I like Luke's passage where Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers. All the apostles turned away from Jesus. The Apostle John was the only one who came back while Jesus was on the cross. Yet, Jesus didn't tell John to strengthen his brothers. He only told Peter.
🎉jesus is the WORD and the word is truth and forever settled in Heaven. Who is my mother, brother and sister? He who hears my Father in Heaven and obeys. John was a true brother to Christ. Halleluyah!
@@elizabeteborn5223 Nowhere in the Bible is it indicated that John ever strengthened his brothers. Him being present at Christ's crucifixion has nothing to do with emotionally and spiritually uplifting his brethren after they fled. At best, he was just reassuring Christ, showing that he was still there for him.
The papacy was the final hurdle blocking me from becoming a Catholic. Your book, Pope Peter, settles that for me. I entered the Church on Easter Vigil 2023 and have never looked back.
I've read books I think on some subconscious level I have actively tried to convert myself to Catholicism and every time I run into the fact that there's a pope, and I'm supposed to accept him as infallible, and then I see Pope Francis and I can't find a way to ever make myself accept him as infallible. How did you get around some of the Pope's being bad throughout history? Like if they're infallible why were there evil ones? I'm not trying to be confrontational or change your mind I'm just a curious Southern Baptist .
@@monsieurcharcutier4490 'popes' aren't infallible, friend -- heck, they aren't even Christian, according to the Bible. tell me, do you not agree with the Bible or just haven't read it?
@@monsieurcharcutier4490Hi sir. When we speak of Popes being infallible it is ONLY in very few instances where specific criteria is fullfilled. For instance in the last 150 years, papal Infallability has only been used 2 times. Infallability is not impeccability so popes can be bad [although alot of that supposedly in history is probably extremely exaggerated].
@@MuttonBiryani1994 2 times out of 150 years being infallible is like being fallible altogether. "I have scored a perfect on my exam 2 out of 150 exams. Yes I am never wrong in those 2 instances. The 148 I am prone to error."🤷♂️
@@jonedejesus9542 That’s because papal infallability is about dogmas [Highest Teachings] and so since we are 2000 years on the way of christianity, most things have already been defined. Btw we don’t grant your exam example since we also believe there is a general protection of the holy Spirit even in non-infallible teachings. God bless.
Through out my 7 years of being a devout non denominational Christian, Matthew 16 always tugged at my heart strings. It bothered me Christian’s would say it didn’t mean the papacy but they also never had another interpretation of it. I start RCIA this week 🙏💕
Just keep your eyes on the Eucharist! 😀🙏🏻❤️Don’t let anyone hurt your feelings or anything like that. The enemy will try to thwart you. People may say hurtful things to you bc of you taking the classes. (You just praise God when attacked. It will make you stronger. Remember Jesus said you will be hated for following Him) The enemy does NOT want you to ever have the Eucharist! It is all so awesome. I was confirmed Easter 2024. 🙏🏻❤️ And if you need to speak to the priest about anything that you still don’t understand, you can set up an appt for that. 😊Pray over everything and God will lead you! Blessings to you!🙏🏻❤️😀
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 On this rock is not talking about Peter for it is referring to Jesus since Christ is our rock. “All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And to prove even further that Peter was not the Rock, notice how over and over in scripture we are told that God is our rock. "I will proclaim the name of the Lord. Oh, praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” Deuteronomy 32:3-4 “They abandoned the God who made them and rejected the Rock their Savior. They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your ancestors did not fear. You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Deuteronomy 32:15-18 “There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.” 1 Samuel 2:2 “For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32 “The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my Rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” Psalm 18:2 “May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.” Psalm 19:14 NIV “I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?” Psalm 42:9 NIV “Truly my soul finds rest in God; my salvation comes from him. Truly he is my Rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.” Psalm 62:1-2 NIV “They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.” Psalm 78:35 NIV “They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, proclaiming, “The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him.” Psalm 92:14-15 NIV “Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song.” Psalm 95:1-2 NIV “You have forgotten God your Saviour; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress." Isaiah 17:10 NIV “And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people playing pipes go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.” Isaiah 30:29 NIV “Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” Isaiah 44:8 NIV “LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.” Habakkuk 1:12 NIV “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew 7:24-27 NIV “As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Romans 9:33 NIV
Peter became a living stone, based on what the Father revealed to him. It was not based on flesh and blood like Jesus said. So it can only be referring to the spirit, the Father revealed to Peter, Jesus is the Christ. 1 John 5:1 helps us; "5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child [d]born of Him." We know this Spirit, can only be Christ, that was given to the Father on the cross, where Jesus said on the cross, "Father, into your hands, I commit My spirit". With this, one becomes born again. It is this spirit, that overcame hades, Revelation 1:18. Please note ** In John 1, Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ, but this was based on the flesh and blood of Andrew, and Jesus renamed Peter there as well. But Jesus did not say "upon this rock, I will build my church" in this particular passage. So it can not be built upon Peter, but upon what the Father gave him, in Matthew 17:17-19. Peter was clear, the house is built upon the foundation, and Christ is the chief cornerstone. A cornerstone is what a building is built upon, as well as the foundation. So it is clear, it was built upon Jesus, His spirit. The church is not built solely on flesh and blood, but the spirit, or Christ. Christ is the rock of our salvation, salvation is of the Lord, not the church. Joe does a lot of eisegesis, and uses methods of persuasions much more so, than hermeneutics to obtain the authors intent.
@@wesleysimelane3423 Matthew 16 Protestant edition: “And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock- oops sorry. I mean on your profession of faith in me- oops wrong again. I mean on myself- oh dang. One more try. I mean on the scriptures I will build my church.” And Peter said to Him. “But, Lord, why then did you change my name to Peter?” And Jesus said unto Him, “Truly, truly I say to you: What do you want from me? I thought it sounded cool.”
In this video, I explore why I think starting with Matthew 16 is typically not the best approach for explaining the papacy to non-Catholics, and gave the passage I find more straightforward. Yet every Protestant objection (so far) has assumed this video was about Matthew 16, and not addressed the passage I mentioned *at all.* I love a spirited debate, and I'm incredibly grateful for my Protestant listeners (including those who are critical!), but it really does help to watch the episode before you try to rebut it!
@@fluffysheap What I'm trying to do there is less "defend" Matthew 16, and more show why it's a rich-but-complicated passage to cite to. The resulting debate in the comments (much of which is just people asserting that the "rock" is Peter's confession, or Jesus) more or less proves my point. But I'm struck by the relative lack of engagement with what I view as a much simpler biblical case for showing Peter's special role.
The passage that convinced me was where Jesus was telling the disciples to be like servants who stay awake to wait for their master to return, and they must not fall asleep. Then Peter asks, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?," and then Jesus says to Peter, "Who then is that wise and faithful leader whom his master will set over his house....?" This sealed it for me. As a Protestant, I always thought about this as referring to pastors, but when I began considering Catholism and the claims of papal authority, it made sense that the wise servant placed over the master's house had to be the pope. While this passage of warning can apply to pastors of local congregations as well, they can not be the primary or sole audience Jesus was intending, because Jesus's house is one house, the Church, not many little congregation. The wise leader is over all the house, meaning he is over all of Christ's Church universally. Furthermore, it was Peter who asked this question, and to Peter that Jesus replied, which reinforces the idea that Peter was the first pope/servant set over the house/Church. Jesus even goes on to warn about how this servant could act wickedly and begin to beat the other servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, proving that it's possible for even the pope to be corrupt. And so a sinful pope does not negate the papal position. God will judge the wicked pope who abuses his power, but the position of pope is still a real position that Christ instituted meant to shepherd the Church, regardless of how that position may potentially be abused.
🤦♂️ Peter was the first pope? When did he get instructed to create a bunch of religious rules and worship people. It’s not from the God of the Bible clearly. Jesus was anti religious from the beginning and all the way through, and it still remains the case.
@@TheMeefmaster Jesus is not anti-religious, but he is opposed to the hypocrisy of religious leaders. He is opposed to hypocrisy not to religion. Even James said, "Religion that is pure and undeviled before God the Father is this: to visit widows and orphans, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
To me the cleanest case is by connecting John 10 with John 21. If there’s only one flock (John 10) and Jesus gave Peter his flock to tend (John 21), either you are in the flock Peter tends or you are in the wrong flock. End of the papacy debate.
@@garrett2514 That’s because St Cyprian believed Rome had erred on the baptism controversy. Before that he believed Rome was indefectible which is a better objective witness.
Case closed. But the sad reality is that even if Jesus explicitly told Peter in the scriptures, for example: “You are going to be the head of my church while I’m away. Those united to you and your successors are united to me.” Even something as clear as this would be brushed away with mental gymnastics. Just like how “This is my body” is not really his body, “Baptism now saves you” and actually it doesn’t, “Whoever’s sins you forgive….” only God can forgive sins, etc. So the truth is that we’re fighting against cognitive dissonance which is a very, very difficult battle
@@shamelesspopery Luke 22 is even less supportive of the papacy than even Matthew 16:18. When Jesus said he prayed for Peter, “you“ in the singular, Jesus is saying this because he knows Peter is going to deny him three times. If he hadn’t prayed for him, Peter likely would have went down the same road Judas did. When Jesus told him to strengthen the brethren, this was directed towards the other apostles, since they would all scatter. There is nothing in this passage in Luke 22 that even insinuates that Jesus is making Peter the single leader over the entire church, simply because of the word “strengthen.” That has to be greatly read into the passage eisegetically. By the way, I’ve been sending you private messages about seeing if you want to still pursue our debate on the biblical canon that you had an interest in, which we talked about earlier in the year, after I talked with Trent Horn. Are you still interested in a debate, Joe? Let me know. Thanks! Steve Christie.
@@BornAgainRNplease debate with william albrecht ,his channel name patristic pillar. He is a catholic and a former protestant. Ask him for a debate with the subject that can be agree by him and you. Set a date and time. I am looking for a good defend and rebuttal from both side.
The protestant argument against Matthew 16 goes like this: God changed the name of four people in the bible. Abram became Abraham, "Father of a Nation," the founder of Israel from which Christianity came. Sarai, his wife, became Sarah, the Princess, and mother of the nation. Jacob became Israel, "Contends with God." He received all of the blessings of Abraham, and the nation of Israel took his name. In the case of Simon, Jesus changed his name to Peter so Jesus could make a pun at Caesarea Philippi.
But He turned and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan! Thou art an offense unto Me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
@@francismarion6400And yet, after Jesus has risen from the dead, He entrusts and asks Peter to feed and tend His lambs. But more, Jesus tells Peter his, Peter’s death, will glorify God.
@@francismarion6400 Funnily enough, this passage is incredible evidence in favor of Peter being the rock. Jesus calls him an offense, which in Greek literally means "stumbling stone."
@@francismarion6400 Jesus did indeed chastise Peter. But there is ample evidence in the NT after that event, cited in this video and elsewhere, that Peter was in good stead with Jesus and was chosen to lead the Church. Peter and the subsequent popes were/are human and subject to error, excepting the rare cases when they teach infallibly, ex cathedra. Peter was certainly an imperfect loudmouth and hot-head. God chooses amazing and interesting people to be his instruments on earth.
My favorite defense is the name change. Every person that God chose to be the start of a new chosen "group" throughout the bible had God give them a new name. Abram > Abraham (and Sarai > Sarah) when God chooses him to be the father of all nations. Jacob > Israel when God chooses him to be the father of his Chosen Peoples, the Israelites. Hoshea > Joshua as the successor to Moses. Solomon > Jedediah by the prophet Nathan, becomes the great King who builds the First Temple. And Simon > Peter, as a symbol of his designation as the Rock upon which he will build his church, the shepherd of God's flock (John 10, 21), holder of the keys (Mathew 16), and as you point out the one to use his faith to strengthen the other 12 (Luke 22). As usual, the connections to the Old Testament are lost on many modern Christians, but are very purposeful. Name changes signify a designation of a purpose from God. The change of his name to Peter carries the weight of all other name changes before it.
@@Uncephalized you established a strawman and misrepresented Sacred Scripture... Simon -> Peter means "Hearing/Listen" -> "Rock". It does not mean "Hearing/Listen" -> "Archetypal or Progenital Christian". And you also ignored the rest of the comment, utilizing more of Sacred Scripture to prove that Peter is the shepherd of the Flock and holder of the Keys of Heaven.
@@micyjoejoe5820 You've ignored the counterpoint. Whilst interesting, your point doesn't in any shape prove the papacy. There's nothing in scripture that goes even one per cent of the way the RC church tries to claim with all of its hierarchy and traditions etc. Why is it that in Acts 15 it was not Peter but James who made the final decision if Peter was so clearly appointed THE ONE? None of the other apostles seemed to recognise this in all of the NT. Nor is any succession plan even vaguely alluded to.
@@logofreetv That is an argument from silence. For example, I've seen atheists argue that St Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth, which shows he didn't believe in it, and it was invented later by the gospel authors.
i like Joe, he seems to be a very sincere man. and in the end, we are all trying to get to the same place with as many of our people with us. but as for catholicism, i sincerely wish people would allow It to dictate and expound on Itself -- the Word of God is clear about this counterfeit system.
@@tony1685 Thanks, Tony! I appreciate your ability to see good faith even in those with whom you disagree. Glad you're examining Catholicism - even critically! I would just urge you to keep doing so with an open mind and an opener heart, and God truly will do the rest.
CATHOLIC CHURCH'S MAJOR FALLACYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY: Whatever Authority the Lord GOD Jesus gave to Peter is TRANFERRABLE !!! .......................... WHEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is that in the Bible ???... Corollary: WHERE is the DIRECT link of Peter to the Present Catholic Priests ??? .......................... WHEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is that in the Bible ???
John MacArthur is an enemy of the Body of Christ. I say that as a former fan of his who had his study Bible. I don’t know if he’s infallibly ignorant or not, that’s up to God, but he does make war on the True Faith.
St Cyprian of Carthage (who the Orthodox recognise) said AD258: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church…’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single Chair… a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair.”
And yet you have nothing to back that up. The video does not make the jump. I do not deny the importance of Peter but there is no chair. What there is, is a despotic position now occupied by a pluralist. Trent was nearly crying in his video this week
This isn’t biblical though. No where in the Bible does it say that Peter was given a seat of power. This was something made up by the Catholics to assume power. If you’ve ever actually read the Bible, you’d know that the kingdom of God does not work this way. The only seat of power is held by Jesus, God himself.
It’s so funny that many Protestant pastors spend so much time arguing & teaching against the Catholic Church. Anti-Catholicism is a core tenet of most Protestant faith traditions.
It is mystery babylon. The mother of all harlots. The little horn making proud and blasphemous claims. The Lord wants His people to get out of her before it's too late.
@@tessa7413 actually @wesleysimelane is correct -- the many identifying criteria in Scripture can be matched by no other in all the world. it's difficult, i know -- but worth the study, when you're ready to allow God to dictate Truth.
@@tony1685 I have, & continue to study. Through honest & objective research, I’m convinced without a shadow of doubt that the Catholic Church was genuinely established by Christ, & that the Catholic faith is the One True Faith. No amount of anti-Catholic propaganda will convince me otherwise. It was largely through digging deep & investigating all the anti-Catholic claims that I became convinced of the truth of Catholicism. Turns out that none of the Anti-Catholic claims hold up to scrutiny, & to the contrary the Catholic claims do. I sense that neither of you are actually honest truth seekers. Rather, you’ve fallen for myths that scratch your itching ears. You have a very unhealthy & obsessive hatred for the truth, & for the only Church actually established by Christ Himself. You’re unwittingly being used as a tool of Satan.
If Peter’s confession of faith is the rock, then Peter is the rock. You can't separate the profession of faith from the person who confessed the faith.
not possible -- as there are entirely too many proofs of the contrary. the *CONFESSION* that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah -- is the ROCK -- His church is built upon. none of the synoptic gospels support the catholic version. Peter himself declares himself as a 'fellow elder' -- so don't add to that. there is more, but this is more than sufficient.
@@tony1685The Pope uses the same language today. He is also a priest, and a bishop. The president is still an elected representative, even though he holds a much higher office than all other elected representatives.
Bloody stupid he’s not a street preacher or an you tube apologist… He’s a head of state on a state visit , invited to non Christian countries … and was invited to address a multi faith conclave… As head of State representative of Catholic Church.. he has to be diplomatic and courteous to other representatives of different faiths.. First he started by saying that there’s only one God … so indirectly without hurting Hindu sentiments he threw them under the bus .. coz they believe in millions of Gods and the Buddhist who don’t believe that God exists…. That leaves only Muslims who are monotheistic…. Every body thinks that their religion is true … He can’t be blunt I guess and spoil the courtesy and respect and love shown by one n all
"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." 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." - Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260 - Official Catholic doctrine on the matter
Also what does history tell us? Did the THE church see The Roman bishop as successor of Peter? The answer is yes! Both east and west. History defeats the Protestant view! This view is not seen until the great deformation.
I strongly recommend the Book. Pope Peter is a hell of a book and dives into these questions in such an amazing clarity... One of he best books I've read in a long time. Still, Joe deserves better shirts.
@@EmberBright2077 Isaiah 28:16 “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST .”
@@jacquesvincent3897 Ephesians 2:19-20 \\ So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone \\ Matthew 16:18-19 \\ And I tell you, you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. \\
John MacArthur's arguments at the end there reminds me of childhood, where some of the disagreements and debates in the schoolyard were settled with a "nah-uh" or alternatively, sticking ones fingers in their own ears and yelling "LaLaLa I can't hear you." A time-honored classic.
Aggressive Protestants often say that the verses about Peter do not mean what they APPEAR to mean. Of course when we see that Peter is being given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven it certainly LOOKS LIKE he's being given a position of great authority, but the stubborn Protestant still has to deny this and say that Jesus didn't really mean what he's said. So you would have to think the bible is misleading us, sending us in the wrong direction. But isn't that a very inappropriate way to approach the bible?
👨⚖️ If Jesus was referring to Peter (petros) as the rock, the writer of the Scripture should have used "petros" as rock, and not "petra". Fortunately, this is how it appears in the Scriptures: Thou art "Petros", and upon this "petra" I will build my church. Petros and petra have different meanings.
@@zackskewz9577 👨⚖️ Who told you that Jesus Christ has two minds-one human mind and one divine mind? 👨⚖️ Who told you that Jesus Christ was reluctant to be crucified?
@@calebjushua9252 Who told you to play word games. If you have something to say, say it. Christ sweated blood and prayed that the cup would pass, like any human would. He is not a masochist. No one wants to suffer, if there is an alternative. His prayer was "IF IT BE POSSIBLE let this cup pass..." That does not mean he was reluctant. He desired to do the Father's will and did the Father's will freely. Christ's prayer is a model for how we should pray. God does not always grant our wishes, and we should enter into whatever He wills gladly.
Thank you very much, Brother Joe H, and your team for yet another great piece of content. "Peter, you are Kefa! And on this Kefa, I will build my Church, and the powers of Hades shall not prevail against it." God bless you and your ministry. Greetings from Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬. I was privileged to see the Holy Father, Papa Francisco, during his four-day Apostolic journey to my country.
👨⚖️ If Jesus was referring to Peter (petros) as the rock, the writer of the Scripture should have used "petros" as rock, and not "petra". Fortunately, this is how it appears in the Scriptures: Thou art "Petros", and upon this "petra" I will build my church. Petros and petra have different meanings.
Keep up your good works, people such as you are drawing people such as I ( raised Protestant, became Evangelical) into The Mother Church. I have never found such beauty, peace and depth of teaching in my life as a Protestant that I have since I began my journey toward Catholicism. I have just read tonight that conversion s are increasing, people are going back home.❤
Nope. False interpretation. The apostolic canons forbid one bishop from exercising authority over the territory of another bishop. The Early Fathers of the Church acknowledged the primacy of honor of the Patriarch of Rome. They did not believe he ruled over all the Church, and certainly did not believe in the Chair of Peter to be infallible.
"A wobbly foundation." I would say that guy has read Chesterton! And the fact it is a wobbly foundation is proof positive the Church is upheld by Christ. Through all the centuries of wobblyness the Church has never failed.
@@michaelogrady232facts brutha boo hoo. We all killed each other back then. Haha. It’s still just english wobbliness as the great Englishman would know.
I would say the best interpretation is how the early church received it, and they did receive it believing Peter had the primacy among the apostles. The Orthodox, who are non-papists, acknowledge this. So I think the question is really about primacy versus supremacy.
Great points! The preponderance of the evidence is clearly in favor of Apostolic authority with Peter as the leader of the Apostles. People want proof beyond doubt, but that’s such a high standard that, when applied to other doctrines, means we know little to nothing about what Christ intended. We need the Church to interpret scripture, not our own preconceptions and assumptions.
Thanks Joe! Another great presentation. Thanks for your live for the Faith. You easily make muddy waters clear for us Catholics who want to defend the Faith. God Bless Brother!
These are all the scriptures I know of about the Papacy, if anyone wants to gander: Genesis 41:39-40 "So Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; *you shall be over my house,* and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.'" Genesis 41:41-42 *"And Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.'* Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; ..." Genesis 41:43, "...and he made him to ride in his second chariot; and they cried before him, 'Bow the knee!' *Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt."* Isaiah 22:19-23 •"I will thrust you *from your office,* and you will be cast down from your _station._ In that day I will call my servant _Eliakim_ the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he *shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.* And I will place on his shoulder the KEY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID; _he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open._ And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house." Isaiah 36:3 “Then _Eliakim_ the son of Hilkiah, *who was over the household,* and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came out to him.” Matthew 16:18-19 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. _I will give you [Peter],_ THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN; and whatever _you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”_ Luke 12:39, 41-42 “But be sure of this, that *if the head of the house* had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. Now _Peter_ said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and prudent _steward,_ *whom his master will put in charge of his servants,* to give them their rations at the proper time?“ Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat. But I have prayed earnestly for you [singular, to Peter], that *your faith may not fail;* and you, once you have returned, *strengthen your brothers.”* John 21:15-17 “… _”Simon, son of John,_ do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “TEND MY LAMBS.” He *said to him again a second time, **_“Simon, son of John,_** do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, *“SHEPHERD* MY SHEEP.” He *said to him the third time, _“Simon, son of John,_ do you love Me?” … And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “TEND MY SHEEP.” Acts 15:7 “And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that _in the early days God made a choice among you,_ that *by my [Peter’s] mouth* the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
@@HellenicPapist I've read those Scriptures before. But I'll definitely have to study them more and look at the history and early Church Fathers. Lord please help me. 🙏✝️☦️
Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are the focus of an ongoing debate over who or what “the rock” is that Jesus mentions. The immediate context contains a question that Jesus put to His disciples: “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16), to which Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (verses 17-18). Is “this rock” on which Christ promised to build His church Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Is it the truth of Peter’s statement? Or is the rock Jesus Himself? In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100 percent sure which view is correct. First view: the rock is Peter One view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter [petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means “rock,” and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock, it appears that Christ means to link Peter with the founding of the church. It’s true that God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church. Second view: the rock is the truth contained in Peter’s statement Another popular interpretation is that the rock Jesus was referring to is not Peter, but Peter’s statement of truth in Matthew 16:16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” In this view, the “rock” is the truthfulness of that statement-the church is built on the rock-solid truth that Jesus is God’s Chosen One and the eternal Son of God. In confessing Jesus as the Christ, Peter, the “rock,” was demonstrating his own stability as he stood on that truth. He was, in a way, showing his character and why Jesus nicknamed him “Cephas” or “Peter” (see John 1:42). Third view: the rock is Peter’s faith Jesus had never explicitly taught the disciples the fullness of His identity, and so it was God who had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes to that revelation. Jesus marks the source of that truth in Matthew 16:17. Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God poured forth from him as a heartfelt declaration of personal faith. Since personal faith in Christ is the hallmark of the true Christian, those who place their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter, writing to believers dispersed through the ancient world, likens them to stones used to build the church: “As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him-you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5). The faith of believers is what makes them “living stones” able to be built into the church. Fourth view: the rock is Jesus After Jesus declares that God the Father had revealed the truth to Peter, He says, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). The word for “Peter,” Petros, is a masculine noun that means “a detached stone, a stone that might be thrown or easily moved” (Zodhiates, S., The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, 1992, p. 1,154). The word for “rock” next mentioned is a different Greek word, petra, a feminine noun that means “a mass of rock” or “a cliff” and therefore something foundational (ibid.; see also Matthew 7:24-25). The difference in the two terms may suggest that Jesus was contrasting Peter with Himself. That is, Jesus was saying, “You are the small rock, but I am the foundation of the church.” This view finds support in other passages that present Christ, not Peter, as the foundation of the church (1 Corinthians 3:11) and the life-giving rock (1 Corinthians 10:4). Of course, the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone. So, Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are best interpreted as a simple play on words: a boulder-like, foundational truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6-7; cf. Matthew 21:42). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which a building is anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? Believers are the stones that make up the church. They are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (not just Peter) and anchored to the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). “The one who trusts in [Christ] will never be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6). The Roman Catholic Church argues that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church, confers upon Peter the title of pope, and claims to be the one true church. As we have seen, however, identifying the rock as Peter is not the only valid interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Even if Peter is the rock upon which Jesus promised to build His church, it does not give the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the all-authoritative leader of the early church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
Currently a Protestant (Presbyterian in a PCA church), increasingly coming to see the Catholic Church’s teachings as Biblical, rational, and true. The Papacy argument from Matthew 16 has been a “stumbling block” for me, however, for all the reasons you stated. The passage from Luke is indeed much clearer. Thank you for your gentle and gracious approach to apologetics. I can say the same for many Catholic apologists I’ve encountered over the last year or so. I have been drawn to apologetics since being saved by Jesus 7 years ago, b/c I held so many atheistic/secular beliefs that needed to be dismantled and exposed as lies, before I could embrace and rejoice in the truth. That said, Protestant apologists take on a different flavor than what I’ve found in Catholic apologists. Learning about the Catholic faith, ironically, seems to set my conscience free before the Lord - and that is why I come back to learning more even when I find myself initially in disagreement or not understanding the doctrines being taught. I feel free to pray “Lord, I believe… help my unbelief!” Whereas the passion often witnessed by Protestant apologists, tho good intentioned, in retrospect, pulled at my heart so strongly that I no longer questioned what was taught even tho I still hadnt resolved my questions either.
Really, praying to the saints and divinizing Mary is not an issue for you? I couldn’t care less about the Papacy when such things are practiced. Those are clearly not Biblical and make no sense. Praying to another human for help instead of God… that you can never convince me of even if the hole world would do it. I will be the Doubting Thomas.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw Thank you so much for your prayers. I truly appreciate each and every one who prays for me on this journey to know the church as Christ established it! I believe it will be His grace that leads me home. May I ask what specifically made you realized you needed to leave your PCA church and convert to Catholicism? What finally convinced you?
@@Bythegraceofgod1646 There were a number of things I had to work through. But, what made me decide I needed to leave Protestantism (broadly) is the question of how we know which writings are in the canon.
@@pitAlexx I’ll answer in sincerity, and say this- the way Protestants typically portray Catholic doctrines like “praying to the saints” or anything regarding Mary is more often than not actually a severe misrepresentation of what the Church really teaches. So the conversation must start there- and then we must read the Church’s documents in light of the early church fathers, like first and second and third century. I began to see the Catholic Church through new eyes after I read how the earliest fathers interpreted Scripture and tradition. With much respect for what you believe, I encourage you to read the early church fathers for yourself- Ignatius, Clement, etc.
One one thing I’ve always noticed about how Protestants will make the claim that the Rock wasn’t Peter, but rather Peter’s confess of faith, is the fact that they overlook a similar episode in the Gospel of John. When Jesus first calls His disciples, it is Nathaniel who makes the confession of faith in Christ, yet Christ doesn’t call Nathaniel the Rock. But just a few verses later, Jesus calls Peter Cephas, Aramaic for “rock,” but Peter never says a word. So if the Rock was Peter’s confession of faith, why wouldn’t Jesus call Nathaniel the Rock instead of Peter in the Gospel of John?
I think we make it more complicated than it needs to be. Using the Bible rarely brings unity. But simple logic is the way to go, especially with Protestors. It's this simple: Every church has a head, a pastor. The only difference is most Protestant churches have 100 people, ours has 2 billion. But we still need a head, a pastor, like any other church. Or rather, unlike any other church ;)
In turn MacArthur would say it’s “ludicrous” that since the very beginning all Christians have understood the papacy chair of Peter, for 2000+ years. He’s the one that’s ludicrous! Pray for him, all we can do. He’s so insufferably frustrating 🤦🏻♂️
They love making negative cases as if they win by default if Catholicism is false, they say “so and so didn’t happen to say Peter is the rock” therefore Catholicism deboonked. But you usually don’t see them making any positive case for their beliefs being believed by all, everywhere, every time. They don’t positively substantiate the case from history that Peter is objectively not the rock, or that the paradigm of individual churches unaccountable to each other has always been the norm.
Joe, I well understand your reasoning and belief about the papacy because I was raised in the Catholic Church and was very devout in my heart to embrace all its doctrines and live out all its requirements. I never read the Bible because it was unnecessary since the Catholic Church contained all the truth I needed to know. But when I was 28 years old Christ came and revealed to me that I was dead in sin and trespasses and was on my way to hell. He made it clear that my Catholic beliefs and practices were rejected by His Heavenly Father. They were rejected because I was trusting in those things for salvation and eternal life instead of Christ who alone saves and imparts the free gift of eternal life. As a devout Catholic I was blind to my spiritual state of death. Jesus warned of this in Luke 11:35 “Make sure that the light you think you have is not actually darkness.” My light consisted of Catholicism, yet it was in fact darkness and death. But God opened my understanding, and His light entered and made known to my heart that Christ, and He alone, was to be the way, truth and life for me in this temporal life as well as eternity. The Holy Spirit took up residence in me and stirred up my heart to begin reading the Word of God. And God’s Word has clearly made it known that I am to live out my life for Christ's sake rather than for my sake. This is why I put no trust in any man or any church affiliation that stipulates I must embrace their doctrines or practices in order to be saved and pleasing to God. I have lived the past 52 years since that encounter with Jesus experiencing the peace, the joy and eternal assurance that He imparts to those He knows, loves and keeps. You state in this video protestants believe the entire doctrine of the papacy boils down to one passage and one part of a passage (Matthew 16:17-19). I believe no passage of Scripture substantiates the existence of the Roman Catholic Papacy. The Catholic Church cannot validate the papacy by the Word of God but only can insinuate, that is, instill or infuse subtly or artfully, into the minds of Catholics the mendacity of a papal state. Peter was not the first apostle to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Nathanael’s response to Jesus who had seen him under the fig tree was, “You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” So that acknowledgement by Peter in no way distinguishes him above any of the other apostles. Peter was speaking representatively for the whole group of apostles. The changing of Simon’s name to Peter is not unique in itself. All overcomers will receive a new name. “I will give him a white stone with a new name engraved on the stone which no one knows except the one who receives it.” (Rev 2:17) “Keys” represents the knowledge of the Kingdom of God. Christ’s stern condemnation of the Pharisees in Luke 11 ended with this scathing rebuke. “What sorrow awaits you experts in religious law! For you remove the KEY TO KNOWLEDGE (my emphasis) from the people. You don’t enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering.” The Kingdom of God reigns in the hearts of men. It is internal not external. It is spiritual not physical. Peter certainly has provided knowledge of how the Kingdom operates within the hearts of men. But God likewise used Paul, John, James, Jude, Luke and the unknown writer of Hebrews to impart knowledge of His Kingdom. None of these men were designated as supreme over all others in imparting the knowledge of God’s Kingdom. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “So let no one boast in men [about their wisdom, or of having this or that one as a leader]. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas (Peter) or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things are yours, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.” (1 Corinth 3:21-23 AMP) The binding and loosing Christ spoke of is rendered in some translations as having been already bound or loosed in Heaven. This makes more sense for Christ told us the deeds He did and the words He spoke were from His Heavenly Father. Jesus did not do and speak His own will and then expect His Heavenly Father to capitulate to what He wanted. As Jesus said not my will, but thy will be done. Peter was a Jew and the apostle to the Jews. If Peter was a Pope, then he was a Pope to the Jews. Any succession of Peter’s supposed papacy would have been a Jewish brother or religious figure. Perhaps you do not understand that the New Covenant is a Jewish covenant and not a gentile covenant. (Hebrews 8:7-10) Read Romans 11 for it will tell you God in His mercy allows gentiles to be grafted into His special olive tree-the Jewish tree of Abraham. Christ is the New Covenant (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8) and we must be in Him to be in the New Covenant. Jesus was a Jew and when He comes back to establish His kingdom on earth He is not coming to Rome Italy. He will set up His throne in Jerusalem on Mt. Zion. The reason the Catholic Church was created was because religious gentiles wanted to exclude Jews from Christianity. To them Christianity was a gentile religion and not a Jewish religion. Sad to say it remains so to this very day. However, Paul clearly tells us the born-again man is neither Jew nor gentile in ethnicity but a new creation in Christ and a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom of God. That kingdom exists in the heart of man. It is not a religious organization that imposes its authority and control over the masses. All earthly religions have an alpha male or female that dominates its followers. That is why Jesus warned us about wolves in sheep clothing (Matthew 7:15). Paul was a second witness about these wolves. “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” This is how cults operate. They seek to draw disciples after their own doctrines and teachings and then impose their will over the lives. Such disciples do not experience the freedom that Christ brings to a soul. I did not have any knowledge of the letters in the New Testament before I was saved. It came as a surprise to me that two of the letters were written by Peter. I read and studied those letters over and over. I came to realize that Peter clearly denied that he was a pope in any sense at all. In Mark 10 James and John came to Jesus wanting to be seated on his left and right when Christ became glorified. Jesus responded it was not His to give to anyone. The other disciples became indignant. So, Jesus addressed them all saying, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.” The Greek word for “lord it over” is katakyrieuo. It means to bring under one’s power, to hold in subjection, to be master of, to exercise lordship over. In other words, the declaration of the Catholic Church that the Roman Pontiff “has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” is the quintessential example of katakyrieuo. Did Peter grasp the significance and importance of Christ’s rebuke? He most certainly did! He writes in his first letter to other elders: “And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ…Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly-not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord (katakyrieuo) it over the people assigned to your care but lead them by your own good example.” Peter was devoid of any belief that he possessed supreme stature in the body of Christ and thus retained full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he could always exercise unhindered. Why does Catholicism continue to attribute to Peter what he in no way attributes to himself. The answer is obvious. What Peter believes of himself does not matter. It is what the Catholic Church declares of Peter that only matters. May the Holy Spirit open the hearts of those who love the truth of God but have been deceived by the darkness of Satan.
You could not have been a "devout Catholic" and blind to your spiritual state of death. An ignorant non-practising Catholic maybe, but not a "devout Catholic" taking advantage of the FREE graces that Christ gave His Church to administer to the faithful. There is not one sacrament that the Church FREELY administers that was not instituted by Christ.
Great post! I'll also add that the thief on the cross who is with Jesus in paradise, and everyone in the Bible who were saved by faith (ie anyone in Acts) did not have to go through the church or believe a guy with a title prior to their salvation. The thief on the cross wasn't even baptized and knew nothing of Scripture.
@@zackskewz9577What do you mean by Jesus giving grace to His church? The quickest Scripture that comes to mind is "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Individuals are given grace. Not an establishment. I'm definitely not going to go through a priest when speaking to God! I'll go boldly to the throne of Grace, just like the Bible says I should.
@@someonesomewhere6316 Been there, done that. But the truth, it turns out, is objective, and what many of us have deemed suitable, has been to the destruction of our souls. Protestantism teaches true things, but as you know, it also gets many things wrong. Personally, I would contend that Protestantism has reason to perceive flaws in Catholicism, but it protests against the wrong things. Papal supremacy, papal infallibility, the filioque, and the "immaculate conception", are all false doctrines of your tradition. What too few Protestants realize, is that Roman Catholicism rebelled against the authority of the Church, more than 500 years before Luther's theses. What too few Catholics realize, is that while Protestantisms are certainly riddled with their own false doctrines, Catholicism has too large a plank in its own eye, to have any hope at all, removing the sawdust from the eye of the Protestant.
Hey Joe, I left a comment on your last video, and I don’t mean to be annoying, but I have a video suggestion that I personally would find very interesting. So just in case you didn’t see it I’ll try commenting on this matter one more time. But I’m very interested in the typology of Mary’s Queenship. In your video about the assumption of Mary you touched on her Queenship, but you mainly focused on Revelation 12. But I think there is a case that is as strong, if not stronger when looking at the typology on this matter, and I think a video on that would be very interesting.
I think that would be good too. I like to think of the typology as well. You have the king (christ) you have his 12 ministers, one prime minister given the keys of the kingdom. You have the king’s many wives and concubines, and you have the queen mother. I think the types in the davidic kingdom are all clearly identified in Christ’s own ministry. He is the king in the line of David, the king’s Mother was always considered the queen. The king had wives but they didnt have the authority of the queen mother at all.
@@raymalbrough9631 Catholic is not the same thing as roman catholic. 2 different things. Nor is your church the same thing as the Christian church because your church teaches doctrines that the apostles never taught.
@@alhilford2345 Are you happy with pope Francis who supports homosexuality and allows pagan idols in your church? Are you happy with the way your church has covered up the homosexual stuff that has brought great shame on the name of Christ?
It’s funny to me that so many protestant “teachers” interpret these kinds of passages by saying, “Whatever it means, it doesn’t mean what Catholics say it means.” So, on the one hand, they admit to not knowing what a particular passage means. They then proceed to tell what it doesn’t mean. But how can they really do that if they admit to not knowing what the passage means. It just doesn’t add up.
@@JustJordan126 St. John 1:42 is where Jesus changes Simon’s name to Kepha, “which is interpreted Petros/Peter”; which all mean “Rock”. The Aramaic copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, which St. Matthew had written before the Greek version, also has written Kepha. “Thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha…” St. Matthew 16:18-19 is obvious at this point. Acts 15:7 has St. Peter saying: Brethren, *you know as well as I that* in the Days of Old, *God chose* from among you that by *my voice* the Gentiles shall hear the gospel and believe. Fun fact: Simon bar Jonah is also the first person in history to go by the name Rock (Kepha/Cephas/Petros/Peter). The name given to him by God, the Son.
@jacquesvincent3897 Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Psalms 94:22 “But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.”......IS PETER YOUR GOD??????
Protestant here. I agree that it appears Peter is given a special authority over the church and a special role among the apostles by Jesus. However, I have trouble bridging the gap from Peter as the leader of the church immediately following Jesus’ ascension to the institution of the Roman Catholic line of Popes. Is it not possible to hold that Jesus instituted Peter as the leader of the early church, but that this was not meant to be an establishment of the pope as a formal role over all the church for the rest of history?
St Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of St. John the Apostle, writes and compiles the first list of the first 12 or so Popes in his book Against Heresies, Book III (I forgot which chapter but it should be in either Chap. 2 or 3)
Amermountain has given what I think is a good historical answer, but to give a thought-experiment: Does it make more sense that: A - Jesus institutes the Church, with chosen leaders, with the intention that the Church will retain that structure, and will guide the faithful. or B - Jesus institutes the Church, with chosen leaders, with the intention of it all falling apart pretty much immediately. This is also compounded by the fact that someone in Peter's role only gets more necessary as the Church goes on, rather than when all the Apostles are there, and many people personally met Jesus.
For me, it is simpler. It comes down to this, what Church did the Protestant revolutionaries break off from? And in Matt 16:18 does Jesus not promise that Hell itself shall not overcome His Church? So the question they should’ve asked is, do I trust Jesus enough to believe His Church went astray like Peter but Christ will bring us back? I would’ve trusted Jesus and worked for reform from within. Instead they left the Only Church Christ founded for a man who never even claimed Jesus came to him in a vision. They talk about not being led astray by “traditions of men”, no you were led from Traditions of Christ and His Holy Church for the innovations of a man named Luther.
Your point works against you here. Luther was attempting reformation from inside the church, and he was instead cut off from it. It was never supposed to be a new religion, like you are trying to say here. If anything I’d say this argument is a straw man. Luther had many Catholic Churches follow him in being against the ways of the current church. And the church has even eased it stance on most of what he was against. So it’s disingenuous to pretend like the reformation was trying to start a new religion, and someone could take ex commuting the reformers as the Catholic Church cutting itself off from the true believers. I think the one thing that begins to unfold both orthodox and Catholic views is that they both traditionally affirm there is no salvation outside of their specific church. Once you start to study church history you realize the reason why this was is because early heretics about the divinity and sacrifice of Christ. Later we see both churches use this to just further their political power. Protestant are not different from Catholic or orthodoxs, we just humble enough not to say that we know everything and that Gods spirit works in all. Our core matches with everyone else, our expression of faith is just often different. We are all Christian brothers and sisters. Hell has not overcome Gods church because he has been working overtime in all three divisions. And we are at a point in history where we are co mingling like never before. We’re getting closer to being unified physically. Because I do believe we are already unified by our identity as Christian’s.
With Luke 22 I actually brought that up to a Protestant recently, thier counter argument was "Christ knew Peter was going to deny him so he wanted to encourage him". I had to point out how that actually isn't a good counter as firstly, Judas' betrayal was much more heinous so why wouldn't Christ offer encouragement to Judas, not only that but the other apostles also failed Christ that night and in the proceeding days, so the question would still remain why does Christ specifically single out Peter if he's not to be the elected leader i.e. Pope. Obviously pointing that out there wasn't any pushback so hopefully it flicked the light on. On Matthew another counter claim I see is Jesus rebuking Peter in the same setting, unfortunately protestants misinterpret papal infallibility to think it means a Pope is correct all the time.
Jesus is smart. He wouldn’t leave the world without an organized Church. Jesus is King, He is our King. And Kings leave the keys of their Kingdom to their Gatekeepers. Peter died too and will continue God’s holy work by anointing others to make it official and valid. Jesus created an organized Church and that is the Catholic Church. That’s how Jesus loves us is through the Sacraments. Jesus salvation through the Sacraments. Jesus is God incarnate and that is a big deal. God we can touch and connect to. And this is through the Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Catholic is Universal, that’s why if you leave the United States and go to other Christian countries, they are mostly Catholics because the Catholic missionaries spread Christianity to the world. Some Catholic missionaries are even Martyrs and Saints. Only the Protestants give and spread misinformed information about the Catholic(Universal)Church of Jesus.
@@Maranatha99is Jesus not powerful enough to build His Church upon Peter? I don't understand how you could make this argument. After all, Ephesians 2:20 describes the Church being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (men) with Jesus himself (also a man) being the cornerstone.
@christopherponsford8385 Hello, Christopher. The NT provides us with 3 metaphores for the church: 1. the bride of Christ, (Jesus is the groom. 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 21:2, 17 Revelation 19:7-9, Ephesians 5:25-27, Ephesians 5:21-33) 2. the body of Christ (Jesus is the head, Ephesians 1, 23; 1 Corinthians 12, 27) 3. a building: Jesus is the cornerstone & ALL the apostles are the foundation (Eohesians 2, 29-21) There is absolutely no room for a human as key piece for the church in any of those passages. Have a blessed day.
Why Protestant insist to deny the Pope for the belief of the Catholics it has been settled in 1521, Luther left the Church with his belief and founded his own Church, Protestant is not Catholic, Catholic is not Protestant, they separate ways already and different belief, if they do not have a Pope so be it, if fact Protestants have so many Popes, so why deny Catholics their single Pope.
I have several issues/questions. 1) You say yourself that Peter was addressed in the singular. Where does it say he should have a successor? 2) In Luke 22, Jesus might just appeal to Peter's character as someone who is willing to take charge and inspire those around him to action, unlike Andrew or John, for example, who liked to stay out of the limelight. Matthew 16 might be about the special role Peter played in the founding of the first church, when he preached on the Pentecost and 3000 were added to the church. This alone would qualify as a fulfillment of being the rock Jesus would build his chuch upon. 3) Why do Acts and the epistles never reference Peter as a papal figure? Then there are some bigger problems with the catholic teachings: 4) Worshipping saints and the virgin Mary: noone is worthy of worship other than God himself. In the bible, the term "saints" is used to refer to all believers, because it talks about their position as saved children of God, not their condition as less sinful or more righteous. This is tantamount to idolatry. 5) Babtizing babies: baptism in the bible is always a consequence of faith. A baby cannot profess faith, so it cannot be baptized. I believe the practice stems from an era when children dying very young was a common occurence and people believed they could only go to heaven if they were baptized. Jesus couldn't have promised the sinner on the cross beside him paradise if he had to be baptized in order to be saved. And we can certainly agree that God cannot make exceptions when it comes to salvation. 6) the Holy Eucharist: the bread and the wine don't actually turn into Jesus's body and blood. They are an image for them, just like the lamb the Jews are to kill for Passover. They *remind* us of what Jesus did. They don't *become* a part of his body. 7) Jesus is *the* way, *the* truth, and *the* life, membership in any one church doesn't save you.
I'm not going to address everything, because most of it, is just anti-catholic rethoric thatbhas nothing to do with ACTUAL catholic teaching. But I do have 2 questions: Who gave YOU the magisterial authority to declare that Jn 6:48-53 is just a "symbol"? Or an "image"? As you say in number 6. And, as you say: if "membership in any church doesn't save you", then what is or was the purpose of Jesus actually founding a church here on earth? And what does it mean, that is "the church" is which is " the pillar and ground of the truth."(1 Tim.3:15)?
@@biankapaloma How can Jesus saying "I am the bread of life" be anything but a metaphor? And if, during the Last Supper, the bread and wine transformed into meat and blood, I'm sure the disciples would have said something about that and it would be written in the gospels, don't you think? The church is the totality of God's children on Earth, not an institution. Otherwise it would not be faith that saves, but filling out some paperwork and following certain rules and traditions. When it comes to denominations, I'm reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. Salvation is in Christ and nothing else.
@@Zevrael you didn´t answer the questions. No. Jesus words in Jn.6 are not a "metaphor". Not even his followers, the ones who decided to abandon Him in Jn.6.66 believed that his words were symbolic. And, Jesus doesn´t say that anywhere. In fact, he says: Amen, Amen dico vobis (meaning, Truly truly I say to you) He is in fact, doubling down in what He just said. If you read the original text, in greek, the words , the verbs Jesus uses to teach this doctrine, are fago (phagen/phagete) and then, when He doubles down Jesus used the verb form (trogon) Phago, means to eat, to consume Trogo, means to gnaw, crunch, chew If Jesus was being "symbolic" according to you(because not 1 single christian believed that until the 16th century), then why did the followers left him? And why didn´t Jesus clarify that he was using a "symbol, a metaphor"???? And, if He, Jesus had no intentions to "use" a church, then why in the bible it says that "the church is the pillar and ground of truth"?? If the church is "all of us", then where is the true church? You have literally hundreds of denominations, all of them disagree on many things. So where is "this pilar of truth", in you?? Who told you that? If Jesus have no need for a church, then why did he say: "and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto *the church*, but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican"(Mt.18:15-20) If the church doesn´t mean anything, and it´s just everybody; then why James 5:14 say "call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord" (why did he say that? Don´t we all have authority, according to you?) Or did our Lord lie?
@@biankapaloma Not clarifying is the difference between a comparison and a metaphor. Jesus is talking about spiritual truth, about salvation and eternal life. It is the same thing when He talks to the Samaritan woman at the well. Or what is the water from John 4:14? There is a difference between the global church and the local congregation. The "pillar and ground of truth" is the global church; the totality of the children of God, who, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, are able to recognize the truths of God's word. The "church" in Matthew 18 refers to the local congregation. The elders in James 5 are again the leaders (pastors) of a local congregation. Not once does the bible talk about a hierarchical or organizational structure above local congregations. It talks about conference with other leaders, but that's it.
As Protestants, we don’t doubt Peter, we doubt people claiming that Jesus’ promise to Peter(indicated by the singular) is biblical. I cannot take promises given to David or Abraham and just apply them to myself because I feel like it. A very straw man argument, few Protestants I’ve heard of believe Peter isn’t the “Rock of the Church”
The fact that Jesus met Peter first after his resurrection..... (yes after the women) Both Luke and Paul mentioned it. There are many places in the New testament which proves the primacy of Peter ❤
It is such a beautiful passage when we learn when "you" is plural and singular and we know that Jesus knew Peter would betray him 3 times. Peter's faith faltered but ultimately did not fail.
If we compare scripture with scripture, we obtain a better understanding of this passage. 1 John 5:1, Revelation 1:18, 1 Peter 2:4-8, John 1:41-43, Matthew 18:18 (and more). The binding and loosing only applied to the house of Israel btw, with Gentiles, it was termed “grafted in”. The passage of Matthew 16, says nothing about papacy, magisterium, infallibility, succession, overseer, bishop etc. These are all presuppositions. Binding and loosing has nothing to do with settling disputes, it has to do with entering the Jews into the kingdom. Also, Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with papacy. Also, Luke 22, the entire chapter, has nothing to do with the Gentiles, only the house of Israel. Gentiles did not become grafted in until several years later, and even then, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-12).
You could not have said it better. I was just going through that part in my mind… These are the notes I wrote down for this… Let us look at Matthew 16… “16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:16-19 | NIV The name Peter (“Πέτρος “) is different to the word πέτρα . The first one is a name, and it is masculine whereas the second is feminine. They mean two different things. One means a rock or stone. The second one means mass of rocks. Secondly- the Bible is clear that throughout history Kings and Judges did not automatically get to be kings or judges because they inherited some kind of leadership. A great example of this is Jonathan, who was a righteous man, did NOT inherit being a King from his Dad (Saul) because of actions that Saul took. Another example of this is Solomon’s sons had the kingdom ripped away from them because of what Solomon did. Gideon’s sons also etc. It is clear from scripture that just because you might have been able to inherit from your Dad, that was certainly not the case every time, and often a kingdom was ripped away from someone because of their actions or fathers actions. So the actions do count very strongly. Secondly- have you looked at how Peter lived Jesus died? He certainly was chosen to take a lead… there is no issue with this… but he was just one of the pillars of the church…(look at vs 9 below from Galatian’s)…but when it came to the gentiles the apostles took the lead as well… including James, and Paul. Judas and Silas were sent to the gentiles… not Peter. Later on the scriptures clearly say that Peter was sent to the circumcised (Jews) and just as Peter was sent to the Jews Paul was sent to the gentiles. And on the issue of Gentiles- Paul directly opposed Peter because of his hypocrisy that he had shown to the gentiles. “As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised Galatians 2:6-9 | NIV 11 When Cephas (Peter)came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Galatians 2:11-12 | NIV There are major issues to say that Peter was the first Pope and all Popes after him have Christ’s keys. I am happy to talk about the evil things Pope’s did, but that is not the discussion for today, more the fact that because they did those evil things, it is clear that God was not with them.
@JeffreyBoyle-x8b the letter of Peter absolutely does NOT prove the Pope can speak with infallibility. Scripture also shows clearly the Peter was wrong when it came to the gentiles. He was reprimanded, to his face, by Paul for discriminating against the gentiles. It was clear to all that Paul, not Peter, was sent to the gentiles and Peter was sent to the Jews. Read the following passage from Galatian’s very carefully… you will find that Peter was sent to the Jews (circumcised) and Paul the Gentiles….”6 But from those who seemed to be something-whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man-for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:6-9 | NKJV Now look at where Peter was wrong…(therefore not infallible)…. “11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. Galatians 2:11-12 | NKJV So Paul confronted Peter about being wrong. This is absolutely just like Peter… remember the time when Peter was blessed by Jesus…he says in Matthew 16 “17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17 | NKJV But then, in the same space of time… almost in the same conversation Jesus says to Peter ….”22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:22-23 | NKJV Here Peter messes things up… just after one of the greatest blessing that could have come to him. Jesus calls him “Satan”! Look at the timing of this… just after he received the “rock” blessing! Look these up yourself to see if they are so! Check out if I am telling the truth! Peter was a man like you and me, even after that blessing. Notice also in the scriptures that I have shown you, that it was not just Peter that was part of the leadership, but James, Peter (Cephas) and John were the pillars in God’s house, and not Peter by himself. Peter made terrible mistakes during this time. Even after the blessing he denied Jesus 3 times. He ran away to Galilee to fish instead of staying where Jesus said to stay, and finally Peter was restored, not to the church, but to Jesus himself. Later on he refuses to deal with gentiles until he has a vision, and then later after that he is so caught up trying to please men that he does not eat with gentiles, even though the vision clearly stated for him to “not call unclean what God has called clean!” This is a man, who, though being a leader and pillar in the house of God, made terrible mistakes. He certainly was no infallible.
Jesus did not build his church on one man. He built his Church on the bedrock truth of that man's confession and installed him and his successors as the visible head of that Church by giving him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven with the power to bind and loose, and the authority to him and those he anointed, to teach, baptise, and forgive sins.
@@zackskewz9577 Deuteronomy 32:4 “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth ....IS PETER THE GOD OF TRUTH??? 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
@@kiiluben9570 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
The primacy of Peter isn't really the issue, at least not for me. The real obstacle is the idea of succession. Peter and the other apostles had what's called "the full measure" of the Holy Spirit. They received it 3 times, twice at the command of Jesus and once on the day of Pentecost. This third reception of the Spirit gives them the full understanding of God's plan that they did not have from the first two, so that (the more accurate translation) what they bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven and what they loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven. God gives them the divine knowledge necessary to found the Church accurately according to His plan, without fault or corruption. And Peter really does seem to have the leadership of the twelve of them (thirteen once Paul's included) as seen in the book of Acts. Peter is the one speaking on the Day of Pentecost, and whenever there are disputes in the Church, they make their way to the Apostles in Jerusalem where Peter is usually the one who either adjudicates the dispute, or proclaims what the Apostles as a whole have decided (except when James does it.) But the Apostles' earthly authority, and Peter's in particular, derives from this divine knowledge, the full knowledge of the divine plan, beyond what any other humans know. We have no scripture or any secular evidence that Peter, or anyone else, could pass that full measure of the Spirit on to successors. When they lay hands on people to give them the lesser measure of the Spirit and grant miraculous gifts, that never brings those recipients onto the level of the Apostles. The Apostles' authority died with them, as did all the Church's temporal central authority needed for its founding. That's why Paul instructs Timothy to continue ordaining elders/bishops/overseers in each congregation, and instructs that those leaders make the decisions for the congregation that they're appointed in. The concept of a clerical hierarchy, with monarchial bishops who speak for a whole church and a higher bishop who speaks for a whole city and a bishop at the top who speaks for the whole Church, those are later additions with no basis in scripture, not even in the writings of Peter himself. The succession of popes we've had after Peter is an invention of men, not of God.
Mike Winger makes one of dumbest cases for sola scriptura I've ever seen, but it's probably not far off from the average evangelical who hasn't thought through things for a few seconds. There was an authoritative Church preaching the gospel by approved men under the authority of the apostles from Jesus. Winger acts like they were always sola scriptura which makes no sense when there was no new testament scripture. He just pretends that Catholics have no case in principle and there was never a situation where the early did not look like how he wants it to
Where did Christ and His apostles deny this? Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399 and how do you know the Word of God stops at Scripture and includes all the books and only the books you consider Scripture? Please answer in full, in detail. Also books aren't authorities.
@@Justas399 I'm asking you. You made a claim, if you actually talked out your thought process I'd guarantee I can find you where the mistake is. I have an answer to your question, but every time I give it, protestants (especially rude baptists) completely ignore my questions and just want to talk about my response. That's not how this works. Your belief that your canon of the Bible is the full extent of the Word of God is something you need to prove on your own terms. Do it. Answer my question, come on, don't deflect.
@@dr.tafazzi Only the Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Even your church recognizes this. Nothing else is considered the inspired-inerrant Word Of God in your church but the Scriptures.
I think it's clear by looking at the Bible and at early church history that the papacy is established by God. I mean they didn't call it the papacy but let's look at a few points. Did the early church have leadership? Obviously it did. This is evident in both acts and the letters of Paul. The second question, was St. Peter in a special position in this leadership. I would say that's demonstratable in Acts by the fact that it's always referring to Peter and the 12, Peter seems to have a special position in the house of Cornelius, and in the gospels, as you're showing in this video, Peter is often singled out with special authority. The last point, which you can't really get from scripture because these dudes are still alive when the scripture was being written, is does that authority pass to successors after the death of the Apostles? I would say by looking at early church history, it's clear that this apostolic authority is given to the bishops either concurrently with the the apostles while they live or as the apostolic generation dies out this authority is delegated to the bishops. I guess one final question would be in addition to the authority of the bishops, does the bishop of Rome have Peter's special authority as leader of the bishops , and I think that's pretty clearly a yes by looking at early church history, especially the councils. And you can see Rome having a special position. I don't think it's as defined as it is now in the early days, but then again and acorn doesn't look much like an oak tree. By that I mean the doctrine of papal authority has developed over time, but that's to be expected when an organization grows that things get more defined. Like think of a baby in the womb, everything's there. It's just there in a germ form. As the baby grows, things get differentiated and developed. Same thing with the church. As She grew She became more defined and differentiated. The Bride of Christ started out as a baby in the Bible and is maturing into a beautiful woman. (Unfortunately, sometimes she acts like Gomer but that's okay because Jesus acts like Hosea).
I think it's difficult nowadays to grasp that Our Lord reigns over a Kingdom, we tend to think the best way to govern is a democracy, where we decide who is your leader and it's ok to challenge authority. But if you want to be part of the Kingdom we must have the humility to acknowledge that we are not the ones who run it. We are meant to be wise, but like sheep or children, not to be in constant challenge of authority.
This is great Joe! The common Protestant response to this will be that even if Peter had a special role himself, this doesn’t establish succession. Do you have any thoughts on how to respond to this?
@@rcwarrior868 While it may not have been a “formal teaching heresy” Pope Francis did publicly say, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God. There are different languages to arrive at God but God is God for all. But my God is more important than your god, is that true? There is only 1 God and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, they are different paths." Catholic or Protestant doesn’t matter, we all know this is heresy.
@@american1911 Its not heresy. I know many Muslims, JWs, Mormons, Atheists… who are now following Christ. Win, Win for religions/people that search for God, their creator. 👍🏻
Not every statement of any Pope rises to infallibility. A Pope can give fallible opinions. Then he can be corrected, as Paul did with Peter. Only with the assent of the world's bishops can infallibility be invoked. I doubt this pope could get more than 2 bishops to agree with his opinion that all religions lead to the one true God.
You juggle words and verses to suit your own scenario. If Peter had been instituted as a “pope” - then why at the very last - at the Lord’s supper - were they arguing about who would be the greatest? They would have known that Peter was appointed the “ greatest”? There would have been no argument. You make lots of arguments to prove you are right about Peter being a Pope you tie yourself up in knots in the process. The Catholic argument for so many things is very confusing - but you/ it will do anything to hold on to false doctrines. And all these false teachings are upheld by your false popes.
Hi. By the way I take no credit for that comment above which blows your argument out f the water about Peter being made Pope! Chronologically it proves your argument invalid and the RCC’s claims for Peter too. I read the argument of chronology in another article. To me it makes perfect sense!
Jesus literally appointed Peter and gave him primacy in Matthew and in John…….. the way Protestants cope and have so many different views on this, is amazingly stupid, it’s so clear he appointed Peter as the leader after Jesus left earth……
It is all to Jesus and for thr glory of His name. The Scriptures do not support such a claim. Psalm 18:31 is very clear. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? It is a rhetorical question. The answer is absolutely no one! Just as the Scriptures say there is "no other God" ,"no other Savior", and "no other Creator" we need to take all of these crystal clear statements to be true yesterday, today, and forever. Let us not celebrate or idolize denominations but let us make our boast in the Lord. Jesus is the only Rock. Praise God. Rejoice in Him. He is all we need.
One pope (Peter) to rule them all! *Apologies. I couldn’t resist.* 😂 Luke’s account is a great basic explanation that I will use with my Protestant friends going forward instead of Mathew. Thank you for sharing this, Joe!
Jesus himself refuses the papacy when he told them, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. It shall not be so with you. " Thus, The hierarchical structure and demand for papal subordination to be saved, makes Catholicism the quintessential result of what Jesus does NOT approve of. Now kindly wake up.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d Indeed it was not so with Peter. He died a martyr for the Saviour he once betrayed, as did 30 of the next 34 popes. Of the 265 deceased popes, 83 have been recognised universally as canonised saints. Hardly "lording" it over anyone. The title used for the Pope for the last 1500 years has been "Servant of the servants of God". The facts don't bear out your bias.
Nope! Even saint Paul does not recognize Peter as the rock. In the letter to Ephesians he writes: "And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." (Eph 1:22-23). "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, (Eph 2:20-21)
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century and ONLY the 27 books, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
Its always hilarious to see protestants turn into masters of decrypting ancient Codes to say Petros and Petra are supposed to have different meanings, and that peter's confession is the rock, Jesus is the rock, we all are the Rock, but Peter isnt like everyone except him. I see sola scriptura working very well dont bother that when Jesus gives simon the name of Peter, it litterraly has a extra passage saying, "peter which means rock", or sometimes Peter which means Kephas, also dont look at all the early church fathers saying the bishop of rome is the pontifacy of faith. Clearly Jesus wanted 9900 different interpretations of his words so we all could look like fools misunderstanding his teachings, thus Sola scriptura ! 😂
Even as a lifelong protestant I've never had issue seeing Peter as being uniquely called out among the disciples. Sort of a "first among equals" if you will. That said, I'd levy the critique that this video falls short of its namesake. We are given a clear and understandable depiction of Peter's place among the 12 but the extension to (and, therefore, proof of) the Papacy is presumed. Again, I have no concern with Peter's specific primacy. The point is that I am not sold on Apostolic Succession, at least in the sense of a direct and explicit transfer of authority, and this is a prerequisite for extending the Papacy beyond Peter. At a glance I'd resolve this to two questions: (1) What is the Biblical proof of necessity of [a Biblically defined] Apostolic Succession, and (2) Is a 'greatest apostle' necessary beyond the first generation of the church? Maybe a bit too protestant of an opinion but, hey, know your audience. Good video all the same! Best regards, Grant
In my years of study, not once has it made sense that Matthew 16 is interpreted that Peter is the rock. Looking at the greek itself, to me, definitely shows this to be the case. Peter's name is the feminine form, which technically means scattered loose rocks. It seems to me that Jesus was telling Peter of how instrustramental he will be in the planting of early churches. But the other rock that Jesus uses is the masculine form, which would mean a cornerstone type of rock. So we clearly, just from the greek, have two very different rocks. Now, looking at Jesus' response to Peter's confession of faith, everything is in connection to his confession, and that's all. Lastly, in verse 19 onwards, according to Strong and Vine, the "you" is plural, not singular. This is one of many, many examples as to why I choose not to be catholic after all my years of study. And no, I don't hate catholics, so please don't come at me guns blazing.
For 36 years of my entire life, I lived my life based on science and facts, without faith or religion. Now at 37 after having committed much sins and knowing if I continue my life by myself without God, I know I will continue to experience more troubles ahead and destroy myself, I am halfway through RCIA and waiting to be baptized at Easter.. thank you Jesus for saving me. Please pray for me 🙏🏻 “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me I once was lost but now I'm found Was blind, but now I see”
To me it is dead obvious that Peter is the rock. Any other interpretation is really forced and can only be read into it if you don't _want_ a priori that Peter is the rock. The keys of heaven: keys are used to lock and unlock. To grant or deny access. That's what keys do. So Peter is given the authority to grant or deny access to the Kingdom of God. I don't see how you can read this otherwise. Bind and unbind: Peter and the apostles (and their successors the clergy) get the delegated authority to forgive (or not forgive) sins on behalf of Heaven. Petros is gramatically male. Greek for "rock" is Petra, gramatically female. But it would be weird to call a man Petra. So Jesus made it Petros. Just the word for "rock" in a male form. You need to be a theologian who doesn't _want_ Peter to be the Rock, to read anything else into that. On top of that comes the Matthew passage and Jesus telling Peter to "lead His sheep" just before dying on the cross. So, to me the case for the Papacy is Rock-solid. Petros-solid. Of course protestants don't _like_ the Papacy, so they will tell themselves whatever it takes so that they don't have to accept it. They have ears, but refuse to hear. Of course they could also be honest and just admit that they don't like the Papacy because they have a problem with authority, but that would be asking a bit too much I guess.
Christ called him self the corner stone of the church, the confession Peter gave is approved of because Jesus is the fulfillment old covenant, that references him as such. Protestant should have issues with the authority here it too; Luther was trying to reform the church because the church was going astray, they excommunicated him for. Only to later go back on all the reasons for excommunicating him, and partially reforming anyway. This shows that the papacy can't even get excommunications correct, and is clearly fallible.
Jesus did give authority to Peter and the apostles. This is particularly evident in several key passages: Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus says to Peter, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This passage is often interpreted by Catholics as Jesus giving Peter a special role and authority in the Church. John 20:21-23: After His resurrection, Jesus appears to the apostles and says, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” This indicates that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins. Matthew 18:18: Jesus tells all the apostles, “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This suggests that the authority to bind and loose was not exclusive to Peter but extended to all the apostles. These passages are foundational for the Catholic understanding of apostolic authority and the role of Peter as the first Pope.
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others...." - Pope Gregory the Great (6th century)
The bishop of Rome is… get this, the bishop of Rome. He’s not the bishop of the whole world. Everyone must be in communion with him, but he isn’t in charge of the diocese of Minneapolis.
@@killianmiller6107 "Everyone must be in communion with him." - I think you missed the point Gregory the Great was making. You had better listen to him, though. He was pope long before the circus came to town.
@@dr.tafazzi The Catholic church has been claiming primacy over the universal church since the middle ages. Pope Gregory the Great, however, rejected the primacy of Rome, and even called it the precursor to the anti-Christ.
5 verses later, Jesus calls Peter Satan. It’s on the confession not the person. The Bible says in Peter that God is building His people as living stones for Him to dwell in. We are all living stones when the spirit lights upon us and we know who Jesus is-The Messiah
Here is one for the Ortho bros. Unless they deny St. John of damascus😂. St. John of Damascus' Homily on the Transfiguration #2; J.P. MIGNE PATRALOGIA GRAECA, 96:548 [706 AD] "Today the supreme head of the New Covenant- the one who proclaimed Christ as Son of God [Peter] most clearly when he said. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.- sees the leader of the Old Covenant [Moses] standing next to the lawgiver of both."
Aquinas had to make the historically untenable accusation of Nestorian influence against St. John of Damascus to get around his completely obvious witness against Filioquism.
@@atomiclead8647This is actually not true. On the contrary if he must be harmonized with either EO or Catholic communion then St John Of Damascus was a filioquist. That is because his saying of ”We don’t say the Spirit proceeds from the Son” Can be validly be interpreted as meaning not proceeding from Christ as head and principle of the whole Godhead. However his statement that the Spirit is from the Father through the Word demolishes eastern ”orthodoxy” because your council at blachernae 1285 explicitly condemned this. So your council condemned John Of Damascus as a heretic 😁😂
@@atomiclead8647 you have to stop parroting scripts of EO psuedo theology. The filoque was being debated in the east, some believed it some were not sure. The modern EO apologist try to scrap the history..😂🤣
@@MuttonBiryani1994 Aquinas agrees with the Orthodox that St. John of Damascus rejected the Filioque and no ad hoc reinterpretations about “principle vs. secondary causation” will change that, or the fact that “through” and “from” are different words with different meanings.
@@TheEdzy25 There was no debate East or West. Even the proto-papal supremacist Anastasius the Librarian gave the same interpretation of “from the Son” as St. Maximus which was rejected multiple times at Florence.
Serious question. If Peter was the Rock that Jesus built His church on, would you say the Roman Catholic Church looks anything like Peter intended to look as it does today or how it was throughout the centuries?
Depends on what you mean? It is different in that over the last 2000 years, questions about doctrines have been raised, controversies, etc, where the Church needs to step in and clarify the doctrine. Every time this happens, the doctrine gets a little more complex. These kinds of controversies might be "is Jesus God", "what books are in the Bible", "do you need to get circumcised to be saved", etc. Do this for 2000 years, and we should expect what we see today. To make an analogy, I am not identical to myself as an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenager, etc. However, I am the same person. And the Church is the same way.
@@EmberBright2077 Here’s another analogy. A family starts a restaurant and run it for 20 years to another owner. Is the new owner gonna run it exactly the way that the original owner intended? They are not. If you look back at Catholic Church history, you’ll see that many Popes were caught up in some seriously debauchery and twisted practices. I don’t think Jesus Christ or the Apostle Peter would’ve endorsed that from the founding?
And this is why I prefer using older translations like the Douay, the KJV and the RSV, as it is easier to see the difference between the plural “you” and the singular “thou”. When both plural and singular “you” is in use, it is easy for Protestants to argue that Christ was praying for THEM plural and not Simon Peter in particular. I know because that is how they argued it in college.
![Mike Gendron's Anti-Catholic Lies [EXPOSED]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gDMCCLhA5pQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I like Luke's passage where Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers.
All the apostles turned away from Jesus. The Apostle John was the only one who came back while Jesus was on the cross. Yet, Jesus didn't tell John to strengthen his brothers. He only told Peter.
Exactly! That's a great point.
John was already doing that and didn't need the reminder. He was after all there with Jesus as his spiritual brother.
🎉jesus is the WORD and the word is truth and forever settled in Heaven.
Who is my mother, brother and sister?
He who hears my Father in Heaven and obeys. John was a true brother to Christ. Halleluyah!
@@elizabeteborn5223
Where in the Bible did it show John strengthening the other apostles?
@@elizabeteborn5223 Nowhere in the Bible is it indicated that John ever strengthened his brothers. Him being present at Christ's crucifixion has nothing to do with emotionally and spiritually uplifting his brethren after they fled. At best, he was just reassuring Christ, showing that he was still there for him.
The papacy was the final hurdle blocking me from becoming a Catholic. Your book, Pope Peter, settles that for me. I entered the Church on Easter Vigil 2023 and have never looked back.
I've read books I think on some subconscious level I have actively tried to convert myself to Catholicism and every time I run into the fact that there's a pope, and I'm supposed to accept him as infallible, and then I see Pope Francis and I can't find a way to ever make myself accept him as infallible. How did you get around some of the Pope's being bad throughout history? Like if they're infallible why were there evil ones? I'm not trying to be confrontational or change your mind I'm just a curious Southern Baptist .
@@monsieurcharcutier4490 'popes' aren't infallible, friend -- heck, they aren't even Christian, according to the Bible.
tell me, do you not agree with the Bible or just haven't read it?
@@monsieurcharcutier4490Hi sir. When we speak of Popes being infallible it is ONLY in very few instances where specific criteria is fullfilled. For instance in the last 150 years, papal Infallability has only been used 2 times. Infallability is not impeccability so popes can be bad [although alot of that supposedly in history is probably extremely exaggerated].
@@MuttonBiryani1994 2 times out of 150 years being infallible is like being fallible altogether.
"I have scored a perfect on my exam 2 out of 150 exams. Yes I am never wrong in those 2 instances. The 148 I am prone to error."🤷♂️
@@jonedejesus9542 That’s because papal infallability is about dogmas [Highest Teachings] and so since we are 2000 years on the way of christianity, most things have already been defined.
Btw we don’t grant your exam example since we also believe there is a general protection of the holy Spirit even in non-infallible teachings. God bless.
Through out my 7 years of being a devout non denominational Christian, Matthew 16 always tugged at my heart strings. It bothered me Christian’s would say it didn’t mean the papacy but they also never had another interpretation of it.
I start RCIA this week 🙏💕
Welcome home!
Welcome home! So excited for you, and I hope you'll keep us updated on your journey...
@@thementalist1213 Thank you 😊
@@shamelesspopery thank you! I’ll try! ❤️
Just keep your eyes on the Eucharist! 😀🙏🏻❤️Don’t let anyone hurt your feelings or anything like that. The enemy will try to thwart you. People may say hurtful things to you bc of you taking the classes. (You just praise God when attacked. It will make you stronger. Remember Jesus said you will be hated for following Him) The enemy does NOT want you to ever have the Eucharist! It is all so awesome. I was confirmed Easter 2024. 🙏🏻❤️ And if you need to speak to the priest about anything that you still don’t understand, you can set up an appt for that. 😊Pray over everything and God will lead you! Blessings to you!🙏🏻❤️😀
If Peter is not the rock, Our Lord changed his name for no reason.
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 On this rock is not talking about Peter for it is referring to Jesus since Christ is our rock.
“All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And to prove even further that Peter was not the Rock, notice how over and over in scripture we are told that God is our rock. "I will proclaim the name of the Lord. Oh, praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” Deuteronomy 32:3-4 “They abandoned the God who made them and rejected the Rock their Savior. They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your ancestors did not fear. You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Deuteronomy 32:15-18 “There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.” 1 Samuel 2:2 “For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32 “The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my Rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” Psalm 18:2 “May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.” Psalm 19:14 NIV “I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?” Psalm 42:9 NIV “Truly my soul finds rest in God; my salvation comes from him. Truly he is my Rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.” Psalm 62:1-2 NIV “They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.” Psalm 78:35 NIV “They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, proclaiming, “The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him.” Psalm 92:14-15 NIV “Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song.” Psalm 95:1-2 NIV “You have forgotten God your Saviour; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress." Isaiah 17:10 NIV “And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people playing pipes go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.” Isaiah 30:29 NIV “Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” Isaiah 44:8 NIV “LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.” Habakkuk 1:12 NIV “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew 7:24-27 NIV “As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Romans 9:33 NIV
@@wesleysimelane3423 and this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "gish gallop".
Peter became a living stone, based on what the Father revealed to him. It was not based on flesh and blood like Jesus said. So it can only be referring to the spirit, the Father revealed to Peter, Jesus is the Christ. 1 John 5:1 helps us; "5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child [d]born of Him."
We know this Spirit, can only be Christ, that was given to the Father on the cross, where Jesus said on the cross, "Father, into your hands, I commit My spirit". With this, one becomes born again. It is this spirit, that overcame hades, Revelation 1:18.
Please note ** In John 1, Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ, but this was based on the flesh and blood of Andrew, and Jesus renamed Peter there as well. But Jesus did not say "upon this rock, I will build my church" in this particular passage. So it can not be built upon Peter, but upon what the Father gave him, in Matthew 17:17-19.
Peter was clear, the house is built upon the foundation, and Christ is the chief cornerstone. A cornerstone is what a building is built upon, as well as the foundation. So it is clear, it was built upon Jesus, His spirit. The church is not built solely on flesh and blood, but the spirit, or Christ. Christ is the rock of our salvation, salvation is of the Lord, not the church.
Joe does a lot of eisegesis, and uses methods of persuasions much more so, than hermeneutics to obtain the authors intent.
@@RenegadeCatholic completely avoided the argument about the changing of the name to Bible-bomb me
@@wesleysimelane3423 Matthew 16 Protestant edition: “And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock- oops sorry. I mean on your profession of faith in me- oops wrong again. I mean on myself- oh dang. One more try. I mean on the scriptures I will build my church.” And Peter said to Him. “But, Lord, why then did you change my name to Peter?” And Jesus said unto Him, “Truly, truly I say to you: What do you want from me? I thought it sounded cool.”
In this video, I explore why I think starting with Matthew 16 is typically not the best approach for explaining the papacy to non-Catholics, and gave the passage I find more straightforward. Yet every Protestant objection (so far) has assumed this video was about Matthew 16, and not addressed the passage I mentioned *at all.* I love a spirited debate, and I'm incredibly grateful for my Protestant listeners (including those who are critical!), but it really does help to watch the episode before you try to rebut it!
I thought Catholics consider Mary to be the rock.
@@johnbrowne2170 Then you thought wrong.
Well, you do spend more than half of the video defending Matthew 22:16. I think they did watch it.
@@fluffysheap What I'm trying to do there is less "defend" Matthew 16, and more show why it's a rich-but-complicated passage to cite to. The resulting debate in the comments (much of which is just people asserting that the "rock" is Peter's confession, or Jesus) more or less proves my point. But I'm struck by the relative lack of engagement with what I view as a much simpler biblical case for showing Peter's special role.
@@shamelesspopery Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, had a very important role to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the JEWS.
The passage that convinced me was where Jesus was telling the disciples to be like servants who stay awake to wait for their master to return, and they must not fall asleep. Then Peter asks, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?," and then Jesus says to Peter, "Who then is that wise and faithful leader whom his master will set over his house....?"
This sealed it for me. As a Protestant, I always thought about this as referring to pastors, but when I began considering Catholism and the claims of papal authority, it made sense that the wise servant placed over the master's house had to be the pope. While this passage of warning can apply to pastors of local congregations as well, they can not be the primary or sole audience Jesus was intending, because Jesus's house is one house, the Church, not many little congregation. The wise leader is over all the house, meaning he is over all of Christ's Church universally.
Furthermore, it was Peter who asked this question, and to Peter that Jesus replied, which reinforces the idea that Peter was the first pope/servant set over the house/Church.
Jesus even goes on to warn about how this servant could act wickedly and begin to beat the other servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, proving that it's possible for even the pope to be corrupt. And so a sinful pope does not negate the papal position. God will judge the wicked pope who abuses his power, but the position of pope is still a real position that Christ instituted meant to shepherd the Church, regardless of how that position may potentially be abused.
Bravo!
🤦♂️ Peter was the first pope? When did he get instructed to create a bunch of religious rules and worship people. It’s not from the God of the Bible clearly. Jesus was anti religious from the beginning and all the way through, and it still remains the case.
@@TheMeefmaster Jesus is not anti-religious, but he is opposed to the hypocrisy of religious leaders. He is opposed to hypocrisy not to religion. Even James said, "Religion that is pure and undeviled before God the Father is this: to visit widows and orphans, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
@@TheMeefmasterworship people ?
To me the cleanest case is by connecting John 10 with John 21. If there’s only one flock (John 10) and Jesus gave Peter his flock to tend (John 21), either you are in the flock Peter tends or you are in the wrong flock. End of the papacy debate.
Amen. All the sheep given to Peter argument is devastating and irrefutable. I learned it from Unam Sanctam.
St. Cyprian says every orthodox bishop is a successor to St. Peter in De Unitate. No mention of Rome…
@@garrett2514 That’s because St Cyprian believed Rome had erred on the baptism controversy. Before that he believed Rome was indefectible which is a better objective witness.
Case closed. But the sad reality is that even if Jesus explicitly told Peter in the scriptures, for example: “You are going to be the head of my church while I’m away. Those united to you and your successors are united to me.” Even something as clear as this would be brushed away with mental gymnastics. Just like how “This is my body” is not really his body, “Baptism now saves you” and actually it doesn’t, “Whoever’s sins you forgive….” only God can forgive sins, etc. So the truth is that we’re fighting against cognitive dissonance which is a very, very difficult battle
@@MuttonBiryani1994 so you agree a Church Father did not believe in V1 papacy?
I’m Indonesian and Pope Francis just went to my country!
That's wonderful! Were you able to go to any of the events?
This comment made my day! :D
@@shamelesspopery Luke 22 is even less supportive of the papacy than even Matthew 16:18. When Jesus said he prayed for Peter, “you“ in the singular, Jesus is saying this because he knows Peter is going to deny him three times. If he hadn’t prayed for him, Peter likely would have went down the same road Judas did. When Jesus told him to strengthen the brethren, this was directed towards the other apostles, since they would all scatter. There is nothing in this passage in Luke 22 that even insinuates that Jesus is making Peter the single leader over the entire church, simply because of the word “strengthen.” That has to be greatly read into the passage eisegetically.
By the way, I’ve been sending you private messages about seeing if you want to still pursue our debate on the biblical canon that you had an interest in, which we talked about earlier in the year, after I talked with Trent Horn. Are you still interested in a debate, Joe? Let me know. Thanks! Steve Christie.
Did you attend the mass?
@@BornAgainRNplease debate with william albrecht ,his channel name patristic pillar.
He is a catholic and a former protestant.
Ask him for a debate with the subject that can be agree by him and you.
Set a date and time.
I am looking for a good defend and rebuttal from both side.
Everytime you post a video, I'm making sure to watch it and it really help me understand our faith better. Warm regards from the Philippines
The protestant argument against Matthew 16 goes like this: God changed the name of four people in the bible. Abram became Abraham, "Father of a Nation," the founder of Israel from which Christianity came. Sarai, his wife, became Sarah, the Princess, and mother of the nation. Jacob became Israel, "Contends with God." He received all of the blessings of Abraham, and the nation of Israel took his name. In the case of Simon, Jesus changed his name to Peter so Jesus could make a pun at Caesarea Philippi.
But He turned and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan! Thou art an offense unto Me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
@@francismarion6400 And then he told Pete he couldn't be an Apostle anymore...
@@francismarion6400And yet, after Jesus has risen from the dead, He entrusts and asks Peter to feed and tend His lambs. But more, Jesus tells Peter his, Peter’s death, will glorify God.
@@francismarion6400 Funnily enough, this passage is incredible evidence in favor of Peter being the rock. Jesus calls him an offense, which in Greek literally means "stumbling stone."
@@francismarion6400 Jesus did indeed chastise Peter. But there is ample evidence in the NT after that event, cited in this video and elsewhere, that Peter was in good stead with Jesus and was chosen to lead the Church. Peter and the subsequent popes were/are human and subject to error, excepting the rare cases when they teach infallibly, ex cathedra. Peter was certainly an imperfect loudmouth and hot-head. God chooses amazing and interesting people to be his instruments on earth.
My favorite defense is the name change. Every person that God chose to be the start of a new chosen "group" throughout the bible had God give them a new name. Abram > Abraham (and Sarai > Sarah) when God chooses him to be the father of all nations. Jacob > Israel when God chooses him to be the father of his Chosen Peoples, the Israelites. Hoshea > Joshua as the successor to Moses. Solomon > Jedediah by the prophet Nathan, becomes the great King who builds the First Temple. And Simon > Peter, as a symbol of his designation as the Rock upon which he will build his church, the shepherd of God's flock (John 10, 21), holder of the keys (Mathew 16), and as you point out the one to use his faith to strengthen the other 12 (Luke 22).
As usual, the connections to the Old Testament are lost on many modern Christians, but are very purposeful. Name changes signify a designation of a purpose from God. The change of his name to Peter carries the weight of all other name changes before it.
As, indeed, does Mary's name change to "Full of Grace"! God bless, and great point.
Peter being an archetypal or progenital Christian does not in any way imply or establish the kind of institutional position of the Papacy.
@@Uncephalized you established a strawman and misrepresented Sacred Scripture... Simon -> Peter means "Hearing/Listen" -> "Rock". It does not mean "Hearing/Listen" -> "Archetypal or Progenital Christian". And you also ignored the rest of the comment, utilizing more of Sacred Scripture to prove that Peter is the shepherd of the Flock and holder of the Keys of Heaven.
@@micyjoejoe5820 You've ignored the counterpoint. Whilst interesting, your point doesn't in any shape prove the papacy. There's nothing in scripture that goes even one per cent of the way the RC church tries to claim with all of its hierarchy and traditions etc. Why is it that in Acts 15 it was not Peter but James who made the final decision if Peter was so clearly appointed THE ONE? None of the other apostles seemed to recognise this in all of the NT. Nor is any succession plan even vaguely alluded to.
@@logofreetv That is an argument from silence. For example, I've seen atheists argue that St Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth, which shows he didn't believe in it, and it was invented later by the gospel authors.
We just had Joe give this talk in person and he signed our books. Thank you Joe!
It was such a joy being with you!
i like Joe, he seems to be a very sincere man. and in the end, we are all trying to get to the same place with as many of our people with us.
but as for catholicism, i sincerely wish people would allow It to dictate and expound on Itself -- the Word of God is clear about this counterfeit system.
@@tony1685 Thanks, Tony! I appreciate your ability to see good faith even in those with whom you disagree. Glad you're examining Catholicism - even critically! I would just urge you to keep doing so with an open mind and an opener heart, and God truly will do the rest.
@@shamelesspopery Did your family end up going to Sternburg?
@@shamelesspopery absolutely, Sir. you as well.
The irony is that when John MacArthur etc. misinterpret Luke 22, they are in fact playing the role of Satan to undermine the Church.
The RCC literally has a Satanic priest as it's head now!
CATHOLIC CHURCH'S MAJOR FALLACYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY: Whatever Authority the Lord GOD Jesus gave to Peter is TRANFERRABLE !!! .......................... WHEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is that in the Bible ???... Corollary: WHERE is the DIRECT link of Peter to the Present Catholic Priests ??? .......................... WHEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is that in the Bible ???
Yes, they certainly are not [the body of] Christ who "prayed for you [singular] so that your faith may not fail".
Yes, it's sad. It brings to mind Gamaliel's warning. People like McArthur are playing with fire in more ways than one.
John MacArthur is an enemy of the Body of Christ. I say that as a former fan of his who had his study Bible. I don’t know if he’s infallibly ignorant or not, that’s up to God, but he does make war on the True Faith.
Joe, the depth and intelligibility of your videos are much appreciated. Thanks a lot and keep it up.
St Cyprian of Carthage (who the Orthodox recognise) said AD258:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church…’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single Chair… a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair.”
The papacy is definitely harder to convince the Eastern Orthos lol
@@javierfrias2423 it really shouldn’t be given the numerous quotes from the early Church about the primacy of Rome/Chair of Peter
EO only against the idea of supremacy, but we do support primacy.
And yet you have nothing to back that up. The video does not make the jump. I do not deny the importance of Peter but there is no chair.
What there is, is a despotic position now occupied by a pluralist. Trent was nearly crying in his video this week
This isn’t biblical though.
No where in the Bible does it say that Peter was given a seat of power. This was something made up by the Catholics to assume power. If you’ve ever actually read the Bible, you’d know that the kingdom of God does not work this way.
The only seat of power is held by Jesus, God himself.
It’s so funny that many Protestant pastors spend so much time arguing & teaching against the Catholic Church. Anti-Catholicism is a core tenet of most Protestant faith traditions.
you should read how clearly the Bible exposes catholicism!
It is mystery babylon. The mother of all harlots. The little horn making proud and blasphemous claims. The Lord wants His people to get out of her before it's too late.
@@tony1685 yeah, it totally exposes it - as the One True Faith!
@@tessa7413 actually @wesleysimelane is correct -- the many identifying criteria in Scripture can be matched by no other in all the world.
it's difficult, i know -- but worth the study, when you're ready to allow God to dictate Truth.
@@tony1685 I have, & continue to study. Through honest & objective research, I’m convinced without a shadow of doubt that the Catholic Church was genuinely established by Christ, & that the Catholic faith is the One True Faith. No amount of anti-Catholic propaganda will convince me otherwise. It was largely through digging deep & investigating all the anti-Catholic claims that I became convinced of the truth of Catholicism. Turns out that none of the Anti-Catholic claims hold up to scrutiny, & to the contrary the Catholic claims do.
I sense that neither of you are actually honest truth seekers. Rather, you’ve fallen for myths that scratch your itching ears. You have a very unhealthy & obsessive hatred for the truth, & for the only Church actually established by Christ Himself. You’re unwittingly being used as a tool of Satan.
If Peter’s confession of faith is the rock, then Peter is the rock.
You can't separate the profession of faith from the person who confessed the faith.
Protestant arguments on this passage imply very bad grammar from Jesus
@@glennlanham6309 Bad grammar = Sin
not possible -- as there are entirely too many proofs of the contrary. the *CONFESSION* that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah -- is the ROCK -- His church is built upon.
none of the synoptic gospels support the catholic version.
Peter himself declares himself as a 'fellow elder' -- so don't add to that.
there is more, but this is more than sufficient.
@@tony1685Source: Trust me bro
@@tony1685The Pope uses the same language today. He is also a priest, and a bishop. The president is still an elected representative, even though he holds a much higher office than all other elected representatives.
Hey Brother, Im a protestant and I love watching your videos to understand the catholic perspective! Great vid, I appreciate the simplification!
For all this talk of the pope this channel is oddly quiet on him declaring all religions are valid paths to God.
Bloody stupid he’s not a street preacher or an you tube apologist… He’s a head of state on a state visit , invited to non Christian countries … and was invited to address a multi faith conclave… As head of State representative of Catholic Church.. he has to be diplomatic and courteous to other representatives of different faiths.. First he started by saying that there’s only one God … so indirectly without hurting Hindu sentiments he threw them under the bus .. coz they believe in millions of Gods and the Buddhist who don’t believe that God exists…. That leaves only Muslims who are monotheistic….
Every body thinks that their religion is true …
He can’t be blunt I guess and spoil the courtesy and respect and love shown by one n all
🎯🎯🎯
"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." 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."
- Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260 -
Official Catholic doctrine on the matter
Amen!!!!!
Did the pope indeed declare all religions are valid paths to God or is this just one more of the many misquotes of our Pope?
Joe, Joe, Joe! You're a blessing, may you be blessed in return 🙏
Thank you!
Jesus said you are peter and upon this rock i will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevale against it.
Peter the first Pope.
@@mariekelly4774 First protestants - John 6:66
@mariekelly4774 ...And the forces of Protestantism shall not prevail...
Joe, thanks so much! Every time I listen to you or read your books, my resolve that I left the Protestant church is strengthened!
Also what does history tell us? Did the THE church see The Roman bishop as successor of Peter? The answer is yes! Both east and west. History defeats the Protestant view! This view is not seen until the great deformation.
“It seems as if “the rock” is the guy whose name just got changed to rock.”
🤣🤣🤣 wonderfully articulated
Sometimes The Lord DOES make it easy for us.
I strongly recommend the Book. Pope Peter is a hell of a book and dives into these questions in such an amazing clarity...
One of he best books I've read in a long time.
Still, Joe deserves better shirts.
ARE YOU TAKING ABOUT THE SAME PETER WHO WAS CALLED SATAN BY JESUS AND DENIED CHRIST 3 TIMES WHILE CURSING ??????🤣😂😂.
@@jacquesvincent3897 Yes. Isn't God great and His mercy amazing?
@@EmberBright2077 Isaiah 28:16
“Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.”
1 Corinthians 3:11
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST .”
@@jacquesvincent3897 Ephesians 2:19-20
\\ So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone \\
Matthew 16:18-19
\\ And I tell you, you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. \\
John MacArthur's arguments at the end there reminds me of childhood, where some of the disagreements and debates in the schoolyard were settled with a "nah-uh" or alternatively, sticking ones fingers in their own ears and yelling "LaLaLa I can't hear you." A time-honored classic.
Very immature & childish, lacking substance!
MacArthur is a windbag
@@DarrylCross it just fizzled out and I think he realized it.
Aggressive Protestants often say that the verses about Peter do not mean what they APPEAR to mean. Of course when we see that Peter is being given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven it certainly LOOKS LIKE he's being given a position of great authority, but the stubborn Protestant still has to deny this and say that Jesus didn't really mean what he's said. So you would have to think the bible is misleading us, sending us in the wrong direction. But isn't that a very inappropriate way to approach the bible?
👨⚖️ If Jesus was referring to Peter (petros) as the rock, the writer of the Scripture should have used "petros" as rock, and not "petra".
Fortunately, this is how it appears in the Scriptures:
Thou art "Petros", and upon this "petra" I will build my church. Petros and petra have different meanings.
They can't accept it because it means a 180 degree turn.
Not just "inappropriate", but dishonest.
@@zackskewz9577
👨⚖️ Who told you that Jesus Christ has two minds-one human mind and one divine mind?
👨⚖️ Who told you that Jesus Christ was reluctant to be crucified?
@@calebjushua9252 Who told you to play word games. If you have something to say, say it. Christ sweated blood and prayed that the cup would pass, like any human would. He is not a masochist. No one wants to suffer, if there is an alternative. His prayer was "IF IT BE POSSIBLE let this cup pass..." That does not mean he was reluctant. He desired to do the Father's will and did the Father's will freely. Christ's prayer is a model for how we should pray. God does not always grant our wishes, and we should enter into whatever He wills gladly.
Thank you very much, Brother Joe H, and your team for yet another great piece of content.
"Peter, you are Kefa! And on this Kefa, I will build my Church, and the powers of Hades shall not prevail against it."
God bless you and your ministry.
Greetings from Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬. I was privileged to see the Holy Father, Papa Francisco, during his four-day Apostolic journey to my country.
👨⚖️ If Jesus was referring to Peter (petros) as the rock, the writer of the Scripture should have used "petros" as rock, and not "petra".
Fortunately, this is how it appears in the Scriptures:
Thou art "Petros", and upon this "petra" I will build my church. Petros and petra have different meanings.
Must watch channel. Your content is always rewarding, enlightening, fun and we all love your smile.
Keep up your good works, people such as you are drawing people such as I ( raised Protestant, became Evangelical) into The Mother Church. I have never found such beauty, peace and depth of teaching in my life as a Protestant that I have since I began my journey toward Catholicism. I have just read tonight that conversion s are increasing, people are going back home.❤
When you close your eyes to truth,it is hard to see.
Nope. False interpretation. The apostolic canons forbid one bishop from exercising authority over the territory of another bishop.
The Early Fathers of the Church acknowledged the primacy of honor of the Patriarch of Rome. They did not believe he ruled over all the Church, and certainly did not believe in the Chair of Peter to be infallible.
This is why I'm subscribed to this channel. These insights and explanations are always eye opening.
Excellent content. Following right now! Greetings from Brazil
Another amazing video! I look forward to these every week.
"A wobbly foundation." I would say that guy has read Chesterton! And the fact it is a wobbly foundation is proof positive the Church is upheld by Christ. Through all the centuries of wobblyness the Church has never failed.
300 matyrs in England, are you proud of that!
@johornbuckle5272 You mean like Saint Thomas More, and all the Catholics butchered by Cromwell and Elizabeth?
@@michaelogrady232facts brutha boo hoo. We all killed each other back then. Haha. It’s still just english wobbliness as the great Englishman would know.
I would say the best interpretation is how the early church received it, and they did receive it believing Peter had the primacy among the apostles. The Orthodox, who are non-papists, acknowledge this. So I think the question is really about primacy versus supremacy.
Great points! The preponderance of the evidence is clearly in favor of Apostolic authority with Peter as the leader of the Apostles. People want proof beyond doubt, but that’s such a high standard that, when applied to other doctrines, means we know little to nothing about what Christ intended. We need the Church to interpret scripture, not our own preconceptions and assumptions.
Thanks Joe! Another great presentation. Thanks for your live for the Faith. You easily make muddy waters clear for us Catholics who want to defend the Faith. God Bless Brother!
These are all the scriptures I know of about the Papacy, if anyone wants to gander:
Genesis 41:39-40
"So Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; *you shall be over my house,* and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.'"
Genesis 41:41-42
*"And Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.'* Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; ..."
Genesis 41:43,
"...and he made him to ride in his second chariot; and they cried before him, 'Bow the knee!' *Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt."*
Isaiah 22:19-23
•"I will thrust you *from your office,* and you will be cast down from your _station._ In that day I will call my servant _Eliakim_ the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he *shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.* And I will place on his shoulder the KEY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID; _he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open._ And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house."
Isaiah 36:3
“Then _Eliakim_ the son of Hilkiah, *who was over the household,* and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came out to him.”
Matthew 16:18-19
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. _I will give you [Peter],_ THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN; and whatever _you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”_
Luke 12:39, 41-42
“But be sure of this, that *if the head of the house* had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. Now _Peter_ said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and prudent _steward,_ *whom his master will put in charge of his servants,* to give them their rations at the proper time?“
Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat. But I have prayed earnestly for you [singular, to Peter], that *your faith may not fail;* and you, once you have returned, *strengthen your brothers.”*
John 21:15-17
“… _”Simon, son of John,_ do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “TEND MY LAMBS.” He *said to him again a second time, **_“Simon, son of John,_** do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, *“SHEPHERD* MY SHEEP.” He *said to him the third time, _“Simon, son of John,_ do you love Me?” … And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “TEND MY SHEEP.”
Acts 15:7
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that _in the early days God made a choice among you,_ that *by my [Peter’s] mouth* the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
@@HellenicPapist I've read those Scriptures before. But I'll definitely have to study them more and look at the history and early Church Fathers. Lord please help me. 🙏✝️☦️
Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are the focus of an ongoing debate over who or what “the rock” is that Jesus mentions. The immediate context contains a question that Jesus put to His disciples: “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16), to which Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (verses 17-18).
Is “this rock” on which Christ promised to build His church Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Is it the truth of Peter’s statement? Or is the rock Jesus Himself? In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100 percent sure which view is correct.
First view: the rock is Peter
One view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter [petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means “rock,” and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock, it appears that Christ means to link Peter with the founding of the church. It’s true that God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church.
Second view: the rock is the truth contained in Peter’s statement
Another popular interpretation is that the rock Jesus was referring to is not Peter, but Peter’s statement of truth in Matthew 16:16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” In this view, the “rock” is the truthfulness of that statement-the church is built on the rock-solid truth that Jesus is God’s Chosen One and the eternal Son of God. In confessing Jesus as the Christ, Peter, the “rock,” was demonstrating his own stability as he stood on that truth. He was, in a way, showing his character and why Jesus nicknamed him “Cephas” or “Peter” (see John 1:42).
Third view: the rock is Peter’s faith
Jesus had never explicitly taught the disciples the fullness of His identity, and so it was God who had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes to that revelation. Jesus marks the source of that truth in Matthew 16:17. Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God poured forth from him as a heartfelt declaration of personal faith. Since personal faith in Christ is the hallmark of the true Christian, those who place their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter, writing to believers dispersed through the ancient world, likens them to stones used to build the church: “As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him-you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5). The faith of believers is what makes them “living stones” able to be built into the church.
Fourth view: the rock is Jesus
After Jesus declares that God the Father had revealed the truth to Peter, He says, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). The word for “Peter,” Petros, is a masculine noun that means “a detached stone, a stone that might be thrown or easily moved” (Zodhiates, S., The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, 1992, p. 1,154). The word for “rock” next mentioned is a different Greek word, petra, a feminine noun that means “a mass of rock” or “a cliff” and therefore something foundational (ibid.; see also Matthew 7:24-25). The difference in the two terms may suggest that Jesus was contrasting Peter with Himself. That is, Jesus was saying, “You are the small rock, but I am the foundation of the church.” This view finds support in other passages that present Christ, not Peter, as the foundation of the church (1 Corinthians 3:11) and the life-giving rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Of course, the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone. So, Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are best interpreted as a simple play on words: a boulder-like, foundational truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone.
Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6-7; cf. Matthew 21:42). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which a building is anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? Believers are the stones that make up the church. They are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (not just Peter) and anchored to the Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). “The one who trusts in [Christ] will never be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church, confers upon Peter the title of pope, and claims to be the one true church. As we have seen, however, identifying the rock as Peter is not the only valid interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Even if Peter is the rock upon which Jesus promised to build His church, it does not give the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the all-authoritative leader of the early church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
Re-reading Pope Peter on audible. Great work Joe.
@jacquesvincent3897
ARE YOU TAKING ABOUT THE SAME PETER WHO WAS CALLED SATAN BY JESUS AND DENIED CHRIST 3 TIMES WHILE CURSING ??????🤣😂😂.
Currently a Protestant (Presbyterian in a PCA church), increasingly coming to see the Catholic Church’s teachings as Biblical, rational, and true. The Papacy argument from Matthew 16 has been a “stumbling block” for me, however, for all the reasons you stated. The passage from Luke is indeed much clearer.
Thank you for your gentle and gracious approach to apologetics. I can say the same for many Catholic apologists I’ve encountered over the last year or so. I have been drawn to apologetics since being saved by Jesus 7 years ago, b/c I held so many atheistic/secular beliefs that needed to be dismantled and exposed as lies, before I could embrace and rejoice in the truth.
That said, Protestant apologists take on a different flavor than what I’ve found in Catholic apologists. Learning about the Catholic faith, ironically, seems to set my conscience free before the Lord - and that is why I come back to learning more even when I find myself initially in disagreement or not understanding the doctrines being taught. I feel free to pray “Lord, I believe… help my unbelief!” Whereas the passion often witnessed by Protestant apologists, tho good intentioned, in retrospect, pulled at my heart so strongly that I no longer questioned what was taught even tho I still hadnt resolved my questions either.
Really, praying to the saints and divinizing Mary is not an issue for you? I couldn’t care less about the Papacy when such things are practiced. Those are clearly not Biblical and make no sense. Praying to another human for help instead of God… that you can never convince me of even if the hole world would do it. I will be the Doubting Thomas.
I was PCA as well. Even helped plant a church and started taking classes at RTS Atlanta. Praying for you!
@@Vaughndaleoulaw Thank you so much for your prayers. I truly appreciate each and every one who prays for me on this journey to know the church as Christ established it! I believe it will be His grace that leads me home. May I ask what specifically made you realized you needed to leave your PCA church and convert to Catholicism? What finally convinced you?
@@Bythegraceofgod1646 There were a number of things I had to work through. But, what made me decide I needed to leave Protestantism (broadly) is the question of how we know which writings are in the canon.
@@pitAlexx I’ll answer in sincerity, and say this- the way Protestants typically portray Catholic doctrines like “praying to the saints” or anything regarding Mary is more often than not actually a severe misrepresentation of what the Church really teaches. So the conversation must start there- and then we must read the Church’s documents in light of the early church fathers, like first and second and third century. I began to see the Catholic Church through new eyes after I read how the earliest fathers interpreted Scripture and tradition. With much respect for what you believe, I encourage you to read the early church fathers for yourself- Ignatius, Clement, etc.
One one thing I’ve always noticed about how Protestants will make the claim that the Rock wasn’t Peter, but rather Peter’s confess of faith, is the fact that they overlook a similar episode in the Gospel of John. When Jesus first calls His disciples, it is Nathaniel who makes the confession of faith in Christ, yet Christ doesn’t call Nathaniel the Rock. But just a few verses later, Jesus calls Peter Cephas, Aramaic for “rock,” but Peter never says a word. So if the Rock was Peter’s confession of faith, why wouldn’t Jesus call Nathaniel the Rock instead of Peter in the Gospel of John?
Your work in this area is very powerful. Thanks
I think we make it more complicated than it needs to be. Using the Bible rarely brings unity. But simple logic is the way to go, especially with Protestors.
It's this simple: Every church has a head, a pastor. The only difference is most Protestant churches have 100 people, ours has 2 billion. But we still need a head, a pastor, like any other church. Or rather, unlike any other church ;)
In turn MacArthur would say it’s “ludicrous” that since the very beginning all Christians have understood the papacy chair of Peter, for 2000+ years. He’s the one that’s ludicrous! Pray for him, all we can do. He’s so insufferably frustrating 🤦🏻♂️
The guy is like 90 years old. Sad to say but he will soon be damned.
They love making negative cases as if they win by default if Catholicism is false, they say “so and so didn’t happen to say Peter is the rock” therefore Catholicism deboonked. But you usually don’t see them making any positive case for their beliefs being believed by all, everywhere, every time. They don’t positively substantiate the case from history that Peter is objectively not the rock, or that the paradigm of individual churches unaccountable to each other has always been the norm.
what Mac really means is>>>this passage is unfortunate for us.
Did the Eastern Orthodox never exist? They obviously had issue with the papacy.
@@KifuTV They had issues after they separated, not before.
Joe, I well understand your reasoning and belief about the papacy because I was raised in the Catholic Church and was very devout in my heart to embrace all its doctrines and live out all its requirements. I never read the Bible because it was unnecessary since the Catholic Church contained all the truth I needed to know. But when I was 28 years old Christ came and revealed to me that I was dead in sin and trespasses and was on my way to hell. He made it clear that my Catholic beliefs and practices were rejected by His Heavenly Father. They were rejected because I was trusting in those things for salvation and eternal life instead of Christ who alone saves and imparts the free gift of eternal life. As a devout Catholic I was blind to my spiritual state of death. Jesus warned of this in Luke 11:35 “Make sure that the light you think you have is not actually darkness.” My light consisted of Catholicism, yet it was in fact darkness and death. But God opened my understanding, and His light entered and made known to my heart that Christ, and He alone, was to be the way, truth and life for me in this temporal life as well as eternity. The Holy Spirit took up residence in me and stirred up my heart to begin reading the Word of God. And God’s Word has clearly made it known that I am to live out my life for Christ's sake rather than for my sake. This is why I put no trust in any man or any church affiliation that stipulates I must embrace their doctrines or practices in order to be saved and pleasing to God. I have lived the past 52 years since that encounter with Jesus experiencing the peace, the joy and eternal assurance that He imparts to those He knows, loves and keeps.
You state in this video protestants believe the entire doctrine of the papacy boils down to one passage and one part of a passage (Matthew 16:17-19). I believe no passage of Scripture substantiates the existence of the Roman Catholic Papacy. The Catholic Church cannot validate the papacy by the Word of God but only can insinuate, that is, instill or infuse subtly or artfully, into the minds of Catholics the mendacity of a papal state.
Peter was not the first apostle to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Nathanael’s response to Jesus who had seen him under the fig tree was, “You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” So that acknowledgement by Peter in no way distinguishes him above any of the other apostles. Peter was speaking representatively for the whole group of apostles. The changing of Simon’s name to Peter is not unique in itself. All overcomers will receive a new name. “I will give him a white stone with a new name engraved on the stone which no one knows except the one who receives it.” (Rev 2:17)
“Keys” represents the knowledge of the Kingdom of God. Christ’s stern condemnation of the Pharisees in Luke 11 ended with this scathing rebuke. “What sorrow awaits you experts in religious law! For you remove the KEY TO KNOWLEDGE (my emphasis) from the people. You don’t enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering.” The Kingdom of God reigns in the hearts of men. It is internal not external. It is spiritual not physical. Peter certainly has provided knowledge of how the Kingdom operates within the hearts of men. But God likewise used Paul, John, James, Jude, Luke and the unknown writer of Hebrews to impart knowledge of His Kingdom. None of these men were designated as supreme over all others in imparting the knowledge of God’s Kingdom. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “So let no one boast in men [about their wisdom, or of having this or that one as a leader]. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas (Peter) or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things are yours, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.” (1 Corinth 3:21-23 AMP)
The binding and loosing Christ spoke of is rendered in some translations as having been already bound or loosed in Heaven. This makes more sense for Christ told us the deeds He did and the words He spoke were from His Heavenly Father. Jesus did not do and speak His own will and then expect His Heavenly Father to capitulate to what He wanted. As Jesus said not my will, but thy will be done.
Peter was a Jew and the apostle to the Jews. If Peter was a Pope, then he was a Pope to the Jews. Any succession of Peter’s supposed papacy would have been a Jewish brother or religious figure. Perhaps you do not understand that the New Covenant is a Jewish covenant and not a gentile covenant. (Hebrews 8:7-10) Read Romans 11 for it will tell you God in His mercy allows gentiles to be grafted into His special olive tree-the Jewish tree of Abraham. Christ is the New Covenant (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8) and we must be in Him to be in the New Covenant. Jesus was a Jew and when He comes back to establish His kingdom on earth He is not coming to Rome Italy. He will set up His throne in Jerusalem on Mt. Zion.
The reason the Catholic Church was created was because religious gentiles wanted to exclude Jews from Christianity. To them Christianity was a gentile religion and not a Jewish religion. Sad to say it remains so to this very day. However, Paul clearly tells us the born-again man is neither Jew nor gentile in ethnicity but a new creation in Christ and a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom of God. That kingdom exists in the heart of man. It is not a religious organization that imposes its authority and control over the masses. All earthly religions have an alpha male or female that dominates its followers. That is why Jesus warned us about wolves in sheep clothing (Matthew 7:15). Paul was a second witness about these wolves. “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” This is how cults operate. They seek to draw disciples after their own doctrines and teachings and then impose their will over the lives. Such disciples do not experience the freedom that Christ brings to a soul.
I did not have any knowledge of the letters in the New Testament before I was saved. It came as a surprise to me that two of the letters were written by Peter. I read and studied those letters over and over. I came to realize that Peter clearly denied that he was a pope in any sense at all. In Mark 10 James and John came to Jesus wanting to be seated on his left and right when Christ became glorified. Jesus responded it was not His to give to anyone. The other disciples became indignant. So, Jesus addressed them all saying, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.” The Greek word for “lord it over” is katakyrieuo. It means to bring under one’s power, to hold in subjection, to be master of, to exercise lordship over. In other words, the declaration of the Catholic Church that the Roman Pontiff “has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” is the quintessential example of katakyrieuo.
Did Peter grasp the significance and importance of Christ’s rebuke? He most certainly did! He writes in his first letter to other elders: “And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ…Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly-not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord (katakyrieuo) it over the people assigned to your care but lead them by your own good example.” Peter was devoid of any belief that he possessed supreme stature in the body of Christ and thus retained full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he could always exercise unhindered. Why does Catholicism continue to attribute to Peter what he in no way attributes to himself. The answer is obvious. What Peter believes of himself does not matter. It is what the Catholic Church declares of Peter that only matters. May the Holy Spirit open the hearts of those who love the truth of God but have been deceived by the darkness of Satan.
Amen
You could not have been a "devout Catholic" and blind to your spiritual state of death. An ignorant non-practising Catholic maybe, but not a "devout Catholic" taking advantage of the FREE graces that Christ gave His Church to administer to the faithful. There is not one sacrament that the Church FREELY administers that was not instituted by Christ.
@@zackskewz9577 Romans 2:11
Great post! I'll also add that the thief on the cross who is with Jesus in paradise, and everyone in the Bible who were saved by faith (ie anyone in Acts) did not have to go through the church or believe a guy with a title prior to their salvation.
The thief on the cross wasn't even baptized and knew nothing of Scripture.
@@zackskewz9577What do you mean by Jesus giving grace to His church?
The quickest Scripture that comes to mind is "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Individuals are given grace. Not an establishment. I'm definitely not going to go through a priest when speaking to God! I'll go boldly to the throne of Grace, just like the Bible says I should.
Joe,
You are an amazing teacher, thanks for your insights. 😊
Just a perfect presentation. Thank you!
I hold the teaching of the Catholic Church true and Protestant teachings, protestant.
Says the papal protestant
@davidgravy2007 You've a right to learn or to imagine and choose what you the truth or what suits you.
@@someonesomewhere6316 Been there, done that. But the truth, it turns out, is objective, and what many of us have deemed suitable, has been to the destruction of our souls.
Protestantism teaches true things, but as you know, it also gets many things wrong. Personally, I would contend that Protestantism has reason to perceive flaws in Catholicism, but it protests against the wrong things. Papal supremacy, papal infallibility, the filioque, and the "immaculate conception", are all false doctrines of your tradition. What too few Protestants realize, is that Roman Catholicism rebelled against the authority of the Church, more than 500 years before Luther's theses. What too few Catholics realize, is that while Protestantisms are certainly riddled with their own false doctrines, Catholicism has too large a plank in its own eye, to have any hope at all, removing the sawdust from the eye of the Protestant.
Hey Joe, I left a comment on your last video, and I don’t mean to be annoying, but I have a video suggestion that I personally would find very interesting. So just in case you didn’t see it I’ll try commenting on this matter one more time. But I’m very interested in the typology of Mary’s Queenship. In your video about the assumption of Mary you touched on her Queenship, but you mainly focused on Revelation 12. But I think there is a case that is as strong, if not stronger when looking at the typology on this matter, and I think a video on that would be very interesting.
I think that would be good too. I like to think of the typology as well. You have the king (christ) you have his 12 ministers, one prime minister given the keys of the kingdom. You have the king’s many wives and concubines, and you have the queen mother. I think the types in the davidic kingdom are all clearly identified in Christ’s own ministry. He is the king in the line of David, the king’s
Mother was always considered the queen. The king had wives but they didnt have the authority of the queen mother at all.
Yeah I believe the typology of Mary’s Queenship is based on ecclesiology.
Can't believe what John McArthur says and preaches. His anti-Catholic stance keeps me Catholic.
He is not anti-catholic but exposes the false teachings of catholicism.
@@Justas399 OCDS? Give me a break. The Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus and his apostles. I'd never become a Protestant.
@@raymalbrough9631 Catholic is not the same thing as roman catholic. 2 different things. Nor is your church the same thing as the Christian church because your church teaches doctrines that the apostles never taught.
@@Justas399:
Comments like this make me thankful to be Catholic.
@@alhilford2345 Are you happy with pope Francis who supports homosexuality and allows pagan idols in your church? Are you happy with the way your church has covered up the homosexual stuff that has brought great shame on the name of Christ?
It’s funny to me that so many protestant “teachers” interpret these kinds of passages by saying, “Whatever it means, it doesn’t mean what Catholics say it means.”
So, on the one hand, they admit to not knowing what a particular passage means. They then proceed to tell what it doesn’t mean. But how can they really do that if they admit to not knowing what the passage means. It just doesn’t add up.
The three I use are:
St. John 1:42
St Matthew 16:18-19
Acts 15:7
How doesJohn 1:42 & Acts 15 teach the papacy?
@@JustJordan126 St. John 1:42 is where Jesus changes Simon’s name to Kepha, “which is interpreted Petros/Peter”; which all mean “Rock”. The Aramaic copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, which St. Matthew had written before the Greek version, also has written Kepha. “Thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha…”
St. Matthew 16:18-19 is obvious at this point.
Acts 15:7 has St. Peter saying: Brethren, *you know as well as I that* in the Days of Old, *God chose* from among you that by *my voice* the Gentiles shall hear the gospel and believe.
Fun fact: Simon bar Jonah is also the first person in history to go by the name Rock (Kepha/Cephas/Petros/Peter). The name given to him by God, the Son.
@jacquesvincent3897
Ephesians 5:23
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
1 Corinthians 3:11
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Psalms 94:22
“But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.”......IS PETER YOUR GOD??????
I have read pope Peter and it’s very good
Protestant here. I agree that it appears Peter is given a special authority over the church and a special role among the apostles by Jesus. However, I have trouble bridging the gap from Peter as the leader of the church immediately following Jesus’ ascension to the institution of the Roman Catholic line of Popes. Is it not possible to hold that Jesus instituted Peter as the leader of the early church, but that this was not meant to be an establishment of the pope as a formal role over all the church for the rest of history?
St Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of St. John the Apostle, writes and compiles the first list of the first 12 or so Popes in his book Against Heresies, Book III (I forgot which chapter but it should be in either Chap. 2 or 3)
Amermountain has given what I think is a good historical answer, but to give a thought-experiment:
Does it make more sense that:
A - Jesus institutes the Church, with chosen leaders, with the intention that the Church will retain that structure, and will guide the faithful.
or B - Jesus institutes the Church, with chosen leaders, with the intention of it all falling apart pretty much immediately.
This is also compounded by the fact that someone in Peter's role only gets more necessary as the Church goes on, rather than when all the Apostles are there, and many people personally met Jesus.
No
For me, it is simpler. It comes down to this, what Church did the Protestant revolutionaries break off from? And in Matt 16:18 does Jesus not promise that Hell itself shall not overcome His Church? So the question they should’ve asked is, do I trust Jesus enough to believe His Church went astray like Peter but Christ will bring us back? I would’ve trusted Jesus and worked for reform from within. Instead they left the Only Church Christ founded for a man who never even claimed Jesus came to him in a vision. They talk about not being led astray by “traditions of men”, no you were led from Traditions of Christ and His Holy Church for the innovations of a man named Luther.
Your point works against you here. Luther was attempting reformation from inside the church, and he was instead cut off from it. It was never supposed to be a new religion, like you are trying to say here. If anything I’d say this argument is a straw man. Luther had many Catholic Churches follow him in being against the ways of the current church. And the church has even eased it stance on most of what he was against. So it’s disingenuous to pretend like the reformation was trying to start a new religion, and someone could take ex commuting the reformers as the Catholic Church cutting itself off from the true believers. I think the one thing that begins to unfold both orthodox and Catholic views is that they both traditionally affirm there is no salvation outside of their specific church. Once you start to study church history you realize the reason why this was is because early heretics about the divinity and sacrifice of Christ. Later we see both churches use this to just further their political power. Protestant are not different from Catholic or orthodoxs, we just humble enough not to say that we know everything and that Gods spirit works in all. Our core matches with everyone else, our expression of faith is just often different. We are all Christian brothers and sisters. Hell has not overcome Gods church because he has been working overtime in all three divisions. And we are at a point in history where we are co mingling like never before. We’re getting closer to being unified physically. Because I do believe we are already unified by our identity as Christian’s.
Great advise on apologetics as always! Thanks Joe😊
With Luke 22 I actually brought that up to a Protestant recently, thier counter argument was "Christ knew Peter was going to deny him so he wanted to encourage him". I had to point out how that actually isn't a good counter as firstly, Judas' betrayal was much more heinous so why wouldn't Christ offer encouragement to Judas, not only that but the other apostles also failed Christ that night and in the proceeding days, so the question would still remain why does Christ specifically single out Peter if he's not to be the elected leader i.e. Pope. Obviously pointing that out there wasn't any pushback so hopefully it flicked the light on.
On Matthew another counter claim I see is Jesus rebuking Peter in the same setting, unfortunately protestants misinterpret papal infallibility to think it means a Pope is correct all the time.
Jesus is smart. He wouldn’t leave the world without an organized Church. Jesus is King, He is our King. And Kings leave the keys of their Kingdom to their Gatekeepers. Peter died too and will continue God’s holy work by anointing others to make it official and valid. Jesus created an organized Church and that is the Catholic Church. That’s how Jesus loves us is through the Sacraments. Jesus salvation through the Sacraments. Jesus is God incarnate and that is a big deal. God we can touch and connect to. And this is through the Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Catholic is Universal, that’s why if you leave the United States and go to other Christian countries, they are mostly Catholics because the Catholic missionaries spread Christianity to the world. Some Catholic missionaries are even Martyrs and Saints. Only the Protestants give and spread misinformed information about the Catholic(Universal)Church of Jesus.
How does the dead Peter continue " God’s holy work by anointing others to make it official and valid"? Where does Peter say that?
What do you mean by "Jesus salvation through sacraments"?
Isaiah 22:20-25! Verbatim!!!
@@Justas399everywhere throughout the bible!!! You are illiterate!
@@calebjushua9252that very thing, The Sacraments, Sacred Moments God touches te human being to save him!!!
Is the rock Christ, Peter, or Peter’s confession?
Catholics: “Yes”
A man can never be the rock upon which Christ's church stands.
@@Maranatha99Not apart from Christ, no. But in Christ yes.
Your contrary point is just being debunked by Joe H here. Lol@@christopherponsford8385
@@Maranatha99is Jesus not powerful enough to build His Church upon Peter? I don't understand how you could make this argument. After all, Ephesians 2:20 describes the Church being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (men) with Jesus himself (also a man) being the cornerstone.
@christopherponsford8385 Hello, Christopher.
The NT provides us with 3 metaphores for the church:
1. the bride of Christ, (Jesus is the groom. 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 21:2, 17
Revelation 19:7-9, Ephesians 5:25-27, Ephesians 5:21-33)
2. the body of Christ (Jesus is the head, Ephesians 1, 23; 1 Corinthians 12, 27)
3. a building: Jesus is the cornerstone & ALL the apostles are the foundation (Eohesians 2, 29-21)
There is absolutely no room for a human as key piece for the church in any of those passages.
Have a blessed day.
Why Protestant insist to deny the Pope for the belief of the Catholics it has been settled in 1521, Luther left the Church with his belief and founded his own Church, Protestant is not Catholic, Catholic is not Protestant, they separate ways already and different belief, if they do not have a Pope so be it, if fact Protestants have so many Popes, so why deny Catholics their single Pope.
Yes Luther became his own Pope.
@@PepWan
There are now 100,000 popes in the world today!!! Only one true in Rome!!!
@@PepWan Read what Luther said about the pope and you'd change your mind about that remark.
Thank you, Joe. From the Faroe Islands.
Really appreciate this video.
I have several issues/questions.
1) You say yourself that Peter was addressed in the singular. Where does it say he should have a successor?
2) In Luke 22, Jesus might just appeal to Peter's character as someone who is willing to take charge and inspire those around him to action, unlike Andrew or John, for example, who liked to stay out of the limelight. Matthew 16 might be about the special role Peter played in the founding of the first church, when he preached on the Pentecost and 3000 were added to the church. This alone would qualify as a fulfillment of being the rock Jesus would build his chuch upon.
3) Why do Acts and the epistles never reference Peter as a papal figure?
Then there are some bigger problems with the catholic teachings:
4) Worshipping saints and the virgin Mary: noone is worthy of worship other than God himself. In the bible, the term "saints" is used to refer to all believers, because it talks about their position as saved children of God, not their condition as less sinful or more righteous. This is tantamount to idolatry.
5) Babtizing babies: baptism in the bible is always a consequence of faith. A baby cannot profess faith, so it cannot be baptized. I believe the practice stems from an era when children dying very young was a common occurence and people believed they could only go to heaven if they were baptized. Jesus couldn't have promised the sinner on the cross beside him paradise if he had to be baptized in order to be saved. And we can certainly agree that God cannot make exceptions when it comes to salvation.
6) the Holy Eucharist: the bread and the wine don't actually turn into Jesus's body and blood. They are an image for them, just like the lamb the Jews are to kill for Passover. They *remind* us of what Jesus did. They don't *become* a part of his body.
7) Jesus is *the* way, *the* truth, and *the* life, membership in any one church doesn't save you.
Thks for explaining
I'm not going to address everything, because most of it, is just anti-catholic rethoric thatbhas nothing to do with ACTUAL catholic teaching.
But I do have 2 questions:
Who gave YOU the magisterial authority to declare that Jn
6:48-53 is just a "symbol"? Or an "image"? As you say in number 6.
And, as you say: if "membership in any church doesn't save you", then what is or was the purpose of Jesus actually founding a church here on earth?
And what does it mean, that is "the church" is which is " the pillar and ground of the truth."(1 Tim.3:15)?
@@biankapaloma How can Jesus saying "I am the bread of life" be anything but a metaphor? And if, during the Last Supper, the bread and wine transformed into meat and blood, I'm sure the disciples would have said something about that and it would be written in the gospels, don't you think?
The church is the totality of God's children on Earth, not an institution. Otherwise it would not be faith that saves, but filling out some paperwork and following certain rules and traditions.
When it comes to denominations, I'm reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. Salvation is in Christ and nothing else.
@@Zevrael you didn´t answer the questions.
No. Jesus words in Jn.6 are not a "metaphor". Not even his followers, the ones who decided to abandon Him in Jn.6.66 believed that his words were symbolic. And, Jesus doesn´t say that anywhere. In fact, he says: Amen, Amen dico vobis (meaning, Truly truly I say to you) He is in fact, doubling down in what He just said.
If you read the original text, in greek, the words , the verbs Jesus uses to teach this doctrine, are fago (phagen/phagete) and then, when He doubles down Jesus used the verb form (trogon)
Phago, means to eat, to consume
Trogo, means to gnaw, crunch, chew
If Jesus was being "symbolic" according to you(because not 1 single christian believed that until the 16th century), then why did the followers left him? And why didn´t Jesus clarify that he was using a "symbol, a metaphor"????
And, if He, Jesus had no intentions to "use" a church, then why in the bible it says that "the church is the pillar and ground of truth"?? If the church is "all of us", then where is the true church? You have literally hundreds of denominations, all of them disagree on many things. So where is "this pilar of truth", in you?? Who told you that?
If Jesus have no need for a church, then why did he say: "and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto *the church*, but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican"(Mt.18:15-20)
If the church doesn´t mean anything, and it´s just everybody; then why James 5:14 say "call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord" (why did he say that? Don´t we all have authority, according to you?)
Or did our Lord lie?
@@biankapaloma Not clarifying is the difference between a comparison and a metaphor. Jesus is talking about spiritual truth, about salvation and eternal life. It is the same thing when He talks to the Samaritan woman at the well. Or what is the water from John 4:14?
There is a difference between the global church and the local congregation. The "pillar and ground of truth" is the global church; the totality of the children of God, who, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, are able to recognize the truths of God's word. The "church" in Matthew 18 refers to the local congregation.
The elders in James 5 are again the leaders (pastors) of a local congregation.
Not once does the bible talk about a hierarchical or organizational structure above local congregations. It talks about conference with other leaders, but that's it.
As Protestants, we don’t doubt Peter, we doubt people claiming that Jesus’ promise to Peter(indicated by the singular) is biblical. I cannot take promises given to David or Abraham and just apply them to myself because I feel like it. A very straw man argument, few Protestants I’ve heard of believe Peter isn’t the “Rock of the Church”
Really? Most Protestants I hear from tend to say the rock can be anything but Peter. Usually they say the rock is Jesus or Peter's confession.
@@EmberBright2077find new Protestants… Jesus built his church…not the Catholic Church
@jenniferboht961 His Church is the Catholic Church.
Otherwise, you agree the rock is Peter?
@ Peter is the Rock..It says I’ll build my church…not the Catholic Church
@jenniferboht961 His Church is the Catholic Church.
The fact that Jesus met Peter first after his resurrection..... (yes after the women) Both Luke and Paul mentioned it. There are many places in the New testament which proves the primacy of Peter ❤
Yet at the 1st church council it is James who makes the decision for the church in Acts 15:19. It was not Peter.
So Mary Magdalene is the first pope?
I’m really grateful for this video 🙏
It is such a beautiful passage when we learn when "you" is plural and singular and we know that Jesus knew Peter would betray him 3 times. Peter's faith faltered but ultimately did not fail.
If we compare scripture with scripture, we obtain a better understanding of this passage. 1 John 5:1, Revelation 1:18, 1 Peter 2:4-8, John 1:41-43, Matthew 18:18 (and more).
The binding and loosing only applied to the house of Israel btw, with Gentiles, it was termed “grafted in”.
The passage of Matthew 16, says nothing about papacy, magisterium, infallibility, succession, overseer, bishop etc. These are all presuppositions.
Binding and loosing has nothing to do with settling disputes, it has to do with entering the Jews into the kingdom.
Also, Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with papacy.
Also, Luke 22, the entire chapter, has nothing to do with the Gentiles, only the house of Israel. Gentiles did not become grafted in until several years later, and even then, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-12).
You could not have said it better.
I was just going through that part in my mind…
These are the notes I wrote down for this…
Let us look at Matthew 16…
“16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:16-19 | NIV
The name Peter (“Πέτρος “) is different to the word πέτρα . The first one is a name, and it is masculine whereas the second is feminine. They mean two different things. One means a rock or stone. The second one means mass of rocks.
Secondly- the Bible is clear that throughout history Kings and Judges did not automatically get to be kings or judges because they inherited some kind of leadership. A great example of this is Jonathan, who was a righteous man, did NOT inherit being a King from his Dad (Saul) because of actions that Saul took. Another example of this is Solomon’s sons had the kingdom ripped away from them because of what Solomon did. Gideon’s sons also etc. It is clear from scripture that just because you might have been able to inherit from your Dad, that was certainly not the case every time, and often a kingdom was ripped away from someone because of their actions or fathers actions. So the actions do count very strongly.
Secondly- have you looked at how Peter lived Jesus died? He certainly was chosen to take a lead… there is no issue with this… but he was just one of the pillars of the church…(look at vs 9 below from Galatian’s)…but when it came to the gentiles the apostles took the lead as well… including James, and Paul. Judas and Silas were sent to the gentiles… not Peter.
Later on the scriptures clearly say that Peter was sent to the circumcised (Jews) and just as Peter was sent to the Jews Paul was sent to the gentiles. And on the issue of Gentiles- Paul directly opposed Peter because of his hypocrisy that he had shown to the gentiles.
“As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised
Galatians 2:6-9 | NIV
11 When Cephas (Peter)came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Galatians 2:11-12 | NIV
There are major issues to say that Peter was the first Pope and all Popes after him have Christ’s keys.
I am happy to talk about the evil things Pope’s did, but that is not the discussion for today, more the fact that because they did those evil things, it is clear that God was not with them.
@JeffreyBoyle-x8b the letter of Peter absolutely does NOT prove the Pope can speak with infallibility.
Scripture also shows clearly the Peter was wrong when it came to the gentiles. He was reprimanded, to his face, by Paul for discriminating against the gentiles. It was clear to all that Paul, not Peter, was sent to the gentiles and Peter was sent to the Jews.
Read the following passage from Galatian’s very carefully… you will find that Peter was sent to the Jews (circumcised) and Paul the Gentiles….”6 But from those who seemed to be something-whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man-for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Galatians 2:6-9 | NKJV
Now look at where Peter was wrong…(therefore not infallible)….
“11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:11-12 | NKJV
So Paul confronted Peter about being wrong. This is absolutely just like Peter… remember the time when Peter was blessed by Jesus…he says in Matthew 16 “17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 16:17 | NKJV
But then, in the same space of time… almost in the same conversation Jesus says to Peter ….”22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Matthew 16:22-23 | NKJV
Here Peter messes things up… just after one of the greatest blessing that could have come to him. Jesus calls him “Satan”! Look at the timing of this… just after he received the “rock” blessing!
Look these up yourself to see if they are so! Check out if I am telling the truth!
Peter was a man like you and me, even after that blessing. Notice also in the scriptures that I have shown you, that it was not just Peter that was part of the leadership, but James, Peter (Cephas) and John were the pillars in God’s house, and not Peter by himself. Peter made terrible mistakes during this time. Even after the blessing he denied Jesus 3 times. He ran away to Galilee to fish instead of staying where Jesus said to stay, and finally Peter was restored, not to the church, but to Jesus himself. Later on he refuses to deal with gentiles until he has a vision, and then later after that he is so caught up trying to please men that he does not eat with gentiles, even though the vision clearly stated for him to “not call unclean what God has called clean!” This is a man, who, though being a leader and pillar in the house of God, made terrible mistakes. He certainly was no infallible.
@JeffreyBoyle-x8b Totally based on eisegesis.
Upon this Rock meaning Upon this Truth that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God ...Why would Jesus build His church on one man....
Jesus did not build his church on one man. He built his Church on the bedrock truth of that man's confession and installed him and his successors as the visible head of that Church by giving him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven with the power to bind and loose, and the authority to him and those he anointed, to teach, baptise, and forgive sins.
Because that is what Jesus wanted, and that is what God always does: bestowing the heaviest earthly responsibilities on single individuals
@@zackskewz9577 Deuteronomy 32:4
“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth ....IS PETER THE GOD OF TRUTH???
1 Corinthians 3:11
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
@@kiiluben9570 1 Corinthians 3:11
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Ephesians 5:23
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
The primacy of Peter isn't really the issue, at least not for me. The real obstacle is the idea of succession. Peter and the other apostles had what's called "the full measure" of the Holy Spirit. They received it 3 times, twice at the command of Jesus and once on the day of Pentecost. This third reception of the Spirit gives them the full understanding of God's plan that they did not have from the first two, so that (the more accurate translation) what they bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven and what they loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven. God gives them the divine knowledge necessary to found the Church accurately according to His plan, without fault or corruption. And Peter really does seem to have the leadership of the twelve of them (thirteen once Paul's included) as seen in the book of Acts. Peter is the one speaking on the Day of Pentecost, and whenever there are disputes in the Church, they make their way to the Apostles in Jerusalem where Peter is usually the one who either adjudicates the dispute, or proclaims what the Apostles as a whole have decided (except when James does it.) But the Apostles' earthly authority, and Peter's in particular, derives from this divine knowledge, the full knowledge of the divine plan, beyond what any other humans know. We have no scripture or any secular evidence that Peter, or anyone else, could pass that full measure of the Spirit on to successors. When they lay hands on people to give them the lesser measure of the Spirit and grant miraculous gifts, that never brings those recipients onto the level of the Apostles. The Apostles' authority died with them, as did all the Church's temporal central authority needed for its founding. That's why Paul instructs Timothy to continue ordaining elders/bishops/overseers in each congregation, and instructs that those leaders make the decisions for the congregation that they're appointed in. The concept of a clerical hierarchy, with monarchial bishops who speak for a whole church and a higher bishop who speaks for a whole city and a bishop at the top who speaks for the whole Church, those are later additions with no basis in scripture, not even in the writings of Peter himself. The succession of popes we've had after Peter is an invention of men, not of God.
Agree. Borgia Popes were monsters. Sola Scriptura!
Thank you .
Whomever says it's only Mathew 16, is in desperate need to read the Bible like thousands of times, and i'm sure he'll be shocked..
Excellent video, Joe. I still want to pick up a copy of your book, Pope Peter. God bless.
That cake at 14:30 looks good
Made me think of a big glass of milk. Lol
Mike Winger makes one of dumbest cases for sola scriptura I've ever seen, but it's probably not far off from the average evangelical who hasn't thought through things for a few seconds. There was an authoritative Church preaching the gospel by approved men under the authority of the apostles from Jesus. Winger acts like they were always sola scriptura which makes no sense when there was no new testament scripture. He just pretends that Catholics have no case in principle and there was never a situation where the early did not look like how he wants it to
Where did Christ and His apostles deny this? Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399 and how do you know the Word of God stops at Scripture and includes all the books and only the books you consider Scripture?
Please answer in full, in detail.
Also books aren't authorities.
@@dr.tafazzi Ok. Tell me what else is the inspired-inerrant Word of God besides the Scriptures and how you know?
@@Justas399 I'm asking you. You made a claim, if you actually talked out your thought process I'd guarantee I can find you where the mistake is.
I have an answer to your question, but every time I give it, protestants (especially rude baptists) completely ignore my questions and just want to talk about my response. That's not how this works. Your belief that your canon of the Bible is the full extent of the Word of God is something you need to prove on your own terms. Do it. Answer my question, come on, don't deflect.
@@dr.tafazzi Only the Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Even your church recognizes this. Nothing else is considered the inspired-inerrant Word Of God in your church but the Scriptures.
I think it's clear by looking at the Bible and at early church history that the papacy is established by God. I mean they didn't call it the papacy but let's look at a few points.
Did the early church have leadership? Obviously it did. This is evident in both acts and the letters of Paul. The second question, was St. Peter in a special position in this leadership. I would say that's demonstratable in Acts by the fact that it's always referring to Peter and the 12, Peter seems to have a special position in the house of Cornelius, and in the gospels, as you're showing in this video, Peter is often singled out with special authority. The last point, which you can't really get from scripture because these dudes are still alive when the scripture was being written, is does that authority pass to successors after the death of the Apostles? I would say by looking at early church history, it's clear that this apostolic authority is given to the bishops either concurrently with the the apostles while they live or as the apostolic generation dies out this authority is delegated to the bishops. I guess one final question would be in addition to the authority of the bishops, does the bishop of Rome have Peter's special authority as leader of the bishops , and I think that's pretty clearly a yes by looking at early church history, especially the councils. And you can see Rome having a special position. I don't think it's as defined as it is now in the early days, but then again and acorn doesn't look much like an oak tree. By that I mean the doctrine of papal authority has developed over time, but that's to be expected when an organization grows that things get more defined. Like think of a baby in the womb, everything's there. It's just there in a germ form. As the baby grows, things get differentiated and developed. Same thing with the church. As She grew She became more defined and differentiated. The Bride of Christ started out as a baby in the Bible and is maturing into a beautiful woman. (Unfortunately, sometimes she acts like Gomer but that's okay because Jesus acts like Hosea).
I think it's difficult nowadays to grasp that Our Lord reigns over a Kingdom, we tend to think the best way to govern is a democracy, where we decide who is your leader and it's ok to challenge authority. But if you want to be part of the Kingdom we must have the humility to acknowledge that we are not the ones who run it. We are meant to be wise, but like sheep or children, not to be in constant challenge of authority.
This is great Joe! The common Protestant response to this will be that even if Peter had a special role himself, this doesn’t establish succession. Do you have any thoughts on how to respond to this?
Pope Francis is the best argument against the office of Pope. Hopefully the faithful Catholic followers will “protest” his heresy.
We're not protestant, the Pope does not and camnot teach heresy.
@@rcwarrior868 While it may not have been a “formal teaching heresy” Pope Francis did publicly say, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God. There are different languages to arrive at God but God is God for all. But my God is more important than your god, is that true? There is only 1 God and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, they are different paths." Catholic or Protestant doesn’t matter, we all know this is heresy.
@@american1911 Its not heresy. I know many Muslims, JWs, Mormons, Atheists… who are now following Christ. Win, Win for religions/people that search for God, their creator. 👍🏻
Not every statement of any Pope rises to infallibility. A Pope can give fallible opinions. Then he can be corrected, as Paul did with Peter. Only with the assent of the world's bishops can infallibility be invoked. I doubt this pope could get more than 2 bishops to agree with his opinion that all religions lead to the one true God.
Please stop being dumb.
The church was not a denomination its people
You juggle words and verses to suit your own scenario. If Peter had been instituted as a “pope” - then why at the very last - at the Lord’s supper - were they arguing about who would be the greatest? They would have known that Peter was appointed the “ greatest”? There would have been no argument.
You make lots of arguments to prove you are right about Peter being a Pope you tie yourself up in knots in the process.
The Catholic argument for so many things is very confusing - but you/ it will do anything to hold on to false doctrines.
And all these false teachings are upheld by your false popes.
Hi. By the way I take no credit for that comment above which blows your argument out f the water about Peter being made Pope! Chronologically it proves your argument invalid and the RCC’s claims for Peter too.
I read the argument of chronology in another article. To me it makes perfect sense!
Jesus literally appointed Peter and gave him primacy in Matthew and in John…….. the way Protestants cope and have so many different views on this, is amazingly stupid, it’s so clear he appointed Peter as the leader after Jesus left earth……
It is all to Jesus and for thr glory of His name.
The Scriptures do not support such a claim. Psalm 18:31 is very clear. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
It is a rhetorical question. The answer is absolutely no one!
Just as the Scriptures say there is "no other God" ,"no other Savior", and "no other Creator" we need to take all of these crystal clear statements to be true yesterday, today, and forever.
Let us not celebrate or idolize denominations but let us make our boast in the Lord.
Jesus is the only Rock. Praise God. Rejoice in Him. He is all we need.
Thanks Joe as always very informative God bless you
One pope (Peter) to rule them all! *Apologies. I couldn’t resist.* 😂 Luke’s account is a great basic explanation that I will use with my Protestant friends going forward instead of Mathew. Thank you for sharing this, Joe!
I may be an apologist, but I won't apologize for bad jokes.
@@shamelesspopery - ...and isn't Jorge doing a GREAT job of attacking Roman Catholic Tradition and indeed the RCC in general.
Time for Orthodoxy ☦☦☦
Jesus himself refuses the papacy when he told them,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. It shall not be so with you. "
Thus, The hierarchical structure and demand for papal subordination to be saved, makes Catholicism the quintessential result of what Jesus does NOT approve of.
Now kindly wake up.
@@ThornyCrown-l5d Indeed it was not so with Peter. He died a martyr for the Saviour he once betrayed, as did 30 of the next 34 popes. Of the 265 deceased popes, 83 have been recognised universally as canonised saints. Hardly "lording" it over anyone. The title used for the Pope for the last 1500 years has been "Servant of the servants of God". The facts don't bear out your bias.
@@shamelesspopery
I can prove him wrong
Nope! Even saint Paul does not recognize Peter as the rock. In the letter to Ephesians he writes: "And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." (Eph 1:22-23). "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, (Eph 2:20-21)
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain silly…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century and ONLY the 27 books, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Amen
ua-cam.com/video/BWTWymNyL3U/v-deo.htmlsi=EYmR79Y84c4mfi_M
Its always hilarious to see protestants turn into masters of decrypting ancient Codes to say Petros and Petra are supposed to have different meanings, and that peter's confession is the rock, Jesus is the rock, we all are the Rock, but Peter isnt like everyone except him. I see sola scriptura working very well dont bother that when Jesus gives simon the name of Peter, it litterraly has a extra passage saying, "peter which means rock", or sometimes Peter which means Kephas, also dont look at all the early church fathers saying the bishop of rome is the pontifacy of faith.
Clearly Jesus wanted 9900 different interpretations of his words so we all could look like fools misunderstanding his teachings, thus Sola scriptura ! 😂
Excellent content
Thanks for the vid!
Even as a lifelong protestant I've never had issue seeing Peter as being uniquely called out among the disciples. Sort of a "first among equals" if you will. That said, I'd levy the critique that this video falls short of its namesake. We are given a clear and understandable depiction of Peter's place among the 12 but the extension to (and, therefore, proof of) the Papacy is presumed.
Again, I have no concern with Peter's specific primacy. The point is that I am not sold on Apostolic Succession, at least in the sense of a direct and explicit transfer of authority, and this is a prerequisite for extending the Papacy beyond Peter. At a glance I'd resolve this to two questions: (1) What is the Biblical proof of necessity of [a Biblically defined] Apostolic Succession, and (2) Is a 'greatest apostle' necessary beyond the first generation of the church?
Maybe a bit too protestant of an opinion but, hey, know your audience. Good video all the same!
Best regards,
Grant
In my years of study, not once has it made sense that Matthew 16 is interpreted that Peter is the rock. Looking at the greek itself, to me, definitely shows this to be the case. Peter's name is the feminine form, which technically means scattered loose rocks. It seems to me that Jesus was telling Peter of how instrustramental he will be in the planting of early churches. But the other rock that Jesus uses is the masculine form, which would mean a cornerstone type of rock. So we clearly, just from the greek, have two very different rocks. Now, looking at Jesus' response to Peter's confession of faith, everything is in connection to his confession, and that's all.
Lastly, in verse 19 onwards, according to Strong and Vine, the "you" is plural, not singular. This is one of many, many examples as to why I choose not to be catholic after all my years of study.
And no, I don't hate catholics, so please don't come at me guns blazing.
For 36 years of my entire life, I lived my life based on science and facts, without faith or religion. Now at 37 after having committed much sins and knowing if I continue my life by myself without God, I know I will continue to experience more troubles ahead and destroy myself, I am halfway through RCIA and waiting to be baptized at Easter.. thank you Jesus for saving me. Please pray for me 🙏🏻
“Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see”
Welcome home
Please don't become Catholic. Trust Jesus alone to save you. Stay in a Bible believing/preaching church. Go to a good Bible study/Sunday School.
To me it is dead obvious that Peter is the rock. Any other interpretation is really forced and can only be read into it if you don't _want_ a priori that Peter is the rock.
The keys of heaven: keys are used to lock and unlock. To grant or deny access. That's what keys do. So Peter is given the authority to grant or deny access to the Kingdom of God. I don't see how you can read this otherwise.
Bind and unbind: Peter and the apostles (and their successors the clergy) get the delegated authority to forgive (or not forgive) sins on behalf of Heaven.
Petros is gramatically male. Greek for "rock" is Petra, gramatically female. But it would be weird to call a man Petra. So Jesus made it Petros. Just the word for "rock" in a male form. You need to be a theologian who doesn't _want_ Peter to be the Rock, to read anything else into that.
On top of that comes the Matthew passage and Jesus telling Peter to "lead His sheep" just before dying on the cross. So, to me the case for the Papacy is Rock-solid. Petros-solid. Of course protestants don't _like_ the Papacy, so they will tell themselves whatever it takes so that they don't have to accept it. They have ears, but refuse to hear. Of course they could also be honest and just admit that they don't like the Papacy because they have a problem with authority, but that would be asking a bit too much I guess.
Christ called him self the corner stone of the church, the confession Peter gave is approved of because Jesus is the fulfillment old covenant, that references him as such.
Protestant should have issues with the authority here it too; Luther was trying to reform the church because the church was going astray, they excommunicated him for. Only to later go back on all the reasons for excommunicating him, and partially reforming anyway. This shows that the papacy can't even get excommunications correct, and is clearly fallible.
A very good presentation. Thank you.
Jesus did give authority to Peter and the apostles. This is particularly evident in several key passages:
Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus says to Peter, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This passage is often interpreted by Catholics as Jesus giving Peter a special role and authority in the Church.
John 20:21-23: After His resurrection, Jesus appears to the apostles and says, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” This indicates that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins.
Matthew 18:18: Jesus tells all the apostles, “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This suggests that the authority to bind and loose was not exclusive to Peter but extended to all the apostles.
These passages are foundational for the Catholic understanding of apostolic authority and the role of Peter as the first Pope.
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others...."
- Pope Gregory the Great (6th century)
ok? And who claims to be the universal bishop?
The bishop of Rome is… get this, the bishop of Rome. He’s not the bishop of the whole world. Everyone must be in communion with him, but he isn’t in charge of the diocese of Minneapolis.
@@killianmiller6107 "Everyone must be in communion with him." - I think you missed the point Gregory the Great was making. You had better listen to him, though. He was pope long before the circus came to town.
@@dr.tafazzi The Catholic church has been claiming primacy over the universal church since the middle ages. Pope Gregory the Great, however, rejected the primacy of Rome, and even called it the precursor to the anti-Christ.
@@andyontheinternet5777 primacy does not mean universal bishop. And papal supremacy is taught at the ecumenical council of Ephesus.
5 verses later, Jesus calls Peter Satan. It’s on the confession not the person. The Bible says in Peter that God is building His people as living stones for Him to dwell in. We are all living stones when the spirit lights upon us and we know who Jesus is-The Messiah
So, you were also given the Keys of heavens?
@@biankapaloma She sounds like a member of a Protestant church, so yes.
Here is one for the Ortho bros. Unless they deny St. John of damascus😂.
St. John of Damascus' Homily on the Transfiguration #2; J.P. MIGNE PATRALOGIA GRAECA, 96:548 [706 AD]
"Today the supreme head of the New Covenant- the one who proclaimed Christ as Son of God [Peter] most clearly when he said. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.- sees the leader of the Old Covenant [Moses] standing next to the lawgiver of both."
Aquinas had to make the historically untenable accusation of Nestorian influence against St. John of Damascus to get around his completely obvious witness against Filioquism.
@@atomiclead8647This is actually not true. On the contrary if he must be harmonized with either EO or Catholic communion then St John Of Damascus was a filioquist. That is because his saying of ”We don’t say the Spirit proceeds from the Son” Can be validly be interpreted as meaning not proceeding from Christ as head and principle of the whole Godhead. However his statement that the Spirit is from the Father through the Word demolishes eastern ”orthodoxy” because your council at blachernae 1285 explicitly condemned this. So your council condemned John Of Damascus as a heretic 😁😂
@@atomiclead8647 you have to stop parroting scripts of EO psuedo theology. The filoque was being debated in the east, some believed it some were not sure. The modern EO apologist try to scrap the history..😂🤣
@@MuttonBiryani1994 Aquinas agrees with the Orthodox that St. John of Damascus rejected the Filioque and no ad hoc reinterpretations about “principle vs. secondary causation” will change that, or the fact that “through” and “from” are different words with different meanings.
@@TheEdzy25 There was no debate East or West. Even the proto-papal supremacist Anastasius the Librarian gave the same interpretation of “from the Son” as St. Maximus which was rejected multiple times at Florence.
Serious question. If Peter was the Rock that Jesus built His church on, would you say the Roman Catholic Church looks anything like Peter intended to look as it does today or how it was throughout the centuries?
Depends on what you mean? It is different in that over the last 2000 years, questions about doctrines have been raised, controversies, etc, where the Church needs to step in and clarify the doctrine. Every time this happens, the doctrine gets a little more complex. These kinds of controversies might be "is Jesus God", "what books are in the Bible", "do you need to get circumcised to be saved", etc. Do this for 2000 years, and we should expect what we see today.
To make an analogy, I am not identical to myself as an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenager, etc. However, I am the same person. And the Church is the same way.
@@EmberBright2077 Here’s another analogy. A family starts a restaurant and run it for 20 years to another owner. Is the new owner gonna run it exactly the way that the original owner intended? They are not. If you look back at Catholic Church history, you’ll see that many Popes were caught up in some seriously debauchery and twisted practices. I don’t think Jesus Christ or the Apostle Peter would’ve endorsed that from the founding?
this has become my favorite channel, as some one who is in the middle of catechism, I yern for some sound theolgy
And this is why I prefer using older translations like the Douay, the KJV and the RSV, as it is easier to see the difference between the plural “you” and the singular “thou”. When both plural and singular “you” is in use, it is easy for Protestants to argue that Christ was praying for THEM plural and not Simon Peter in particular. I know because that is how they argued it in college.