VIDEO: Discussion: Orthodoxy vs Catholicism with Nick Santosuosso

17 thoughts on “VIDEO: Discussion: Orthodoxy vs Catholicism with Nick Santosuosso”

1. Has the guest read Fratelli Tutti? Does he realize that this was in fact an encyclical?

2. Papal infallibility is necessary because without papal infallibility to tell us that papal infallibility is true, we wouldn’t know whether or not to believe in papal infallibility.

3. lemme comment on the absurdity of nicks argument. he says we need one man to settle disputes infallibly otherwise we cannot know the Truth. ok so how do we know who that man is? dont we have to use evidence from the Fathers for at least that then and if so what if the very disagreement is on that? furthermore once a pope has made a statement we still have to interpret what he means and if he actually meant it to be ex cathedra or just his opinion so it doesnt get around the problem at all. 2ndly id argue in the fallen world we live in its actually highly dangerous to have just one man making infalliblle decisions n we all accept them for all the satanic elites then need to do is get to influence tht one man n because of this centralization every other bishop becomes corrupted. now a papist might argue "well God promised to protect the pope" which nr 1 is begging the qs i.e. assuming that that is what God actually did and nr 2 even the natural revelation, which papists agree is a legitmate means for people to see the truth of the papacy, tells us that the popes especially after vatican 2 have vehemently sided with the world also in context of religious matters where we would exect God to have protected them from, so the practical outworking of this has already contradicted what papists claim the pope is to be protected from. again they have to make excuses and say "well the pope wasnt speaking ex cathedra" but this is then them themselves deciding at the end of the day tht thts the case THE VERY THING they accuse us of doing n thus being divided.

4. nick says vatican 2 didnt DEFINE any dogmas. But then again the qs can be turned on him and say how do u know it didnt define anything. what if someone disagreees and says it did? does he not see he is using his own senses and reasoning to determine if the very council of his defines something or not? SO if he can allow for that then why cant we just do the same with the Scriptures and the Church Fathers to now what they meant? do u c how he doesnt get out of this problem? we on the other hand recognize the Holy Spirit informs us THROUGH THE LOGIC AND REASON GIVEN TO US BY THE VERY GOD what is right and what is wrong? u cannot escape this n no amount of single man being the ultimate authority on earth will change this. we wld still need to use our God given senses, reason and logic to figure out what he said, what he meant by it and if the one who said it is actually a real pope or not. ppl cld still be disagrreeing with any one of those asects and the same roblem nick says we Orthodox suposedly have arises amongst them.

5. Nick keeps saying "the official teaching of the CHurch" BUT HOW DO U KNOW WHAT THAT OFFICIAL TEACHING IS WITHOUT INVOLVING UR OWN SENSES AND REASONING TO INTERRPET THEM MAN? The papist system CANNOT ESCAPPE THIS. Even if the pope were to visit u in ur own house and seak directly innto ur ears wht the official teaching is UD STILL HAVE TO INTERPRET WHAT HES SAYING ACCURATELY.

6. Dear Deacon Suaiden cld u have me on ur next show regarding this issue of papppal supremacy i wanna bring in a few arguments and do an anaylsis together with u on this discussion u had with nick. thankyou.

7. Nick one more time a supposed infallible man as source of authrotiy does nothing to solve the problem. you would still have to interpret him. Furthermore it adds to the supposed problem i.e. it makes it easier for the satanic elite to get to one guy n then the whole falsehood spreads to everyone else whod just be beleiving him instead of doing their own research.

8. Nick says we can ask the pope directly in theory. nr 1 tht is utterly imprpactical for billions of ppl so itd only benefit the few. nr 2 even if he stood directly infront of me no matter how much he explains wht he means i cld still misunderstand or misinterret it. It doesnt get u out of the problem either nick.

9. Nick even u beleive the Eucharist is Symbolic BUT NOT MERELY SYMBOLIC. infact it is when pprotestants r shown this is a false dilemna to say soemthing is either symbolic or real tht they get to think. telling them u need to obey one supreme human authroity will be the least effective to convince them or anyone for tht matter.

10. no I dont' think the argument is absurd at all. As I went back and listened to the debate I think Deacon Joseph didnt answered my questions. It seemed as if he diverted or didnt understand where I was coming from. Perhaps I need to be clearer. The argument is the same argument used when Catholics discuss the interpretation of scripture with Protestants. Catholics and Protestants can go back and forth arguing what scripture means. Each argument may seem compelling to certain individuals. Each protestant or catholic truly believes they can demonstrate their position based on the scripture. But who is correct? Without a living magesterium instituted by Jesus Christ(which we believe He did in Peter and his successors) we are left with confusion as to who is presenting the correct meaning. the same situation occurs when discussing the fathers on this issue. Each side believes a different meaning. Deacon Joe can claim all he wants that he can demonstrate that he is correct, but that is like the protestant saying they can demonstrate their view. There must be a final living authority that if needed can make a final decision. Only the Catholic position gives you that!!! I would love to come back to discuss some of the fathers. I just need a little more time to prepare!!! God Bless

11. deacon Joseph you claim ( at least you seem to imply to me) that many Catholic apologists/scholars (and even some sedevacantist–who i dont support-like the dimonds) are afraid to come on your show. Well I am not afraid at all. I think it would be helpful to focus on like 2 fathers (in context regarding this issue) at a time that deal with the disputed positions of Papal primacy and universal jurisdiction . But still even if you thought you could demonstrate(prove) your point it still would be "up for grabs" as to whether you are correct to an "outsider" looking objectively at both sides…..only the Catholic position of Peter being the first Pope and his successors having universal jurisdiction and infallibility gives you certainty. If not it is unclear…it is protestantism and sola scriptura

12. Nick is very, very arrogant and disingenuous.

13. What do you think about Arabic cannons of Nicea ?
    Vladimir soloviev's critique and prediction of russian Greek split ?
    And our lady of Guadalupe ?

14. Nick sounds almost exactly like Danny DeVito. Not a comment on the debate, just saying.

15. I really appreciate these debates. Thanks for sharing…these have REALLY helped me!

16. 32:20 you have major schism between Ukranian, Greek and Russian sedes.
    

    
    These are all national churches.

17. I like Nick Santosuosso & Dr James Likoudis ex Greek Orthodox now Catholic The Ortrodox are split up like the Prostestants are I pray that we all become One God bless 😇🛐🗝️🗝️🙏📖⛪💯 Catholic

Comments are closed.