Audio only:
In this episode Trent shares a highlight from his debate on Catholicism vs. Protestantism with Dr. Leonardo Chirico on the Premier Unbelievable program.
Full debate: https://youtu.be/LsPTpUoLsNs?si=8jkjqSBBkSbwmK9N
Transcription:
Trent:
In today’s episode, I want to share with you a highlight for my recent discussion with Dr. Leonardo De Chirico on the issue of Catholicism that was hosted on the unbelievable radio program. 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 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. Dico.
Host:
Welcome back to the second part of today’s unbelievable discussion between Trent Horn and Leonardo De Chirico. I’m your host, Andy Kind. We’re discussing Catholicism and Protestantism, and part one was left on real cliffhanger. Leonardo talking about some of the problems that Protestants have with Mary. And I’m sure we’ll want to go back and forth on this quite a lot. But Trent, let’s come to you and give you the chance of a first response to what Leonardo was saying before the break.
Trent:
Sure. And I would say that Mary is so important because if you have bad maryology, you’re going to have bad Christology. Mary is so important because she’s the key to understanding who Christ is. And I agree with Dr. Riko 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. Mary herself says, though, in the Gospel of Luke, 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. Then I would say that Dr. De Chirico and other Christians do also believe in some of the Marian dogmas and many of the problems that modern evangelicals have with Mary, those were 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 are denying Jesus is God. And that leads to the historian heresy, the idea that Mary is ever virgin.
Dr. De Chirico would say that the virgin birth that Mary never had intercourse before Christ’s birth. 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. Z swingley believed in it. That was the standard view in the church’s history, aside from a few, one or two heretics here or there for 1500 years. And even going past the Protestant Reformation, you have even people like Heinrich Bollinger, who is 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 traditionally has been dated to the third century is a prayer to marry.
Like I said, what moved me to being Catholic was seeing the deep historic roots of these practices. Third century Christians praying to marry beneath I, compassion. We take refuge of theotokos, do not despise our petitions, rescue us from dangers. Oh, pure one, no blessed one. Then 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 five 16, the prayers of the holy person are very powerful Catholics. See the same thing with Mary. Now, are there abuses? Absolutely in the early church, St. Epiphanies condemned those who offered sacrifices to Mary the co meridians 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.
Host:
And that’s something really interesting. I don’t normally engage in autobiography on unbelievable, but I was speaking at an event recently for the Anglo Catholics, the Catholics within the Anglican church here in the uk, and I was obviously asking them all the questions that a British evangelical would ask them. They made that point, Trent, which was that the assumption is it’s a nice story. I really found it compelling as a story. 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 considered, but I did find that a very compelling story. But Dr. Kiko, we’ll come to you because there’s lots for you both to say on this. So how do you want to bat the ball back into Trent’s court?
Leonardo:
Well, I agree. We all agree on the humble recognition of Mary being the mother of God, and it’s something that belongs to the dogmatic that are biblically grounded. And that is why they are dogmatic, not because they were pronounced by a council or a church institution, but because they are biblical Christ. Jesus Christ is God 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 meteorology out of that title that again, I repeat, it is biblically grounded and I fully believe in it. Every other step in the growth of meteorology has become legitimate and has expanded out of it.
And so even to the point of making two Marian statements, doctrines having dogmatic value that is becoming parts of the deposit of faith, that needs to be something that has to do with the core of the gospel. And now we’re talking about Marian doctrines that are obscure and are not to be grounded biblically, but grounded as a result of many uses of analogies and processes that go way, way beyond the simple direct and immediate reference to biblical passages, biblical texts and biblical themes, and having become a defining dogmatic, unchanging statements of the Christian faith. This is something that goes way, way beyond the sober realist portrait of Mary in the Bible. And then I also want to make a point in what Trent Horn said in talking about the origins of Morial in the devotional practices in the so-called Lex ore, 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 the devotional practices to be integral part of our Christian lives and experiences, but we don’t want them to define our doctrines. We want the 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 the saints are alive in waiting for the resurrection, the final resurrection. But nowhere in the Bible, we are told to pray to the dead and pray to those who are waiting for the resurrection. We can exchange prayer requests, we can pray for one another. We can send out prayer requests and pray for one another. But the only one who we can pray to is the one who has come back from the dead and he is alive and he’s Jesus and he is the old powerful mediator and he is the one who completely understands us and he has no need to be reminded of through other subm mediators. So I agree they are alive and they’re waiting for, but we’re not supposed to pray to them because the only one we can pray to is the one who has saved us and is alive as fully man and fully God and is totally capable of least hearing our voices, even those who are not verbalized and responding according to his will.
Host:
Trent, straight back to you.
Trent:
Sure. Well, I do have a question for Dr. Riko. Would you say that Christians can pray directly to the Holy Spirit and not just Jesus?
Leonardo:
We pray to Jesus by the Holy Spirit as Romans eight tells us the Holy Spirit is involved in our prayer. Yeah.
Trent:
Well, can I say this prayer, come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fires of your love. Would that be a valid prayer for me to say as a Christian
Leonardo:
In the name of Jesus?
Trent:
Okay, so I think that this is starting to reveal, and I’m actually glad that you’re being consistent here. 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 the principle you seem to be operating from, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, 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 P. 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 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?
Leonardo:
Well, its Romans eight clearing bulbs. The Holy Spirit in 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 God whom 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, we can approach the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus to the glory of the Father. And so there is a Trinitarian biblical dynamics operating there, and there is an explicit reference of Romans eight.
Trent:
Well, my question though was where does the Bible, 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 explicitly taught Christians may only believe or do what is explicitly taught in the Bible. But where does the Bible explicitly teach that?
Leonardo:
Can I repeat it? It teaches to direct our prayers to the,
Trent:
No, I’m not talking about prayer. I’m just talking about the principle of what we believe is, do you believe Christians should only believe as a matter of faith, what is explicitly taught in the Bible?
Leonardo:
Well, if you’re talking about dogmatics, it means that you are actually binding yourself to something that belongs to the core of the deposit of faith. And if it is not part of what is explicitly taught, 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 do believe that what is written defines the perimeter of what we believe. And if we say that this is dogmatic, that is binding and belonging to the core of the gospel, that link and relationship to what is clearly taught in the Bible is even stronger.
Trent:
So you said what is written defines the perimeter of what we believe? Where is that statement or sentiment found in the Bible?
Leonardo:
Jesus himself and speaks about what God has said, what is written, God speaking, and all these references through the word of God, be it written, be it contained in the law, in the prophets and the writings and in the New Testament, recognizing that the whole of scripture is inspired and useful in teaching rebuking training so that every Christian can perform what God has prepared for him or her and the apostle Peter talking about the importance of prophetic word, but most importantly the things that were written. So there is a web, a combination, a accumulation of 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 and to be followed.
Trent:
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 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 one Thessalonians two 13, Paul told the Thessalonians what you received from us, you received not as the words of men, but as they are the very words of God. And 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. So as a Catholic I would say, yes, God’s revelation in the first century was given or 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 in the Bible. He said, show us the list of bishops that you succeeded from because we can show you ours. So in fact, I think all of that 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 this is what you should look forward 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 a theology on its own, I think it’s going to be ultimately inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Host:
So you then, Trent, and this is fascinating chaps, thank you so much for this, for you then Trent, you wouldn’t be saying that. So Scriptura is completely heretical in the sense that 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?
Trent:
Well, 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 two Timothy three 16, Paul does say all scripture or more accurately, every scripture is inspired. And 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 Alamos. 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 scripture is useful. St. Jerome said Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. 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 soul script Torah, 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.
Host:
Fantastic. Well, we’ve got to take a short break now. We’ve reached the end of part two, and obviously Dr. Ko, we’ll have plenty of chance for you to come back to what Trent has been saying. It’s a fascinating conversation though. We’re talking about the differences and similarities were appropriate between Catholicism and Protestantism. And I hope viewers and listeners, you can at least see 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 help each other find out correctively if necessary, who is the closest to the truth. But my two guests are speaking very well. We’ve got lots more to talk about.
Trent:
Thank you guys for watching. If you want to watch the entire discussion we had, be sure to click on the link in the description below and be sure to support us@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.