Відео

Pure jibberish.

The papacy is a gift from God

No other religion gives you a license to forcefully engage in carnal sins. In 2014 Francis said atleast 8000 priests are pedophiles. Word😮

Wrong! "Let it never be said that any of the predestinate depart this life without having received the Sacrament of Baptism." St. Augustine. You usurp the place of the all knowing God who knows the hearts and minds of every person He has created, and knows whom He wills to give of the Sacrament which He Himself has made absolutely necessary for regeneration and incorporation into His Mystical Body and salvation. "O the depth of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How INCOMPREHENSIBLE are His judgements, and how insearchble His ways! " -St.Paul. There is no Canon of any Ecumenical Council which ever names this so-called 'baptism of (or by) desire. In the Ex Cathedra Bull of Pope Eugene IV t the Council of Florence the Church formally condemned the notion of the so-called "baptism of blood", and concomitantly therefore "baptism of/by desire". For to desire to shed ones blood for the name of Christ is less than to actually do it. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms, AND EVEN IF HE HAS SHED HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, unless he has persevered in the BOSOM and UNITY of the Catholic Church.”

No that's not true has never talked can't forget sin. Only God can forgive sin when I go to confession how do you say bless me Father for I have sinned I'm actually talking to God the Father not the priest the priest job let's give me pendants give me something to do so I do not repeat it cuz every time someone says bless me Father for I have sinned they're actually talking to God the Father

Excellent video. It's interesting that the Apostle John devotes five chapters of his gospel to the Last Supper, but he doesn't include the words of consecration. Also at the end of the Last Supper in Matt. 26:29 and in Mark 14:25, Jesus calls the wine the "fruit of the vine," not His blood.

When Catholics hear the word "infallible," they think of the Pope and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the church). It's better to say the Scriptures are inerrant.

I just discovered your channel today and thank you for it. My takeaway from what Fr. David said is that God can still save you even though you believe those erroneous Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. teachings.

Another one of those Catholic stories.

JMJ, O HOLY SPIRIT PLEASE HELP US THANK YOU AMEN, Dear Rev, Father THE TRUTH SET ME FREE, how TRUE, AMAZING, AND SWEET WORDS OF OUR GOD. THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES OF GOD JESUS CHRIST. JESUS IS ALWAYS PRESENT IN OUR MOTHER CHURCH, we Catholics are so privileged to receive, OUR GOD EVERYDAY, who can receive OUR GOD SO FEARFULLY AND REVERENTLY EXCEPT CATHOLIC.. . as a catholic i LOVE MY JESUS MORE THAN ANY THING, and i am Thankful to OUR HOLY MOTHER for teaching me the way of ETERNAL LIFE. THANK YOU REV. FATHER, FOR ENCOURAGING ME, THROUGH YOUR VIDEO MESSAGE MAY OUR ALMIGHTY AND MERCIFUL GOD AND SERVICER JESUS CHRIST BLESSED YOU AND OUR BLESSED HOLY MOTHER GUIDE AND GUARD YOU FOREVER AMEN.

Very informative. Learned a lot.

The Church never teached that it was ok to torture people to convert... that is complet lie to defend the new conciliar church.

Your comment around 9:15 is on the spot God does not “owe” us rewards for our good works because those works are innately/inherently deserving of a reward, but God “owes” it to *Himself* to follow through with His promise to reward us for those works.

1:18 - _'...come to know Jesus and to love Him.'_ - yet if you did 'love Him' - you'd keep His Commandments, John 14:15 but again, catholicism doesn't keep Them , but mandates sin.

his response to the opening question: _'....in knowing Christ and in a very true sense, finding His church.'_ - yet 1 John 2:3-4 shows that if we don't keep His Commandments, we don't know God and aren't walking in Truth. catholicism doesn't keep His Commandments, but mandates sin.

What all should know is "baptism of desire " is not dogma but a concept.

The thief on the cross was possibly a believer of Christ just like those before Christ came .

Hasn't the gospel reached most if not all nations ? Jew who hasn't heard the gospel? Nor Muslim, Hindu etc.

Why can't God keep the person alive so to get baptized?

Insightfully spiritual father.

Insightful presentation Father.

After Jesus died there was no rush to consume his flesh or drink his blood. Transubstantiation is usually explained using Aristotle's concept of physics, that in itself should be enough to open your eyes.

If you ever meet a priest’s parents please thank them.

This is four minutes of soul-baring truth. I too am a revert to the Catholic faith after briefly exploring evangelicalism as a younger man.

Didn’t Trent just say that contrition is a GIFT FROM GOD. The Church believes we are saved by grace but in a different way than Protestants.

Great interview. Father David Carter is my priest in Chattanooga.

I’m Catholic raised and educated. I love the Church, but its superstitions are making thoughtful people look for alternatives. Another Vatican Council is overdue.

Question: These 2 infallible statements made from RCC’s throne were about Mary ? Neither of these 2 statements are found in The Bible. Both make Mary equal to Jesus BUT RCC insists they Don’t “worship” Mary. Convoluted beyond belief, imo.

Hey! I am you 1000th subscriber! Christ's peace.

The main takeaway: Scriptural passages need to be looked at in *context* and with a *continuity of meaning* to be understood; if you just pick a sentence here or a sentence there, in isolation, you can justify essentially any theology. Otherwise known as "cherry picking."

This is very educational! But I will say that I think you throw protestants all under one umbrella. I guess, technically you with the find me as a protestant, but I agree with your teaching. I don’t even think it was even necessary to mention them.

I believe in the eucharist, but your vaccine comparison should be apologized for

Yes it is. That's official dogma. No salvation without baptism. That's why abortion is horrendous because children die without baptism and cannot attain to beatific vision. They don't go to hell of the damned because they have no personal, actual sins but they cannot enter heaven hence they go to limbo. Church does not teach 3 baptisms, that is nonsene that modern clerics say. It makes a mockery of actual baptism and mocks God's divine Providence

Sigh... These modern priests are shameful, they parrot nonsene, they parrot opinions meant to flatter peoples ego. Baptism of desire is nonsense that is not officially taught by authentic Church teaching. It's just a way to make the teachings of the Church palatable to non Catholics. Thanks to this protestant for seeing through the nonsense and saying BOD subverts the understanding of water baptism.

Prots reading scripture and thinking they fully understand it is an amazing phenomenon. Clearly there is a gulf between prots and Catholicism. It's because an adult prot if he rejects the Church has left the faith and not a Christian.

There is no salvation outside the Church because on your own you cannot save yourself, prots attempt to save themselves by not submitting to the Church

Council teaches correctly that protestants are anathema and not just for 500 years ago. A priest or clergy that denies this is in error and going against Church teaching. Stopped listening to the shameful priest when he talked abt development of understanding. Typical nonsense modernist clergy speak. They parrot this nonsense from what they are taught in seminary. It's opinion not doctrine. People conflate doctrine with opinion.

Thank you so much for sharing this wonderful explanation on the forgiveness of sins. This has been a confusing issue with me for years. You reminded me of what The Gospel originally meant! Before the coming of Jesus, the Jewish people and other believers in God, were sacrificing animals to atone for their sins. But, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, animal sacrifice was no longer necessary for those who believed the Gospel! If they believed the Good News of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus for the sins of everyone who believes, their sins would be forgiven and if NOT, they were retained at that time. After we become followers of Christ and children of God, if we sin, we can pray to Jesus for forgiveness and we will receive that forgiveness because He is our advocate and mediator between us and The Heavenly Father. We don't need a man to forgive our sins , but we do need men and women to spread the Good News (Gospel) to the world!

Your issues and my responses: 1) "But forgiveness doesn't come through absolution. The Bible is clear that forgiveness comes through faith." You're not making the proper distinctions, and so you are confusing the issue. There is no dichotomy between faith and absolution in any case, so there isn't even a proper basis for a complaint here. Forgiveness clearly "comes through absolution" in John 20:22-23 where the risen Lord gives the Apostles the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins and says, "If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven..." That is the priestly act of absolution which follows after confession by the sinner (after baptism). Of course, sins are forgiven in baptism without sacramental confession being necessary in that case. It's when we sin after baptism (mortally) that we need absolution through the sacrament of Confession. When you quote verses such as Acts 10:43, or any other verse about belief, you obviously can't mean that this somehow negates the CONTENT of our belief - which is that we need to confess our sins to a priest if we have sinned after baptism. 2) "Satisfaction by Christ means that there is no more debt to pay." This is false on its face since you incur a new debt whenever you sin. If you steal your neighbor's car, I'm afraid you've incurred a debt both to your neighbor and to God. I don't know how you get around this by saying ultimately we sin against God and "Jesus took care of it." Jesus isn't going to go to jail for you, or pay your legitimate financial and spiritual debts. Saying that He does is lunacy. You are avoiding the actual issue and just engaging in sophistry at this point. "There can be discipline but there is no more debt to pay." Says who? So whatever one has coming to them by way of temporal punishment, you simply shift over to calling it "discipline," and this means that temporal punishment no longer exists? I don't think so. Discipline is in effect punishment. If we were not in God's debt, then why would He be punishing us, or disciplining us? In Mt 15:21-35 we have the parable of the unforgiving servant. This parable is about forgiveness and punishment. In the end, the servant who does not forgive as he was forgiven a great debt is chastised by his master. The Lord says, "And his master, in anger, gave him over to be tortured until the debt was paid. 35 It is thus that my heavenly Father will deal with you, if brother does not forgive brother with all his heart." This utterly refutes your claim. The Colossians 2 debt (eternal punishment) being cancelled does not mean we should not do penance, and you don't even offer an argument for that anyway; you just quote the verse. And I just quoted Jesus to the effect that an unforgiving servant will be "tortured until the debt was paid." Then you quote Romans 4 regarding David, yet the Bible says that David lost his son (temporal punishment) even though he was forgiven. So you haven't done away with temporal punishment for sin forgiven, have you? The Hebrews 10 "offering for sin" refers to actual "sin offerings" of the now defunct OT religion, so that verse isn't going to tell you anything about temporal punishment due to sin. It's comparing the offering of Christ on the cross to OT sin offerings. Yet, the NT says to "offer your bodies as living sacrifices," so if there are strictly no offerings and no sacrifices why is it telling us to offer our bodies? 3) The infinite nature of sin and debt. I think the above parable I quoted demonstrates that God accepts our penance as satisfaction regarding temporal punishment due to sin since a generous act of forgiveness to a fellow servant would have left the wicked servant in good stead with his master. He was expected to show the same mercy he had been shown to others. He didn't, and so the forgiveness he had received was not enough. Now he was subject to severe punishment whereas a loving act of kindness to his fellow servant would have been seen by all (the master and the other servants) as discharging the debt completely. God knows that we can't do this fully on our own. It is not Catholic teaching that we can do it all on our own. The Church teaches that we cooperate with God's grace to do good, so making satisfaction is no different. We are simply doing our part, that's all. We are not suddenly cutting God out of the picture. Also we can and do draw from Christ's infinite merit and apply that to the satisfaction of the temporal debt as the Church allows through indulgences. An indulgence, drawn from the infinite merit of Christ (along with the saints), as dispensed by the Church (via the power of the keys), is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven. It can be partial or plenary (full). And you are wrong that the debt for repented-and-forgiven sin is "infinite." Where are you getting this from? I think you may be confusing sin as such with forgiven sin. Also, you are missing the distinction of mortal vs venial sin. Mortal sin breaks our relationship with God while venial sin does not. The Church teaches that Christ provided satisfaction for the eternal punishment due to sin, but you are now saying that even with that distinction in place the temporal debt for repented-and-forgiven sin is infinite. What is the source for that claim? I'm not sure it can be infinite if it is forgiven. Those in hell pay an eternal price because they do not accept the sacrifice of Christ and they wouldn't repent of sin, but God does not lay an infinite debt upon those who repent and are forgiven and live in Christ. That seems to contradict directly God's plan of salvation. God wants to redeem us, to forgive us, to make us holy. Claiming that satisfaction for sin is impossible does not fit with the gospel. 4) A just God would not require more than full payment for a debt. He doesn't. Here you are not being at all clear. There is no "additional" debt. The debt of temporal punishment exists BECAUSE God is just. You seem to be making the mistake of falling back on your own ideas and using them to dismiss Catholic teaching, but that does not constitute an argument. You can't argue against temporal punishment by saying you don't believe in it. We knew that already. You knew that already. Presumably, you spent the time making the video in order to present an argument against it, but part of your argument can't be to define it out of existence, which is what you just did by #3. I'm not sure how you can say that sinners do not deserve to suffer the consequences of sin even when it is forgiven and the eternal punishment is set aside. If this were the case, then why is there any suffering at all for believers? Why do they still die? Death is a punishment for sin. So is illness (in a general sense) and every other form of material and spiritual evil. Furthermore, we suffer the effects of sinners worse than us who make life a living hell sometimes by their sin. So the fact that we suffer temporally for sin, whether forgiven or unforgiven, is incontrovertible. You cannot dismiss it. And there are examples in the Bible. David lost his son on account of his FORGIVEN sin. Moses was not able to enter the promised land on account of him striking the rock a second time. Miriam was struck with leprosy, Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit, etc. We KNOW that sin darkens the intellect and gives power to vice while destroying virtue in a person, and this produces all sorts of ill effects on the person, their family and friends, and society at large, on the Church, etc. This is reality. It's the Christian understanding of reality in this world. 5. A problem blending what we do and what God does in terms of cooperation. Of course merit is achieved through the person - because we have FREE WILL. Free will is the controlling factor on what happens to a person, where they end up in life and in eternity. God does not interfere with that freedom. In exercising our free will to cooperate with God, we of course gain merit, and this is part of God's plan for us. In order for any act to be authentic it has to be done freely. You say this is a problem, but why? Because you belong to some new 'church' created a few hundred years ago which says something different? Why do the men who created that 'church' have any authority to change the teaching of the Church? They don't. To believe that they do is the fundamental problem you should address. 6. The penance for a mortal sin is an offering, service of neighbor (spoken with pure disgust). The heretics you believe in teach that you don't have to do ANYTHING AT ALL, so by your own 'logic' shouldn't you be mocking them?

My question is if the Eucharist becomes the true blood of Christ how is it bloodless?

If literally his body then literally drinking his blood. Salvation is via his resurrection, not his death.

Why are these Christians in the comment section so offended by this? LOL........... If the Bible validated your beliefs, you'd be in full support, unless it contradicts your traditions...... The APOSTLES affirmed them; WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS RIGHT. Colossians 2:8 ESV See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ (Christ or His Word). In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained." Except for one problem... Christ isn't talking about YOU or the Apostles at the time, he's talking to THE HOLY SPIRIT ITSELF. Christ introduces the Holy Spirit to them, and at that point his work here is done, he has been the sacrificial lamb and now he goes to be at the right hand of The Father, and now the Holy Spirit is left here on Earth to forgive sins or not. No human can forgive a trespass that is not against themselves, all sin is against God and only God can show mercy or not. It's an incredibly dark sin to tell someone their sins are forgiven when they may not be, you are sending that person off with the perception that everything is okay when maybe it's not. How do you know that that person's sins are forgiven? Did God Almighty show up in your room and say so? The forgiveness of sins at this time is the work of the 3rd part of God left behind by Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit, not you...

Very underrated interview. The father is very well spoken. Interviewer did a great job guiding the conversation along.

Catholicism sure seems to be designed to keep you securely tied to the catholic church (like a cult).

Who is asking the questions?

Thanks for sharing Praise God

What the hell did this priest say? he’s confused!!! The church is the people not a damn building or a name of a building 🤦🏽‍♂️

You just based your entire argument on the commentary not on the scripture itself.

When he speaks of erroneous doctrine that is deficient, is he not sugar coding the word “heretical doctrine” since Trent was clear that if someone taught faith alone they were no longer in communion with the church. The council didn’t just mean the physical church, they meant the church in its entirety, physical and spiritual. This is the type of talk that blurs lines and makes people outside the church not trust or respect it and the type of talk that makes people in the church not sure if it’s in fact the true church.