Audio only:
In this episode, Dr. Karlo Broussard chats with Adrian Lawson from Sips with Serra about where Catholics go wrong when critiquing Sola Scriptura.
TRANSCRIPT:
Adrian:
Everybody, thank you for clicking on this video and watching this conversation that Dr. Karlo Broussard and I are about to have. This is going to be an excellent conversation that is going to help Catholics avoid certain missteps that we sometimes fall into when arguing against solo scriptura. So without further ado, I want to introduce Dr. Carla Broussard. Thank you so much for joining us here,
Karlo:
Adrian. Thanks for having me, man. This is a blast. I am honored to finally be on with Sips with Sarah. Man,
Adrian:
I’m honored. I’m honored. It’s great. I’ve actually been reading your books and I’ve been making videos about them without your knowledge.
Oh wow. I
Hope that that’s okay. Thank you. As of recording, it’s not out yet for the public. It’s only out for people over at Patreon, but I did make a video about, it was titled This Video Will Convince You of Prayer to the Saints, and I referred to your book heavily. I did the same thing with purgatory referring to Purgatories for real, such good books. And I’m so happy to hear that you have a YouTube channel now because if your YouTube channel is anything like your books, it’s going to be excellent. Thank you, man. And it has been from what I’ve seen,
Karlo:
Yeah, so far. So as we’re recording this right now, episode two from my Dr. Carlo YouTube channel Dropped yesterday was today. Today’s, yeah, last night. And it’s entitled, thou Shalt Not Kill the Innocent Question Mark. Intuition isn’t sufficient anymore. So today as we’re recording remembering Roe v. Wade, the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, praise God that was overturned, but we still fight the fight against abortion. And so I released that episode to provide a philosophical defense as to why it’s always immoral to kill an innocent human being, which most pro-lifers do not engage in. Very seldom do they even attempt a defense of that principle because they assume everybody just agrees with it. And even when they do try to defend it, it’s mostly an appeal to intuition, which as we know in current cultural circumstances, intuitions are waning intuitions that were once held are waning.
And so I provide a rational philosophical defense of why it’s always wrong to kill an innocent human being. So I’m super excited about the new YouTube channel. So I would encourage your viewers, if I may, to direct them to Dr. Carlo YouTube channel to subscribe, hit that bell notification, flood the comments, do whatever they got to do to beat the algorithm or whatever so we can get some traffic there. I don’t know how all this stuff works, man. I feel like a dinosaur trying to enter into this YouTube world, man. I’m only 44 years old, but yet I still feel like a dinosaur getting into these waters.
Adrian:
No, no. I mean, your videos are great. The format is great. You’re going to crush it, so thank, it’s a matter of getting everybody over there and getting the word out. Awesome. Absolutely. Well, thanks again for coming on everybody. All of those links are in the description, by the way. So go and check out Dr. Carla Broussard’s YouTube that’s going to be linked in the description. We’ll link to your Patreon and I have linked to your books in other videos, but everybody go to catholic.com or shop.catholic.com and check out Dr. Carla Broussard’s books as well, because I’ve only read two of them. But those two have been absolutely amazing, and I’m sure the rest are just as good. So let’s get into topic. Yeah,
Karlo:
My latest book was Baptism Now Saves You How Water in Spirit Give Eternal Life. So that’s the latest one that came out, I guess a few months ago, about three or four months ago.
Adrian:
Nice. Did you see the Catechumens music video? Baptism saves?
Karlo:
Yes. He rocked it. Dude, I got to say, look, I am very hesitant when Catholic people try to rap. Okay. Because normally they fall short of trying to do that. But I must say Braden nailed it, man. He did a really good job. Now I will say it’s like white boy rap white boy all the way, but it’s good white boy rap, right? Okay. So I’ll give her props for that, man.
Adrian:
Yeah, that
Karlo:
Came out awesome. It’s not like Cray and Trip Lee and all those guys. Those guys are just at the top of their game, but it’s awesome. He did a good job. Yeah,
Adrian:
Yeah, he crushed it. Awesome. All. So the topic today that we’re talking about is Catholic missteps against Sodo Scriptura. So walk us through, these are conversations we have online all the time, and oftentimes we’re kind of shooting from the hip. Maybe we were just kind of responding on Twitter or making quick YouTube videos and things like that. But what are some of the common issues or common pitfalls that you see Catholics falling into when trying to argue against solos scriptura?
Karlo:
Yeah, great question. So there’s a few issues there. So I guess we’ll just take one at a time and walk through ’em. One that I’ve seen, a misstep that I’ve seen made commonly is an appeal to apostolic traditions that are beyond scripture. So for example, you’ll see in debates a Catholic apologists try to refute solo scripture by showing from the New Testament that there were apostolic traditions that are not found or confined within the apostolic writing. So for example, in Mark chapter 13, verse 14, Jesus talks about when you see the Desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, but yet were not told what that desolation is within the New Testament. And so some Catholic apologists will argue, you see, there is divine revelation that is not restricted to sacred writing to the sacred writings, two Thessalonians two, five through six, that’s when Paul talks about the man of perdition and he tells the Thessalonians how they know what is restraining him.
But yet St. Paul never tells us in his writings what that restraining is. So yet again, you have a piece of divine revelation that’s beyond sacred scripture, not confined to sacred scripture. Second John two is a common one that Catholics appealed to where John says, Jesus did so much stuff, there’s not enough paper and ink in the world to contain the things that he said and did. So that would be divine revelation, but yet that is not in found within scripture, and many Catholic apologists think that that is a defeater of so scriptura, but actually a Protestant can fairly counter and say, well, sour, at least the principle of so scriptura does not entail that everything God revealed is contained within scriptures, but only that which God wied for us to believes is contained in the scriptures. The implication being that some things have been divinely revealed that aren’t in the scriptures, but God did not will for those apostolic teachings to be preserved after the apostles.
Now, it is true that if someone defines solo scripture as scripture alone containing everything that God has revealed, then these sorts of scripture passages would serve as defeaters of that idea. But many contemporary Protestant apologists and advocates of soul s scriptura will not ascent to that understanding of so scripture that scripture alone contains everything God has objectively speaking, revealed rather as many will assert and argue only those things that God intended for us to believe or contained within sacred scripture alone. And so I think that’s extremely important. I’ve seen this Adrian two times so far in watching some debates, and I’m not going to name the Catholic apologists here, but two debates I’ve seen on soldier scriptura between Catholic apologists and a Protestant, both Catholic apologists ran this line of argumentation to try and defeat solis scriptura, and both times the Protestant apologists countered fairly by rebutting that line of argumentation.
Adrian:
Interesting. Yeah, I mean, I have to be honest, I have made this argument myself and I’ve,
Karlo:
Amen. Listen, same here, dude.
Adrian:
I’ll call myself
Karlo:
Out. Yeah, I used to appeal to these passages as well, but then came to realize that I was shooting the arrows at the wrong target, right? So like I said, remember we have to identify the correct target for which the arrows are useful. So if somebody saying everything God revealed is contained in scriptures, well then these passages would work. But that’s really not the common target of solos script tour that contemporary Protestant apologists are holding up for us to shoot arrows at. And so I think that’s important to be aware of so that we don’t misstep in our conversation there.
Adrian:
Yeah, that’s true, and I’ve made appeals to some of these same verses I’ve made appeals to the Old Testament. I’ve even heard Orthodox Jews or rabbinic Jews make arguments saying that in the Old Testament it says that we are to circumcised in the Abraham and Covenant where to circumcised, but it doesn’t describe what circumcision is. So you need some sort of an external authority in order to kind of detail how some of these things are carried out that we’re commanded to do in scripture. I guess that’s still not hitting the target that you’re describing though, because that would be more of a pragmatic thing rather than saying that those explanations are on the same par as scripture as far as authority. So now that we’ve kind of got an idea of what the problem is here, so how does one who wants to present some argument along these lines, is there a better way to do that or should we just abandon this
Karlo:
Altogether? Well, for these particular text right here, I do think they have apal value for one particular claim that some Protestants do make, some Protestant apologists do make you find it In some of the literature, if my memory serves me correctly, the late Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie make this argument or claim in their book, evangelicals and Roman Catholics Agreements and Differences or Roman Catholics and Evangelicals agreements and differences, Protestant apologist, Ron Rhodes, if my memory serves me correctly, makes the claim I’m about to propose in his book Reasoning with Catholics from the scriptures. And the claim is that all of the apostolic oral teaching is identical to sacred scripture. So that’s their rebuttal to our appeal to say Second Thessalonians two 15, right? When Paul says, hold fast to the traditions that you have received by word of mouth or by written epistle and our Protestant friends, counter to that is that, well, we concede that what the apostles taught was divine revelation, it was infallible, it was binding, maybe not inspired in speech but inspired in content.
We would agree with all of that, but they will argue that all that which they taught orally is identical to what they have in the scriptures. If that’s the target, if that’s what we are engaging, then these particular texts would come into play and defeat that claim because the text that I just referenced proved beyond a doubt that not everything the apostles taught, well, one of ’em was referring to Jesus. So Jesus or the take your pick, not everything that they taught is identical to what is in the writings that appeal to Second Thessalonians two, five through six would be a key text to show that not everything Paul taught is identical to what’s in his writings. If that’s the target, then these arrows are proportionate to that target and they work. But we have to be ready for the Protestant apologists to counter and pivot and shift the target to say, well, not everything revealed is going to be contained, but only that which God wills for us to believe and is binding for our salvation is contained in scriptures.
And then there we going to have to, as I think about it right now, Adrian, I don’t think we would give up these passages entirely. I do think they can serve some apologetic value to at least establish a precedent of this understanding of divine revelation not being confined to the scriptures alone, but being beyond the scriptures. Then the question becomes, do we have any evidence or lines of argumentation to argue for those apostolic teachings outside of scripture being preserved in the historical record in the succession of the bishop succeeding the apostles? And that’s a fair question
Adrian:
From
Karlo:
Both the Catholic side and the Protestant side. We can legitimately ask that question whether they are preserved, and I think it’s fair for our Protestant friends to ask that and for us as Catholics to provide some evidence that some traditions, maybe not all, but some would be preserved. Because Adrian, as I think about it, I’m glad you brought this up because some Protestants will counter our appeal to two Thessalonians two, five through six, where Paul talks about what’s restraining the son of perdition or the man of lawlessness and some Protestants fairly counter. Well, you Catholics don’t even know what that is, so why you’re appealing to it, right?
Granted, we can answer that question. There are some purposes for which we can appeal to that text, but we have to be very careful as to which purpose we’re trying to achieve. But it is true that we don’t know what that is. That particular part of divine revelation was not preserved, but just because a or some aspects of divine revelation in the apostolic teaching beyond scripture was not preserved, that doesn’t mean no oral apostolic preaching beyond the scriptures was preserved. There might be some. And so then the question becomes what are some of those apostolic traditions preserved? And then of course we go down the list, no more public revelation, no more apostles, no more inspired scripture, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Adrian:
Yeah, no, yeah, thank you for laying that out because that’s really important for us to get into those nuances, right? Yeah. We have these conversations online and it’s oftentimes just throwing verses at each other or throwing arguments that we’ve heard at each other and it’s really not helpful. But once you actually find a Protestant, or if a Protestant finds a Catholic who’s willing to have a serious conversation about these things, that’s where we kind of tease out the finer details of what these verses are actually telling us and what these arguments actually are.
Karlo:
And also too, we want to be respectful of our Protestant friends, just like we would expect for them to understand and grasp what we are presenting and what we’re saying so that their arguments are proportionate to what we’re saying and not attacking strawman a straw man argument. So too, we want to be respectful of our Protestant friends to make sure we have the proper target in mind so that we are not attacking Straumann.
Adrian:
Yeah, exactly. Okay, cool. So we have that first misstep, these verses that are often used as defeaters for solos script tour, but we see that oftentimes they’re really only defeaters for a certain type of solos script tour or a certain claim that might be within solos script tour. What is another kind of misstep that you often see Catholics fall into in this conversation?
Karlo:
Yeah, so the next one is Adrian, yet another one that I’ve fallen into as well. And that is the appeal to two Thessalonians chapter three verse six. So that’s the text where Paul says in the name of Jesus Christ, he invokes the very name of Christ. He doesn’t offer it as his own opinion or counsel, but invokes the name of Christ and so therefore it’s binding. And he says, stay away from the brother who doesn’t walk into accord with the tradition received. And this is often a text that’s appealed to by Catholics to convey the idea that tradition is favorable, and that’s perhaps another misstep, and we’ll get to that in a moment. But in this text, St. Paul is revealing that this tradition, whatever it is, has just as much binding authority on Christians as sacred scripture because he invokes the very name of Christ.
So this is an apostolic tradition, whatever it is, a sacred tradition, not just a little T tradition, a big T tradition. Now, the misstep is appealing to this passage in thinking that it proves the Catholic point of sacred tradition and sacred, well, let me say this, it does prove the point of sacred tradition and sacred scripture, but we think it defeats solo scriptura, at least as our Protestant friend is conceiving it. But a Protestant can fairly counter and say, well, this quote unquote tradition that Paul is talking about in two Thessalonians three, six is put down in writing immediately following in verses seven through 13
When he talks about how you ought to imitate us. We were not idle when we were with you, right? And so the ethical, this is an ethical precept that makes up this sacred tradition, is the idea that as Christians, we ought not to be idle. And that’s what the brother was doing. He was being idle and wasn’t working for his key. And so Paul instructs stay away from the brother because he is not living in accord with the quote tradition, the ethical Christian teaching that you ought to work and not be idle. And Paul explains what that tradition is right then and there in the subsequent verses. And so some might, and so a Protestant can fairly counter and say, well, wait a minute, you’re trying to appeal to this passage to justify the belief that there are non-written apostolic oral traditions that make up sacred tradition, but this particular tradition is in writing. And so it would seem to count in favor of the Protestant who’s saying all of the oral apostolic traditions are identical to what’s in the sacred text.
And for this tradition, that is true. But remember what I said a while ago, just because a sacred tradition is found in the sacred text, that doesn’t mean there are no oral apostolic traditions beyond the sacred text. So that would be my first point. Now secondly, I do think, Adrian, that we don’t have to throw out two Thessalonians three, six entirely. I do think it can provide some apologetic value, and it’s this, it at least can provide evidence for the two infallible rule, paradigm, scripture and sacred tradition. That is what the apostles were teaching orally and it being binding in the name of Jesus Christ and what is found in sacred scripture. Now, this was the paradigm for the first century Christians, and that’s agreed upon by both Catholics and Protestants alike. But its apal value comes into play by providing us a ground or a backdrop against which we can counter Protestant arguments for.
So script tour, okay, so consider to keep in your mind for the first century Christians, when the apostles are teaching in their writing, in their mind they have this two infallible rule paradigm, oral apostolic preaching or teaching and sacred scripture, and that can shed light on how we can interpret certain texts. So consider for example, two Thessalonians three 16 through 17 classic text that’s appealed to try and justify solo scripture as understood as the sufficiency of scripture, like scripture is all we need to make a man complete or perfect for teaching and reproach, et cetera. Now with this twofold, infallible rule paradigm in mind for the first century Christians, we know that a like se Timothy three 16 through 17 cannot possibly justify so scriptura. Why? Because when Paul writes that passage to Timothy and se Timothy three, he is not referring to what would come in the future
Because the twofold infallible rule paradigm is what’s governing the Christians at that moment in the first century, solo scriptura is a model for post apostolic age Christianity, and even Protestant apologists concede that point. And when Paul is writing his instructions to Timothy in one Timothy three, he’s talking about what’s to govern his endeavor to be a complete and perfect man right then and there. And so if Paul has this twofold, infallible rule paradigm in mind of the oral apostolic preaching and sacred tradition as illustrated and excuse me, oral apostolic teaching and sacred scripture as illustrated in two Thessalonians chapter three, verse six, then we know when Paul gives his instructions to Timothy in two Timothy three, he cannot be referring to soul scripture. He’s referring to the twofold infallible rule paradigm because even in that text, Paul tells Timothy, consider what you have learned from the Old Testament scriptures and how they were instructive for salvation in Jesus Christ. Well, obviously the Old Testament didn’t explicitly teach about salvation in Jesus Christ that required the oral apostolic preaching. And so you can see how Second Thessalonians three, six sets a precedent of the twofold infallible rule paradigm, and that’s in the minds of the first century Christians as they’re writing the New Testament. And so that provides us reason why we can reject soul scriptura interpretations of passages like second Timothy 53 16 through 17.
Adrian:
Yeah, yeah, my understanding, or what I would say about Second Thessalonians three, six, and let me know if this is what you’re saying or if I’m off a little bit here, but is that up until that point, what Paul is writing about hasn’t been written down. And so this brother that he’s saying to stay away from is being in a sense excommunicated, you might say, because he’s not following a tradition that up to that point hadn’t been written down. But now Paul is writing down what that tradition was, but he was still accountable to that tradition even before it had been written down. Does that make sense?
Karlo:
Yeah. And a Protestant would concede that the tradition about how to live as a Christian was binding on him even before it was written down. So we don’t want to propose that as a target because our Protestant friends will agree with that.
They will argue simply that we don’t need to worry about this sacred tradition as Catholics articulate it because that oral apostolic preaching was put down in the written record. And so we have the written record of the apostolic teaching in it, thereby being binding on us. So we don’t have to worry about the oral apostolic preaching, but as I said, it does provide, to your point, this twofold infallible rule paradigm of the oral apostolic teaching being just as binding as what’s put down in the apostolic writings of the sacred text of the New Testament. And that twofold paradigm helps us interpret certain passages that might be appealed to far descriptor. Because when we take that twofold, infallible rule paradigm to those texts, we can see that for example, Paul in two Timothy three cannot possibly be thinking solo scripture because he’s thinking of the twofold infallible rule paradigm of sacred tradition and sacred scripture. And given that Paul, for example, in two Timothy three is not talking about the future of what is to come for governing a man to perfection, and he’s talking about what’s in the present, then it follows even further. He cannot be talking about solo scripture in that kind of passage,
Adrian:
Right? What would you say to a Protestant who says, okay, yes, there was a time when the oral tradition of the apostles had the same authority as the scriptures, but now what they taught has been written down. And so that separate the oral tradition, the sacred tradition, the capital T tradition is no longer something that persists in the post apostolic era.
Karlo:
Okay? So notice that’s a historical claim that those oral apostolic traditions beyond the written text are not preserved, okay? We believe they are some at least, or preserved. So now the question becomes what’s the evidence for that? What are some examples of that? Well, I mentioned a few of them in passing already, number one that there will be no new apostles. And I think that’s right, and Protestants will agree with that, and that’s pretty persuasive. Like Jesus, nobody believes Jesus is going to come and in his glorified body appear to someone and make them an apostle like he did for Paul. And from that, it follows that there’s going to be no new public revelation. Both Catholics and Protestants agree on that. From that it follows that there’s going to be no new scriptures, and by the way, no new public revelation until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s going to be new revelation in the interim period. No new revelation. So no new scriptures, no new inspired text, the belief that the dedicate is not inspired, the belief that the Clements letter to the Corinthian church is not inspired yet it has apostolic origins in the sense that it’s written during the apostolic age by men who knew the apostles, right? So we know that Luke and Mark non apostles can write inspired text, so a non apostle can write inspired text. And of course with our Protestant friends, we would agree that if a non apostle writes something and the apostle affirms it to be inspired, then it’s inspired and we have an epistemological ground to believe it that it is inspired. But to believe that Clement’s letter to the Corinthian church written in ad 70, as many scholars are saying now is not inspired, objectively speaking, doesn’t have the quality of inspiration. That’s a positive belief.
The belief that the diday is not inspired objectively speaking doesn’t have the quality of inspiration. Those are beliefs our Protestant friends agree with us on. Yet it cannot be accounted for by sacred scripture alone. So those are at least two beliefs alone with the others that would be part and parcel of what the apostles handed on because we believe the canon is of apostolic tradition that the apostles handed on to their successors what they believe to be inspired and what is not. And so those would be at least two examples that have been preserved. Even the belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles in their apostolic ministry, that belief itself cannot be, I guess we could qualify it and say fully accounted for by sacred scripture. You have some hints to it, but there’s some ambiguity, right? As with the presbyters and bishops and whether the same or interchangeable, but Clement of Roman, his letter to the Corinthian church preserves for us this apostolic belief that the order of bishops succeed the apostolic college in their ministry. And so that’s yet a nut now as to precisely how they succeed them and what that authority is. Well, we would just continue on with a sacred tradition here as Catholics in saying they preserve the infallible authority of the apostles. Our Protestant friends will dispute that, but yet that’s an example from the Catholic perspective of an oral apostolic preaching beyond sacred scripture that was indeed preserved, and we have historical testimony of that, at least the succession of the order of bishops from the apostolic college.
Adrian:
Yeah, that makes sense. I think that a lot of Protestants who might be listening to this would maybe be frustrated though because they might say, look, we acknowledge that some things were passed on from the apostles, maybe the canon of scripture. We can acknowledge there’s certain areas where this tradition is relevant and can help us understand more things about the scriptures themselves. But that doesn’t apply to things like we wouldn’t say that somebody is damned because whatever, maybe they have a different idea of the canon of scripture. We wouldn’t say that somebody is damned for maybe not, I dunno, some of these beliefs that we might attribute to tradition, but the Catholic church seems to say that these aspects of sacred tradition that are defined maybe more fully later on like Mary and Dogmas or whatever else, it seems like there’s an emphasis that if you don’t believe these things, you’re denying sacred tradition and therefore you are and or denying sacred the magisterium and therefore you are anathema. And so how can the church say that not only are these traditions helpful, but you must believe these traditions in order to be saved?
Karlo:
Yeah, great question. My response is those apostolic traditions that I just articulated for sure, that there will be no new public revelation, no new inspired scripture. Those are beliefs that are of the same level as say the immaculate conception and Mary’s bodily assumption just as the immaculate conception of the assumption or believed as Catholics to be part and parcel of the sacred deposit of faith, whether in tradition or in scripture sold to the belief that there will be no new apostles, no new public revelation, no new inspired scripture or part of the sacred deposit of faith, whether in tradition or in scripture. And so they’re of equal value in relation to the binding authority that they have on our consciences as Christians. So both are necessary to believe as part of the sacred deposit of faith, which means in both cases, if I make a positive act of the will with full knowledge and deliberate consent to say no, well then I’m rejecting a part of the sacred deposit of faith.
So the severe consequences that would follow are the same in both cases. Now of course, that raises the question as you brought up, well, what if somebody has a different idea of the can in it? Well, objectively speaking, we would articulate that as a Catholic as a rejection of what has been given to us by the apostles, whether that individual is culpable for such a rejection when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ, that’s a different question, and only God’s going to be able to judge that, whether the individual is culpable or not, for his erroneous decision to reject that which we know has come from the apostles. Does that make sense?
Adrian:
That makes perfect sense. Yeah. I appreciate you clarifying that. That is one of the main things where we see redeem zoomer or other Protestant influencers will say things like that. Even if I affirm that Mary was a perpetual virgin, I don’t find it to be something that is necessary for salvation to believe. But yeah, if it is part of the deposit of faith and we are rejecting, that means, yeah, exactly. That’s right. So I think that’s then where the argument would go is how do we know it was part of the deposit of faith? And then that would be a whole other conversation in another subject,
Karlo:
Correct? Yeah. So there’s a distinction to be made. Yeah, we agree that if such a doctrine or a teaching was unknown to be part of the deposit of faith, well then a Protestant could side with that sort of position given their understanding of so scriptura, right? Depending on how they parse it out. But a Protestant could fairly say, well, listen, it may very well be true, and I might be okay with you believing it, but you just can’t bind people’s consciences. But that statement, you cannot bind the Christian faithful’s consciences to believe doctrine X is true if and only if we don’t know if it’s divinely revealed
Or if and only if there’s not an infallible voice who can teach definitively, at least with regard to those things intrinsically related to divine revelation that claim that some Protestant apologists make. Well, maybe it’s true. We just shouldn’t be binding people’s conscience that’s begging the question against the Catholic who has prior commitments concerning the infallible teaching authority of the magisterium and that which we believe and argue for to be part of the sacred deposit of faith. Because if any of those is true, then what would follow from that is the binding nature of the teaching,
Adrian:
Right? Yeah, exactly. Great. Okay, so another argument that I often hear, and I hear this a lot actually, especially on the internet from people who want to argue against there being some kind of an infallible tradition, is people who say that, well, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their traditions, and he says that you choose your manmade traditions over the word of God, and this is a reference to Mark seven. Now, I’ve made arguments against this. Maybe you’re about to tell me that those arguments were bad, I don’t know. But what are some ways that we go wrong in responding to that claim, referring to Mark vi, and how can we make an adequate response to that?
Karlo:
Well, it all depends on how the Protestant is using that text. So I like to distinguish between an unsophisticated use of it and a more sophisticated use of it. So in sort of the early nineties modern apologetics movement and the Catholic Protestant dialogue, you would often hear Protestants appeal to that passage and they say, you see Jesus condemns traditions, and so therefore your Catholic idea of a sacred tradition is erroneous because Jesus is condemning it. Now, I would identify that as the unsophisticated use of the text, a less sophisticated version of it, because in response we can just simply say, well, Jesus isn’t condemning all traditions. He’s only condemning traditions of men and even more specify traditions of men that nullify the word of God. And we agree with that. Anything that contradicts God’s word, you get rid of it. But it doesn’t follow from that that there are no good traditions. And even more specific to the point of the Catholic view, it doesn’t follow that there are no sacred traditions that would be binding on the consciences of individuals.
Adrian:
Now,
Karlo:
I say that’s the less sophisticated version of using that text because most Protestant apologists today in arguing with Catholics would not use that text in that way. Rather they would appeal to Mark vii as an example of how traditions should be subordinated to the word of God. Notice the difference. The unsophisticated version said all traditions are bad. No, that’s absurd. But the more sophisticated version says, oh no, Jesus is teaching us that we must hold traditions to the ultimate standard of sacred scripture, the word of God.
So now that we have a proper target here, we can avoid the misstep, right? Because here’s the misstep. I forgot to identify that with the less sophisticated version, Catholics respond and say, well, surely Jesus can’t be condemning all traditions because look what Paul says about good traditions, and one Corinthians 11, two and two Thessalonians two 15, et cetera. Now with the more sophisticated version, the Catholic, the mere appeal to Paul being favorable to traditions will not work because the Protestant will agree with that on that level and say, yeah, traditions can be good. They’re just not going to have the same binding authority as scripture. And all those traditions that Paul speaks favorable of are going to be subordinated to and measured by sacred scripture, the ultimate authority, and they appeal to Mark VII as evidence for that principle. Now in response, I think we have a similar response here, even to the more sophisticated version, and that is this, Adrian, just because some traditions are legitimately subordinated to the standard of sacred scripture, the word of God in written form, that doesn’t mean all traditions must necessarily be subordinated to the standard of sacred scripture.
And we know that only some are being subordinated to the standard of scripture by Jesus because he specifies traditions of men. So there could very well be a type of tradition, a sacred divine origin tradition that does not have to be subordinated to the standard of sacred scripture, but would be that was a bit of a little stutter there, but would be of an equal value to the standard of sacred scripture such that both scripture and sacred tradition would serve as a measure to measure everything subordinated to it. That is things outside of the realm of divine origin, right? Things outside the realm of the sacred deposit of faith, and those traditions would need to be measured by the sacred deposit of faith. What do you think of that?
Adrian:
Yeah, that makes sense. I’m trying to think about this whole conversation from a Protestant perspective and what I could anticipate a Protestant saying is saying like, yeah, okay, maybe this one verse doesn’t necessitate that there is no such thing as some sort of a sacred tradition on the same level as sacred scripture, but just because this doesn’t necessitate, that doesn’t mean that there’s an affirmative case to be made, that there is some sort of a sacred tradition. So maybe this doesn’t by itself disprove it, but it at least sets a precedent that traditions need to be subordinated to scripture. And we don’t see, according to the Protestant, we don’t see any affirmation in scripture that there is some sort of a sacred tradition. Now, perhaps some of the verses we talked about earlier could help us attest to that, but what would you say to someone who says
Karlo:
That? Well, I would just simply say, okay, you conceded my point that this text is not a defeater of the Catholic view of sacred tradition,
And that’s all we have to do from the Catholic perspective. The only burden we must shoulder is to show why this text does not serve as a defeater of the Catholic view of sacred tradition. So what can we learn from this text? Scripture is a standard by which we can measure things less authoritative than it like traditions of men. That’s what we can extract from the text, and both Catholics and Protestants can agree with that. But if our Protestant friend tries to milk that text to use common parlance or to extract from that text a principle that scripture is the ultimate highest standard by which we measure other things, traditions within, they’re reading into the text and they’re trying to extract out of the text more than what is found there. And from a Catholic apologetics perspective, this sort of response is all we need to show what it says Scripture is a standard, but it does not say it’s the ultimate standard, and so therefore a Protestant could not appeal to this text as a defeat of the sacred tradition view.
Now, if the question shifts to what sort of evidence do we have that affirms positively an oral apostolic tradition, sacred tradition that’s just as binding as sacred scripture and can conserve as a standard for measuring things, while I think Second Thessalonians two 15 would be a good text there because in that passage, Paul articulates an equality of binding authority between the oral apostolic preaching and what he writes, the sacred epistles, whatever, hold fast to the traditions that you have received, whether by word of mouth or written epistle. Notice the holding fast to the traditions, that’s the binding authority, and that binding authority is found in both the oral apostolic preaching and the sacred epistles or the sacred writings. So that would be a text to show that in the New Testament sacred tradition is just as equal in binding authority than what is in the sacred writings.
Adrian:
That makes sense. Yeah, perfect. Another thing that I’ve pointed to in the past, and I’m not sure if this is helpful, so you can tell me if this was a good argument or not, but where Jesus does tell the apostles to listen to the Pharisees and scribes and do whatever they tell you because they sit on the seat of Moses but don’t do as they do because they’re hypocrites. Does that play into this argument at all or does that add any value to this?
Karlo:
Well, I mean it does add some value that whenever you have a legitimately appointed teaching authority that the teaching can still be authoritative even if the official teacher is falling short in behavior.
And so I think we can get that much from that text. So here’s a classic example, sort of an instantiation of that principle is St. Peter. So Peter fell short of Christian behavior in Galatians chapter two, for which he was rebuked by Paul when he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians out of fear of those Jewish Christians coming from James from Jerusalem, and I think it was coming from Jerusalem. I’d have to go back and check on that one. But coming from James for sure, and notice Peter didn’t thereby lose his teaching authority. So if Peter were to be declaring officially in that moment to everyone there some teaching concerning God’s revelation, even after he failed in Christian behavior, that teaching of St. Peter would still be binding, right? So I do think Matthew 23 2 provides evidence for that principle that when you have a divinely constituted teaching official, the teaching is still authoritative despite the fact that the official fall chart of the Christian standard of living as a Christian.
Adrian:
Yeah, that’s helpful. And I’ve heard a lot of my family, especially when they hear about things like the authority of a priest in the sacrament of reconciliation or things like that, they’ll say, well, these are just sinful men. What makes them think they have some sort of authority? And I always try to point to things like that passage or even just in our day-to-day life analogies like an officer who pulls you over for speeding, you don’t say, well, you only the authority to give me this ticket if you’ve never sped in your life, because it’s not the officer’s perfect traffic record that gives him the authority. It’s his office of being an officer. And similarly with the priest, it’s not as though we expect priests to be perfect in order to administer sacraments, but their office is what gives them that authority. And I think that applies to the teaching authority as well. Cool.
Karlo:
Yeah, I agree 100%. That is a very good example to use to illustrate that line of reasoning or that understanding. Now, of course, in conversation with our Protestant friends, that presupposes that there is in fact such an office, and of course we have to provide evidence and argue for that, but at least the principle can be clearly seen there,
Adrian:
Right? Yeah. So another fun conversation that often comes up with these, so s scriptura debates is the canon of scripture. Catholics will often say things like, if scripture is the only infallible source, then we have to say that the canon of scripture is a fallible list of infallible books. And how can we know if that fallible list is correct or do we have the freedom to just start changing the canon of scripture as we see fit? What do you think of this argument from the Catholic perspective and how can it be improved and what are some of its shortcomings?
Karlo:
Yeah, so I do not think that is a good argument from the Catholic perspective to try and pigeonholed the Protestant, so to speak, and hold his feet to the fire when they say we have a fallible list of infallible books. The implication here as Protestant apologist Gavin Orland has pointed out in some of his videos on solo script tour and in written form as well, following Orsi spro with this, I think it was a spro who coined this phrase, if my memory serves me correctly, I might be wrong on that. We have a fallible list of infallible books. Orland justifies that by saying, listen, you don’t have to be infallible to recognize an infallible authority. And he uses that principle to justify this idea that even if we don’t have an infallible testimony like the magisterium of the Catholic church to identify the cannon, we can still know a collection of infallible books. Now, in response to that, Catholics will often to say, no, you need an infallible interpreter to know the canon. Well, there’s a lot of ambiguity going on here, so let’s dissect it. I agree with the statement, you do not have to be infallible to recognize infallible testimony. Now, why do I agree with that? Well, consider the alternative, Adrian. Let’s suppose I were to say we have to be infallible in order to recognize an infallible testimony. Well, if that were true, would we be able to recognize Jesus as an infallible testimony? No, we would not.
Would we be able to recognize the apostles as an infallible testimony if that were true? No, we wouldn’t. Right? So since we all agree, we can recognize Jesus in the apostles as an infallible testimony even though we are fallible, well then it logically follows by way of conclusion that we don’t have to be infallible to recognize an infallible testimony. So we agree with that, but here’s where the problem lies, Adrian. We are not wondering how to recognize infallible books. That’s not the question. The question is whether or not these books are inspired by God. And even Orland and other Protestant apologists recognize this because when they try to argue for solos script Torah, one of the reasons that they give for scripture being the only infallible rule of faith is because it’s the only thing that’s inspired infallibility follows. And by the way, that’s a fallacious argument.
Heads up a few weeks from now, I’m going to have an episode dropping on my Dr. Carlo YouTube channel critiquing that line of reasoning. But for our purposes here, infallibility follows from inspiration. It is true, but the question is not whether these books in the canon are infallible. The question is whether they’re inspired by God. God breathe carried forth by God in the spirit. That’s the question. And to answer that question, fallible, men cannot identify that you need an infallible voice to speak on behalf of God because only God knows who he has inspired. So we would need an authority that has God’s authority or the protection of God to be able to tell us which writings are inspired. Now here’s the thing, when we look at the infallible testimony of the apostles like we’re fallible, I can come to recognize the apostles that infallible, authoritative voices for Jesus Christ because according to the historical record, Jesus invested them with an authority to speak on his behalf. And since he’s infallible, their authority is going to be infallible. Well, guess what? Those infallible voices do tell us at least some books are inspired. Some of the New Testament writings have God as their primary author and or aspire. So St. Peter tells us Paul’s epistles are written, excuse me, Paul’s epistles are scripture.
Now we could ask, well, which ones, but let’s just grant for argument’s sake, all of them, whatever Paul writes is inspired. Peter is an infallible testimony. So I can ascent to that truth based upon that infallible testimony. Whatever Paul writes is inspired by God. Saint Paul quotes a passage from Luke’s gospel in his letter to Timothy, I think it’s second Timothy one 18, maybe I might be mistaken on that and calls it scripture. So now one could counter and say, well, he only tells us that particular passage is scripture. That doesn’t mean the whole gospel is scripture, but let’s just grant for argument’s sake that he believes the whole thing is scripture. So we can recognize, we can come to identify some books of the New Testament to be inspired by God, not just infallible but inspired by God based on the infallible testimony of the apostles themselves.
The dilemma comes with regard to those books that we cannot account for. We cannot believe they’re inspired on account of the apostolic witness of the testimony of the apostles. The letter to the Hebrews would be one example, possibly James would be another example. If the James who wrote the epistle of James, the brother of the Lord is not James of Alpheus, but James some other James, right? That’s not the James of Alpheus. So we could question that second Peter. There’s scholars debate whether Peter actually wrote second Peter. So those would be examples to where we would not be able to rely on the infallible testimony of the apostles to believe that they are inspired. And so the question becomes if you’re following, so scriptura and scripture is your only infallible testimony for Christian belief, then either A, you’re going to have to give up so scriptura and believe that these books are inspired based upon the sacred tradition, or B, give up the belief that we must necessarily believe these books to be inspired in order to hold so scriptura. So bottom line is it is correct to say you do not have to be infallible to recognize infallible testimony, but you do have to be an infallible voice, have the protection of God to recognize what is inspired. And those two things are conflated in contemporary dialogues and discussions about the canon, and it calls us for great confusion. If we can untangle that and have proper targets for our mind to go after, then we can further the conversation.
Adrian:
Yeah, that’s huge. Actually, I hadn’t considered that before, so I’m glad you’re saying that.
Karlo:
Yeah, I wrote a piece on this quite some time ago, a couple of years ago@catholic.com where I was engaging Orland’s thought on this issue, the infallible list of infallible books, and I affirmed in that piece that he’s right on that. But the question is not whether these books are infallible. The question is whether these books are inspired,
Adrian:
Right? Because even redeemed Zoomer will say that the confessions that he holds to in the Presbyterian church are an errant, but he doesn’t believe that they’re inspired by God. So there’s a bit of a difference there. That’s really interesting. Yeah, I’m glad you’re bringing that nuance out.
Karlo:
And notice that’s a third category. So just simply to say they’re an errant is just simply to affirm they are without error, but that’s not the same thing as inspiration, nor is it the same thing as being infallible, because to be infallible is to not to be incapable of making the error by way of divine protection or by way of inspiration. So infallibility can follow inspiration, but also infallibility can be had in other ways besides inspiration, like through divine protection in the negative sense.
Adrian:
Whereas in errand sea, it’s just this document happens without error, contain error, error,
Karlo:
Yeah, correct.
Adrian:
Which can happen.
Karlo:
Yeah, for scripture, we can say it is an errant on account of the authors being inspired by God. If inspired by God, then without error, we can say a document is in error. Excuse me. Is iner like an infallible teaching of the church that is iner? It’s without error on account of the infallibility of either the Pope or the ecumenical council putting forth the definitive teaching and that infallibility being understood as divine protection by the Holy Spirit?
Adrian:
Yeah. Great. I’m trying to think again from a Protestant perspective, I’m trying to think if there are any follow-up questions I would have, but Oh,
Karlo:
I’m sure there’s a host of them. We just can’t think of them right now. Yeah,
Adrian:
Yeah, true. Okay, great. Well, what about an argument that I’ve used before also is something like, well, if solo script tour were true, then we would expect to see solo script tour in the Bible. And since we don’t see solo script tour in the Bible, it can’t be true because, so what would you say to that argument?
Karlo:
Yeah, so this is a very common argument, and I think once again, it all depends on how our Protestant friend is conceptualizing solo script tour. So consider this if our Protestant friend Conceptualizes sour along the lines of what the Westminster Confession says, the whole council of God for the sake of man’s salvation is contained within scripture either explicitly or by way of good and necessary consequence. Okay, so let’s take that conception of soul strip tour that would entail what we spoke about earlier. Everything that God has revealed for man’s salvation is contained within scripture. Now, if that’s the target, then I do think that solar scripture in this sense would need to be proven from scripture alone because that statement itself, namely the whole council of God for man’s salvation is contained within scripture seemingly would be a council of God.
And so therefore, that particular principle would have to be found in sacred scripture to pass its own tests to meet its own standard. And then we can run the argument. We don’t find any indication that the whole council of God and everything God has revealed from man salvation is found within scripture. And so therefore this version or this conception of solo scripture is self-defeating or self-refuting. I think it works there. However, we have to be careful as a Catholic because if we run that argument, our Protestant friends and many contemporary Protestant apologists will do this encounter and say, well, wait a minute, that’s not how I’m conceiving. So script tour. So script tour for me. So the Protestant apologists might say is a result of historical circumstances,
Namely all we’re left with as an infallible guide is the writings of the apostles. Now notice the assumption their oral apostolic teaching beyond their writings simply did not get preserved. And since that is the case and all we’re left with is their infallible writings, well then it would follow that scripture alone is our infallible rule of faith. Now, if that’s how a Protestant conceptualizes solo script Orland does this and his debate with Trent where he calls it a prolo goman on sort of a first principle, but notice this by way of historical circumstance, that’s why they’re thinking scripture alone is our infallible rule of faith. Now, from my perspective, Adrian, I’m okay with that. That’s fair game. If they want to reconceptualize how they’re understanding or the reasoning behind solo s scriptura, that’s fair game. It just gives us a different target to interact with. And if that’s how they’re conceptualizing solo scriptura, then I do not think the self-refuting argument works because on that version of solo scriptura, there’s no demand that it be indicated in sacred scripture because there reasoning based upon historical circumstances.
Now, the real question is, is there assumption that no oral apostolic preaching beyond writing has been preserved? Is that assumption true or false? And that’s where the real debate lies, because if there were an oral apostolic preaching beyond the sacred scripture that was preserved within solis, scriptura is false because there would be another infallible rule of faith, namely the sacred tradition. And so that’s where the conversation is going to go with this version of sos scriptura. So I think we have to be very careful when we run this self-refuting argument to make sure we’re understanding how the Protestant interlocutor is conceptualizing solo scriptura so that we don’t misstep. Because if you run that self-refuting argument and your Protestant friend has this latter conceptualization of solo scriptura, then you’re going to misfire. You’re going to misstep. Because in a formal debate that counter argument, well, that’s not how I conceptualize solo scriptura when points in his favor and against the Catholic view.
Adrian:
Yeah. So I guess then like you said, the burden becomes them demonstrating that the apostolic oral tradition wasn’t preserved, or maybe the burden is us demonstrating that it was preserved. And I think a lot of this kind of plays into a separate issue that might get entangled with the papacy or the magisterium of the church where Protestants will say, look, if the Pope can just come out tomorrow and say that this is something that was handed on in sacred tradition and it’s just something out of left field, that’s what I’m worried about. And so how do I know what was preserved in sacred tradition and what those apostolic teachings were that were passed on so that I know first of all what those are, and also that I know that I’d be protected against being bound to something that isn’t in sacred tradition, but that a Pope declares to be from sacred tradition. How do we detangle that or conceptualize that?
Karlo:
Yeah, that’s a great question. And I sympathize with that struggle. When I think about that issue from a Protestant perspective, I can sympathize with it, but I do think, and I am convinced there’s a way to solve that dilemma. So there are some apostolic traditions that we have a historical record for. There are some where the historical record is a bit weak, we’re not seeing it. Now that absence of evidence doesn’t entail absence in reality. And we’re all familiar with that line of reasoning. But I think here’s the solution, Adrian. If we are convinced already that the successor of St. Peter is the head of the church and consequently protected by the Holy Spirit, then that would be the rational ground for us to ascent to some teaching from that head where he says, this is part of divine revelation. So the grounds for my ascent that this is part of the sacred deposit of faith is not based on the historical record, but based on the protection of the Holy Spirit of the head.
In teaching me that and that very office and protection of that office, I do have historical grounds to base reason upon for my ascent to that truth. So if I have a rational foundation to ascent to the successor of St. Peter as the head of the church protected by the Holy Spirit, then it would be rational to ascent to whatever teaching he proposes to be part of the sacred deposit of faith. And I would be believing it based upon, upon the authority of God who’s protecting him. And I have prior reasons to think that God is protecting him in this situation. And in my mind, even though we’re lacking the historical record to serve as a foundation for my ascent, I still have rational foundation for the ascent to the bishop of Rome, the head of the church successor of St. Peter, to make such a proclamation.
And that would be being in the first century, right? Exactly. If you’re in the first century and you’re like at the end of getting to 100 ad and you have an apostle come and tell you something and you haven’t heard transmission, you haven’t been in the Christian communities of calculating or identifying the record of transmission of that teaching coming from Jesus. You weren’t with Jesus, you haven’t been with the apostles for all these years, and yet John’s teaching you in the late nineties doctrine X. You’re going to say, okay, it come from Jesus. It came from Jesus. Yet you don’t have historical evidence to justify that ascent,
But you do have the infallible authority of John to justify that ascent. Now of course, a Protestant will counter and say, well, the Bishop of Rome doesn’t have that authority. Well, of course that’s just begging the question against the Catholic, right? Because if he does have that infallible authority protected by the Holy Spirit, then just as that first century Christian would have the grounds of the infallible testimony to ascent to John’s teaching of being a part of the divine revelation. So to a Catholic today would have the same logical ground to ascent to the Pope’s teaching that this teaching comes from the sacred deposit of faith.
Adrian:
Yeah. I’m really glad you brought up the first century. I was actually this morning writing up an outline for a video that I want to make on this topic, which is people when they, and sorry, this is a little bit of a tangent. Hopefully that’s okay, but
Karlo:
That’s all right.
Adrian:
When people are looking into, should I be Catholic? I’m not sure they’re wrestling most times, I think with the wrong issues where they’re like, well, I need to have proof of this Mary and dogma, or I need to have proof of indulgences or these types of things, which there is proof of those things, and I think you can go and find a very solid case for those things. So I’m not scared of that inquiry, but I think many times people think that that is what will be necessary for them to convert. When really in the first century, if somebody had that same standard for Jesus, they would’ve never converted. They would’ve never been a Christian. And the Pharisees at the time could have said something very similar to what I was saying about the Pope, which is, okay, well this guy claims he’s divine, he claims this authority. How do I know even if I accept what he says up to this point, how do I know that later he’s not going to say something wild or his apostles who was given authority aren’t going to say something wild. How can I have trust in the future protection of this person or these people? Yeah. So if we’re going to apply that now, we would likely in the first century be applying that logic to Jesus and the apostles and we wouldn’t have become Christians.
Karlo:
Yeah. You’re touching on a very important point here, Adrian, and the true Christian and Catholic Christian spirit is not, I am a Catholic because the Catholic church just so happens to agree with everything. I think from doctrine A to Z rather the true Catholic Christian spirit is I submit to the judgment of the church on account of the authority invested it by Jesus Christ, which I have rational grounds to far, and that’s why I have sent first and foremost and everything coming from that as the stream flowing from the source of water I’m able to drink from and reason be satisfied, if that makes sense. So rather than the, I’m Catholic because the church just so happens to agree with everything I think is true. Rather it’s the church, the true church of Jesus Christ protected by the Holy Spirit, and I submit and I ascent to everything that the church teaches on account of that authority invested in it.
Adrian:
Yeah. So then the question moves from does the church agree with me on everything to, is this the church that Jesus founded just like in the first century? The right question is can I logically understand and defend everything that Jesus can and maybe will ever teach, but rather is this guy the Messiah, is Jesus Christ the Christ, and once I establish that, yes, he is the Christ, or once I establish that, yes, this is the church that Jesus founded, then the attitude after that is submission to that. And so what would you
Karlo:
Say? And that submission is rationally justified on account of the prior reasons.
Adrian:
Yeah, exactly. And so what would you say are the reasons that one would have or what could give somebody sufficient confidence that the church is truly founded by Jesus Christ and thus is it is reasonable to submit to that church?
Karlo:
Well, you just posed the essential question of why be Catholic? And the answer short answer is because the Bishop of Rome succeeds, St. Peter is the head of the church who was constituted by Christ to be the head right. Now, of course, that requires a heck of a lot of justification, but that’s the short answer.
So obviously we would start with what our Lord will to be essential to the church that he promises to establish. We would argue that Peter is at the head of that church, that he is the leader, and that union with Peter is a condition for being in communion with and a member of that very church that Jesus promised to build in Matthew chapter 16, verse 18, and given that promise of building his church and it being secure in its identity on the visible principle of Peter, so we would argue and that Christ promises that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against that church which has its security and identity in Peter, then it follows that that promise would remain with whoever succeeds Peter in the Bishoprick that he dies in which was the bishop of Rome.
And so for that reason, the successors of St. Peter in the Bishop Frick of Rome continue to live out that promise given to Peter that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against it to live out Peter’s role as the visible principle of securing the identity of the church. And then consequently, the promise remaining with the successors of St. Peter that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against it according to the historical record, the Catholic Church is that church that contains and includes the successor of St. Peter in the Bishop Rick of Rome. Consequently, the Catholic church is that very church that has its identity founded on the visible principle of Peter and having the promise to be protected from the gates of netherworld prevailing against it. Now, that’s the summary of the logic. Of course, at every step of the way, it would need to be defended and justified.
But nevertheless, that’s the short answer. To answer the question, how can I be sure? Well, Jesus made some promises concerning his church and that church he promised to build with those promises, so we would argue is identified in the Catholic Church. And so really our trust in the Catholic Church guiding us and leading us in the truth is on account of our trust in Jesus. And I’m glad you brought that up earlier, Adrian. We start with Jesus, man. It’s like once you’re convinced that Jesus is the God man, then everything follows you. Believe what he says, and that belief is rationally justified because of the evidence that he provided for us to be who he says he is as the God man. And then of course, the same logic would apply to the church, the Catholic church being the church that he started.
Adrian:
Yeah. Well, that was really beautifully put. I feel like we can do a whole other three hour video on that, probably
Karlo:
Inly much
Adrian:
Longer. Yeah.
Karlo:
Well, how about we do it again some other time I’ll come back on and hang out
Adrian:
With you. That’d be great. That’d be great. This was really helpful for me actually, because Solos Script tour is one of those, it’s such a foundational epistemological claim that sometimes it can get tricky and there’s a lot of nuances that come into the conversation that often are not accounted for when we’re just kind of shouting at each other on the internet. So I appreciate coming on and clarifying some of this stuff.
Karlo:
Yeah. Well, it was my pleasure, man. I had a blast hanging out with you, dude, I can do this all day, any day. I love this stuff, man.
Adrian:
Same here. So where can people find you? You just started your YouTube channel, you got a couple videos out, and so that’s Dr. Carlo.
Karlo:
Yeah, so if you just type in Dr. Carlo, Dr. Carlo Carlo with a K, YouTube, it’ll come up as the first link, but the handle is at dr. Dash Carlo with a K.
That’s the handle for the YouTube channel. But like I said, it just came out last week. Episode two dropped last night. There’s a welcome video there so folks can follow me there. I would’ve really appreciate if they would go and subscribe, share those videos, hit that bell notification, flood the comments, do whatever you got to do to try to beat that algorithm so that we can get it in front of more eyes. And then also too, I have my Patreon page to help support this new video podcast for Catholic Answers, and that’s at dr carlo.com with Dr spelled out. And I have four different levels of membership that people can sign up for and get all sorts of cool perks. So I’m super excited about this and we’ll see what Providence holds. Right.
Adrian:
Nice. Any new books coming out anytime soon?
Karlo:
No, man. Unfortunately, I have to say no. I have an idea as to what I want to work on, and I have some notes that are collected, but I haven’t been able to sit down and really focus on it and put some energy into it to make that my next project because I’ve been so focused on this new YouTube channel to try to get it up and running, working on episodes for the future, trying to get a workflow with all of this because I’m pretty much new to the game at this whole YouTube world thing, man. So that’s why I feel like a dinosaur. I had my own personal YouTube channel where I was uploading a local radio show that I was doing here in Tulsa over the past two years, but the way the algorithm worked, it wasn’t getting any views. Nobody knew about it. And so this new YouTube channel for Catholic Answers utilizing their platform hopefully will be helpful.
Adrian:
Nice. Perfect. Yeah. I also want to call out for people to go watch a video you did on Catholic Answers a while back called, I think it was called Answering Every Objection to the Invocation of the Saints or something to that effect. And I found that video so helpful, and I actually referenced it in my Saints video and I linked to it in the description over there so that people can go and find it. I think that’s a very powerful video, and definitely check out Dr. Carla Broussard’s books, the Saints Pray for You is excellent, purgatory is for real, was incredibly helpful for me, and I look forward to reading some of your other books as well.
Karlo:
Thanks, Adrian.