

Mm-hmm.

Scripture is useful.

Saint Jerome said, Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Uh, and the church was involved in the production of many vernacular Bibles.

Some Protestants don't believe that.

I have an episode recently that covers this.

The production of many Bibles in the common people's language even before the time of the Protestant Reformation.

So, when it comes to sola Scriptura, I could say to a Protestant, I agree with you.

I will never believe a doctrine that contradicts the written word of God.

But if you're going to say I can only believe and do what is in the written word of God, well, the written word of God has to say that.

Especially if it tells me I can't pray directly to the Holy Spirit, or believe other things that are not explicitly found in Scripture.

Hmm.

Fantastic.

Well, we've got to, uh, take a short break now.

We've reached the end of, uh, part two.

And obviously, uh, Dr Chirico, uh, we'll have plenty of chance for you to, uh, come back to what Trent has been saying.

It's a fascinating conversation, though.

We're talking about the differences and similarities, where appropriate, between Catholicism and Protestantism and I hope, viewers and listeners, you can at least see, uh, that this is not some sort of tribal warfare or turf battle going on.

These are two people passionate about the gospel, passionate about the Bible, and simply wanting to find out and, uh, help each other find out, correctively if necessary, who is the closest to the truth.

Mm-hmm.

But my two guests are speaking very well.

We've got lots more to talk about.

Thank you guys for watching.

If you wanna watch the entire discussion we had, be sure to click on the link in the description below.

And be sure to support us at trenthornpodcast.com so we can bring guests like this into the studio here at the Council of Trent to have these kinds of one-on-one dialogues in person.

So, thank you guys so much, and I hope you have a very blessed day.