I always learn so much on this channel. I have only been Catholic for 6 months after 53 years of Protestantism, and it astounds me that I never saw the truth of the one true Church for so long! It is a gift from God that we have such amazing Catholic apologists on line who can also help us to be better apologists.
Logic and reason only lead to one conclusion. Reading the early Church fathers only leads to one conclusion. We can only hope and pray that people will search for the truth. Great job, Joe.
Spot on! I find it very difficult to have rational discussions with Protestants as they seem to lack reason/logic & have come to the conclusion that this is caused by the ambiguous nature & errors of their beliefs. Subtle heresy?
Joe…this video🔥 I am a Protestant who has been seeking Truth AND Unity , which led to my studying Catholicism for over a year now. This video put words to my thoughts in a way that I never could have done on my own. Thank you for bringing clarity.
Prayer. My husband is not just a Protestant. He’s very anti-Catholic. We have had a strong marriage thus far and we have 5 young children. Converting could cost me my marriage. Pray for me. My name is Maria. Thanks so much.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to read the Bible so they can join the denomination that best agrees with their own understanding.”
it is the Roman Church that changes the words and meanings of the Bible - not Reformed believers - so it is you "doing it my way" - so beware@CatholicDefender-bp7my
@CatholicDefender-bp7my Certainly see this with the church shopping that many non-Catholics routinely talk about, they search for a church that fits their beliefs rather than adjusting their beliefs and actions to conform to the entire Bible. In my humble opinion this is incredibly arrogant to have the believe that they have some personal divine revelation about the Bible and God.
Joe seriously, if you released a membership thing, I’d pay. Your books, Pope Peter, The Early Church was the Catholic Church and The Eucharist is really Jesus have helped me immensely. I was an ignorant Catholic for a long time, and would always miss Sunday Mass, now I make use of the Sacraments and can’t wait to go to Mass. Even my family is getting closer to God.
These things you now believe are all lies actually. The Eucharist is not really Jesus - the one is the most diabolical lies and will not save you but lead to damnation. Just warning you. One is saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ - faith in who scripture says He Is and in what scripture says he did on the cross - He is our substitute and died the death for sin we deserve. He took our punishment the wrath of God against sin was laid on Him - He was pierced for our transgressions - He paid our price and paid for our sins with His precious blood. He was raised on the third day and ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God and is our High Priest . He has a glorified body - and no mumbling of prayers by any priest on earth will cause Him to come down and become a piece of bread or a cup of wine. NEVER! He was offered once as a sacrifice and there’s no need for Him to be offered again EVER! Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice. He is the Final High Priest. He brought to the end the old testament livitical priesthood. There is no need for priests to be offering any sacrifices today. The Eucharist is referred to as a sacrifice. It all ended with Christ fulfilling all the roles of the Old.Testament He is the final Prophet ; final Priest. Final King. Through faith in Him as our only saviour - with no additions or subtractions as the Catholic Church does - it piles up the additions and by this robs Christ of His power to save and makes the Gospel null and void - - He saves the sinner once and for all and we are declared righteous by God - Jesus who was perfectly righteous becomes our righteousness through faith - God the father imputes Christ’s Righteousness to the believer and eternal life which cannot be lost. Please read your Bible with fresh eyes! This is the Gospel ofGod which has the power to save! Our repentance is a gift from God. Our faith is a gift from God. Our salvation is a gift from God - it is all of grace. Works are the fruit this salvation - led and accomplished by and in the power of But they come AFTER as proof of salvation. No works will save us. But this is not what theRoman Catholic Church will teach you - because the spirit behind theRoman Catholic Church is not interested in saving your soul but destroying it. The early Church had false prophets entering into it and they were chased out by the Apostles - it is to be a church with one faith and there should be unity as Jesus taught - but Satan wants to bring falsehood into the church and he has succeeded ! The church is worldwide. And regenerated believers do have unity in the spirit - we are one in Christ as He prayed for - true believers adhere to the main and vital teachings of the biblical faith delivered by the apostles. True regenerated believers were always there even when the APOSTATE Roman Catholic Church reigned supreme. TheRoman Catholic church persecuted them. But they came to the fore during the Reformation and still the Roman Church burned and killed them Right here in England and Scotland the Reformers and faithful Christians were killed. But by the power of God they were not swamped and blotted out and Reformed teaching and the Biblical truth of the gospel shone brightly again. Yes there are totally apostate Protestant churches today. God will deal with them just as he will deal with the Roman Catholic church But in the main ones the truth of the Gospel is adhered to = unity. There may be secondary matters like baptism and end time teaching where it’s ok to differ - but where the major doctrines are thrown out or twisted and those truths are sacrificed - there can be no peace or unity. The word of the Bible is final. Jesu taught that. He said donor add to it do not remove from it. But that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church has done over the centuries such it came into being around 300. You say it’s the Church Jesus founded. If you use the word CATHOLIC in it real meaning = universal ……. Yes the Church Jesus Christ founded is to be universal. But the Roman Catholic Church is a different animal all together It tried by its power to become universal. But if it was even near the Church you say Jesus founded then it would teach what Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught and handed down - but it does not! TheRoman Catholic’s formal teachings are laid down in Trent. They differ tremendously from what the Bible teaches and what the Martyrs of the Reformation and in times previously died for and believed. The Roman Catholic Church in these teachings calls for anathema to be brought down on anyone who disagrees. So do they Amathamatise Jesus and the Apostles as well?……….think very seriously about this question! Joe is quit happy to attack ad undermine the Protestant churches who do adhere to the truth of Scripture - but gets upset when we defend ourselves against his criticisms. I personally have been criticised by him and others. But you know something? I am speaking truth. I rest on the Bible and what it teaches - not verses that have been twisted out of shape and mauled by so-called church fathers and popes who were probably not regenerated at all by God and did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and were not truly saved or one with Christ - even the ones today. Lots of Reformed believers and teachers have come on this site and tried to help and reason with you - but it seems to no avail. We are concerned for your souls. Genuinely! We are not here just to cause trouble. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 K
@@mikekayanderson408"The Eucharist is not really Jesus - the one is the most diabolical lies and will not save you but lead to damnation. Just warning you" All of the early Church Fathers believed the Eucharist was Jesus. Your belief requires that they were all wrong. "You say it’s the Church Jesus founded. If you use the word CATHOLIC in it real meaning = universal ……. Yes the Church Jesus Christ founded is to be universal. But the Roman Catholic Church is a different animal all together" The official name of the Church has always been the Catholic Church. The name Roman Catholic was coined by Protestants. So, yes, it "is a different animal all together," as it is just one of 24 rites in the Catholic Church.
@@mikekayanderson408Long screeds of text are a warning sign. Denying the truth doesn’t change it so suck it up! Quite honestly, your dishonesty is very unchristian as you don’t seem to be able to make an honest statement without resorting to lies, so count me out of the discussion until such time as you can be objective & fair minded, which you are not. It’s easier to have a discussion with an honest atheist than a prejudiced & ignorant Protestant
Unity is a fantastic theme going into and during Holy Week. At least most Protestants have retained the same date for Easter to make this call to unity more resonant.
I just finished your book "Pope Peter" the other day... If I could just convince the Protestants in my life to read it, they'd probably convert alongside me. The claims of apostolic Christianity are just impossible to deny
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” The popes are not vicars of Christ. There are no popes in scriptures. The only apostles walked and ministered with Christ. The Mormons say they have apostles.
@user-wk1li2cm5o Hi, user. I understand you're confusion. I also had confusion like that while Protestant. The (word) Pope is not in Scripture ,the meaning explicitly and implicitly is in your and my Bible. The word Trinity is not in your or my Bible. Do you believe in the Doctrine of Trinity ? I care about you, prayers and peace .
@@BarbTaylor-g2kdon't butcher that verse. .or it will comes back at u as u don't follow the Authority of Christ that's within the Church..if you're a Protestant then u exalts yourself as one who interprets the bible, aren't u god? I'm just using your own logic .while the chair of thw Pope and his Authority is given by Jesus..He did NOT exalts himself or us Catholics did not exalts the chair of Peter own our own...It was Jesus who made it..Jesus Anoited Peter as a leader or key bearer to watch over the Church...and since Jesus did not come back yet,Peter pass that Authority to his disiples or All the Anoited elders choose someone to sit on that Chair.. Then if The Pope is not exalts by himself or by the flocks but by Jesus,what do u call him?
People most certainly deny it. Many also deny the whole not even the gates of hell shall overcome my church verses but that’s because you mix not accepting the church the chair of St. Peter. Free will is conceptual for calvinists so the idea that people could choose to do mortal sins despite being saved and walk away from salvation is such a modern idea because the book of Hebrews was all about Jews turning back to the old covenant. Part of Romans has people trying to turn back to the old covenant
@@BarbTaylor-g2kMormons think they figured it out 1800 years after Jesus Christ and that the Christians who were being martyred for proclaiming Christ and his teachings were wrong despite 2000 years of continuation since those times is less accurate despite preserving writings since the first century until now. The four kingdom cults are certainly bold but study the early church fathers, church history, and the douay rheims Bible the authorized kjv and the Aramaic translation Bible. Spend time reading Matthew 16:16-19, John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 13, and and check out more of this UA-cam bro
When Protestants are confronted by this verse, about us being one, they will often say, “well, Jesus just meant one in spirit. You know, like how the Christian church is just one, invisible body.” Nope, Jesus meant for there to be visible, physical, universal Churches where we engage with the Sacraments.
In the famous Gospel account, when Jesus tells us to first, privately confront someone, then bring witnesses, then “take it to the church”… This automatically proves that the current state of affairs in Christianity is counter to what our Lord commanded and designed. Because now, when a Christian is in grace sin, they can just move to the next congregation. No conversion necessary. Christian unity creates accountability, and we all need that.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM- so true, my parents are still Southern Baptists, and whenever someone in the church makes them mad, or they don’t like the Pastor, they just move their membership to another church. Then the cycle starts all over again. They typically switch churches every 5-8 years.
St Francis de Sales really hones in on and hammers the Protestant notion of trying to start your own "church" without being sent by those with authority and apostolic succession.
@@yeetmaestro575 _The Catholic Controversy_ Haven't actually read it yet, but I have heard from others about it, and it's waiting on my shelf as next in line to read.
Studying the gospel of John, and particularly John 17 where Jesus teaches on unity, is one of the main reasons why our family (my husband, four children, and myself) have left Protestantism and are coming into the Church this Easter Vigil. Once the Holy Spirit opened our eyes to this issue of unity we couldn't in good faith remain separated from the Church Jesus founded. My husband was an elder at our previous church. It's true, each head pastor just gets to decide the doctrine, and over the years that doctrine changes based on the whims of a fallible man. Joe, thank you for your videos! They have been, and I'm sure will continue to be, so helpful for us!
Excellent content as always. I have been a Baptist for more than 40 years and became a Catholic on October 9, 2023. The Church Fathers are to blame. As Saint Augustine said, a God who is one must be worshiped by a united Church. Contrary to what Protestants think, the place where we worship God and those with whom we do so are not indifferent or irrelevant.
Ephesians 4 should be enough to prove to anyone that they should be one with the Church! Satan is truly at work, when you see the Bible speaking so clearly...yet... Honest Christians still have difficulty understanding what they are reading! May God bless them, and give them the grace to see through the smoke! 🙏
I think perhaps the most explicit demonstration that the independent local congregation idea is not the unity Jesus taught can be seen by the non-recognition of ordaination between such churches. Acts 20:28 says that the “overseers” have been appointed over the whole church, not just their local congregations. Hebrews 13:17 commands the faithful to submit to their leaders. . If another church does not recognize the authority of clergy from a different congregation to preach, administer sacraments, discipline, and ordain other clergy…it’s obvious that these are not the same church.
It was our Bishop when I was Methodist who emphatically told us we needed to stay “united” - no matter what (he didn’t say at the expense of Truth, but that was the context of where he was saying this) that started to help me realize I couldn’t be Methodist. And then I asked our Youth Group - what do we do when we can’t agree - and I realized THAT is why Catholics have a Pope. Later I would realize that Jesus knew EXACTLY what he was doing when He instituted the Church and the office of the Bishop of Bishops. Praise God for giving us His Church which ALL Christians are in debt to for having a Bible to read at all.
Well done again Shameless Propery. Yes. The reason I returned to Catholicism is because the Bible and history clearly show that Catholicism has the Holy Spirit correcting errors to keep the unity Jesus taught us to keep and lead the Church to all truth.
Very timely for me. I was feeling so discouraged by bickering christians. But to see that Jesus anticipated this it seems like he spoke to me directly. Thank you for this.
In a sense, Gavin Ortlund's channel title has it just the opposite. "Truth" doesn't unite. Unity in the Church gives and ensures the Truth. The Truth is not something we are all supposed to figure out and somehow come to the same conclusion on. Truth is what is given and handed down from Jesus and the apostles in the Church. Totally different epistemologies. The Berean epistemology was not intended to be the norm in apostolic times and was not the norm during the early Church.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
@@duelistofages1493 Go back and read the full context of Acts 17, and it becomes very clear why they were more noble THAN THOSE IN THESSALONICA, namely because they didn't attack Christians and try to get the Romans to punish/execute them, as did the Jews of Thessalonica: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to *Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.* And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures.... But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, *set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason,* seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they *dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities,* crying, "These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus." And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go. The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were *more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness* ...." Protestants have been taking the Bereans out of context for a long time.
@duelistofages1493 Because they accepted the 2 authorities involved i.e. Paul and the Old Testament. Not just Scripture alone. The Thessalonians rejected Paul and went with Scripture alone.
As always... great video. There is an up and coming popular Protestant UA-camr (who will remain nameless), who made a video in where he was basically telling people the total opposite of what you're conveying. That dis-unity is OK. Church shopping is OK. As long as they have the Gospel AND as long as it's not the Catholic church. He sounded like a used church salesman... Oh, you want Catholic style high church liturgy?! Well, don't go to the Catholic church for that. We have a variety of Protestant high churches to choose from! They have vestments, candles, images, incense, the eucharist (sort of), bells, whistles, the whole 9!
The lack of unity in Protestantism was one of many reasons I started looking into Catholicism. After this series, you should do a series debunking Protestant end-times myths like the Rapture
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible - Popes are not vicars of Christ. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV Bible - The body of Christ, the church. Not a myth. “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
@@BarbTaylor-g2kThe pope doesn't exalt himself, Jesus exalts him. When Jesus gave Peter the keys, it was Jesus making Peter His representative. The Jews had the same thing with the chair of Moses. Jesus even told the people that even though He thought the religious authorities were hypocrites, that they MUST listen to them for they had the seat of Moses. Jesus transferred that seat to Peter when giving him the keys. He finalized it when Jesus told Peter 3 times to feed and take care of His sheep. 1 Thes 4 is about the 2nd Coming. It has nothing to do with a rapture before the 2nd Coming. No Scripture talks about a pre-2nd Coming Rapture.
@tabandken8562 exactly. The Pope is the prime minister. I'm not Catholic but I have accepted Catholic doctrine. I never really believed in the rapture because I just wasn't seeing it and it didn't make sense. I found catholicism had answers.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
@@BarbTaylor-g2k Do you believe that a vicar or regent is above the king? If that is your understanding of the papacy, then it is no wonder you reject it. If the Pope did indeed supplant God, he ought to be rejected, for a man supplanting God is blasphemy of the highest order. We do not hold this, nor does the Pope do this.
Excellent video, Joe! You hit on something that I have been challenging Protestants with for a couple of years - Where do you find in sacred scripture, or apostolic tradition anywhere that when you don’t agree with the Church, you split off an go make your own church. Where is that dogma addressed? We see no example anywhere of where God has directed individuals to form their own denomination. As Joe points out, they are in fact disobeying God by not being unified with His Church.
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Thank you for putting this in to such a coherent presentation. Jesus' prayer for Unity for His church is what set me on my journey home, but i have never been able able to articulate it this well, even after being received into the Church. You are a blessing.
It's no mistake secular atheism took off as soon as protestantism took truth under the wing of self-referential sola scriptura. Now we can't even agree on what a man or woman is. Something about individual rationality seems terribly fractured and so not suitable as an exclusive source for truth.
I would say that an individual person’s rational mind is woefully insufficient for grasping all of reality. And when people in the western world broadly insist that this can be done because all of them have different perspectives you in effect get the creation of many different realities.
Dear@@razoredge6130, yes, the Church which Jesus founded is filled with sinners. And sure, you can always point to Catholics, who are sinning against "*Catholicism* when something bad happens." But Catholicism as herself, has never erred, has never lost sight of her Bridegroom. She is always calling her children to "repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!" Please do not deny yourself the joy of knowing Jesus as He offers Himself as the One offering of Bread and Wine in His continuing One Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, uniting us to the Cross at Calvary.
For some reason this video brought to mind our tour of the Vatican and how our Italian tour guide described the shape of St. Peter’s square as a big hug. Our priest had told us it was the shape of a keyhole because Jesus gave the keys to Peter. And I think both can be true. The papacy, the authority of the Church, the doctrinal unity are given to us out of love, and thus, can feel like a hug, a loving embrace. Leave it to the Italians to remind us that it’s all about love!
@@mikekayanderson408 The obelisk? That's actually one of the coolest things in Rome. It was already there since before Christianity. It wasn't built by Christians. The story is that the Romans, after conquering Egypt, brought that obelisk to Rome as a show that Roman gods are stronger than Egyptian gods. After Christians took over the pagans, Christians went to that obelisk and stuck a cross right on the top. The message being that Christ is greater than any of these demons. And it stayed there ever since, symbolizing Christ's Triumph.
Iam committed catholic for 60 years, never experienced my catholic faith in deep way in the way you are explaining .Great Joe.God bless you aboundently. P.N.G
I think it's interesting that one would want to go to a church without teaching authority. We're talking about life and death, heaven and hell. I want to know that not only is my priest teaching based on an infallible standard, but also that if he strays from that, I have somewhere to fact check. You couldn't even have a radio show called "Protestant Answers Live" because every apologist would have different view points. And when they try to defend Protestantism, they would really just have to attack Catholicism, since there is no one thing that Protestantism teaches. And you can't just defend the Bible itself because of all the different ways people interpret it.
This is one of the greatest, most compelling, most tightly and well reasoned presentations I have seen, read, or heard in defense of the irrefutable fact that Christ, to uphold the truth and to instill unity in that truth did, as he had to, establish one, and only one church. He never ordained or authorized a multiplicity of my-own-DYI, "I'm Ok, you're Ok" churches. It all comes down to humility and obedience. I applaud American free spirit and enterprise, but they have no place in this realm and in regard to anyone purporting to start his own church and putting it in opposition to what Christ ordained and into which alone he deposited Truth. Joe, keep up your wonderful work!
My father in law who was a Protestant would always talk about what we agreed with as far as faith but would refuse to talk about the differences between Catholic beliefs and Protestant beliefs mainly Anglican and Methodist beliefs. He liked to stick with the common ground.
Thank you for your videos Joe. I have been thoroughly enjoying all of your videos since discovering Catholic Answers last fall. As a current protestant, you and the other apologists have really taught me a lot and opened my eyes to Catholicism. I am finding many of the difficulties with I have had through my Christian life get answered through your work in Catholic apologetics. I have a ways to go but I think I am on my way. Let me know how I can support!
Genesis 49: 24 calls Joseph the "Rock of Israel" but when translated to Greek in LXX it is translated as "Israel prevails" and both "Rock" and "Prevail" show up in Matt 16: 18 when talking about Peter and "Israel" is the Church. Joseph is honored by all his brothers, most of which are older and he is 1 of 12.
Beautifully said. Matthew 16:18 is also alluded in Jeremiah 1:18-19, And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests, and the people of the land. They will fight against you; but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, says the LORD, to deliver you." And we know in Genesis that Judah carries the scepter.
Interesting…but I would submit that this did not translate into an absolute leadership office over Israel that is made up of Joseph’s “successors” like the papacy. In fact, Israel’s leadership came from other of the 12 tribes. For example, the priesthood through Levi and David through Judah.
@@justinallen6695 I do not think this has to do with successors. This has to do with Jesus choosing scripture they knew, whether the apostles knew the Hebrew or the Greek, that Peter was above the rest just like how Joseph was above the rest. The Keys that He gave to Peter is what matters for successors. He gave keys to Peter separately from the rest and this shows a distinction in the keys. Keys are meant to be handed down to the next successor.
@NJWEBER18 No, no. Read again. Genesis 49, 24 cslls THE LORD "Rock of Israel", not Joseph. "his strong arms stayed[l] limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,"
@Maranatha99 I was looking at the Hebrew and Greek, not a specific English translation. The meaning you are pointing out was added in English. In Hebrew and Greek it does not make it clear who the "Rock" is applied to. It could either be translated as the Rock being God OR the Rock coming from God; and if the Rock came from God it could either be Joseph OR referring to Jesus OR Peter since his Rock name came from Jesus/God OR it could mean all 4 since the Bible is full of verses that have many true interpretations.
Haven’t watched it yet but I’m feeling like it’ll be another banger 🔥🔥🔥. Hey Joe, are you going to ever make a video on Mary’s sinlessness ? Edit: the video was indeed a banger
An important topic insufficiently covered by Catholic apologists (other than Bryan Cross et. al. at Called to Communion) is the Epistemic Principle Argument. The gist is: 1. An Epistemic Principle is the method by which a given denomination, sect, church, communion, or para-ecclesial organization claims that Christians are intended by Christ to come to correctly know (and to know _that_ they correctly know) the required content of the Christian religion, and to distinguish that content from other topics about which Christians are free to disagree without justifying schism between them. 2. Catholics have an Epistemic Principle, and it makes it possible. _in principle,_ for any random Everyman who _wishes_ to know "the required content of the Christian religion according to Catholicism" to know it, and know that they know it correctly. There are, on occasion, _practical difficulties_ which make it more difficult and confusing than it ought to be. This happens when some subgroup in the Catholic Church misstates or neglects the Epistemic Principle while touting their own favorite shibboleths (or railing against their favorite bugbears). But even then, it remains possible (for any random Everyman) to identify that, for example, Catholics _must_ affirm the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, and must _deny_ the moral equivalence of conjugal relations in a valid heterosexual marriage with acts of mutual masturbation between persons with same-sex attraction. The Catholic Epistemology of Faith functions because it is constituted in such a way that it (a.) has visible offices of authority, whose holders are (b.) objectively identifiable apart from doctrinal opinions, whose authority extends to (c.) resolving doctrinal disputes among Christians, which disputes may be (d.) finally and definitively settled, forming a system which (e.) plausibly derives from a Scripturally-recorded act-of-institution by Jesus, and which (f.) can be shown to be held by _at least some_ Christians in every century of Christian history between the Ascension and the present-day. 3. No other Christian group currently extant has an Epistemic Principle which can, _even in principle,_ make the same claims. Consequently, no other Christian group can identify what is and isn't its currently-held dogmas, save by taking a survey of self-identified members or using some other arbitrary, ad-hoc basis to identify its version of the "required content of the Christian religion." 4. Therefore, either Catholicism's Epistemic Principle really _was_ established by Christ for His Church (and therefore, Catholicism is true), OR, the required content of the Christian religion is irretrievably lost in the mists of time, not knowable to any modern observer. (And although a modern exegete can reconstruct a proposal for what Christianity _might have been,_ any given reconstruction is made dubious by the mere existence of other alternative reconstructions created by equally well-intentioned and scholarly persons.) 5. But, if Christianity's required contents are no longer objectively retrievable for the willing follower, then Christ failed of His promises, and if He failed of His promises, then He is not God. 6. But He rose from the dead, and He is God. Therefore, He did not fail of His promises. 7. Therefore, the required content of the Christian religion is, at least in principle, retrievable and knowable in the modern world using an Epistemic Principle which forms part of that content, and naturally produces the rest of that content when used. 8. But only Catholicism offers such an Epistemic Principle. 9. Therefore, Catholicism is true.
In all seriousness, I don't see how someone who is a protestant can watch this with honesty of heart and don't drop their protestantism and keep their Christianism... It's one of the many protestant dilemmas: Either Jesus wanted His followers to be One as He and the Father are One, or He's the worst communicator in History (even worst than Allâh).
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
You should write a book about the history of the early Church, first 400 years. The title would be this perfect catchphrase in common use back then: "Rome Has Spoken."
I think he did. It’s called the Early Church is the Catholic Church. Great book and he shows this taking only the first 200 years before any Protestant claims of the corruption of the church.
@@PatrickSteil If that's the case he should be aware of laymen electing bishops, including of Rome, meaning his case against Pope Michael I is not just wrong but also less than perfectly candid, perhaps even dishonest.
@@PatrickSteil His view on the election in Kansas in 1990 involves it being invalid because all the participants were non-cardinals. The fact is, "By decree of a synod of 769, only a cardinal was eligible to become Bishop of Rome." -- and papal elections being between cardinals only is even later, seems to be 1059 or sth, i e, the law he is referring to was not applied in the early Church, and can therefore be set aside in a case of dire necessity, as David Bawden, when calling the election, judged the situation in the Church. As he has studied the early Church, he should be aware of this.
Brilliant again. At various times I thought inserting the word “complete” before truth and unity would have been helpful. My dream is for my non-Catholic brothers and sisters to come to completion (ie the sacraments, especially the Eucharist) because the Catholic Church would benefit from their zeal and joy, and they do bring souls on a journey towards God, so why stop that?
As punishment for their rebellion God in His wisdom scattered them into thousands of shards, as he did at Babel. "This is the Lord's doing: and it is wonderful in our eyes." Ps 118:23
This is the best defense of infallibility that I’ve heard so far. However, it’s interesting that you skipped over the Council of Jerusalem, when that is an explicit example provided in the NT of how the apostles themselves, including St. Peter, clarified the teachings. It was not just St. Peter who made the command decision. So while unity & truth are certainly equally important, and you’ve made a great argument for the flaws of solo scriptura, what is the justification for papal supremacy of the Catholic Church?
I've covered the Council of Jerusalem before, and was purposely not jumping into popes and councils in this video (as I say at the end, my goal was to show that Infallibility is logically necessary, not to outline its contours). But we see both Peter and the Council of Jerusalem act on the question of the incorporation of uncircumcised Gentiles: Peter in Acts 10 (with divine sanction), which he defends in Acts 11; and then the Council in Acts 15. Infallibility continues to work this way - both the pope is particular circumstances, and Ecumenical Councils. Properly understood, the one doesn't take away from the other.
Sister, supremacy means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). It has nothing to do with playing solely, autocracy or tyranny. Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some Eastern Orthodox usually conflates ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome. I post this just to help people who are discerning these things so that they are not wronged by satires.
Our Savior and Redeemer said He would build His Church like we learned from the Gospels: _”And I tell you, you are _*_PETER (rock), and on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH,_*_ and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18-19). Of course later Jesus Christ gave all the Apostles together the power of binding and loosing too (Matthew 18, 18), which reflects the complement for collegiality as far as ecclesial teaching authority goes, so it must all be in compass with the perfect law-giver’s wisdom. It does not signify therefore an annulment of the Petrine authority, due to two theological facts: 1) it was given to Peter with specificity, anteriority and prominence, singularly addressing to him - even by name (and function: name changing) - directly and individually among the Apostles; 2) only to Peter Our Lord gave individually the “keys of the Kingdom” and no other Apostle or disciple were commanded to receive them from Jesus. Thus it explains the convergence in the Church teaching/magisterial authority both of the 1) Petrine teaching authority, in the power of the Keys (= Papal authority: Mt 16, 18-19) and the 2) gathered Apostolic collegiate teaching authority with Peter (not apart from Peter) (=Ecumenical Councils’ authority: Mt 18, 18). Peter’s succession was defined by death in Rome, therefore the Bishop of Rome is the only who could say he is the successor of Peter in the fullest sense of the expression. Peter and his brother apostles had a joint role, but he is the only one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of those in schism). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate, so this superiority of governance was not to be considered in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation, from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). That’s more or less what the Roman (Petrine) privilege means. I hope I helped you with something. God bless!
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “one does not find any words of Christ indicating how the apostolic mandate was to be handed on.” It also confessed that “papal primacy was NOT clearly understood or explicitly professed in the Western [Latin] Church until the fifth century C.E.” None of this happened in the first century Christian congregation!
Mr. Heschmeyer's list of nonnegotiable things implies that Vatican II's ecumenism prevents unity. Events like Pope John Paul II's Assisi meetings suggest that everyone has a God-given right to practice any religion he chooses. During those meetings, that Holy Father never urged the non-Catholic participants to be Catholic. Instead, he even let pagans adore their idols at those meetings, including the "Great Thumb." Maybe you remember JPII's utopian "civilization of love." Anyone could join it to make the world a better place? Pope Francis watched when Amazonians worshipped Pachamama, Mother Earth, in 2019. After Alexander, the Austrian young man, thew the Pachamama idols into the Tiber River, that Holy Father apologized to the Amazonians. But he did nothing to repair for the sacrilege. Some Catholic even excused the Pachamama event by saying that the Amazonian statues of Mother Earth represented the Blessed Virgin Mary. Our current Pope doesn't even want Catholics. to evangelize non-Catholics. Here's what Pope Pius XI thinks: "10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]" www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html Pope Benedict XVI told us about the "hermeneutic of continuity" because many Catholics doubted that Vatican II's novelties were logically inconsistent with what the Catholic Church has always taught. On the other hand, Cardinal Kasper revealed the inconsistency, the rupture when he said, "Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-1225-kasper.htm Vatican II tells us that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. So it suggests that the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church. But Pope Pius XII writes: "27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith." There are some ways for a non-Catholic to be in the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. For example, a Protestant is in it when he wants at least implicitly to be a Catholic. Still. Pope Pius XII reminds us that, "27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith." "www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html Christ's Mystical Body is the Catholic Church. So Catholics are its only members. If a non-Catholic reaches heaven, he does that despite the religion he practices, not because of it.
I'm glad you asked! Catholic Answers is listed in the Official Catholic Directory and is recognized as an apostolate in good standing by the Diocese of San Diego. We also have (or are in the process of creating, not entirely sure) an episcopal advisory board. So we definitely strive to exercise our ministry from the bosom of the Church and with the approval (and "sending") -- and oversight -- of the appropriate Church authorities.
What I want to know is that is there any thing in the scriptures claiming with irrefutable proof of truth that there will be a reformation of the church that Jesus Christ started upon his Apostles and their successor’s that Jesus told his Apostles that know that I’AM WITH YOU EVEN TILL THE CONSUMMATION OF TIME.If there’s any where in the scriptures that proves of a reformation I’d truly like to see that scriptural passage?
@@mikekayanderson408 Actually ... 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - "For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths." Looks more Protestant to me.
First of all, the Bible clearly says at Hebrews 7:24: “But because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has NO SUCCESSORS.” That means once Jesus was raised to heavenly life, no imperfect human will ever be his successor because he has Immortal Life! Only he is the Head of the True Christian Congregation today (Ephesians 5:23) and the only Leader we need. (Matthew 23:10) The Bible explains at Isaiah 2:2-4 that “in the final part of the days” all nations will streams to the true God to worship. The final part of the days is now; we are living in the very last days of this dying world. And Jesus Christ said the only way to identify his true followers in these last days is there self-sacrificing love for one another. (John 13:35) They will die for one another if they had to. And Jesus said the global preaching work must take place before the end comes. He promise “I am with you until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 28:19,20) Only ONE religion on earth practices true worship exactly like the early Christians. They do as the Bible says and preach “publicly and from House-to House.” (Acts 20:20) Jesus even gave the answer as to what their name is and it’s not Catholic. He said: “You will be WITNESSES of me to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) What religion today is called by that name?
Since the Masoretic Old Testament which the Roman Catholics and Protestants follow, and the Greek Septuagint Old Testament which the Orthodox follow, which is infallible ( or neither) since there are many significant differences and contradictions between the two text type families ?
Agree on the essentials with disagreement on the details less important. Unfortunately, Protestantism, with its many “truths” has resulted in the dictatorship of relativism which we see all around us.
Your John 17 take is a Mormon position on the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. You really should lean on the "as" to show this is a simile more than a model.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Schismatics can be cutting themselves off from the One Church in so many ways! Look how many Orthodox churches there are! Look how many Protestant denominations there are! And "nones", who may be "Christian" in some way? How do you *unite* a bunch of schismatics into one denomination or another? Can a person be a whole denomination of one person?
The works of the flesh don't make me think about sexual immorality... it makes me think about "literal works", rather than "figurative works" (ask James White and other false teachers why)
Let me drink of the water of life that you have carried to me from a cup. Catholicism. Let me drink of the water of life that you have carried to me from a siev. Protestantism. Let me drink from this sewer. Everyone else.
when you examine truthfully the lives, behavior, acts and doctrines of the roman catholic popes, the word "infallible" doesn't register. not to mention that a pope, or a papal dynasty is not supported by scripture. "all be one" means what, joe? does it mean keeping heresy and refuting the bible?
I am a Protestant and I trust that Jesus will purify the Church completely and present Her without spot or wrinkle. He, who is the Truth, will accomplish this.
Yes He will. Amen! Trust Jesus also that He said He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. This Church is 2000 years old.
@@cheryl0327Absolutely @GospelEd so a Christian, 1Tim3:15, “may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
I don’t understand why Protestantism can’t see the errors of sola Scriptura which 2 Peter 1 20-21 refutes, as the Bible can’t interpret itself & sola fide is refuted by James 20 20-24 & Protestantism is heresy Rom 16 17-18 No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
I watch a lot of your work because it gives me insight into the catholic view but I do notice you frequently twist words and present them as fact to support your ideas which is a bit off-putting. But I still watch because as I said I don't watch you for truth, I watch you to understand the way catholics think. But I am not sure what version of the bible you use but when you referred to Acts 15:24 you made it sound like they were claiming they gave those who were preaching circumcision no right preach, but that's not what it said. It said "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to which we gave no such commandment". They didn't say no one can preach without our consent, they said we never preached such a commandment. I know you guys believe you have superior interpretation skills and that no one else is capable so I am probably wasting my breath but this is not the first time I've seen you twist words in this way to support your beliefs. God bless you all, and may we all find truth.
This video makes me more confident that Christianity is false. If infallibility is necessary, then all the churches are wrong, and if all the churches are wrong, then Christianity is false. Take Catholicism, for instance. It came straight from the mouth of Jesus that you cant divorce EXCEPT in the case of unfaithfulness, but the Catholic church teaches that you can't divorce at all. Catholics also use that verse about "I give you the keys..." to justify the special authority of the Pope. However, the "you" in that sentence is plural in the original Greek, so it could not have been referring exclusively to Peter. If Catholics can't get even plain language from the mouth of Jesus right, then why should I believe them about anything else? If a human got a lot of things right, but made some mistakes, I would forgive him. But if somebody claims to be infallible (like the Catholic church), and they are wrong 1% of the time, then they are 100% wrong about being infallible.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. Jesus as the head of His Church appointed Peter was His earthly representative with an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Francis The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21. Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
@@geoffjs I did not argue in favor of protestantism in my post, so asking me to justify it does not make a lot of sense. My view is that many claims made by the Catholic church are false, but few protestants on the other hand are both coherent and consistent.
@@brendangolledge8312I was defending the CC without specifically addressing your comment about infallibility. At no time has the CC issued erroneous official teaching as opposed to certain popes making erroneous personal statements. Infallibility is evidence of His One True Church which no other denomination shares, surely proof of its divine origin, to say nothing of its 2000 yrs of existence, in spite of sinful men. How do we know that the CC is the True Church? Consider Her four marks, One (Unity), Holy (Sacred), Catholic (Universal) & Apostolic (Succession)
Pope's can be infallibly wrong. He forgets that the serpent tempted Eve to know all thing's. Jesus praying for his father who chooses those to follow him. Predestination again
If Peter was appointed over all the church to guide it and do as he does, why and how did Paul rebuke Peter for refusing to eat among gentiles? If Peter had such authority and perfect spiritual guidance from Jesus himself, then Paul should have submitted to Peter and not rebuked him and accused him of misapplying grace and faith. How can Catholicism claim there was an apostolic authoritative appointment of Peter in the early church when even Paul himself did not submit to the council of Peter (the pope), rather he interpreted grace and faith of the gospel as he saw fit with scripture and applied it thusly
First, how does Paul calling out Peter’s hypocrisy take away from anything? You’re saying humans cant be dumb. Peter said one thing and then did another. Paul calls him on it. Second Paul has to go in front of the council in Jerusalem and share his story. There the apostles listen and judge whether he has be sent by Jesus or not. Weirdly, James rejects Paul but Peter says that he is telling the truth. And then they allow Paul to become an apostle.
The Pope is a bishop, the first among equals, and other bishops must rebuke him if they believe he is leading the flock astray. This was true then and remains so to this day. So, Paul rebuking Peter demonstrates their relationship as bishops of Christ's Church, and many scholars believe it points to Peter's authority.
I have some questions: 1. Why does Jesus's prayer for unity make it imperative for Chrisitans to be united? 2. Is it right for you to contrast Catholicism with Protestantism when as you say, Protestantism comes in many forms? Is that not comparing apples and oranges? 3. You said if you ask 5 protestants about the main point of Christianity, they may disagree. Would 5 catholics definitely 100% agree on that issue? If not 100%, how much agreement is necessary to be considered true unity? 4. If the unity of the church is determined by Jesus and the Holy Spirit and not mere human effort, why call on mere humans to make efforts towards unity? 5. Does the inability of sola scriptura to answer the question of unity make it untrue? 6. There have historically been divisions in the Catholic Church with groups going in opposite directions. Why is this not an issue?
1) If Our Lord's prayer and desire for unity is not imperative, what is your standard for following Christ? Why is the desire of Christ not sufficient for you? 2) Protestantism indeed comes in "many forms." That is an essential part of Joe's discussion. To the extent that there is one true Church and many pretenders, it is indeed "apples and oranges." Sadly, I think your Protestant biases made you miss an essential part of the discussion. 3) Human beings will almost always disagree. The reasons are myriad, but disagreement does not disprove the truth. Whether 5 protestants or 5 Catholics, their answers are simply their opinion, not the teaching of the One, True Church. 4) Our Lord calls on "mere humans" to do many things, most especially to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, to forgive others, to pick up our crosses and follow him. Is the validity of His teaching determined by mere human effort? If so, why call on "mere humans" to follow or implement his teachings? 5) Yes, the inability of "sola scriptura" to address Christian unity disproves it. Sadly, this abject failure is just one of many reasons why the false doctrine of "sola scriptura" is untrue. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church existed before 'the Bible.' In fact, it is that very same single, unified, and apostolic Church that determined and confirmed the contents of 'the Bible." Lastly, you cannot point to a single word of Our Lord saying that he will establish his Church on a book. 6) Yes, just as some men and women sin and elevate their desires above God's law, some men and women elevate their preferences above the authority of God's designated representatives--the Apostles and their successors, especially the successors of St. Peter. From the very beginning, those who do so--by their very own actions--exclude themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That is why it is not an issue. Like the young man in the Gospel of St. Mark, they have declined to do what is necessary to follow our Lord and, in doing so, have separated themselves from Christ: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16).
Only heretical Protestantism would seek to rationalise Jesus’ call for unity as it is a scandal to the non Christian world. Some facts about Catholicism which are biblically supported: - Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 - giving it hierarchy & an authoritative leader - He appointed Peter as His representative on earth - Peter was the first leader/Pope - a verifiable unbroken line of apostolic succession exists from Peter to today - referred to as the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 - Jesus instituted 7 sacraments for the transmission of His Grace - Jesus instructed us to be baptised Jn 3:5 & to receive His Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58, saying that both sacraments are essential for salvation - Jesus prayed for unity Jn 17 11-21 - the Catholic Church, as an institution has existed, in spite of sinful men for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. No other institution can make such a claim. Other faiths have lasted longer, however, I’m referring to the institution. - Oral Sacred Tradition existed from the time of Christ & teaching was initially handed down orally - the Church first became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107 AD - the CC codified the Bible in 382 AD which complements Sacred Tradition under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium providing a stable three legged stool - the CC today still practises & teaches what the Early Church practised as documented by the Early Fathers - she is is the One, True, Catholic & Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Finally, the CC made a major contribution to the development of Western Civilisation as we know with - schools & universities - medicine & hospitals - science & astronomy - law system from Canon Law - economics - double sided accounting - social services - human rights - architecture - arts & music etc which in todays world, is politically incorrect to acknowledge, all covered in an excellent book by Thomas Wood Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
The narrative that because some denominations are incorrect in their doctrine therefore Catholicism is true is poor logic. The Acts 2:42-46 where it mentions that they were of one accord (the same mind), also says that they followed the apostles doctrine (not Peter’s). The infallibility comes not from Peter but from the Holy Spirit which inspires the New Testament to be written and the interpretation of the Old. The scriptures divinely inspired are the authority for the church. There is one true church and it is those that worship in spirit and in truth. John 6:63 the flesh profiteth nothing , the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life. Romans 8:1-13
First and foremost the Holy Spirit inspires the Apostles to humility and unity. And Peter is obviously their leader, appointed by Jesus himself as the ultimate authority. There's one doctrine, because there's one Church led by one Peter. It's Apostolic because they received it directly from Jesus, not from Peter. But it's Peter who is responsible for the government of the Church and guarding the doctrine. Only He received the Keys of the Kingdom, and Jesus prayed for Him specifically to infallibly guard the Church. The writings are not the authority by themselves, rather they record the teaching of the Church which had the authority. Later it was the Church that selected and approved those books amongst multiple popular Christian writings. The Church was inspired to select the right ones, just as it's inspired to give authoritative interpretation, define dogmas and to govern the Church throughout the ages. If the Bible is your only authority, then you fall into circular reasoning. If you trust God, you should trust Him to preserve the Church, just as He did for the first 1500 years. If he abandoned it, there's no reason to believe in any inspiration of the scripture. Neither you nor any Protestant would have this book without the Catholic Church. Do you trust that it preserved the book without alterations? If so, why wouldn't you trust that it also preserved and developed the right structures, doctrines and practices? Be consistent. If the Church is false, there's no reason to believe that the Bible is true.
Infallibility resides in the Church through the Successor of Peter and bishops gathered in Ecumenical Councils in communion with him, when issuing to teach the universal church and other specific circumstances. Or you can buy a cheaper seat to watch Pastor Bob preach in a garage with his interpretation of the Bible that fell from the sky, saying you - and everybody - should stick with this guy’ interpretation: _“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught, or whoever condemns me therein, he condemns God and must remain a child of hell”_ (LUTHER, Martin. German answer of Martin Luther to the Book of King Henry of England, 1522 Deutsche Antwort Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch). In: Dr. Martin Luther's Sämtliche Werke, Polemische Deutsche Schriften, Johann Konrad Irmischer, Erlangen, 1833, vol. 28, p. 347).
Dear@@hglundahl, you are kidding, right? Pope Francis is accepted as pope not only by his followers, but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on. Who is Michael II?
The Catholic Church is not an institution. It is just that invisible Church that includes whoever believes the gospel! Roman Catholics are more divided than Protestants! You don’t need an infallible magisterium to know what the Bible says! An infallibile magisterium doesn’t solve the problem of Bible interpretation because you still need to interpret what the magisterium says! If the pope is infallible, what about the blessing of same sex couples? Sorry, just trying to anticipate old tiring Protestant objections.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
every one of these christians claim their version is the only right one and that what they claim is infallible, aka the one and only truth, unable to make mistakes, etc. And not one can show this to be true. The bible, the various versions, etc are not infallible. They must all make baseless claims about this.
All other denominations can make the claim but only the Catholic Church can trace its roots to Jesus giving Peter the keys. It's also the Church that gave us the bible.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible - The popes are not the vicars of Christ. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
What does the quote have to do with Popes not being Vicar of Christ? The Popes and other Vicars of Christ (i.e. Bishops) do not exalt themselves above God. No Catholic is permitted to worship anyone other than God. Catholics do not have a physical built temple, our bodies are the Temples of God and no Pope is sitting inside Catholics. And they are not showing themselves as God. The word 'vicar' means representative and one would never exalt yourself above the person you are representing.
We will see who is really anathema in the end! Paul says anyone who teaches a false Gospel is anathema . Rome teaches a false Gospel!,, as you said above Rome has no apostolic authority at all. They are apostate though and through. K@@coup-de-grace
Frances is a bad example. Many traditional Catholics believe he is not the pope. God will choose the pope that follows in the footsteps of St. Peter. Such a schism took place in the 1500s, yet God did and will put His church on the right path. The Catholic church was founded by Jesus. The Bible is not to be intercepted as "agree to disagree." I am a convert and had no idea how much peace there is in following the church established by Jesus.
You bring up such great points. But you are no better than protestants. You changed the Sabbath because of Roman persecution and never changed it back. You both also say crucifixion was on Thursday. Yet the high priest(s) and the women performed actions between passover (high day) and the Sabbath? The passover lamb was slain before passover and rose on the Sabbath (Lord of the Sabbath). Research and read you will see religion is corrupted. Messiah is the church not man. Seek the light brothers and sisters in Christ. 🙏
Gerald, 1. we didn't change the Sabbath because of Roman persecution (and that idea doesn't even make sense: the Romans didn't have weekly worship on Sunday, so how would changing Christian worship have helped persecution?) 2. We don't believe the Crucifixion happened on Thursday, you can literally pick up a Catholic liturgical calendar or read any number of Catholic resources on Good Friday to know we think it's on Friday; 3. John is explicit about the Crucifixion happening on Preparation Day. God bless you, and I'm glad you liked the points in the video, but your arguments against Catholicism are factually mistaken.
I always learn so much on this channel. I have only been Catholic for 6 months after 53 years of Protestantism, and it astounds me that I never saw the truth of the one true Church for so long! It is a gift from God that we have such amazing Catholic apologists on line who can also help us to be better apologists.
My life story is almost exactly the same! I just came into the Church last Christmas and I was Protestant for most of my 55 years.
If you don’t mind, what made you Protestant?
@@Saul2PaulCatholic Same question for you, please.
@@GizmoFromPizmowhat do you mean
@@GizmoFromPizmoGizmo . Unable to follow you . Can you please explain? Peace be with you.
Logic and reason only lead to one conclusion.
Reading the early Church fathers only leads to one conclusion.
We can only hope and pray that people will search for the truth. Great job, Joe.
Spot on! I find it very difficult to have rational discussions with Protestants as they seem to lack reason/logic & have come to the conclusion that this is caused by the ambiguous nature & errors of their beliefs. Subtle heresy?
Joe…this video🔥 I am a Protestant who has been seeking Truth AND Unity , which led to my studying Catholicism for over a year now.
This video put words to my thoughts in a way that I never could have done on my own. Thank you for bringing clarity.
God bless you! Anything you need (in addition to prayers) in your journey?
Former reformed pca theology nerd here. Coming into the church in a weeks time. God bless on your journey.
Prayer. My husband is not just a Protestant. He’s very anti-Catholic. We have had a strong marriage thus far and we have 5 young children.
Converting could cost me my marriage.
Pray for me. My name is Maria.
Thanks so much.
@@mariasoto-r7d Hey Maria I'll offer up prayer for you today at Holy Thursday Mass!!
I like your channel. One of the best Catholic apologist in the world. I'm Catholic from Malaysia.
That's so kind of you - thanks, from America!
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to read the Bible so they can join the denomination that best agrees with their own understanding.”
Good one
It’s the Roan church which hangers te words if the Bible - not us. You are doing it your way! Beware. K@CatholicDefender-bp7my
it is the Roman Church that changes the words and meanings of the Bible - not Reformed believers - so it is you "doing it my way" - so beware@CatholicDefender-bp7my
@CatholicDefender-bp7my Certainly see this with the church shopping that many non-Catholics routinely talk about, they search for a church that fits their beliefs rather than adjusting their beliefs and actions to conform to the entire Bible. In my humble opinion this is incredibly arrogant to have the believe that they have some personal divine revelation about the Bible and God.
ekklēsia the elect in Messiah's name takes many forms. Those in the book of life are not known to us.
Joe seriously, if you released a membership thing, I’d pay.
Your books, Pope Peter, The Early Church was the Catholic Church and The Eucharist is really Jesus have helped me immensely. I was an ignorant Catholic for a long time, and would always miss Sunday Mass, now I make use of the Sacraments and can’t wait to go to Mass. Even my family is getting closer to God.
These things you now believe are all lies actually. The Eucharist is not really Jesus - the one is the most diabolical lies and will not save you but lead to damnation. Just warning you.
One is saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ - faith in who scripture says He Is and in what scripture says he did on the cross - He is our substitute and died the death for sin we deserve. He took our punishment the wrath of God against sin was laid on Him - He was pierced for our transgressions - He paid our price and paid for our sins with His precious blood.
He was raised on the third day and ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God and is our High Priest .
He has a glorified body - and no mumbling of prayers by any priest on earth will cause Him to come down and become a piece of bread or a cup of wine. NEVER!
He was offered once as a sacrifice and there’s no need for Him to be offered again EVER!
Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice. He is the Final High Priest. He brought to the end the old testament livitical priesthood. There is no need for priests to be offering any sacrifices today. The Eucharist is referred to as a sacrifice. It all ended with Christ fulfilling all the roles of the Old.Testament He is the final Prophet ; final Priest. Final King.
Through faith in Him as our only saviour - with no additions or subtractions as the Catholic Church does - it piles up the additions and by this robs Christ of His power to save and makes the Gospel null and void - - He saves the sinner once and for all and we are declared righteous by God - Jesus who was perfectly righteous becomes our righteousness through faith - God the father imputes Christ’s Righteousness to the believer and eternal life which cannot be lost.
Please read your Bible with fresh eyes! This is the Gospel ofGod which has the power to save!
Our repentance is a gift from God. Our faith is a gift from God. Our salvation is a gift from God - it is all of grace.
Works are the fruit this salvation - led and accomplished by and in the power of
But they come AFTER as proof of salvation. No works will save us.
But this is not what theRoman Catholic Church will teach you - because the spirit behind theRoman Catholic Church is not interested in saving your soul but destroying it.
The early Church had false prophets entering into it and they were chased out by the Apostles - it is to be a church with one faith and there should be unity as Jesus taught - but Satan wants to bring falsehood into the church and he has succeeded ! The church is worldwide. And regenerated believers do have unity in the spirit - we are one in Christ as He prayed for - true believers adhere to the main and vital teachings of the biblical faith delivered by the apostles. True regenerated believers were always there even when the APOSTATE Roman Catholic Church reigned supreme. TheRoman Catholic church persecuted them. But they came to the fore during the Reformation and still the Roman Church burned and killed them Right here in England and Scotland the Reformers and faithful Christians were killed. But by the power of God they were not swamped and blotted out and Reformed teaching and the Biblical truth of the gospel shone brightly again.
Yes there are totally apostate Protestant churches today. God will deal with them just as he will deal with the Roman Catholic church But in the main ones the truth of the Gospel is adhered to = unity. There may be secondary matters like baptism and end time teaching where it’s ok to differ - but where the major doctrines are thrown out or twisted and those truths are sacrificed - there can be no peace or unity. The word of the Bible is final. Jesu taught that. He said donor add to it do not remove from it. But that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church has done over the centuries such it came into being around 300.
You say it’s the Church Jesus founded. If you use the word CATHOLIC in it real meaning = universal ……. Yes the Church Jesus Christ founded is to be universal.
But the Roman Catholic Church is a different animal all together It tried by its power to become universal. But if it was even near the Church you say Jesus founded then it would teach what Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught and handed down - but it does not! TheRoman Catholic’s formal teachings are laid down in Trent. They differ tremendously from what the Bible teaches and what the Martyrs of the Reformation and in times previously died for and believed. The Roman Catholic Church in these teachings calls for anathema to be brought down on anyone who disagrees. So do they Amathamatise Jesus and the Apostles as well?……….think very seriously about this question!
Joe is quit happy to attack ad undermine the Protestant churches who do adhere to the truth of Scripture - but gets upset when we defend ourselves against his criticisms.
I personally have been criticised by him and others. But you know something?
I am speaking truth. I rest on the Bible and what it teaches - not verses that have been twisted out of shape and mauled by so-called church fathers and popes who were probably not regenerated at all by God and did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and were not truly saved or one with Christ - even the ones today.
Lots of Reformed believers and teachers have come on this site and tried to help and reason with you - but it seems to no avail. We are concerned for your souls.
Genuinely! We are not here just to cause trouble. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 K
@@mikekayanderson408"The Eucharist is not really Jesus - the one is the most diabolical lies and will not save you but lead to damnation. Just warning you"
All of the early Church Fathers believed the Eucharist was Jesus. Your belief requires that they were all wrong.
"You say it’s the Church Jesus founded. If you use the word CATHOLIC in it real meaning = universal ……. Yes the Church Jesus Christ founded is to be universal.
But the Roman Catholic Church is a different animal all together"
The official name of the Church has always been the Catholic Church. The name Roman Catholic was coined by Protestants. So, yes, it "is a different animal all together," as it is just one of 24 rites in the Catholic Church.
@@mikekayanderson408Long screeds of text are a warning sign. Denying the truth doesn’t change it so suck it up!
Quite honestly, your dishonesty is very unchristian as you don’t seem to be able to make an honest statement without resorting to lies, so count me out of the discussion until such time as you can be objective & fair minded, which you are not. It’s easier to have a discussion with an honest atheist than a prejudiced & ignorant Protestant
Just re-saw this comment, and want to let anyone reading it know that we finally have a Patreon! You can join at shamelessjoe.com. God bless you!
Unity is a fantastic theme going into and during Holy Week. At least most Protestants have retained the same date for Easter to make this call to unity more resonant.
I just finished your book "Pope Peter" the other day... If I could just convince the Protestants in my life to read it, they'd probably convert alongside me. The claims of apostolic Christianity are just impossible to deny
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
The popes are not vicars of Christ. There are no popes in scriptures. The only apostles walked and ministered with Christ. The Mormons say they have apostles.
@user-wk1li2cm5o Hi, user. I understand you're confusion. I also had confusion like that while Protestant. The (word) Pope is not in Scripture ,the meaning explicitly and implicitly is in your and my Bible. The word Trinity is not in your or my Bible. Do you believe in the Doctrine of Trinity ? I care about you, prayers and peace .
@@BarbTaylor-g2kdon't butcher that verse. .or it will comes back at u as u don't follow the Authority of Christ that's within the Church..if you're a Protestant then u exalts yourself as one who interprets the bible, aren't u god? I'm just using your own logic .while the chair of thw Pope and his Authority is given by Jesus..He did NOT exalts himself or us Catholics did not exalts the chair of Peter own our own...It was Jesus who made it..Jesus Anoited Peter as a leader or key bearer to watch over the Church...and since Jesus did not come back yet,Peter pass that Authority to his disiples or All the Anoited elders choose someone to sit on that Chair..
Then if The Pope is not exalts by himself or by the flocks but by Jesus,what do u call him?
People most certainly deny it. Many also deny the whole not even the gates of hell shall overcome my church verses but that’s because you mix not accepting the church the chair of St. Peter. Free will is conceptual for calvinists so the idea that people could choose to do mortal sins despite being saved and walk away from salvation is such a modern idea because the book of Hebrews was all about Jews turning back to the old covenant. Part of Romans has people trying to turn back to the old covenant
@@BarbTaylor-g2kMormons think they figured it out 1800 years after Jesus Christ and that the Christians who were being martyred for proclaiming Christ and his teachings were wrong despite 2000 years of continuation since those times is less accurate despite preserving writings since the first century until now. The four kingdom cults are certainly bold but study the early church fathers, church history, and the douay rheims Bible the authorized kjv and the Aramaic translation Bible. Spend time reading Matthew 16:16-19, John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 13, and and check out more of this UA-cam bro
When Protestants are confronted by this verse, about us being one, they will often say, “well, Jesus just meant one in spirit. You know, like how the Christian church is just one, invisible body.” Nope, Jesus meant for there to be visible, physical, universal Churches where we engage with the Sacraments.
In the famous Gospel account, when Jesus tells us to first, privately confront someone, then bring witnesses, then “take it to the church”… This automatically proves that the current state of affairs in Christianity is counter to what our Lord commanded and designed. Because now, when a Christian is in grace sin, they can just move to the next congregation. No conversion necessary.
Christian unity creates accountability, and we all need that.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM- so true, my parents are still Southern Baptists, and whenever someone in the church makes them mad, or they don’t like the Pastor, they just move their membership to another church. Then the cycle starts all over again. They typically switch churches every 5-8 years.
Yes! If the Church is the Body of Christ, it must, like Christ, be both human (physical/visible) and divine (spiritual/invisible).
Like Joe said, the Spirit cannot be opposed to itself and go in two different directions.
Curious, why'd you add the Sacraments to His prayer? He didn't say anything about them in His prayer.
St Francis de Sales really hones in on and hammers the Protestant notion of trying to start your own "church" without being sent by those with authority and apostolic succession.
What work are you referencing?
@@yeetmaestro575 _The Catholic Controversy_
Haven't actually read it yet, but I have heard from others about it, and it's waiting on my shelf as next in line to read.
Yes, his writing and preaching brought over 70k Calvinists back to the Church.
@@lellachu1682I'd be classified as protestant, but even I know Calvinism is a joke.
@@sonsofpolaris6102 The fullness of the truth is Christ and Him crucified, which is what Paul said.
Studying the gospel of John, and particularly John 17 where Jesus teaches on unity, is one of the main reasons why our family (my husband, four children, and myself) have left Protestantism and are coming into the Church this Easter Vigil. Once the Holy Spirit opened our eyes to this issue of unity we couldn't in good faith remain separated from the Church Jesus founded. My husband was an elder at our previous church. It's true, each head pastor just gets to decide the doctrine, and over the years that doctrine changes based on the whims of a fallible man. Joe, thank you for your videos! They have been, and I'm sure will continue to be, so helpful for us!
This here, is possibly the single most important video of our generation.
Excellent content as always. I have been a Baptist for more than 40 years and became a Catholic on October 9, 2023. The Church Fathers are to blame. As Saint Augustine said, a God who is one must be worshiped by a united Church. Contrary to what Protestants think, the place where we worship God and those with whom we do so are not indifferent or irrelevant.
Amen!
God bless you and welcome home!
Praying for the unity of all Christians 🙏🙏🙏God Bless🙏
Ephesians 4 should be enough to prove to anyone that they should be one with the Church!
Satan is truly at work, when you see the Bible speaking so clearly...yet...
Honest Christians still have difficulty understanding what they are reading!
May God bless them, and give them the grace to see through the smoke! 🙏
I think perhaps the most explicit demonstration that the independent local congregation idea is not the unity Jesus taught can be seen by the non-recognition of ordaination between such churches. Acts 20:28 says that the “overseers” have been appointed over the whole church, not just their local congregations. Hebrews 13:17 commands the faithful to submit to their leaders.
.
If another church does not recognize the authority of clergy from a different congregation to preach, administer sacraments, discipline, and ordain other clergy…it’s obvious that these are not the same church.
It was our Bishop when I was Methodist who emphatically told us we needed to stay “united” - no matter what (he didn’t say at the expense of Truth, but that was the context of where he was saying this) that started to help me realize I couldn’t be Methodist.
And then I asked our Youth Group - what do we do when we can’t agree - and I realized THAT is why Catholics have a Pope. Later I would realize that Jesus knew EXACTLY what he was doing when He instituted the Church and the office of the Bishop of Bishops.
Praise God for giving us His Church which ALL Christians are in debt to for having a Bible to read at all.
Absolutely!
Well done again Shameless Propery. Yes. The reason I returned to Catholicism is because the Bible and history clearly show that Catholicism has the Holy Spirit correcting errors to keep the unity Jesus taught us to keep and lead the Church to all truth.
Very timely for me. I was feeling so discouraged by bickering christians. But to see that Jesus anticipated this it seems like he spoke to me directly. Thank you for this.
In a sense, Gavin Ortlund's channel title has it just the opposite. "Truth" doesn't unite. Unity in the Church gives and ensures the Truth. The Truth is not something we are all supposed to figure out and somehow come to the same conclusion on. Truth is what is given and handed down from Jesus and the apostles in the Church. Totally different epistemologies. The Berean epistemology was not intended to be the norm in apostolic times and was not the norm during the early Church.
Great observation!
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
If Berean epistemology was less good then why are they called "more noble"?
@@duelistofages1493 Go back and read the full context of Acts 17, and it becomes very clear why they were more noble THAN THOSE IN THESSALONICA, namely because they didn't attack Christians and try to get the Romans to punish/execute them, as did the Jews of Thessalonica:
"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to *Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.* And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures.... But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, *set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason,* seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they *dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities,* crying, "These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus." And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go. The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were *more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness* ...."
Protestants have been taking the Bereans out of context for a long time.
@duelistofages1493
Because they accepted the 2 authorities involved i.e. Paul and the Old Testament. Not just Scripture alone. The Thessalonians rejected Paul and went with Scripture alone.
I can’t appreciate your apologetics enough
Man, I love the Catholic Church!
As always... great video. There is an up and coming popular Protestant UA-camr (who will remain nameless), who made a video in where he was basically telling people the total opposite of what you're conveying. That dis-unity is OK. Church shopping is OK. As long as they have the Gospel AND as long as it's not the Catholic church. He sounded like a used church salesman... Oh, you want Catholic style high church liturgy?! Well, don't go to the Catholic church for that. We have a variety of Protestant high churches to choose from! They have vestments, candles, images, incense, the eucharist (sort of), bells, whistles, the whole 9!
The lack of unity in Protestantism was one of many reasons I started looking into Catholicism.
After this series, you should do a series debunking Protestant end-times myths like the Rapture
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible - Popes are not vicars of Christ.
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV Bible - The body of Christ, the church. Not a myth.
“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
@@BarbTaylor-g2kThe pope doesn't exalt himself, Jesus exalts him. When Jesus gave Peter the keys, it was Jesus making Peter His representative. The Jews had the same thing with the chair of Moses. Jesus even told the people that even though He thought the religious authorities were hypocrites, that they MUST listen to them for they had the seat of Moses. Jesus transferred that seat to Peter when giving him the keys. He finalized it when Jesus told Peter 3 times to feed and take care of His sheep.
1 Thes 4 is about the 2nd Coming. It has nothing to do with a rapture before the 2nd Coming. No Scripture talks about a pre-2nd Coming Rapture.
@tabandken8562 exactly. The Pope is the prime minister. I'm not Catholic but I have accepted Catholic doctrine.
I never really believed in the rapture because I just wasn't seeing it and it didn't make sense. I found catholicism had answers.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
@@BarbTaylor-g2k
Do you believe that a vicar or regent is above the king? If that is your understanding of the papacy, then it is no wonder you reject it. If the Pope did indeed supplant God, he ought to be rejected, for a man supplanting God is blasphemy of the highest order. We do not hold this, nor does the Pope do this.
Excellent video, Joe! You hit on something that I have been challenging Protestants with for a couple of years - Where do you find in sacred scripture, or apostolic tradition anywhere that when you don’t agree with the Church, you split off an go make your own church. Where is that dogma addressed? We see no example anywhere of where God has directed individuals to form their own denomination. As Joe points out, they are in fact disobeying God by not being unified with His Church.
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Thank you for putting this in to such a coherent presentation. Jesus' prayer for Unity for His church is what set me on my journey home, but i have never been able able to articulate it this well, even after being received into the Church. You are a blessing.
Crystal clear sir. Thank you.
It's no mistake secular atheism took off as soon as protestantism took truth under the wing of self-referential sola scriptura. Now we can't even agree on what a man or woman is. Something about individual rationality seems terribly fractured and so not suitable as an exclusive source for truth.
I would say that an individual person’s rational mind is woefully insufficient for grasping all of reality. And when people in the western world broadly insist that this can be done because all of them have different perspectives you in effect get the creation of many different realities.
No.
Protestantism has good and bad fruits like everything on earth. I can always point to Catholicism when something bad happens.
Dear@@razoredge6130, yes, the Church which Jesus founded is filled with sinners. And sure, you can always point to Catholics, who are sinning against "*Catholicism* when something bad happens."
But Catholicism as herself, has never erred, has never lost sight of her Bridegroom. She is always calling her children to "repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!"
Please do not deny yourself the joy of knowing Jesus as He offers Himself as the One offering of Bread and Wine in His continuing One Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, uniting us to the Cross at Calvary.
@@susand3668 I never said (although I think so) Catholicism was false. I was responding to the original comment about the effects of each.
@@razoredge6130 Razor I have difficulty following you. It sounds as if you are feeling negative in either senerio.
This has got to be one of your best episodes to date. I want to copy this all and give it as a lecture at my perish
For some reason this video brought to mind our tour of the Vatican and how our Italian tour guide described the shape of St. Peter’s square as a big hug. Our priest had told us it was the shape of a keyhole because Jesus gave the keys to Peter. And I think both can be true. The papacy, the authority of the Church, the doctrinal unity are given to us out of love, and thus, can feel like a hug, a loving embrace. Leave it to the Italians to remind us that it’s all about love!
And outside you have a huge pagan tower! How biblical is that
@@mikekayanderson408 The obelisk? That's actually one of the coolest things in Rome.
It was already there since before Christianity. It wasn't built by Christians.
The story is that the Romans, after conquering Egypt, brought that obelisk to Rome as a show that Roman gods are stronger than Egyptian gods.
After Christians took over the pagans, Christians went to that obelisk and stuck a cross right on the top. The message being that Christ is greater than any of these demons.
And it stayed there ever since, symbolizing Christ's Triumph.
Iam committed catholic for 60 years, never experienced my catholic faith in deep way in the way you are explaining
.Great Joe.God bless you aboundently. P.N.G
I think it's interesting that one would want to go to a church without teaching authority. We're talking about life and death, heaven and hell. I want to know that not only is my priest teaching based on an infallible standard, but also that if he strays from that, I have somewhere to fact check. You couldn't even have a radio show called "Protestant Answers Live" because every apologist would have different view points. And when they try to defend Protestantism, they would really just have to attack Catholicism, since there is no one thing that Protestantism teaches. And you can't just defend the Bible itself because of all the different ways people interpret it.
So true!
I could defend it
Not just your denomination or non-denomination, right? Like all of Protestantism?@@joshgaston7839
@@joshgaston7839 Protestantism has no one doctrine
2Tim 3:16; Ps 138:2;John 17:17
This is one of the greatest, most compelling, most tightly and well reasoned presentations I have seen, read, or heard in defense of the irrefutable fact that Christ, to uphold the truth and to instill unity in that truth did, as he had to, establish one, and only one church. He never ordained or authorized a multiplicity of my-own-DYI, "I'm Ok, you're Ok" churches. It all comes down to humility and obedience. I applaud American free spirit and enterprise, but they have no place in this realm and in regard to anyone purporting to start his own church and putting it in opposition to what Christ ordained and into which alone he deposited Truth. Joe, keep up your wonderful work!
I'm enjoying this and I love the Office clip 😂
When your friends ask you where is the Catholic Church in the Bible, send them THIS video. Wow!
My father in law who was a Protestant would always talk about what we agreed with as far as faith but would refuse to talk about the differences between Catholic beliefs and Protestant beliefs mainly Anglican and Methodist beliefs. He liked to stick with the common ground.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Such an awesome video!!! Can’t wait for the next video!
Excellent Joe, well done! Perhaps some Protestants will be humble enough to acknowledge their error & pride!
This is awesome, very well spoken
Thank you for your videos Joe. I have been thoroughly enjoying all of your videos since discovering Catholic Answers last fall. As a current protestant, you and the other apologists have really taught me a lot and opened my eyes to Catholicism. I am finding many of the difficulties with I have had through my Christian life get answered through your work in Catholic apologetics. I have a ways to go but I think I am on my way. Let me know how I can support!
God bless you Joe from India
Really appreciate this video.
Genesis 49: 24 calls Joseph the "Rock of Israel" but when translated to Greek in LXX it is translated as "Israel prevails" and both "Rock" and "Prevail" show up in Matt 16: 18 when talking about Peter and "Israel" is the Church. Joseph is honored by all his brothers, most of which are older and he is 1 of 12.
Beautifully said. Matthew 16:18 is also alluded in Jeremiah 1:18-19,
And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests, and the people of the land. They will fight against you; but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, says the LORD, to deliver you."
And we know in Genesis that Judah carries the scepter.
Interesting…but I would submit that this did not translate into an absolute leadership office over Israel that is made up of Joseph’s “successors” like the papacy. In fact, Israel’s leadership came from other of the 12 tribes. For example, the priesthood through Levi and David through Judah.
@@justinallen6695 I do not think this has to do with successors. This has to do with Jesus choosing scripture they knew, whether the apostles knew the Hebrew or the Greek, that Peter was above the rest just like how Joseph was above the rest. The Keys that He gave to Peter is what matters for successors. He gave keys to Peter separately from the rest and this shows a distinction in the keys. Keys are meant to be handed down to the next successor.
@NJWEBER18 No, no. Read again. Genesis 49, 24 cslls THE LORD "Rock of Israel", not Joseph.
"his strong arms stayed[l] limber,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,"
@Maranatha99 I was looking at the Hebrew and Greek, not a specific English translation. The meaning you are pointing out was added in English. In Hebrew and Greek it does not make it clear who the "Rock" is applied to. It could either be translated as the Rock being God OR the Rock coming from God; and if the Rock came from God it could either be Joseph OR referring to Jesus OR Peter since his Rock name came from Jesus/God OR it could mean all 4 since the Bible is full of verses that have many true interpretations.
Haven’t watched it yet but I’m feeling like it’ll be another banger 🔥🔥🔥. Hey Joe, are you going to ever make a video on Mary’s sinlessness ?
Edit: the video was indeed a banger
Yes, I will! (At some point...)
Makes sense, even to me as an Episcopalian. Thank you.
Fantastic episode ❤
An important topic insufficiently covered by Catholic apologists (other than Bryan Cross et. al. at Called to Communion) is the Epistemic Principle Argument. The gist is:
1. An Epistemic Principle is the method by which a given denomination, sect, church, communion, or para-ecclesial organization claims that Christians are intended by Christ to come to correctly know (and to know _that_ they correctly know) the required content of the Christian religion, and to distinguish that content from other topics about which Christians are free to disagree without justifying schism between them.
2. Catholics have an Epistemic Principle, and it makes it possible. _in principle,_ for any random Everyman who _wishes_ to know "the required content of the Christian religion according to Catholicism" to know it, and know that they know it correctly. There are, on occasion, _practical difficulties_ which make it more difficult and confusing than it ought to be. This happens when some subgroup in the Catholic Church misstates or neglects the Epistemic Principle while touting their own favorite shibboleths (or railing against their favorite bugbears). But even then, it remains possible (for any random Everyman) to identify that, for example, Catholics _must_ affirm the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, and must _deny_ the moral equivalence of conjugal relations in a valid heterosexual marriage with acts of mutual masturbation between persons with same-sex attraction. The Catholic Epistemology of Faith functions because it is constituted in such a way that it (a.) has visible offices of authority, whose holders are (b.) objectively identifiable apart from doctrinal opinions, whose authority extends to (c.) resolving doctrinal disputes among Christians, which disputes may be (d.) finally and definitively settled, forming a system which (e.) plausibly derives from a Scripturally-recorded act-of-institution by Jesus, and which (f.) can be shown to be held by _at least some_ Christians in every century of Christian history between the Ascension and the present-day.
3. No other Christian group currently extant has an Epistemic Principle which can, _even in principle,_ make the same claims. Consequently, no other Christian group can identify what is and isn't its currently-held dogmas, save by taking a survey of self-identified members or using some other arbitrary, ad-hoc basis to identify its version of the "required content of the Christian religion."
4. Therefore, either Catholicism's Epistemic Principle really _was_ established by Christ for His Church (and therefore, Catholicism is true), OR, the required content of the Christian religion is irretrievably lost in the mists of time, not knowable to any modern observer. (And although a modern exegete can reconstruct a proposal for what Christianity _might have been,_ any given reconstruction is made dubious by the mere existence of other alternative reconstructions created by equally well-intentioned and scholarly persons.)
5. But, if Christianity's required contents are no longer objectively retrievable for the willing follower, then Christ failed of His promises, and if He failed of His promises, then He is not God.
6. But He rose from the dead, and He is God. Therefore, He did not fail of His promises.
7. Therefore, the required content of the Christian religion is, at least in principle, retrievable and knowable in the modern world using an Epistemic Principle which forms part of that content, and naturally produces the rest of that content when used.
8. But only Catholicism offers such an Epistemic Principle.
9. Therefore, Catholicism is true.
Personal Notes:
47:45 Conclusion Regarding Unity and Truth.
This channel is an amazing resource ❤
In all seriousness, I don't see how someone who is a protestant can watch this with honesty of heart and don't drop their protestantism and keep their Christianism...
It's one of the many protestant dilemmas:
Either Jesus wanted His followers to be One as He and the Father are One, or He's the worst communicator in History (even worst than Allâh).
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
This is 🔥
You should write a book about the history of the early Church, first 400 years. The title would be this perfect catchphrase in common use back then:
"Rome Has Spoken."
I think he did. It’s called the Early Church is the Catholic Church. Great book and he shows this taking only the first 200 years before any Protestant claims of the corruption of the church.
@@PatrickSteil If that's the case he should be aware of laymen electing bishops, including of Rome, meaning his case against Pope Michael I is not just wrong but also less than perfectly candid, perhaps even dishonest.
@@hglundahl Can you elaborate, I am not following?
@@PatrickSteil His view on the election in Kansas in 1990 involves it being invalid because all the participants were non-cardinals.
The fact is, "By decree of a synod of 769, only a cardinal was eligible to become Bishop of Rome." -- and papal elections being between cardinals only is even later, seems to be 1059 or sth, i e, the law he is referring to was not applied in the early Church, and can therefore be set aside in a case of dire necessity, as David Bawden, when calling the election, judged the situation in the Church.
As he has studied the early Church, he should be aware of this.
Brilliant again. At various times I thought inserting the word “complete” before truth and unity would have been helpful. My dream is for my non-Catholic brothers and sisters to come to completion (ie the sacraments, especially the Eucharist) because the Catholic Church would benefit from their zeal and joy, and they do bring souls on a journey towards God, so why stop that?
Great work Joe ❤ You stopped being merely an apologetic and started to be a theologian.
I wish “truth is non-negotiable” was not negotiable. Most of the Protestants I deal with actually don’t believe this. Please do a video on this too.
🙏🏽🙏🏻🙏🏾 Pray to Mary and ask for Her to make Her prescence known to all mankind and then we can all be of 1 body in Christ🙏🏽🙏🏻🙏🏾
great video
As punishment for their rebellion God in His wisdom scattered them into thousands of shards, as he did at Babel. "This is the Lord's doing: and it is wonderful in our eyes." Ps 118:23
Amen
I too believed that, Lord Jesus meant only One holy Family, i. e. Church. Cared by His Apostles till the end.
Can you make these exact same arguments against sedevacantism?
This is the best defense of infallibility that I’ve heard so far. However, it’s interesting that you skipped over the Council of Jerusalem, when that is an explicit example provided in the NT of how the apostles themselves, including St. Peter, clarified the teachings. It was not just St. Peter who made the command decision. So while unity & truth are certainly equally important, and you’ve made a great argument for the flaws of solo scriptura, what is the justification for papal supremacy of the Catholic Church?
I've covered the Council of Jerusalem before, and was purposely not jumping into popes and councils in this video (as I say at the end, my goal was to show that Infallibility is logically necessary, not to outline its contours). But we see both Peter and the Council of Jerusalem act on the question of the incorporation of uncircumcised Gentiles: Peter in Acts 10 (with divine sanction), which he defends in Acts 11; and then the Council in Acts 15. Infallibility continues to work this way - both the pope is particular circumstances, and Ecumenical Councils. Properly understood, the one doesn't take away from the other.
Sister, supremacy means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). It has nothing to do with playing solely, autocracy or tyranny. Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some Eastern Orthodox usually conflates ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome.
I post this just to help people who are discerning these things so that they are not wronged by satires.
Our Savior and Redeemer said He would build His Church like we learned from the Gospels:
_”And I tell you, you are _*_PETER (rock), and on this ROCK I will BUILD MY CHURCH,_*_ and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”_ (Matthew 16, 18-19).
Of course later Jesus Christ gave all the Apostles together the power of binding and loosing too (Matthew 18, 18), which reflects the complement for collegiality as far as ecclesial teaching authority goes, so it must all be in compass with the perfect law-giver’s wisdom. It does not signify therefore an annulment of the Petrine authority, due to two theological facts: 1) it was given to Peter with specificity, anteriority and prominence, singularly addressing to him - even by name (and function: name changing) - directly and individually among the Apostles; 2) only to Peter Our Lord gave individually the “keys of the Kingdom” and no other Apostle or disciple were commanded to receive them from Jesus. Thus it explains the convergence in the Church teaching/magisterial authority both of the 1) Petrine teaching authority, in the power of the Keys (= Papal authority: Mt 16, 18-19) and the 2) gathered Apostolic collegiate teaching authority with Peter (not apart from Peter) (=Ecumenical Councils’ authority: Mt 18, 18).
Peter’s succession was defined by death in Rome, therefore the Bishop of Rome is the only who could say he is the successor of Peter in the fullest sense of the expression. Peter and his brother apostles had a joint role, but he is the only one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of those in schism). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate, so this superiority of governance was not to be considered in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation, from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). That’s more or less what the Roman (Petrine) privilege means.
I hope I helped you with something. God bless!
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “one does not find any words of Christ indicating how the apostolic mandate was to be handed on.” It also confessed that “papal primacy was NOT clearly understood or explicitly professed in the Western [Latin] Church until the fifth century C.E.”
None of this happened in the first century Christian congregation!
Mr. Heschmeyer's list of nonnegotiable things implies that Vatican II's ecumenism prevents unity. Events like Pope John Paul II's Assisi meetings suggest that everyone has a God-given right to practice any religion he chooses. During those meetings, that Holy Father never urged the non-Catholic participants to be Catholic. Instead, he even let pagans adore their idols at those meetings, including the "Great Thumb." Maybe you remember JPII's utopian "civilization of love." Anyone could join it to make the world a better place?
Pope Francis watched when Amazonians worshipped Pachamama, Mother Earth, in 2019. After Alexander, the Austrian young man, thew the Pachamama idols into the Tiber River, that Holy Father apologized to the Amazonians. But he did nothing to repair for the sacrilege. Some Catholic even excused the Pachamama event by saying that the Amazonian statues of Mother Earth represented the Blessed Virgin Mary. Our current Pope doesn't even want Catholics. to evangelize non-Catholics.
Here's what Pope Pius XI thinks: "10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]"
www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html
Pope Benedict XVI told us about the "hermeneutic of continuity" because many Catholics doubted that Vatican II's novelties were logically inconsistent with what the Catholic Church has always taught. On the other hand, Cardinal Kasper revealed the inconsistency, the rupture when he said, "Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”
www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-1225-kasper.htm
Vatican II tells us that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. So it suggests that the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church. But Pope Pius XII writes: "27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith."
There are some ways for a non-Catholic to be in the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. For example, a Protestant is in it when he wants at least implicitly to be a Catholic. Still. Pope Pius XII reminds us that, "27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith."
"www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Christ's Mystical Body is the Catholic Church. So Catholics are its only members. If a non-Catholic reaches heaven, he does that despite the religion he practices, not because of it.
Thank you! But forgive me, I just have to ask after learning what I did from your video, who has sent you?
I'm glad you asked! Catholic Answers is listed in the Official Catholic Directory and is recognized as an apostolate in good standing by the Diocese of San Diego. We also have (or are in the process of creating, not entirely sure) an episcopal advisory board. So we definitely strive to exercise our ministry from the bosom of the Church and with the approval (and "sending") -- and oversight -- of the appropriate Church authorities.
What I want to know is that is there any thing in the scriptures claiming with irrefutable proof of truth that there will be a reformation of the church that Jesus Christ started upon his Apostles and their successor’s that Jesus told his Apostles that know that I’AM WITH YOU EVEN TILL THE CONSUMMATION OF TIME.If there’s any where in the scriptures that proves of a reformation I’d truly like to see that scriptural passage?
TheRoman Catholic Church de-formed the Gospel. The re- forming had to take place !place
@@mikekayanderson408 Nope that’s not the answer
@@mikekayanderson408 Actually ... 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - "For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths." Looks more Protestant to me.
First of all, the Bible clearly says at Hebrews 7:24: “But because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has NO SUCCESSORS.” That means once Jesus was raised to heavenly life, no imperfect human will ever be his successor because he has Immortal Life! Only he is the Head of the True Christian Congregation today (Ephesians 5:23) and the only Leader we need. (Matthew 23:10)
The Bible explains at Isaiah 2:2-4 that “in the final part of the days” all nations will streams to the true God to worship. The final part of the days is now; we are living in the very last days of this dying world. And Jesus Christ said the only way to identify his true followers in these last days is there self-sacrificing love for one another. (John 13:35) They will die for one another if they had to. And Jesus said the global preaching work must take place before the end comes. He promise “I am with you until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 28:19,20) Only ONE religion on earth practices true worship exactly like the early Christians. They do as the Bible says and preach “publicly and from House-to House.” (Acts 20:20) Jesus even gave the answer as to what their name is and it’s not Catholic. He said: “You will be WITNESSES of me to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) What religion today is called by that name?
Since the Masoretic Old Testament which the Roman Catholics and Protestants follow, and the Greek Septuagint Old Testament which the Orthodox follow, which is infallible ( or neither) since there are many significant differences and contradictions between the two text type families ?
THIS IS CATHOLICISM!!!! 🔥
15:11 What's wrong with "Agreeing to disagree?"
Agree on the essentials with disagreement on the details less important. Unfortunately, Protestantism, with its many “truths” has resulted in the dictatorship of relativism which we see all around us.
Denominationalism is clearly condemned in Scripture. St. Paul calls it factionalism in my translation.
"tossed to-and-fro"...like michael lofton the hack.
Wasn't St. Paul a lawyer? Joe is an Incarnation of the Spirit of St. Paul.
He was a tentmaker.
Your John 17 take is a Mormon position on the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. You really should lean on the "as" to show this is a simile more than a model.
44,000 denominations and counting...
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
I think its a little wrong to say the schismatics are not effectively denominations
Well, I guess it depends on what you would define those terms to mean.
Schismatics can be cutting themselves off from the One Church in so many ways! Look how many Orthodox churches there are! Look how many Protestant denominations there are! And "nones", who may be "Christian" in some way? How do you *unite* a bunch of schismatics into one denomination or another? Can a person be a whole denomination of one person?
@@Tabletop274 well they have a specific name for themselves... a nomine.
So they are de nomined.
A de nomination, if you will.
The works of the flesh don't make me think about sexual immorality... it makes me think about "literal works", rather than "figurative works" (ask James White and other false teachers why)
Let me drink of the water of life that you have carried to me from a cup. Catholicism.
Let me drink of the water of life that you have carried to me from a siev. Protestantism.
Let me drink from this sewer. Everyone else.
when you examine truthfully the lives, behavior, acts and doctrines of the roman catholic popes, the word "infallible" doesn't register. not to mention that a pope, or a papal dynasty is not supported by scripture. "all be one" means what, joe? does it mean keeping heresy and refuting the bible?
I am a Protestant and I trust that Jesus will purify the Church completely and present Her without spot or wrinkle. He, who is the Truth, will accomplish this.
Yes He will. Amen! Trust Jesus also that He said He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. This Church is 2000 years old.
@@cheryl0327Absolutely @GospelEd so a Christian, 1Tim3:15, “may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
Which Church? Jesus established His One True Church Mt 16 18-19
I don’t understand why Protestantism can’t see the errors of sola Scriptura which 2 Peter 1 20-21 refutes, as the Bible can’t interpret itself & sola fide is refuted by James 20 20-24 & Protestantism is heresy Rom 16 17-18
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
@@geoffjs Protestatism is not an organization. Tell me, where r it's headquarters?
I watch a lot of your work because it gives me insight into the catholic view but I do notice you frequently twist words and present them as fact to support your ideas which is a bit off-putting. But I still watch because as I said I don't watch you for truth, I watch you to understand the way catholics think. But I am not sure what version of the bible you use but when you referred to Acts 15:24 you made it sound like they were claiming they gave those who were preaching circumcision no right preach, but that's not what it said. It said "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to which we gave no such commandment". They didn't say no one can preach without our consent, they said we never preached such a commandment. I know you guys believe you have superior interpretation skills and that no one else is capable so I am probably wasting my breath but this is not the first time I've seen you twist words in this way to support your beliefs. God bless you all, and may we all find truth.
This video makes me more confident that Christianity is false. If infallibility is necessary, then all the churches are wrong, and if all the churches are wrong, then Christianity is false.
Take Catholicism, for instance. It came straight from the mouth of Jesus that you cant divorce EXCEPT in the case of unfaithfulness, but the Catholic church teaches that you can't divorce at all.
Catholics also use that verse about "I give you the keys..." to justify the special authority of the Pope. However, the "you" in that sentence is plural in the original Greek, so it could not have been referring exclusively to Peter.
If Catholics can't get even plain language from the mouth of Jesus right, then why should I believe them about anything else? If a human got a lot of things right, but made some mistakes, I would forgive him. But if somebody claims to be infallible (like the Catholic church), and they are wrong 1% of the time, then they are 100% wrong about being infallible.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. Jesus as the head of His Church appointed Peter was His earthly representative with an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Francis
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
@@geoffjs I did not argue in favor of protestantism in my post, so asking me to justify it does not make a lot of sense. My view is that many claims made by the Catholic church are false, but few protestants on the other hand are both coherent and consistent.
@@brendangolledge8312I was defending the CC without specifically addressing your comment about infallibility. At no time has the CC issued erroneous official teaching as opposed to certain popes making erroneous personal statements.
Infallibility is evidence of His One True Church which no other denomination shares, surely proof of its divine origin, to say nothing of its 2000 yrs of existence, in spite of sinful men. How do we know that the CC is the True Church? Consider Her four marks, One (Unity), Holy (Sacred), Catholic (Universal) & Apostolic (Succession)
Pope's can be infallibly wrong. He forgets that the serpent tempted Eve to know all thing's. Jesus praying for his father who chooses those to follow him. Predestination again
If Peter was appointed over all the church to guide it and do as he does, why and how did Paul rebuke Peter for refusing to eat among gentiles?
If Peter had such authority and perfect spiritual guidance from Jesus himself, then Paul should have submitted to Peter and not rebuked him and accused him of misapplying grace and faith.
How can Catholicism claim there was an apostolic authoritative appointment of Peter in the early church when even Paul himself did not submit to the council of Peter (the pope), rather he interpreted grace and faith of the gospel as he saw fit with scripture and applied it thusly
First, how does Paul calling out Peter’s hypocrisy take away from anything? You’re saying humans cant be dumb. Peter said one thing and then did another. Paul calls him on it.
Second Paul has to go in front of the council in Jerusalem and share his story. There the apostles listen and judge whether he has be sent by Jesus or not. Weirdly, James rejects Paul but Peter says that he is telling the truth. And then they allow Paul to become an apostle.
The Pope is a bishop, the first among equals, and other bishops must rebuke him if they believe he is leading the flock astray. This was true then and remains so to this day. So, Paul rebuking Peter demonstrates their relationship as bishops of Christ's Church, and many scholars believe it points to Peter's authority.
@@lellachu1682 So by your own admission of how the system works, the Protestant Reformation is the standard set by Paul vs Peter no?
@@joshgaston7839 The Catholic Church is the standard, as Paul rebuked another bishop, Peter, and it didn't cause a schism.
@@lellachu1682 So the Protestant Reformation would have been okay if the Pope would have relented and kept the church from dividing??
I have some questions:
1. Why does Jesus's prayer for unity make it imperative for Chrisitans to be united?
2. Is it right for you to contrast Catholicism with Protestantism when as you say, Protestantism comes in many forms? Is that not comparing apples and oranges?
3. You said if you ask 5 protestants about the main point of Christianity, they may disagree. Would 5 catholics definitely 100% agree on that issue? If not 100%, how much agreement is necessary to be considered true unity?
4. If the unity of the church is determined by Jesus and the Holy Spirit and not mere human effort, why call on mere humans to make efforts towards unity?
5. Does the inability of sola scriptura to answer the question of unity make it untrue?
6. There have historically been divisions in the Catholic Church with groups going in opposite directions. Why is this not an issue?
1) If Our Lord's prayer and desire for unity is not imperative, what is your standard for following Christ? Why is the desire of Christ not sufficient for you?
2) Protestantism indeed comes in "many forms." That is an essential part of Joe's discussion. To the extent that there is one true Church and many pretenders, it is indeed "apples and oranges." Sadly, I think your Protestant biases made you miss an essential part of the discussion.
3) Human beings will almost always disagree. The reasons are myriad, but disagreement does not disprove the truth. Whether 5 protestants or 5 Catholics, their answers are simply their opinion, not the teaching of the One, True Church.
4) Our Lord calls on "mere humans" to do many things, most especially to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, to forgive others, to pick up our crosses and follow him. Is the validity of His teaching determined by mere human effort? If so, why call on "mere humans" to follow or implement his teachings?
5) Yes, the inability of "sola scriptura" to address Christian unity disproves it. Sadly, this abject failure is just one of many reasons why the false doctrine of "sola scriptura" is untrue. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church existed before 'the Bible.' In fact, it is that very same single, unified, and apostolic Church that determined and confirmed the contents of 'the Bible." Lastly, you cannot point to a single word of Our Lord saying that he will establish his Church on a book.
6) Yes, just as some men and women sin and elevate their desires above God's law, some men and women elevate their preferences above the authority of God's designated representatives--the Apostles and their successors, especially the successors of St. Peter. From the very beginning, those who do so--by their very own actions--exclude themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That is why it is not an issue. Like the young man in the Gospel of St. Mark, they have declined to do what is necessary to follow our Lord and, in doing so, have separated themselves from Christ: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16).
Only heretical Protestantism would seek to rationalise Jesus’ call for unity as it is a scandal to the non Christian world.
Some facts about Catholicism which are biblically supported:
- Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19
- giving it hierarchy & an authoritative leader
- He appointed Peter as His representative on earth
- Peter was the first leader/Pope
- a verifiable unbroken line of apostolic succession exists from Peter to today
- referred to as the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15
- Jesus instituted 7 sacraments for the transmission of His Grace
- Jesus instructed us to be baptised Jn 3:5 & to receive His Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58, saying that both sacraments are essential for salvation
- Jesus prayed for unity Jn 17 11-21
- the Catholic Church, as an institution has existed, in spite of sinful men for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. No other institution can make such a claim. Other faiths have lasted longer, however, I’m referring to the institution.
- Oral Sacred Tradition existed from the time of Christ & teaching was initially handed down orally
- the Church first became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107 AD
- the CC codified the Bible in 382 AD which complements Sacred Tradition under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium providing a stable three legged stool
- the CC today still practises & teaches what the Early Church practised as documented by the Early Fathers
- she is is the One, True, Catholic & Apostolic Church founded by Jesus
Finally, the CC made a major contribution to the development of Western Civilisation as we know with
- schools & universities
- medicine & hospitals
- science & astronomy
- law system from Canon Law
- economics
- double sided accounting
- social services
- human rights
- architecture
- arts & music
etc
which in todays world, is politically incorrect to acknowledge, all covered in an excellent book by Thomas Wood
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
We don't need any teacher read 1 John chapter 2: 26-27. We are convinced of our relationship with jesus.
Joe has addressed this in another video - I'm pretty sure it was in the video - Is the Bible "self-attesting" or do we need the Church.
@@cheryl0327 we dont need any teacher regarding our salvation.
@@frederickanderson1860 We're happy to have you join us! 😀
@@rhwinner what are ur reasons
@@rhwinner salvation is not a theological topic its the will of God
The narrative that because some denominations are incorrect in their doctrine therefore Catholicism is true is poor logic.
The Acts 2:42-46 where it mentions that they were of one accord (the same mind), also says that they followed the apostles doctrine (not Peter’s).
The infallibility comes not from Peter but from the Holy Spirit which inspires the New Testament to be written and the interpretation of the Old.
The scriptures divinely inspired are the authority for the church. There is one true church and it is those that worship in spirit and in truth.
John 6:63 the flesh profiteth nothing , the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.
Romans 8:1-13
First and foremost the Holy Spirit inspires the Apostles to humility and unity. And Peter is obviously their leader, appointed by Jesus himself as the ultimate authority. There's one doctrine, because there's one Church led by one Peter. It's Apostolic because they received it directly from Jesus, not from Peter. But it's Peter who is responsible for the government of the Church and guarding the doctrine. Only He received the Keys of the Kingdom, and Jesus prayed for Him specifically to infallibly guard the Church.
The writings are not the authority by themselves, rather they record the teaching of the Church which had the authority. Later it was the Church that selected and approved those books amongst multiple popular Christian writings. The Church was inspired to select the right ones, just as it's inspired to give authoritative interpretation, define dogmas and to govern the Church throughout the ages.
If the Bible is your only authority, then you fall into circular reasoning. If you trust God, you should trust Him to preserve the Church, just as He did for the first 1500 years. If he abandoned it, there's no reason to believe in any inspiration of the scripture.
Neither you nor any Protestant would have this book without the Catholic Church. Do you trust that it preserved the book without alterations? If so, why wouldn't you trust that it also preserved and developed the right structures, doctrines and practices? Be consistent. If the Church is false, there's no reason to believe that the Bible is true.
Now give the Biblical case for whether Infallibility resides in "Francis" or in Michael II ...
Infallibility resides in the Church through the Successor of Peter and bishops gathered in Ecumenical Councils in communion with him, when issuing to teach the universal church and other specific circumstances.
Or you can buy a cheaper seat to watch Pastor Bob preach in a garage with his interpretation of the Bible that fell from the sky, saying you - and everybody - should stick with this guy’ interpretation:
_“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught, or whoever condemns me therein, he condemns God and must remain a child of hell”_ (LUTHER, Martin. German answer of Martin Luther to the Book of King Henry of England, 1522 Deutsche Antwort Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch). In: Dr. Martin Luther's Sämtliche Werke, Polemische Deutsche Schriften, Johann Konrad Irmischer, Erlangen, 1833, vol. 28, p. 347).
@@masterchief8179 The question is not about Pastor Bob.
It's about whether "Francis" or Michael II is successor of St. Peter.
Dear@@hglundahl, you are kidding, right? Pope Francis is accepted as pope not only by his followers, but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on.
Who is Michael II?
@@hglundahl You can’t be serious.
@@masterchief8179 I am at least not going to be A-rious instead of C-rious. A-rious was a heretic!
The Catholic Church is not an institution. It is just that invisible Church that includes whoever believes the gospel!
Roman Catholics are more divided than Protestants!
You don’t need an infallible magisterium to know what the Bible says!
An infallibile magisterium doesn’t solve the problem of Bible interpretation because you still need to interpret what the magisterium says!
If the pope is infallible, what about the blessing of same sex couples?
Sorry, just trying to anticipate old tiring Protestant objections.
Had me in the first five-sixths.
I was about ready to go ballistic 😂
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Lie, Lie, then Lie more.
every one of these christians claim their version is the only right one and that what they claim is infallible, aka the one and only truth, unable to make mistakes, etc. And not one can show this to be true.
The bible, the various versions, etc are not infallible. They must all make baseless claims about this.
All other denominations can make the claim but only the Catholic Church can trace its roots to Jesus giving Peter the keys. It's also the Church that gave us the bible.
@@tabandken8562 Sorry, tab, but the Orthodox Church makes the same claim, and both are from the same original bit of nonsense.
Protestantism refuses to understand & accept Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21. I like the analogy of when a child grows up, they learn to speak before they write, just as Tradition precedes Scripture
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Lol!
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible - The popes are not the vicars of Christ.
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
What does the quote have to do with Popes not being Vicar of Christ? The Popes and other Vicars of Christ (i.e. Bishops) do not exalt themselves above God. No Catholic is permitted to worship anyone other than God. Catholics do not have a physical built temple, our bodies are the Temples of God and no Pope is sitting inside Catholics. And they are not showing themselves as God.
The word 'vicar' means representative and one would never exalt yourself above the person you are representing.
Don't you want to submit to God Emperor Francis?
@@sonsofpolaris6102 Well, you have about as much apostolic authority as Francis does, so I don't take it personally.
We will see who is really anathema in the end! Paul says anyone who teaches a false Gospel is anathema . Rome teaches a false Gospel!,,
as you said above Rome has no apostolic authority at all. They are apostate though and through. K@@coup-de-grace
Frances is a bad example. Many traditional Catholics believe he is not the pope. God will choose the pope that follows in the footsteps of St. Peter. Such a schism took place in the 1500s, yet God did and will put His church on the right path. The Catholic church was founded by Jesus. The Bible is not to be intercepted as "agree to disagree." I am a convert and had no idea how much peace there is in following the church established by Jesus.
You bring up such great points. But you are no better than protestants. You changed the Sabbath because of Roman persecution and never changed it back. You both also say crucifixion was on Thursday. Yet the high priest(s) and the women performed actions between passover (high day) and the Sabbath? The passover lamb was slain before passover and rose on the Sabbath (Lord of the Sabbath). Research and read you will see religion is corrupted. Messiah is the church not man. Seek the light brothers and sisters in Christ. 🙏
Who says crucifixion was on Thursday? If you start accusing then get your story straight. You never heard of good Friday?
Seventh day...ish
Gerald,
1. we didn't change the Sabbath because of Roman persecution (and that idea doesn't even make sense: the Romans didn't have weekly worship on Sunday, so how would changing Christian worship have helped persecution?)
2. We don't believe the Crucifixion happened on Thursday, you can literally pick up a Catholic liturgical calendar or read any number of Catholic resources on Good Friday to know we think it's on Friday;
3. John is explicit about the Crucifixion happening on Preparation Day.
God bless you, and I'm glad you liked the points in the video, but your arguments against Catholicism are factually mistaken.
@@danielscalera6057 Friday? Jesus said 3 Days and 3 nights? You think he lied?
@@iggyantioch Palm Sunday to Saturday is 7 days.