Questions Covered:

07:04 – How does Catholicism interpret the Tome of Leo when it says “For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”?

14:48 – How has Catholicism defined hypostasis and nature throughout history?

19:23 – Would the Orthodox have to accept Transubstantiation if the Catholics and Orthodox were to be reunited?

24:12 – I often hear Orthodox claims about how the first millennium ecclesiology was Orthodox and not Catholic. Is this true?

35:33 – Protestants often balk at Catholic apologists claiming “all of the fathers” on an issue. These same Protestants will justify their rejection of the fathers as an authority by stating that they are so varied in opinion on things that no one can really claim them. How do we respond to them in a nuanced way that doesn’t exaggerate the patristic agreement on a subject, but demonstrates the importance of listening to their witness?

42:50 – The teaching of the magisterium on young earth creationism and evolution are difficult for me to reconcile. I am personally very convinced of an old earth, but my conversion to Catholicism was helped in large degree by the witness of the fathers. From what I understand, besides Augustine, who still believed in an Earth that is thousands and not billions of years old, there is a consensus of the fathers on this issue that the Bible teaches that the earth is young, not old. What exactly goes into the magisterium’s ruling that this is a matter outside of the scope of the fathers, and can that standard be applied consistently to other doctrines to show that we are reasonable and consistent to reject this patristic consensus while asking Protestants and Orthodox to be bound on other areas where there is patristic consensus?

48:45 – Is it possible for there to be a papal situation where the previous Pope resigned, but the next pope for whatever reason wasn’t legitimately elected, and that Antipope hangs around for a long time but short enough that the Church still has sufficient valid cardinals to legitimately elect a new valid pope, resulting in the Church actually having a sede vacante for a decade or so with almost nobody knowing, and the situation quickly being resolved with a new valid pope being elected after some time?

…