Roman Catholic HERESIES? (Debunking Catholic Inventions List) - PART 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- Roman Catholic HERESIES? (Debunking Catholic Inventions List). PART 2. Protestants of lists of Roman Catholic heresies and inventions of doctrines that the Catholic Church supposedly invented. We debunk them.
SUPPORT CATHOLIC TRUTH! (Help us defend the faith more and more!)
Monthly: / catholictruth
Monthly, periodically, or one time: catholictruth.org/donate/
FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH:
Instagram: / catholictruthofficial
Facebook Page: / catholictruth.org
Alt. UA-cam channel - Catholic Truth Living: (Advice on Love, Dating, Engagement, Marriage and Kids) / @catholictruthliving
Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/1157177
Online Articles (and different languages): thecatholictruth.org/category...
Twitter: / catholictruth7
TikTok: / thecatholicofficial
Alt Instagram (CatholicTruthLiving) (Love, Relationships, Life) / catholictruthliving
Facebook Group Page: / catholictruthct
Pinterest: / catholictruth
Rumble: rumble.com/user/CatholicTruth
APOLOGETICS TRAININGS:
Would you like 1-on-1 Apologetics training with Bryan? Or would you like a chance to ask questions, get advice, or find direction? Contact Catholic Truth: info@theCatholicTruth.org
MERCH: catholictruth.org/shop/
QUESTIONS? Ask us here: www.subscribepage.com/e3e8c7
BOOK: "Counterfeit Spirituality: Exposing the False Gods:"
- Our Sunday Visitor: bit.ly/3vtK63Z
- Amazon: amzn.to/3e1BqMk
BOOK: "WHY Do You Believe In GOD?" amzn.to/2S1Dadb
**Need an in-person or online retreat? catholictruth.org
Related Searches: catholic heresies, roman catholic heresies and inventions, catholics are heretics, catholic heresies
Music Credit: http//www.bensound.comroyalty-free-music
When dialoguing with any hostile Protestant I think it is very important to know your own sources well. The first source is, of course, Sacred Scripture. Make sure you have a Catholic Bible which you actually study. My two favorites are the New American Bible and the Douay Rheims. Next, have the Catechism of the Catholic Church handy. I also enjoy the Roman Catechism for private study (The Catechism of the Council of Trent). Get your copy of “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott. Be acquainted with the writings of the Church Fathers and, if you really want a challenge, check out the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Most anti Catholics are woefully unprepared to have a serious discussion about the Catholic faith, which they know little of. Keep the faith, Catholics! 😊😊😊
When I first started studying Church history, the canon of scriptures was one of the biggest things that drew me towards studying Catholicism.
“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I'll do that
If you have a religion, based on any document, your faith is not true. I have had several NDEs to be in the presence is to know that religon is an act of separation from the truth.
All are God, all are daughters and sons of God.
Baptism is a human construct as a catharsis by comparison. That depends on an understanding of the totality of understanding..
NO ONE has been saved by baptism in this world.
I'm sending my non- denominational buddy a lot of your content. Trying to prove to him the Catholic Church is the church given to Peter. And there's nothing I can do to convince him of it. He keeps telling me we need to have a talk, and how Catholicism is incredibly pagan in every way. It's very tiresome.
Love is greater than faith 1 Cor 13
Keep on proclaiming the truth in love and you will win your buddy to Christ
Catholic Calture is a good channel also, the ways of the fathers episode are amazing, Jim Papandrea is great
Some people you can’t reach. They make up nonsense about the Catholic Church and embarrass themselves.
Use this opportunity to evangelize. I hope I had someone bugging me for me to share the faith.
I use to say the exact same thing. Now I defend the Catholic Church.
Maybe suggest the book Bearing False Witness, written by a Baptist preacher about the lies told about the Catholic Church by protestants.
The body and blood of Christ go back to Christ himself. The Bible tells us this.
Amen, but sola scriptura people have they own oppinions in greater honor that Christ's words
@@BasiliscBaz Can you give an example?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 sacraments are symbol - this comes from man's mind not God's
_«FACTality. Catholicism Wins.»_
Great job, Bryan. Pray for our protestant brothers so they wake up from their wrongful understanding of Christianity and come back to the one and only Church, the Church as God intended.
Protestants pray for Catholics to leave their church and join them, lol
I work for an inter confessional Bible ministry and we have SO many debates and discussions on these topics. As one of the few Catholics, I’m always shocked but never truly surprised at the gross misunderstanding of the real church of Jesus Christ.
So blessed to have joined the church this past Easter, thank God for all the great Catholic UA-camr out their for debunking all the Protestants lies
Praise God!!! Welcome home!
Most do not realize that they are speaking lies. Their words are like friendly fire in the military.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I have not always found them friendly.
@@BensWorkshop True. But for those who attempt to teach, I will grant them "good intentions" - even if they are ignorant of James 3. what's that proverb? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Most are simply arrogant/malignant.
You know you’re in the true church when it’s continuously the target of the father of lies 👿
My thoughts exactly when I was discerning the Catholic Church.
Protestantism has become increasingly worldly. "If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first" John 15:18
All believers in Christ are the target of satan and his demons , don't fall into the trap of spiritual pride thinking the roman Catholic church is the only group of believers' under attack.
@@HAL9000-su1mz protestant believers .not protestant church goers. are not becoming worldly and they are getting persecuted. It is not just the Catholic churches that go up in flames.
WHAT!!!😂 I was involved in that church, it is the father of lies.
God doesn't need your proof,nor your deferral.
This ass says,'What catholics believe' is assuming other people's belief, and assuming he is 'the one' that has authority over God.
It's insulting to watch someone betray his own beliefs by using technology he says can't exist because of it.
Silly!!
"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hated. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church that is accused of being behind the times, as our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusions of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly it is other worldly. since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine."
- Venerable Bishop Fulton John Sheen
Thanks for your video brother God Bless you
No matter whatever they say about Catholic Church, Catholic church still strong coz God alone found the Catholic church. Good morning from here Bryan, nice to heard from you today. really sorry for not watching you on few days,coz I'm under the weather few days,God bless Your family and You 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️
Thank you, Bryan! Excellent points!
To all Protestants out there, You guys should create your own Children's story book. I think there is a bright future waiting for you out there, instead of Bad mouthing the Church which Jesus Christ himself established.. Agents of Satan, may God have mercy on your souls...
We are
C-atholics
U-ntil
T-he
E-nd
Viva Christo Rey
Ave Maria
🙏📿✝️❤️💚💙
Yes you are correct but, the Catholic Pope and Bishop's wear the big French fry hats on there heads. Im sure the leaders in the first Century wore those hats.
The printed KJV Bible was bound into one compact volume in the first century too, wasn’t it?
@@OzCrusader
The King James Bible was printed in 1611.
well now... if you can explain how It is possible for God to lie, then I will believe your church....
Jesus said to the Disciples that he would rise on the third day and later on he told the people that he would be in the ground for 3 days and 3 nights....
Matthew 12:40 " For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."
Matthew 17:23 "and they will kill Him, and on the third day He will be raised up."
Scripture states that it is impossible for God to lie....
Christ himself said "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind."
Paul Hebrews 6:18 "Thus by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be strongly encouraged."
Titus 1:2 "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time eternal."
Now when you can rectify this, then people will start believing the catholic church...
@@mrtheology2069
Remember , Jesus Christ is a good Pastor and also a High Priest ( John 10:11& Hebrew 3:1), therefore, if someone approach you and said he is a pastor but not a Priest then definitely it's a "Red flag!!!"
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus established His own Church through His Apostles ( Ephesians 2:20) and even History says that Catholic is the only true Church that can trace back to it's Apostles..
History never lies, they are the fact finder, it seem you don't have a clue how strict process of Historians has to go through, like there are thousands of Fact checkers, lots of background checking and triple checking those gathered information, just to ensure only facts were published... If you don't believe in History of the Catholic, then don't believe also what the history says about the origin of your Country, simple as that. ( even the bible say about history : job 8:8-10 & Psalm 78:2-4)
Great video Brother!
Thanks for watching!
The extent to which people make
Up stuff about catholicism is kind of mind blowing and seriously inconvenient and frustrating, and the extent to which these people are hardened, incapable and disinterested in adjusting their falsehoods and misrepresentations, is downright disturbing and troubling. I’m not Catholic. But it’s been seriously 🤯 and scary to see how Christians get triggered and weird over Catholicism and will casually say or imply it’s not even Christian yet be utterly disinterested in examining and adjusting these views
On Twitter, there are these protestants who are so ignorant to disprove Catholicism and always ask where is it in the Bible. I'm like, please, the Bible doesn't have everything and it even says it does not and St Paul said to continue the traditions passed on to them, which explains these things not in the Bible, passed down through apostolic succession in the laying of hands.
People need to get the facts and stop listening to preachers who went to seminary at McDonald's.
Lol. True.
Who wear the big French Fry hats? Protestant or Catholic?
Are you a teenager, Mike, or is that your best argument?
Seminary at McDonald's is a mature statement ?
@@mikepennn It is a realistic assessment. I have literally seen it in person at a coffee shop. Look around.
🙏🏻🙌🏻🕊🌹
How should we take Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel’s statements regarding Pope Francis?
He's not catholic. He's not the pope. Therefore, he has no authority over us catholics. We don't care about his statement regarding this or that. Faithful catholics don't follow him but the pope or Pope Francis.
Disregard.
He's not catholic. He's not the pope. Therefore, he has no authority over us catholics.
With prayer for all involved.
He's also excommunicated from the orthodox church.
In" The Gospel as revealed to me "also known as "The poem of Man-God" by Mystic Maria Valtorta Jesus speaks to His apostles after His resurrection ..." «I have given you the power to remit sins. But one cannot give what one does not
possess. So you must be certain that I possess this power in a perfect manner and I
make use of it for you, who must be pure in the highest degree to purify those who will
come to you, soiled with sin. How could one judge and purify, if one deserved to be
condemned and were personally impure? How could a man judge another man if he had
planks in his own eyes and infernal weights in his heart? How could he say: “I absolve
you in the name of God” if, because of his own sins, he did not have God with him?
7 My friends, consider your dignity of priests.
Before, I was among men to judge and to forgive. Now I am going to the Father. I am
going back to My Kingdom. The faculty to judge is not taken off Me. On the contrary,
it is entirely in My hands, because the Father has entrusted it to Me. But it is a terrible
judgement because it will take place when it is no longer possible for man to obtain
forgiveness through years of expiation on the Earth. Each human being will come to Me
with his spirit when, through material death, he leaves his body as useless mortal
remains. And I will judge him for the first time. Then Mankind will come again clothed
with its flesh, resumed by divine order, to be separated into two parts. The lambs with
the Shepherd, the wild billy-goats with their Torturer. But how many men would there
be, who would be with their Shepherd, if after the Baptismal bath they did not have
who can forgive them in My name?
That is why I create priests. To save those who had been saved by My Blood. My Blood
saves. But men continue to fall into death. To fall again into Death. It is necessary for
them to be continuously washed in It, seventy and seventy times seven, by those who
have the authority to do so, so that they may not be a prey to Death. You and your
successors will do that. That is why I absolve you of all your sins. Because you need to
see, and sin blinds one, because it deprives the spirit of the Light which is God.
Because you need to understand, and sin makes one dull, because it deprives the spirit
of the Intelligence which is God. Because it is your ministry to purify, and sin sullies,
because it deprives the spirit of the Purity which is God.
8 Great is your ministry of judging and absolving in My name!
When you consecrate the Bread and Wine for you and make them My Body and My
Blood, you will do a great, supernaturally great and sublime thing. In order to
accomplish it worthily you must be pure, because you will touch Him Who is the Pure
One and you will nourish yourselves with the Flesh of a God. You must be pure in your
hearts, minds, limbs and tongues, because with your hearts you must love the Eucharist,
and no profane love is to be mixed with this celestial love, as that would be a sacrilege.
Pure in your minds, because you must believe and understand this mystery of love, and
the impurity of thought kills Faith and Intellect. The science of the world remains, but
the Wisdom of God dies in you. You must be pure in your limbs, because the Word will
descend into your bosoms, as it descended into Mary's womb by deed of the Love.
You have the living example of how a bosom, which receives the Word Incarnate, must
be. The example is the Woman Who, without original sin and without personal sin, bore
Me. Look how pure is the summit of the Hermon still enveloped in the veil of winter
snow. From the Mount of Olives it looks like a lot of lilies stripped of their petals or
like sea-foam, that rises like an offering against the other whiteness of the clouds,
blown by the April wind along the blue fields of the sky. Look at a lily that now opens
the mouth of its corolla to a scented smile. And yet both purities are not so bright as
that of the womb that carried Me. Dust blown by the winds has fallen on the snow of
the mountain and on the silk of the flower. Human eyes cannot perceive it, so light is it.
But it is there, and it spoils the whiteness. Even more, look at the purest pearl taken
from the sea, from the shell where it was born, to adorn the sceptre of a king. It is
perfect in its compact iridescence, that is unaware of the desecrating touch of all flesh,
as it was formed in the pearly hollow of the oyster, isolated in the sapphire fluid of sea
depths. And yet it is not so pure as the womb that bore Me. In its centre there is a grain
of sand: a very minute corpuscle, but still an earthly one. In Her Who is the Pearl of the
Sea, there is no grain of sin, not even of incentive to sin. The Pearl born in the Ocean of
the Trinity to bring the Second Person to the Earth, She is compact around Her fulcrum,
which is not the seed of earthly concupiscence, but the spark of the eternal Love. The
spark that found correspondence in Her and thus engendered the Divine Meteor, that
now calls and draws to Itself the children of God: I, the Christ, the Morning Star. I give
you that inviolate Purity as example.
But when, as vintagers do with vats, you dip your hands into the sea of My Blood and
from it you draw what is needed to cleanse the soiled stoles of the poor wretches who
committed sin, be perfect, in addition to being pure, in order not to stain yourselves
with a greater sin, even more, with several sins, by shedding or touching the Blood of a
God in a sacrilegious manner, or by failing in love and justice, denying or giving it
with a severity that is not of the Christ, Who was good to the wicked to attract them to
His Heart, and three times good with the weak, to encourage them to be trustful. Such
severity would be used three times undeservedly, because it would be used against My
Will, My Doctrine and Justice. How can one be severe with lambs when one is an idle
shepherd?
O My beloved friends, whom I am sending along the roads of the world to continue the
work that I began and that will be pursued until the end of Time, remember these words
of Mine. I am telling you them so that you may repeat them to those whom you will
consecrate to the ministry, to which I have consecrated you".
It must be hard to be told you are not a member of the Body of Christ, if you are brought up in a Protestant denomination. Naturally you follow your Pastor, and listen to the Gospel being read at your Church or institution. And if you are told lies about the Catholic Church, you probably believe it, because why would your Minister deliberately do that ? It is only if you take the leap to investigate it yourself, you might have a different opinion.
Jimmy Akin in his debate with James White believes the Protestant doctrine of faith alone is not a false gospel. So Bryan is Jimmy Akin correct?
Catholics believe we are saved by faith, but It depends how you define faith alone. Many Protestant definitions of it he would reject. But others, Catholics and Prots could be in agreements, again, depending on how its defined. Hence, the Catholic-Lutheran joint declaration that both churches signed in agreement. Jimmy has a whole chapter on this in his book, The Salvation Controversy.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial So how James White defines faith alone, is that a false gospel? Jimmy Akin does not believe it is
@@jimbob3719
Let me chip in.
I don't know how James white defined faith alone but the usual definition in Sola fide I see is, faith is trusting in the saving work of Jesus Christ that the blood of Jesus Christ is capable of paying the debt of the past sin, present sins and future sins of a believer; that Jesus has finished the work of our salvation on the cross and we have nothing to add to it; we just need to trust in it.
To back up their arguments, they say Abraham trusted in God and so he was counted as righteous; it was not anything that Abraham did that accounted for his righteousness. In other words, their argument is, even if Abraham had disobeyed God and committed all sorts of sins, it will not affect his righteousness before God. And likewise, our salvation is by faith alone, through grace, not of works of charity. If salvation is by works, then it is no longer grace and if it is by grace, then it is not by works. Hence, works do not matter at all to our salvation.
Now the question is how do faith alone, grace alone and works of charity play in our salvation?
If salvation is by faith alone then why add grace?
If work and grace are opposite of each other, then how do the work of Christ and the grace of Christ go together?
They say Jesus Christ has paid the debt of their past sins, present sins and future sins. So, when the debt of their sins are paid in full, they are no longer guilty and hence, there is no need of grace.
If they say they are saved by grace alone, then they are saying Christ's blood was not enough to pay for their sins. So which is it - are they saved by the blood of Christ or by the grace of Christ because if it is by the work of Christ then it is no longer by the grace of Christ, correct?
The problem is, protestants never define things clearly so as to make their position very clear because they see logical inconsistency in their arguments.
@@jimbob3719
I would have to know specifics. In sum, though, Jimmy Akin, although an able apologist, is not the spokesman of the Church. He expresses his opinions, but they are just that.
@@sitresjolie2343 So who is the Spokesman of the church you can go to?
I wonder Mr Mercier when the reformation started in what ever year it started were most of the reformers ex Catholics
100% of them were ego-driven. Still are.
Part of the problem with calling it a reformers is the assumption that they actually reformed something which they didn't. They intended to reform things but could not because their lives were not holy enough and it led them to Anarchy and rebellion. Whereas the true reformers, St Teresa of avila, Saint John of the cross, Saint Francis de sales, and others who did reform the Church were amazing people who lived super holy lives.
And none of these were formers were former catholics. But the rebels at the time of the supposed Protestant Reformation were former Catholics who ended up letting their egos lead them astray similar to schismatics and the past
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thank you Mr Mercier for your reply ,may you be strengthened exceedingly by the Holy Trinity to defend the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church of Traditional Teachings and Worship Amen Deo Gratis 🙏🐑🕊️✨
@@CatholicTruthOfficial It was and is a rebellion - condemned first by the Catholic hierarchy, then independently by the Orthodox. What happened? The reformers rejected the Orthodox as "too Catholic" 😃
John, thank you!!🙏🏻
Can you do a video on baptism of intent because I don't think it's true, ans it's misleading. But I am open
1. Christ gave His Church the absolute power to bind or loose "WHATEVER" on earth and it will be so in heaven. How to deny that?
2. Specifically, St. Dismas on the cross! No indication that he was anything other than a thief or murderer. He did much, much more than simple moment-in-time faith. He repented, confessed his sin, the justice of his punishment, he admonished his fellow sinner to have fear of God. He recognized Jesus as a King. He knew that Jesus' Kingdom was not of this earth. He asked Jesus for mercy. Faith alone could have been done in total silence. It was not. For a good reason.
Just curious what do you believe is misleading about it?
Also, how do you define it might help in clearing up confusion as well..
@@Matt-1926 misleading if it's not true, because it's not Catholic Dogma or even Doctorine as far as I know. The idea of baptism of intent doesn't make sense to me because then why even do baptism at all if all you need is intent to be with God. That says all religions can achieve salvation if they love God.
@@AM-iy6qe *_The idea of baptism of intent doesn't make sense to me because then why even do baptism at all if all you need is intent to be with God_*
I think this might be where your issue lies. We would need to define what is meant by intent.
For instance for me I tend to live my life by Jesus words when He said to whom much is given much more will be expected.
I have been given the ability to understand what Christ taught and with that I have the understanding that Baptism is necessary for salvation. So if I know this and desire to be Baptized however I die before getting the chance to, then that is my understanding of being baptized by desire/intent.
However, on the same note if I decide my intent to be with God is enough even though I know full well Jesus wants me to be Baptized, then it's obvious my intent is to do what I want and not to be with God.
Now if we address this from the other end of the spectrum and we have a person who is incapable of understanding what Jesus taught (for what ever reason doesn't have to be intellectual it could also be because of the way they were taught the faith) then I would say they were given very little and I would think Jesus would require much less of them than He does me.
Anyway I also found this in the catechism
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
If that doesn't give more insight keep the questions coming I'm sure if we have a back and forth dialogue we can come to an understanding on this topic.
*_That says all religions can achieve salvation if they love God._*
Yes that is actually Catholic teaching.
The Church teaches that those who are ignorant of Christ and/or the Church through no fault of their own-what the Church calls “invincible ignorance”-may be saved.
However, keep in mind that in this day and age "invincible ignorance" is a big IF.
God Bless
@Matt-1926 I get what your saying, maybe there can be baptism of intent but I feel only in rare circumstances. Like if they were waiting to be baptized and died. But as far as other people go, I don't think due to ignorance they get to go to heaven. That would mean we are almost doing them a disservice by preaching to them the gospel. Might as well keep everyone ignorant. What do you feel about that? Do you think only in extreme circumstances or anyone that has an ignorant love of God
Catholicism is so easy to prove when you don't mind lying to do so.
Exactly, so many anti-catholics are so dishonest and, worse, many are willfully so.
Another Hypocritical list.
As Brian points out Protestantism (which was supposed to _reform_ and reformed nothing) is an accretion.
An addition to something that had not existed before.
Who does these _accretions?_ _Men_ do. If they were _guided by the Holy Spirit_ why did the Holy Spirit not guide the Church Jesus had given us and promised.
Where in the Bible does it say anyone can start up a college (a Catholic invention, they did not exist in Biblical times) Teach what they wish about the Bible. And after obtaining this degree...start up the church of their own invention? Where does the Bible instruct to start up your own independent church? A church run by a handful of self-appointed people, who instruct the person with the degree? Who have not gone to a special invented college to get a degree.
If you are Protestant, I invite you to investigate the accretions of your beliefs. They are pretty much all there, to be found invented by man on a date, in a place. Most of them are recorded. Oddly enough it is very difficult to find some of the specifics even though they are very recent, as unlike the Catholic Church the various bodies of Protestants choose not to keep good records. Such as your canon.
*Once saved always saved*
John Knox 16th century Geneva Switzerland.
This is 100% true, the majority of Protestant beliefs are complete novelties, traditions of men unseen within the first 1500 years of Christendom, and yet they turn around and declare the Catholic Church to be full of accretions, unable to see the multitudinous errors their sects are built from. Thank you for watching, and for sharing as well, God bless you!
No where in the bible a baby is baptized and 1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, says you need a good conscience towards God. A baby does not have a good conscience.
ENTIRE households were baptized in Acts, including babies, women, children, servants, etc. Jesus says, "Let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them." Why wouldn't you want the children to have the Holy Spirit?
Once you use the word, nowhere in the bible, you run into a whole host of problems. Because you never see people reading a Bible in the bible. You never see people going by the Bible alone or having denominations. You never see people using a guitar or drums in worship. Do you see the flaw in that logic?
The New Testament clearly says that baptism is for babies as well. Acts 2:38-39. Not to mention whole families were baptized. And it was the policy that once the father converted the entire family would convert. And you would have to say there were no kids in Israel at all to hold to your argument on this.
Also a baby does not need a conscience. In the Old Testament you needed to have faith and make a decision to follow God in order to be circumcised and join the covenant. However, God made exceptions for babies and the parents made an act of faith on their behalf. Same with baptism which replaces circumcision (Col. 2). After all, they have no personal sin to repent of.
"Peter said to them;...'be Baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ...and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost...For the promise is to you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all'..." The Acts 2:38-39 👌👌
To be administered to children "Infant Baptism"
Joshua 24:15 - "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD"
Matthew 8:5ff - servant healed because of centurion's faith
Matthew 15:21ff - daughter healed because of the Canaanite woman's faith
Matthew 18:14 - (It is not the will of God that children be damned.)
Matthew 19:14 - "Let the children come to me"
Mark 10:14 - let the children come, for such is the kingdom of Heaven
Luke 7:1ff - just say the word, and let my servant be healed
Luke 18:15-17 - people were bringing even infants to him ... whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."
John 3:5; Mark 16:16 - (No one enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit)
Acts 16:15 - (Paul and Silas baptize Lydia and her whole household)
Acts 16:30-33 - (Paul and Silas baptize a prison guard and his whole family)
Acts 18:8 - (Crispus, his family, and other Corinthians are baptized)
Romans 5:18-19 - all are born with Adam's sin and need baptism
1 Corinthians 1:16 - "I baptized the household of Stephanas"
Colossians 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision
See also: - Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15, Acts 2:39, 1 Corinthians 15:22
St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215AD) - "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (The Apostolic Tradition 21)
Origen (post 244AD) - "the Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants."(Commentary on Romans 5, 9)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (252AD) - this council [ Council of Carthage ] condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2)
*_A baby does not have a good conscience._*
Really your evidence for this claim?
A good conscience is defined as a healthy conscience, one that is cleared of offenses toward God and toward people.
I'm pretty sure no baby has any offense or ill intent towards God or neighbor.
@@Matt-1926 Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults....
Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
Luke 18:15 - Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 - Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
By the way, infant baptism is also practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Reformed Church in America, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ (UCC), Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, and others. Together, these constitute over 80% of all those who call themselves Christians.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
By the way, infant baptism is also practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Reformed Church in America, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ (UCC), Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, and others. Together, these constitute over 80% of all those who call themselves Christians
Still don’t understand the ideas surrounding Mary.
Jesus was unique and came, as a sinless person, to save mankind from their sins.
Everyone else sins.
So if people are saying Mary was sinless then that takes that uniqueness away. It’s saying that any human can, therefore, choose to be sinless; but they can’t, that’s the point.
I have no issue with the idea that Mary may have sinned in her lifetime, she was human, nor do I have an issue with the idea that she didn’t remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth; she was, after all, a Jewish wife.
The idea of the veneration of Mary seems to come from the notion that, since she was Jesus’ mother, we need to hold her up on a pedestal.
But the reality is, she was human.
Paul cited Psalm 14. What was the context? Paul tells us in Rom: 5:19 that some, but not all, were made sinners. Do you agree with Paul? Or have YOU abandoned his apostolic teaching?
righteous“Whoever receives you receives me, and awhoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41 bThe one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And cwhoever gives one of dthese little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
Romans 3, verse 10 says, “…as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one.’” Yet, James 5:16 says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. If absolutely no one is righteous, then who is James talking about? Luke chapter 1 says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous before God. If absolutely no one is righteous, then how can that be? Is Scripture contradicting itself? No, the folks who interpret Romans as saying absolutely, without exception, no one is righteous, are misinterpreting that passage. They are failing to realize that the key to understanding Romans 3:10 is the phrase, “it is written.”
Here in Romans, Paul is quoting from the O.T., Psalm 14 to be exact. In Psalm 14 it says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” But then that same psalm goes on to talk about the “righteous.” Well, if none has done good, who are these righteous the psalm is talking about? Obviously, when the psalmist says that none has done good, he is talking about the fools who say there is no God. He is not talking about absolutely everyone.😃😃
hi their you must be a delusional protestant😉😉
Obviously you have a poor understanding of what the Catholic Church really teaches. The Catholic Church says that Mary was preserved free from sin by God in order to PREPARE her to conceive and give birth to His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus is NOT like any other human being. He is INFINITELY HOLY (just like His heavenly father). And so the woman who would have the privilege of conceiving Him in her womb CAN'T be like any other woman in the world; she has to be DIFFERENT from every other woman by being SANCTIFIED and PURIFIED in order to prepare her for this task. Therefore, it is DISRESPECTFUL to the dignity and sanctity of Jesus Christ to say that He can be conceived in the womb of a SINFUL woman. Also, when we say that Mary is SINLESS, we are NOT saying that she didn't need a SAVIOUR. How do you think she became sinless in the first place ? Do you think it was by her OWN power? No. It was by the GRACE of Jesus Christ. In other words, God SAVED her by giving her an abundance of GRACE: "Hail Mary, FULL of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28) and it is this grace that SAVED her by preserving her from sin. Mary had a SAVIOUR, and that is the reason why she was sinless. If she didn't have a Saviour, she couldn't have remained free from sin because she wouldn't have the grace to make it possible. The work of a SAVIOUR is not only to save people AFTER they have become sinners. A SAVIOUR can also preserve or protect a person from falling into sin in the first place so that such a person never even becomes a sinner in the first place. The Bible confirms that God has the power to prevent someone from falling into sin (Jude 1:24). Lastly, to say that someone is SINLESS does NOT mean that such a person is EQUAL to Jesus Christ. For instance, we know that the angels in heaven are SINLESS, but that doesn't make them equal to God or equal to Jesus Christ😃😃
The fact that you say that Mary was human, makes me wonder what you've even studied if you've studied anything at all. Whoever said that Mary wasn't human? The Catholic church has never taught that. So we are confused at your statement. Of course she was a human that God chose to be the mother of the savior. She couldn't have done that if she wasn't a human. Was she a giraffe?
Just because Mary was human doesn't mean she didn't send. God Is sinless by nature, but Mary is only sinless by the power of God and the grace of God and his favor working in her. It's a biblical concept. We have a whole video on it if you're interested. And it's an amazing thing that God preserved Mary to be perfectly sinless so she can sinlessly bear the sinless Son of God. Even the earliest Christians saw this.
Mary Sinless
ua-cam.com/video/_nCHVwMIWfc/v-deo.html
What Catholics believe about Mary: ua-cam.com/video/t9orgxZDUYs/v-deo.html
Mary Ever Virgin: ua-cam.com/video/c23hgdXdp-g/v-deo.html
@@soulsavingtruth9689 thank you for taking the time to cover this, and, you’re right; I don’t have an in depth knowledge of Catholicism, what it teaches and why. It’s why I’m here asking for such an explanation, it’s because I don’t understand the mindset that people should pray to the mother or the archangels etc.
But on this point, Noah is described as a ‘righteous man’ but we know he was no saint, he gets drunk, for instance. Biblically speaking the righteous are still capable of sin.
Both rome and the othodox make the same claim of one true church but hold different views on Mary.
No, not very different views. We are different churches, so we are going to have some differences. It all comes down to Catholic orthodox. It's easy to disqualify all the Protestant religions.
I feel bad for all the angry Protestant comments. Doctrine shouldn’t divide us. Both groups love Jesus,
That is true, and Christ willed and prayed for us all to be one, not many, not thousands, but one! We should pray for unity with our separated brothers and sisters, that they return to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.
I came across someone who told me that he was Roman Catholic, but only went to Mass a couple of times a year. I said to him that one can be Catholic, but not be saved. He gave me a doubting sigh; but I continued by saying to him that he should not be dismayed, because one can be Protestant and not be saved also.
In the account given in the Scriptures about the Samarian woman at the well. The woman said to Jesus, 20-"Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 23-"But an hour is coming, and now is, that the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth."
Spirit: "Unless a man is born again, (born from above, baptized in the Holy Spirit, filled with the Holy Spirit, sealed with the Holy Spirit), he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Truth: Jesus praying to the Father, "Thy word is truth."
This Catholic you met is only a cultural, lapsed Catholic, who rarely receives the sacraments or rarely prays and rarely even thinks of God. He has no personal relationship with God-sad. Many so-called Catholics are like this.
As a Catholic myself, with God’s help, I endeavour to always be close to God in prayer, loving my neighbour, reading and contemplating Holy Scripture, frequenting the sacraments. I do all this to let Jesus into life, to order my life, so that I do God’s will. This is what true Catholics do. However I often fail my good intentions. Yet, Jesus helps me back up, so that I might persist in the good fight, with my eyes on heaven!
In all the letters Paul wrote, how many times did he mention Mary? Once time Paul said, " Jesus born of a woman". That is the only time Paul who wrote half the new testament mentioned Mary. Why?
Yeah, why didn't he mention Mary? We have evidence of the 1st century Christians already praying to the Saints and he says nothing? All his letters were written to address issues in the Church and he left praying to the Saints out? A practice Protestants vehemently object. Surely if Paul had issues about it he'd address it. As for why he didn't address the Marian doctrines, why would he have to? It wasn't the time for that. The bible isn't meant to be a catechism. Jesus left a Church, not a bible. The bible calls the Church the Pillar of Truth.
And that's more times than Paul mentioned to the bible. Or the Trinity. Or Christians playing guitar and drums at a church service. Where did Paul mention all of the apostles? The answer is nowhere for any of these. Why?
I will stay with, Christ and Him crucified as my faith. I could never trust man to not change and add things to control others. This is not a shot at Catholic's, just a mistrust of human nature
I do agree with you on Drums and guitars. Its a lot of silly noise
@@mikepennn *_This is not a shot at Catholic's, just a mistrust of human nature_*
Just curious if you mistrust human nature then why do you trust the Bible? Not taking a shot here just trying to understand your line of thought here to the fullest extent?
Just pointing out that the Bible, even though inspired by the Holy Spirit, is still a work of man.
It was men who copied the Bible by hand over the centuries, why do you trust that they didn't add or take away anything?
The oldest complete copy of the new testament dates to the 400's that's a lot of mistrusting human nature that could have changed a lot in the Bible over those first 300 years after the death of the last Apostle.
Last question do you read the Bible in the original Greek then? Because all of the English translations are the works of human nature which you already stated you mistrust?
Thanks,
God Bless
Super true 🙏
Without Lies, Protestantism dies
Catchy, provocative.
@@HAL9000-su1mz thank you Dave
Or perhaps, without rebellion. Since protestantism was born in rebellion.
With lies roman Catholicism thrives.
Catholics who believe in Christ and focus on Him only, are believers in truth.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072
You need to clarify what you mean by "focus".
"Focus" isn't the same thing as "believing".
As Catholics, We believe in Jesus Christ alone as Our Savior and Redeemer
But we don't focus on Him alone because there are many holy men and women in the the history of the church whom we should focus on as well because we need to never lose sight of their exemplary christian lives so that we can be inspired to imitate them
I don't think their problem with the Jesuits is about when they were formed. The Jesuits are bogeymen to many Protestants. Their problem with the Jesuits is that they exist, at all. They don't feel the same level of fear of (or hatred for) other religious orders, so there's no reason for them to be in the list.
This is true, and I have read many polemical works that portray the Jesuits as no different than the Illuminati or any other secret society. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the Jesuit Order, and it is a shame that it has been allowed to foment for so long.
Things because of human nature, Paul was already having trouble in the first Century Church's. In life humans have always wanted to control over others. Did Jesus trust Man? He said, " I do not except praises from man" . If you think any church Catholic or Protestant does not try to corner the market and say, you are lost without us, you are naive. Trust God, not man. Like Paul said, Christ and Him crucified, the beginning and ending of your faith
Jesus also said to His first Bishops of the Church, "He who listens to you, listens to me, he who rejects you, rejects me"
Before Jesus's Ascension, the Jewish Church was God's Church. To the people during that time He told them that although the religious people were hypocrites, they had Mose's seat and they MUST listen to them and do as they say, though don't do as they do. He made it clear that they had God's Authority. After that Jesus gave His Authority to Peter and the Apostles. Reject the Church and you reject God.
And the Apostles had power to heal, speak in other languages etc. That all ended in the first Century. Some clown Protestants over the years like Benny Hinn led many people astray with fake healing services. So Im not here to bang away at Catholic's, just don't trust human nature Catholic or Protestant. My faith is Christ crucified. Nothing else
Which of his Apostles was a scribe? How many of his disciples could write or read. I don't believe the Bible ever says. Now it mentions one was a tax collector but even he could had a slave or servant to do the writing for him.
Now as someone with the name _Penn_ you should be hyper aware of this discrepancy on a Church you claim must write things down and not teach them.
Notice Paul didn't set _penn_ to the side and just let those he taught go on in error.
_Trust God, not man. Like Paul said, Christ and Him crucified, the beginning and ending of your faith_
Did you notice you tell us to not trust a man and then quoted a man to trust?
_like Paul said_
" Long standing teaching of the Catholic church "
Interesting concept , so if scripture points you to Mary being a common young virgin born with a sin nature as everyone else is according to scripture , you come out with " Long standing teaching of the Catholic church " and that nullifies the scriptures? There was absolutely no reason for Mary to be born without sin to carry Jesus to term. "
Your debunking is lacking scriptural proof and instead running to the church fathers as if they are inspired by God . Scripture is inspired by God the early church fathers are not, ." Long standing teaching of the Catholic church " does not make the roman Catholic church right .
You mention indulgences and claim non roman Catholics do not understand what indulgences are, and then move on without clarifying what indulgences are?
You quote the wonderful cherry picked passage of 2 Maccabee's 12 and you claim prayers for the dead and yet you do not clarify that the dead in this passage were killed by God for the sin of idolatry and there is no part of this chapter that tells you to pray for un repentant sinners . Judas does and it appears that it was his opinion and belief, not found in scripture anywhere else?
You really need to question " Long standing teaching of the Catholic church " instead of just accepting it as truth.
It's interesting you say that. Because Protestants don't have a long-standing history for any of their beliefs since their new, and they don't have a scriptural basis like the Bible alone. It's neither biblical nor historical whereas our teachings on Mary are both biblical and historical having a long-standing teaching back to the early church.
The Bible clearly says that they can pray for sinners, and yet you go to unrepentant sinners. You're ignoring the passage that speaks very clearly about this. It doesn't make a distinction between the two, but even if it did, they are praying for people who have died after death to be loosed from their sins. That's the part you're ignoring. And anyone in purgatory is repentant. Not unrepentant.
@brucewmclaughlin9072
If you bothered to actually READ the Bible you might stumble across a segment where an Angel of all beings not only calls her but _addresses_ her as *Full of Grace.*
And this is done before Jesus is born or concieved much less dies for her sins.
How can she be Full of Grace and still have sins that have not been absolved or forgiven?
The men in Maccabees were killed in battle not for the sin of carrying idols. Otherwise, all those who did not carry an idol but did die were punished for worshipping the one God.
@@dave_ecclectic Full of grace does not mean sinless it means filled with the holy Spirit just as Elizabeth's baby was filled with the Holy Spirit in the her womb 6 months before Jesus was born . You do not have to be sinless to have the Holy Spirit dwell in you . If you as a believer do not have the Holy Spirit in you than you are not a believer.
2 Maccabee's 12:40 But on each of the dead, hidden under their clothes, they found small images of the gods worshiped in Jamnia, which the Law forbids Jews to wear. Everyone then knew why these men had been killed.
So they were killed for being idolaters?
41 So they praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge, who reveals what is hidden,
So God revealed what they died for?
42 and they begged him that this sin might be completely blotted out.
So here they beg God to forgive the unrepentant idolaters ?
Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned.
So Judas admits to you that he knew why these men died .
43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering.
Was this the correct thing to do for the living or the dead?
Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead who are saved through repentance and these soldiers died without that repentance.
44 If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them.
We believe the dead are raised just not the unrepentant dead.
45 In his firm and devout conviction that all of God's faithful people would receive a wonderful reward,
Now read that verse again and see for yourself that the next verse has nothing to do with this one!
Judas made provision for a sin offering to set free from their sin those who had died.
The sin offering to set free the unrepentant sinners who have just been killed for the sin of idolatry?
Now as you read the new testament try to find where an unrepentant person is dead and can be prayed into heaven ? Repentance happens here as you live ?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial The Bible clearly says that they can pray for sinners, and yet you go to unrepentant sinners.
2 Macc 12: is unrepenetant idolaters .
You're ignoring the passage that speaks very clearly about this. It doesn't make a distinction between the two, but even if it did, they are praying for people who have died after death to be loosed from their sins.
And you do not find any teaching in the entire new testament about praying for unrepentant sinners after death? You find multiple verses telling people to repent and they are alive not dead. Acts 2:38 Peter could have said something to the effect of repent here and now or after you die for the remission of sins?
Sorry that is one of those teachings in the roman Catholic church that denies scriptural procedure.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072
It might help if you took a look at the Greek text of Luke 1:28
(After all, Luke wrote his gospel in Greek, not English. It was only translated into English many centuries later)
The exact word used by Luke in Luke 1:28 is "kercharitomene" which is the perfect passive participle of the Greek verb "charitoo" (which means "to pour out grace on someone").
Interestingly, the "perfect passive participle" tense (which doesn't exist in mordern day English language but exists in ancient languages like Greek and Latin) describes an event that HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED and which will ALWAYS CONTINUE TO HAPPEN (i.e there was never a moment when such an event wasn't happening or didn't happen)
And so "kercharitomene" means that there was never a moment in her entire life when Mary didn't experience the outpouring of God's abundant grace -- she had been enriched with His grace right from the beginning of her existence inside her mother's womb.
There is NO record of any other human being in the history of mankind whom God enriched with His grace in this way (which is why you wouldn't find the word "kercharitomene" anywhere else in scripture except in Luke 1:28). Why ? Because Mary is unique in the sense that God prepared her to be the mother of Jesus by enriching her with His sanctifying grace RIGHT FROM the moment of her conception in her mother's womb so that the power of His grace would keep her HOLY and FREE FROM SIN, thereby making her worthy to conceive the Son of God
There is NO comparison between Mary's being "full of grace" and John's being "filled with the Holy Spirit" in Elizabeth's womb. If there was, Luke would have used the same word ("kercharitomene") to describe both Mary and John the Baptist. But he didn't. Mary is the ONLY one in scripture who is "kercharitomene"
The eating of bread and the drinking of the cup is an act of remembering Christ's suffering and His sacrifice as mentioned very clearly in the Apostle Paul writings to the church of Corinth, if you refer in verses 24 & 25 of chapter 11. Hence the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation i.e. which says the bread is the actual body and the wine the actual blood of Christ are unbiblical and groundless. ( 'do this in remembrance of me' 1 Corinthians 11:24 & 25)
No. See the end of John 6. If Jesus just meant it as a symbol or remembrance, he would have said so.
Strange that nobody prior to the Reformation taught that it was an empty symbolic gesture devoid of any meaning.
Jesus said after He said, eat my flesh and drink my blood, the words I spoke are Spiritual
Jesus said 'this is my body'. He did say 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. ( John 6:53) Did His disciples really eat His flesh and drink of His blood at all ? Obviously not. What He meant was it was a symbol. Jesus said, He is the Light of the World Jesus said He is the Good Shepherd, Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All these are symbols. In other words, Jesus was telling His disciples, that on the night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this di in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. ( I Corinthians 11:24-25) The last part of these two verses, clearly teaches ( that as we partake of the elements of Holy Communion ) that is an act of remembrance of His suffering and sacrifice. This is the idea. Furthermore the Apostle Paul says in verse 23, prior to verses 24 & 25, that Paul says ' For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. And finally in verse 26, right after verses 24 & 25, the Apostle Paul says ' For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (King James Version)
I noticed that you didn't mention what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:16.
There is no such thing as a 'True Religons' because God did not make them.
Yes he did. Jesus started one Church, on the rock of Peter. Mt. 16:18-19
This guy is indulging himself in getting others to agree with what he doesn't know.
Proof?
Your shirt lies by and about the words of Jesus.. He said follow my teachings, not speak for me.
Jesus said a LOT more than just me. He also started a teaching and preaching authoritative Church in the Rock of Peter and the apostles (Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 18:15-18, 1 Cor. 12:28-30). He did not start a bible only church which removes all of the Protestant denominations. Rather, he trained the disciples to be the leaders of the Church and gave them his authority (Mt. 28:19-20, Jn. 20:21-23) and said we 'must' listen to them. If we don't listen to this authority, then we reject Christ himself (Lk. 10:16, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13). They also passed on their authority to others through the laying on of hands. The church that Jesus started was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving, and making doctrine before the New Testament even begun to be written (Acts. 16:4-5; Acts. 11:1-15; 1 Tim. 5:11; Eph. 4:11-12 and many more).
When you realize that Jesus didn't start a Bible only religion but started a teaching and preaching church, you will realize that it's the Catholic Church, the only church that goes back 2000 years to the first century. This was the same church that made and canonized the Bible in the first place.
John Chrysostom was wrong and a heretic when he said it is absolutely necessary to be baptized and receive the Eucharist to escape the fires of hell. He should have taught there are exceptions, like that for the Muslims and atheist and Protestants.
Are you being ironic, or are you ignoring the fact that neither Islam nor Protestantism existed at the time of John Chrysostom?
Thank you for your opinion. But, every early Christian unanimously taught that baptism was necessary for salvation (Jn 3:5 - Jesus did taught) and taught the Eucharist and its true presence. In fact, every Christian down through the ages taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, even most of the Protestant reformers. They also taught that there can be some exceptions, but this was the norm. So you might not like the quote, but it's the reality of what Christianity taught from the beginning.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You would have to say that is not a true quote by John Chrysostom, if something is absolutely necessary, there are no exceptions.
Jesus said it's absolutely necessary. Jn 3:5. Yet, we take it all in context too. Maybe you should actually read bishop Chryostom and the other Christians to see what the exceptions are, why, and the reasons. Under all normal circumstances, it's absolutely true. Source: Jesus.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Maybe the teaching of the Catholic Church about the baptism of desire is not true. you said in a earlier post that if you do not take the catholic Eucharist, then you can not be saved. I know you believe in exceptions for this, but not everyone does. Why mislead people? Also i heard also by Catholics if you die in mortal sin, it is not automatic that you would go to hell, there is also exceptions? Is that true? Also can you list all the exceptions that Jesus teaches
YOURE PARTICIPATING IN SATANS WORK!!!!
“God Bless you, support us, buy our merch, amen”
And yet, here you are! Leaving a comment and helping with the algorithm! 😂
Jesus is Satan?
@@sitresjolie2343 woosh
@@georgepierson4920 that’s a hot take brother. Might want to take that heresy somewhere else
@@georgepierson4920
Quite.