Answering an Ex-Catholic (On the Papacy and Transubstantiation)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Answering an ex-Catholic (On the Papacy and Transubstantiation) We address objections from an ex-Catholic and show that this former Catholic is confused on Catholic teaching on the Catholic papacy and teaching of transubstantiation, though he means well.
SUPPORT CATHOLIC TRUTH! (Help us defend the faith more and more!)
Monthly: / catholictruth
Monthly, periodically, or one time: catholictruth.org/donate/
MORE SDA VIDEOS DEBUNKED:
Debunking False SDA Quotes on the Sabbath - part 1: • Catholic Church Admits...
SDA Lies 1 • Why Seventh Day Advent...
SDA Lies 2 • Why Seventh Day Advent...
Conversion Story of Two former SDAs: • SDA Converts to Cathol...
7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses - the SAME! • Why Seventh Day Advent...
FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH:
Instagram: / catholictruthofficial
Facebook Page: / catholictruth.org
Alt. UA-cam channel - Catholic Truth Living: (Advice on Love, Dating, Engagement, Marriage and Kids) / @catholictruthliving
Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/1157177
Articles Library: thecatholictruth.org/category...
Twitter: / catholictruth7
TikTok: / thecatholicofficial
Alt Instagram (CatholicTruthLiving) (Love, Relationships, Life) / catholictruthliving
Facebook Group Page: / catholictruthct
Pinterest: / catholictruth
Rumble: rumble.com/user/CatholicTruth
QUESTIONS? Ask us here: www.subscribepage.com/e3e8c7
APOLOGETICS TRAININGS:
Would you like 1-on-1 Apologetics training with Bryan? Or would you like a chance to ask questions, get advice, or find direction? Contact Catholic Truth: info@theCatholicTruth.org
MERCH: catholictruth.org/shop/
BOOK: "Counterfeit Spirituality: Exposing the False Gods:"
- Our Sunday Visitor: bit.ly/3vtK63Z
- Amazon: amzn.to/3e1BqMk
BOOK: "WHY Do You Believe In GOD?" amzn.to/2S1Dadb
**Need an in-person or online retreat? catholictruth.org
Related Searches: ex catholic priest, ex catholic not happy, ex catholic priest testimony
Music Credit: http//www.bensound.comroyalty-free-music
It's unfortunate that Catholics who are weak in the faith leave instead of looking deeper into the faith. I'll pray for this man.
This is sadly indeed true. I cannot believe how true this is. I speak as a former Catholic. I am Protestant. I knew very little of the Catholic faith and I am now struggling to grasp what Catholic teaches. I have been looking into church History and how early Christians lived. To my surprise they sound very Catholic. It lead me to start looking into Catholicism. It scares me that it could be where true worship of God is at. It scares me more that I may have made a mistake in leaving. As I continue looking into it I still wrestle with some of the things.
Thank you!
@@blueeyes6653”It scares me more that I may have made a mistake in leaving.”
You are always welcomed back!! Before going for Communion, go to Confession, but God always wants you back, like the Prodigal Som. Channels llike
This are really good in learning. Watch videos from Catholic converts like Scott Hahn and John Bergsma, or Keith Nester. There’s another channel called Catholic Re Con about people who left Catholicism and came back.
@@blueeyes6653 Pray this everyday. "Teach me Your ways, O Lord, guide me in Your truth and lead me to Your path." (Psalm 25)
I went to mass today at EWTN like I do most Sundays and through the week. Something Fr Leonard said this morning during the homily led me to pray the rosary after mass for fallen-away Catholics and our Protestant brothers and sisters.
Let us pray for non Catholics that they may know the truth and may they turn to the true church the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Amen. We do all the time.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial amen my friend amen :)
I wouldn’t touch the Catholic Church with a ten foot pole. The biggest counterfeit church in the world that teaches false teachings, un biblical, and man made beliefs. Pagan rituals. Only one person does that and gives everyone who is gullible enough to buy, the belief that this is Jesus. That’s Lucifer/Satan. Jesus never taught what they teach. Pure craziness
Oh my goodness. Look how he's missed unformed about the Catholic Church's teachings. I hope he'll understand and humble himself and come home to the church 🙏
Tim’s a nice guy, very respectful. Just think he should interact with more advanced catholic apologetics material. I think it can clear up a lot of misconceptions.
Agreed.
Amen and amen. That's why I came back to the Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself .
Amen! Welcome home!❤️🙌
The Roman Catholic Church was created in the 11th century. During the first millennium Rome was orthodox.☦️
@@Hope_Boat What a coincidence, you believe just what you would have to believe in order to be right in your schism. Always double-check such convenience.
@@pmlm1571 it's your schism. We are not the ones who wanted a schism. We are not the ones who provoked a schism. We are not the ones who changed the creed, the hierarchy of the Church, the dogmas, the liturgy, the sacraments.
We are in communion with the pre schism popes of Rome. Even those you tried to erase such as saint John VIII.
@@Hope_Boat Is that why Ignaius of Antioch called the Church the "Catholic Church"? The True Church is the Church with the keys and the chair of Peter, that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox are the ones who provoked the split and then you were excommunicated cause you cried like babies because the pope changed the creed.
Love how you rebutt ex catholics, without being preachy..
God bless you Sir Bryan Mercier.
❤️❤️🙏🙏
God bless you too!
Now SIR Bryan has been knighted for his services to the Church! ❤❤
Well, The Sacrament of the Eucharist is my favorite Sacrament. Every Sunday at Mass I sit in the send pew to have a birds eye view of where my Priest prepares the Eucharist to transform the bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ through Transubstantionation and for all of us to receive Holy Communion. I believe in the One True Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church and not what some Protestant is telling me. Thank you in correcting him. God Bless You. ☺🙏💖🕊✝️⛪
Since he's a former" Catholic", likely born to Catholic parents but never received proper instruction, he somehow has deep knowledge of the Church. It's clear that he likely never had a proper introduction to catechism and then was swayed by Protestant teachings against Catholicism. I've run into this finger wagging time and again.
Orthodox here. There is no such thing as proper Roman Catholic education. The post Vatican 2 Novus Ordo Church rejected almost every aspect of the Gregorian Reformation.
How do you expect people to trust a Church that rejected heself?
I said I was a Protestant convert technically according to my pastor I am a cradle Catholic I was baptized as a baby Catholic my parents never raised me in the faith at all my Protestant Pastor gave me a copy of the Ante-Nicene fathers why he would have had that I do not know I realize very quickly that they were not Protestant but I will reiterate some Protestants are not just ignorant they are willfully ignorant that means they choose to be and many of them hate the Catholic church and they hate Catholics I was never one of them but I was among many of them that were like that
@@kurtmurphy5994I have met too many Protestants who carry an unholy hatred for "Papists". There's rarely dialogue and mostly unbased accusations. I wish that Protestantism would cease being a verb and be only a noun.
When someone does a deep enough study to uncover the things that are contrary to God's word, the Catholic explanation is always that the person was poorly catechized.
Now just as a challenge, what is the Catholic explanation of transubstantiation? Is it physical or spiritual? What is real presence? Is it real?
@@jeromepopiel388 or that they are "schismatics" no matter what happened historically.
One of the things that I found it puzzling on how Protestants say Jesus is in everything we do, is that just how the heck did He get inside us in the first place??
Because He’s in heaven in flesh, how did He moved to enter us? This of course, was made clearer and more tangible by the Catholic Church.
Truly, the deposit of faith lies within the bosom of our Mother Church!
It is hard to understand when, we do not read what the early fathers were teaching about the Papasi, but instead what we do is open the door to Protestants thoughts, that’s exactly what is going to happen. Prayers for this brother and sister that are in the same confusion 🙏🏻
It is hard to understand why you would choose to listen to the "early church fathers" rather than listen to the word of God. How do you know you can trust those writings? How do you know those "church fathers" even existed? Because the CC tells you they did?
@@toddgallo1759 Why wouldn't you want to read what the disiples of the Apostles wrote?
@StringofPearls55 A. They aren't inspired B. You don't know those are even true followers. You rely on the CC to tell you that they are trustworthy, what proof do you have that they were true followers? They definitely teach a lot of things that are not found in the scriptures. Maybe that's why the CC doesn't like sola scriptura.
@@StringofPearls55 what is more important the word of God or according to the CC the words of their church fathers?
@@toddgallo1759 Jesus is the Word of God. Are you referring to Sacred Scripture?
The Pope also doesn’t have the ability to introduce novel doctrine. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. When the Pope does use his office to proclaim something infallibly, it comes from Tradition. It usually something that has already been widely held by the faithful and just hasn’t yet been elevated to an article of the faith/dogma.
I was a cradle Catholic, never left the church and I’m glad I did, learning the church doctrine and the fullness of our faith I am back with vengeance as in I intend to be devout as ever till the very end. Just imagine like everyone says having Jesus present in the mass, adoration and receiving the sacraments (Eucharist and Reconciliation) where else can you get mercy and grace everyday of every year?
Welcome back home! Thank you so much for sharing your testimony, and I am glad you are receiving Our Precious Lord!
Thank you so much for tuning in too, God bless you!
I am a protestant Convert And I will put this nicely this guy When he was Catholic Like other Catholics that leave And I've been known to be very Blunt and I will be here Is They are ignorant Maybe by poor Teaching But I learned The catholic faith as a protestant Because I was willing to study and find out the truth. With all resources and books on the internet, there is no excuse to be Ignorant. I told my pastor I would not be ignorant And He said I know cause he knows me pretty well. So I also know what all protestants believe. So if you don't know your Catholic faith as a Catholic You can blame the church.You can blame whoever teaches you if they do or lack of It But with all the resources there is no excuse to be ignorant. There are two types of ignorone One through No fault of your own And then you have the other type of ignorance more dangerous. It would be called wilful ignorance. Which means you choose to be that way. One of the seven deadly sins is called Sloth Or we would know it as Being lazy. Most people take that to be physical laziness. But me and my retired pastor who is a terrific guy agreed That it also means spiritual laziness.
Imagine in Iran, Christians like us could be treated as second class citizens, because converting from Islam to Christianity in Iran is death penalty. Furthermore there are raided by the police in Iran. The only thing is the president of Iran died in the helicopter because they mess with Israel.
If you want to lean about Catholicism then ask a Protestant convert - all the questions you have have already been investigated and clarified by them.
Where do you find the 7 deadly sins?
@@toddgallo1759 Google will give you the seven deadly sins
Since you are better informed, in your understanding, is the sacrifice of the Mass an offering by which sins are expiated?
This man, Pastor Nickels, has a 5-minute format: he does good quick factual reviews of bibles, and he includes Catholic bibles, very fair and useful reviews. So he forces himself to do only the bare bones: your point that he should have gone deeper on this particular video of his doesn't recognize his given framework. But thanks for responding so well to his also charitably-put reasons. The comments below his video are full of very good responses from Catholics to his points, also defending and explaining, as you are doing so ably here. Mr. Nickels' objections show he has not truly grasped that which he protests, and we all hope and pray for him to go deeper.
As an Anglican I disagree with many things he says. I’m more in line with Catholics
Does the Anglican Church still believe they have apostolic succession?
@@sethw7399 Yes, because Roman Bishops became Anglicans during the Reformation so present-day Bishops can trace their lineage right back. Rome however, would probably not agree!
@@clivejames5058
So I'm here just trying to learn.
But basically is it that the Catholic church says that since they were excommunicated out the church. Like Matthew 18:17-18; that they were no longer ordained Bishops?
so they couldn't ordain other Bishops below them to pass on Apostolic Succession.
Is that the correct argument?
Angelican community and I am not trying be rude but they have different sects some are liberal some are Orthodox type conservative there's a sense of division sadly within Angelican but they are brothers in sisters in Christ
@Irishman8787 Thanks. As a convert, I forget the correct usage of communities vs using Church sometimes.
Keep up the great work
Great presentation and discussion on the truth of infallibility the how why and when.😊🎉
When someone leaves the church for any reason the reasons they use are calling Jesus a liar. I think they may forget that the Church was given the Holy Spirit to lead them to all Truth.
Bryan Mercier: You, indeed, have the patience of Job , because, neither do I Myself make the time to listen to some recently laicized ex- Priest justifying why he no longer wanted to remain in the Sacerdotal Office, nor, some layman that defected from Christ's One , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic ( OHCA) Church, Both Latin ( Roman Rite) and Eastern ( Oriental ) Rites. 🇺🇲🇺🇸❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐🙏🕯️👼😇🕊️⛪📖🌫️
God bless you John. Thank you for watching!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You are welcome, Bryan Mercier. GOD Bless You, Your Family and the Apostolate.🇺🇲🇺🇸❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🌫️🕊️⛪📖😇👼🕯️🙏🛐✝️☦️
I was at EWTN this morning for Sunday mass. I go their regularly. Something Fr Leonard said led me to pray the rosary for fallen-away Catholics and our Protestant brothers and sisters to come to the knowledge of God's truth. May all fallen-away Catholics and our Protestant brothers and sisters be open to the Holy Spirit and let the truth lead them back or to the Catholic Church.
Amen
Bryan at his best.
Let's say the Pope gets a Wendy's #1 Dave's burger meal and says "Best burger I have ever had". I don't think that makes that burger an infallible best burger. Tim, as a returning cradle Catholic I bought a Catechism. Please come back, read, ask questions.
💯
It always saddens me that the Catholic faith is so poorly understood.. even by Catholics. Pray for us all🙏
Indeed, Catechesis is needed now more than ever!
Sad, but true. Too many people are going to get a huge headache when the illumination of conscience comes for all of us. We will be seen as Jesus sees us with the potential end of life if we pass away before becoming perfect; as Jesus is perfect. Prayers for all unbelievers from this ole bloke.
You are absolutely right. They are in for a rude awakening! Consequently these are the people that need our prayers.
Awesome
Jesus Christ is the vine and we Catholics are the branches
What would you say on the Marian apparition of Zeitoun?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think the title is a little confusing. Is he a former catholic or an ex-catholic, but it sounds confusing that he's a former ex-catholic, that makes it sound like he's catholic again.
That is confusing. Fixed. :)
@@CatholicTruthOfficial That was fast
:)
I understood it. I'm from the Department of Redundancy Department
Would you please have the exact title of "This is my body (200 definitions")?
God Bless all my brothers and sisters in Christ, the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. I don’t think Our Lord desired there to be thousands of different Christian Church’s, when he started his One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for all humanity.
Jesus founded the orthodox Church. Rome was orthodox until the 12th century but separated from orthodoxy and created Roman Catholicism during the Gregorian Reformation.
Then Vatican 2 created yet another mutation, the so called ecumenical Church which in reality is the heresy of pan-synchretism.
Lord have mercy on us all sinners
Kyrie eleison ☦️
@@Hope_Boat
If He founded the Orthodox Church (He didn't, thats just your opinion), why didn't St Ignatius mention the Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans. He was a disciple of the Apostle John. He knew the Apostles.
The Orthodox Church is in schism. Yes it is. The Catholic Church cannot teach heresy. Thats your number one error. It cannot teach that with the Holy Spirit leading it in ALL TRUTH.
To be deep in history is to be Catholic.
Amen, Stevefranks!
I'll give the reasons. Poor education and poor faith
Or in his case, he was curious and didn't receive good answers to his satisfaction as happens many times unfortunately.
Why can’t Protestants just take Jesus’ words for it?
Why do they argue with Jesus?
None of the Apostles spoke up against Jesus when he said this is my body this is my blood.
Why would Jesus say something so deep in order to mislead us or confuse us?
Orthodox here. Do you, Romans take Jesus words litteraly?
You contradict Him in the very heart of the liturgy when the priest says His words "this is my blood of the convenant for the forgiveness of the sins, take and drink of it ALL OF YOU" and then the priest proceeds to NOT GIVING THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
Do you obey to Christ when He said (Luke 22: 24) the the first among the Christians shall not lord it over the nations, pretending to be a benefactor, but rather be the servant who washes their feet ?
Kyrie eleison.
We are not romans. We are the Catholic Church. Catholic means universal, not Roman. The Catholic church is made up of 23 Rites, of which, Roman is only one of them.
I can't for the life of me understand white Orthodox make Protestant arguments. It came before protestants, and never used it the shallow arguments that Protestants used, but today they're apologetics are mainly just Protestant arguments of misunderstandings of the Catholic Church.
Every Christian for 41500 years accepted the words this is my body as literal. That's what all the earliest Christians believe to two and that's what Orthodox believe also. So I'm not sure why you're so confused on this teaching. That doesn't mean every part of the Bible is literal, but all the earliest Christians took that line as literal in conjunction with John 6 which is very literal as well.
Whether you received the bread in communion or the wine, you receive the body and blood of Christ in both. You can't split or divide christ, and so if you receive one you receive both. This is an ancient Christian teaching as well. You really need to study your church history and theology
@@Hope_Boat Who are "Romans"? Secondly: It is Christian doctrine that each particle of the consecrated Host is Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity of Jesus. When we receive the Host we receive the blood also. Likewise, when we receive the consecrated wine we receive the Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity. If you are receiving Communion from a validly ordained priest who successfully confects the Sacrament, that is what is happening when you too receive. How come you don't know this?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial We know what katholike means it's a greek word and we profess in the Nicene-Constantinopolean creed during each liturgy : "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church".
The difference is that you weaponized the word Catholic in order to mean "Greeks not welcomed".
Why? Because you universality comes from the Roman Imperialism. And Yest you are the Roman Church, nothing else. It's in you very dogma, you proclaimed in 1075 (Dictatus Papae) :
- That the Roman church is founded by the Lord alone.
- That the Roman pontiff alone is called universal by right.
- That he alone can use the imperial insignia.
- That all princes are to kiss the feet of the pope alone.
- That the name of him alone is to be recited in the churches.
- That this is the only name in the world.
- That for him it is licit to depose emperors.
- That his sentence ought to be retracted by no one and that he alone can retract that of all.
- That he himself must be judged by no one.
- That the Roman church has never erred nor will ever err in perpetuity, as scripture testifies.
- That the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is indubitably made holy by the merits of Blessed Peter
- That one is not to be held to be catholic, who does not concord with the Roman church.
So it is pretty obvious that the principle behind the universality of your "Church" is the Roman empire. the title Roman Pontiff does not comes from our Lord Jesus or from the Apostles. It's the religious title of the pagan emperors of Rome, Pontifex Maximus during the cult of the Emperor.
Our Lord told us that the first among the Church must not lord it over the nations and pretend to do so as a benefactor. Boniface VIII proclaimed in 1302 that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
The exact opposite of what Jesus told us.
Mind that again it's to the Roman Pontiff that all humans have to submit, not to the pope.
Rome is always the reason, not Christ.
I am not a Protestant and I don't care about you dispute with term. Protestantism is you problem. You generated Protestantism, you deal with it. Calling me a Protestant is ridiculous and shown you are narrow minded.
We orthodox don't place anyone above Christ. So we take Christ's words with the utter most respect and fear. When Christ said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" we do not have the audacity to correct Christ.
When Christ tells us "take and drink of it all of you", our priests give the holy blood of Christ to all orthodox Christians.
You can't have two masters. We obey Christ. You obey the Pontifex Maximus.
Because he's Roman.
Not because Jesus told you so.
Jesus spoke in ways that require spiritual understanding.
John 10:6
[6]This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
Later they have a light bulb moment.
They have the same problem in ch.6 but Jesus finally explained...
John 6:63
[63]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Protestants get this, but Catholics reject the words of Jesus because it doesn't line up with their tradition.
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies." - St Irenaeus of Lyons
"For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." - St Irenaeus of Lyons
"Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking" - St Irenaeus of Lyons
Saint Ireneus of Lyon was orthodox.
@@Hope_Boat
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. It is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority." - St Irenaeus of Lyons
@@Hope_Boat St. Ireneus was Christian, and Christians were commonly already referred to as catholic as proven by the 110 A.D. Letter to the Smyrneans by St. Ignatius of Antioch. It is Catholics who have the orthodox faith. The wandering headless ortho churches are not even unified about something so basic as divorce for they have no teaching authority. Or show me the single "Orthodox" teaching on divorce that holds for all Orthos. Sad for you.
@@josh39684 Saint Ireneus didn't know that the Church of Rome will apostasy from the orthodox faith.
I was recently a guest at an Evangelical Lutheran baby baptism.
The pastor explained to the baptism party that this is a "high service" with the Last Supper.
For me as a Catholic, the celebration was filled with almost the same songs, a similar procedure but not the same as the Novo Ordo Holy Mass, but I missed the adoration of the Lord. The procedure of the Holy Supper did indeed seem like an invitation to "coffee and cake" (only with bread and juice). Even though the pastor repeated Jesus' words about bread and wine, this "ceremony" seemed like an afterthought. The Lord's Supper also took place somewhat separately from the actual service.
During the sermon, the pastor talked about his visit to a Catholic Holy Mass (he said service) for the Corpus Christi procession. He also mentioned that he does not understand the veneration of the host and the ordained priesthood.*
* the sermon was about being invited, as a guest orfeeling part of the family.
Well, you got to witness one sacrament, baptism, while the other, Eucharist, was only "attempted" but failed. It's so different for us Catholics at Mass, isn't it? thanks be to God, we never have to worry about inviting Christ in, He's there merging Himself Really with us every Communion.
@@pmlm1571 I have often attended confirmations, weddings or baptisms in a Lutheran church, as I live as a Catholic in the diaspora (the majority are Lutheran and my extended family was raised with the Lutheran faith). But this time, perhaps, I paid more attention because of the pastor's sermon. Up until now, the Evangelical Lutheran service seemed more like a lesson to me than a worship of Jesus Christ/Trinity.
Six Kings of Judah and Israel have their Master of the Palace mentioned in the Old Testament (for Solomon, Elah, Ahab, Uzziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah). The number 6 means an incomplete set. So, which King completes the set, and who is His Master of the Palace?
I missed the part when Paul (Saul) was a eye witness.
I read the Bible I believe I missed that too
And Mark.
Wait: Paul is an eye-witness due to his vision. Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul did claim to receive a special apostleship *directly from Jesus.*
1 Corinthians 15
Peter was the first Christian. And one of the foundation stones of the Church. Jesus is the cornerstone and the support under the Church
One could argue that Mary was the first Christan, but yes, Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His Church.
@@catholictruthreplies Yes, Mary has special knowledge. She wasn't called a Christian until Antioch. Peter was the first Christian to become a believer. Throughout the Bible in the old testament the Lord is the Rock and New Testament Jesus is the Rock. SELA , PETRA. This is a rock big enough that a city could be built on it. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation is a Definition in the Bible and is used to understand other passage. PETER is a small hand size rock and is the foundation with the rest of the Apostles and Prophets. Is the Church was built on Peter we would not have a Church. He was like rolling sand without Jesus. And too small by himself. Jesus connection is to all Christians via the Light of the Father that is in him and the Holy Spirit in us.
@@kennethprather9633 Jesus is not the rock, rather He is the cornerstone. Peter (Kepha, or Cephas) was the rock. The Petros - Petra argument is rather old hat. The Church was built on Peter, with Christ as the cornerstone. We certainly do have a church because Christ's promise is eternal. The gates of hell will not triumph over the church He founded, and He will be with us always until the end of the world. Christ is not a liar.
@@catholictruthreplies No, you are a false teacher. Peter was the first Christian Believer and his name was changed to stone, small rock. We find that all Christians are PETROS! Not just Peter. We all are stones that build the Church in and on Jesus. We all are part of Jesus! Every Christian is equal none has more Holy Spirit than another like in old testament covenant.
In the Bible, Peter calls Christians "living stones" who serve as building material for a spiritual house and priesthood around Jesus Christ, the living cornerstone. Jesus also says, "You are Peter (a piece of the rock), and on this mountain of rocks(the fact that I am the Messiah, the Son of the living God), I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). Jesus also promises that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," meaning that death and evil will not permanently overpower the Church.
@@catholictruthreplies Jesus is the Rock Petra or Sela 101 times. We are a part of Jesus and in Jesus. We have Jesus's Spirit in us.
All I can is that if Catholic’s will find any understanding why Protestants think and speak or believe the way they do it’s because of this so called reformation which is not in scripture plus the fact that the bible was put into the hands of the public by the reformers this is why we have this situation,for before the reformation it’s wasn’t heard of that anyone could possess a Bible for it’s to hard to understand from just any old Tom Dick and Harry now isn’t that the eternal truth
How do Non-Catholic Christians come to the conclusion that the mass is crucifying Jesus over and over when they don't beleive that for when they sin?
When they sin do they place Jesus on the cross to die for that particular sin?
BTW Mark, Luke and Saul were not eyewitnesses. 1:43
I'm a protestant who is trying to learn the true teachings of the church. When it comes to the Eucharist the thing I personally struggle with is all parishners drinking from the same cup. When I have visited Catholic churches I notice many (over half of the parishioners) who do not participate in drinking the wine. I wouldn't either as it is quite a health hazard. I often wonder if they feel left out by their own church. I have learned that some churches practice dipping the wafer into the wine instead, but I personally have not witnessed that in Catholic churches I've visited. My husband was raised Catholic and he has said he wouldn't be willing to participate in drinking the cup either if he would go back to the church.
Some people will not drink from the same cup because of germs. I do every chance I can. That being said, Jesus is fully present, body, blood, soul and divinty in both. So, it's okay to partake in only one but it is also the reason why there is only one cup. Can you imagine filling hundreds of little cups with his precious blood and the irrelevantly tossing those cups in the trash along with the drops of his precious blood? To fully grasp, you must understand that it IS Jesus' body, blood,soul and divinty. Hope that helps. God bless.
I'm a cradle catholic and I've never seen anywhere parishioners drinking from the calice, priest sometimes dips the Holy Host in the wine and gives it to the people. But I live in Italy and maybe is an American use
@@eleanor9004 That's interesting. Hmmm?
“Former ex” makes no sense
Let's pray for that ex catholic 🙏
whenever i hear the subject of ttransubstansiation i think of the word Jesus used "TROGOS"
Gnaw, like an animal, not eat! Christ was very visceral with His language.
@@catholictruthreplies I'm confused, i meant eat, are you saying we aren't to eat Christ flesh?
You would be right about that because that is what I am I have extensively studied the early church fathers I have read the entire catechism I wonder how many cradle Catholics have because we don't become Catholic unless we know it's true
Wasn't it Peter who said to The Lord "where will we go?" When the same issue came up amongst the Apostles.
That's 100% Correct, William!
John 6:68-69
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Please look at TJ McCarty's latest video titled: Why I'm NOT Catholic (9 Reasons)
He is a great guy that needs to be shown the road home. God bless.
Please email us. Thanks. Bryan@catholictruth.org
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Email sent. Thanks for taking the time to respond :)
Do complaint about Catholics going to Mass on Sunday instead of Saturday matter when there are Catholics who go to Mass on Saturday evening anyway?
Hi Kakaragi! Nothing wrong with attending vigil masses on Saturday evening; by the Jewish reckoning of time-telling (sunset is the end of the day and start of the next), it is technically Sunday at the time the vigil occurs.
Rome and Protestants can argue day and night about doctrines and traditions but what concerns me is when I have a dying elderly person in the hospital how can they have assurance of salvation? How can they rest in peace in the arms of Christ?
Doctrines are extremely important. Necessary. However, while a deathbed conversion is something different, it is important also. So of course, we want them to learn about Jesus christ, what he did for us on the cross, and to accept him and put their faith in him and what he did for us, confessing their sins, and being baptized if necessary.
John 6:53
Amen! Nothing symbolic there.
A deep deception was placed on him
A deep deception??? How is he the one that is deceived and not you?
@@toddgallo1759 unbiblical. Coz the bible is a catholic book, who best knows the bible but the Catholics.
So is this ex-Catholic relying on the eye witness testimony, or the Holy Spirit guiding the gospel writers to write what is in the Bible? Because those would be two different things. But he seems to point out both. Which is more important: eye witness testimony or the Holy Spirit bearing witness of the truth?
Wow! he expects to understand eucharist transubstantiation. I wonder if he tries to understand how the WORD became incarnate?🙏
Agreed! There is a reason that Transubstantiation and the Miracle of Eucharist are referred to as "Sacred Mysteries".
Scientists are trying to work out teleportation through time and space.
Just come to Catholic holy mass. Every time the One Most Holy Sacrifice is celebrated, we are transported to Calvary next to Jesus's cross.
Amen! This is the miracle of the Communion of Saints, we commune with all Catholics past, present, and future on Calvary.
I’m personally friends with tim from a nicklesworth Bible reviews. I’ll reach out to him i’m sure he’d be willing to have at least a private conversation with you.
Blessings from Bezalel book art
Dugg, I've watched many of Tim's Nickelsworth Bible reviews. He does a really good tight review, and includes the full Catholic bibles too which is quite nice. His bias shows when he says Catholic bibles have "bias," lol. And the way he refers to the Deuterocanonicals shows he hasn't done a deep dive on that issue, which neglect I find surprising. I've interacted with him in the comments and he both engages and maintains the same even tone as in his videos. I like him and think he is doing us bible-readers and Christ-followers a service by his reviews. I hope he is willing to talk with Catholic Truth.
Yes he’s a great example of a straight shooting kind man. Not saying he’s right as I’m inquiring into orthodoxy so we have friendly conversations over that which of course he disagrees with me. He’s not a debater or confrontational so idk if he would ever come on unfortunately.
Protestants
Sola Mea Sententia
Only My Opinion
How he is not leaving catholic even his hair leaving his head
I left the Catholic church as a child, not because of the Pope or any of the Cardinals who assisted him at the time. The Pope and his advisors were (and are), indeed, infallible so long as they acted (or act) with the total guidance of the Holy Spirit and without the veiling illusion of the ego. I left because the Priests and Nuns, and even the laity who assisted the clergy, seemed largely unhappy. Their negativity was, for me, an insurmountable barrier; their aloofness was a chasm I could not cross.
Hello! Sorry to hear that you left the Church, I hope that you return to the fullness of Faith, and come home to the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church! Remember that not all parishes are alike, and the climate of one, or even several, parishes should neither reflect, nor dictate the perception of the Church at large.
@catholictruthreplies Thank you for your kind reply. A friend of mine, a former army warrant officer and helicopter pilot, a Catholic since birth and one who, as a teenager, had undergone Confirmation in the Catholic Church, had an opportunity to shake the hand of Pope John Paul II in 1987. In an instant, my friend's life was transformed from one of disenchantment as a mature adult to one of tranquil resolve. The other members of my friend's army unit, many of whom were not Catholic, reported a similar experience of transformation but wholly unique to their own individual lives. My friend's story is now the foundation of my faith.
On the Sacrifice, I like to explain this in this manner: We call it sacrifice, but we are not sacrificing Jesus. So, why do we call it sacrifice? Think of the Jewish sacrifice. The animal was killed, and then they would eat its flesh. The whole process is called sacrifice, but, actually, the animal was sacrificed once when they killed it. So, when they were eating the animal, they weren't sacrificing it because they had already sacrificed the animal. But the whole thing (the killing and the eating) was called sacrifie. In the same way, we don't kill Jesus every week. Jesus was already sacrificed, and it is done. But the process of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is called sacrafice as well, even though we are not sacraficing Him, just as Jews called the whole process of sacrificing and eating as such. Do you think my explanation fits with the Catholic teaching?
Never heard that, sounds weird. Only the priests ate of the sacrifice. It was a sacrifice for sins only because of the blood poured out on the altar.
Is the Mass a sacrifice for sins or not?
@@jeromepopiel388 I have the impression that the sacrifices in the old testament were for sins and other things. Whorshiping God? I don't remember. But it is not important because I'm not using the purpose of the Jewish sacrifice to make my analogy, but the way the Jews called the sacrifice. They would kill and eat the animal; this whole process is called sacrifice. Jesus was killed, and we've been eating His flesh and drinking His blood; this whole process can be called sacrifice as well. But I'm not an educated Catholic; I have a lot to learn about my faith, so I'm not qualified to give a proper answer to that question. I recommend you check it with a well educated priest.
@@alexandregb566 That's not a relationship with God. You can't know Him though a ritual
John 6:29,63
[29]Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
[63]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
@@jeromepopiel388 John 6:29,63
[29]Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
We agree. The Eucharist is the work of God.
[63]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
We agree. The Eucharist is the agency of the Holy Spirit and the words of God because He commended us to do so.
And I can know Him through a ritual. All Christians do rituals: we beptize, we pray, we go to the churhc (which has a series of acts to be followed), we read scripture, we follow a formula to know Him and be saved by Him, etc. I can call all those thing rituals, and that's fine.
Merriam Webster Dictionary: an ACT or SERIES of ACTS regularly REPEATED in a set precise manner.
@@alexandregb566 you missed it. The Eucharist (Thanksgiving) is man's work, it is something that we do. That's fine, but that's not what Jesus meant. You're just making an association based on what you wish to see. To believe on Christ means to trust Him and that means to forsake any other confidence in anything we could do or perform such as religious rituals, making many prayers, fasting, law keeping, keeping holy days, etc.
Jesus never ministered in a ritualistic manor. He worked according to the needs of each person.
John 4:23
[23]But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Do you see? What does it mean to worship in spirit? It is worship from the heart. That is the opposite of rituals. King David knew how to worship from the heart. It wasn't about rituals.
Let me leave you with a favorite passage from Meister Eckhart
"Do all you do, acting from the core of your soul without a single "Why?" I tell you, whenever what you do is done for the sake of the kingdom of God, or for God's sake, or for eternal blessing, and thus really for ulterior motives, you are wrong. You may pass for a good person, but this is not the best. For truly, if you imagine that you are going to get more out of God by means of religious offices and devotions, in sweet retreats and solitary prisons, than you might just as well think you could seize God and wrap a mantle around his head and stick him under the table! To seek God by rituals is to get the ritual and lose God in the process, for he hides behind it. On the other hand, to seek God without artifice is to take him as he is, and so doing, a person "lives by the Son," and is the life itself." - Meister Eckhart - sermon, "The Love of God"
God did not give the early church the office of Pope. He gave the church the five-fold ministry: Apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers.
Father figures were unofficial titles given to men who, due to gaining much experience in the things of God, had come to be known by the church as Father-figures.
The teaching of transubstantiation and the re-presentation of the Lord's supper is an attempt to aggrandize what was originally taught to be commemoration (memorial).
In a commemoration that is held, we do not re-present the actual history and details of an historic event of our nation, we REMEMBER those who had part in the historic event.
He most certainly did give the office of the papacy has he gave Peter alone the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven giving him a special Primacy of authority. All the apostles were bishops, but Peter alone received the Keys of the Kingdom directly from Jesus. We see the Primacy of Peter throughout the early church as well. Peter is mentioned in the bible 195 times. Saint John, 29 times, St. James 16 times. Peter does first miracle and the first speech. Peter receives the revelations from God. He has a special relationship with Christ who trains him. Acts 15:11. Peter alone settled the dispute. Lists of apostles are always Peter and 11. Peter and the others. Peter and the Apostles. He is always listed 1st and Judas last. Luke 5:1-10: Peter chosen for ministry as fisher of men. Luke 22:24-32. Leader of the brothers. John 21:1-17: chosen as shepherd of church under Christ.
Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.): There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another.
Young single Christian in 1500 years Todd that Jesus's death and Lord's Supper was merely a memorial or a symbol. They all taught the true presence of Jesus and transubstantiation. That's a historical fact even among the earliest Christians but you don't seem to have read.
For example:
St. Athanasius (373 A.D.): But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the body, and the wine the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. … This bread and wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But, after the great prayers and supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus is His body confected."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.): “Jesus Himself, therefore, having declared and
said of the bread, This is my body, who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said this is my blood, who can ever hesitate and say that it is not His blood.” … “In approaching therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart, or your fingers spread, but make your left hand a throne for the right since you are about to receive into it a king.”
Irenaues (180 A.D.): For as the bread form the earth receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity.
When therefore the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported.
…The Spirit of God who contains all things; and then, through the wisdom of God, comes to the service of men, and receiving the the Word of God becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also, our bodies, nourished by it, and deposited in the earth and decomposing therein, shall rise up in due season, the Word of God favoring them with the resurrection in the glory of God the Father.
Justin Martyr (150 A.D.): We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except the one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for remission of sins and regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, But since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer laid down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
The Apostle Paul stated, in 1 Corinthians 10: 3-4, speaking of Israel in the wilderness, that "All ate of the spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from the same spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ."
Of the fathers that you have mentioned, none made reference to what Paul had conveyed to the church in Corinth. Namely, that the rock is Christ (which means Peter could not/never be that same rock) and that the rock itself was not literally Christ Himself (transubstantiated), but a metaphor of who He is (the Word of God). Upon this rock, Jesus calls His people to build (Matthew 7 :24-25.
His church does not have two foundations and two rocks.
In summary, Peter is a rock hewn out of the greater Rock (Jesus); yet, all truly in Christ are called living stones.
I would like to share this with you. Yesterday, a commenter replied to me. We once conversed because he said he was addicted to p-rn. He felt hopeless bcos no matter what he does he still could not resist temptations on lust. He also said he is praying the anglican rosary. Then, I sent him messages. I told him that the reason why he was not liberated from sexual sins is bcos the anglican rosary has no power bcos it is not from God but just from men or invented by men.
Then, I advised him to pray the catholic rosary because I told him this prayer has great power to liberate him from sexual sins bcos it came from God. He told me he thought it is improper for him to pray the catholic rosary because he is not catholic. I told him that there have been non-catholics like protestants who pray the catholic rosary. So he took my advice and told me he will pray the catholic rosary. I asked him to give me an update on his spiritual journey. Our conversation took place 2 months ago.
Yesterday, he replied to me. He told me he attended the catholic Mass last week and bought a rosary. He had it blessed by a priest. Since then, he started praying the rosary. He said as soon as he started praying the catholic rosary (he started last week), he has been able to abstain from p-rn. So it's already 1 week since he has not been watching prn. Praise God!
He also shared with me his desire to become fully catholic. Praise God!
Wow! Amazing! Praise God! The Rosary is very powerful. That is my experience too. Thank you for sharing.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Yes. The prayer of the Rosary has so many benefits to us like it heals us from our sins, it increases our virtues, it strengthens us in our weaknesses, it protects us from our enemies (bad spirits and bad people) ETC ...... AND another amazing benefit the rosary prayer gives us ... IS it gives us profound peace and inexplicable inner happiness even amid trials esp if we pray the FULL rosary or 4 mysteries (joyful, luminous, sorrowful, glorious). It is difficult or a struggle to pray the Rosary esp the FULL rosary .... BUT it is worth praying .... because after you finished praying it, your soul will be filled with profound peace and inner joy even when you are in great trials .... thats why those who regularly pray the Rosary don't feel or feel much depression, anxiety and other negative feelings. We also feel safe from the enemies after we prayed the Rosary.
Okay, this is a stumbling block for me, and others, obviously. At around 9:55 you say the Bible never says the Last Supper (bread & wine) is a remembrance. I had to look this up in the Bible, because I distinctly remember scripture stating that Christ said it is a remembrance. Sure enough, in Luke 22:19 of the NRSV-CI Bible (on the Bible app by Life.Church) it states, “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” Christ did not break off a part of his body or drain some of his blood and pass it around pre-crucifixion. I think the Catholic Church takes this too literally. I’m not saying this to be contrarian, I genuinely find this a stumbling block. The Last Supper happened before the crucifixion, is there any significance in that? Christ had not yet atoned for our sins or been resurrected.
Yet they can give their preachers infallibility but not the Pope.🤦🏻
Ok..
He thinks the apostles writing were infallible but fails to mention other books in the bible that are written and they were not with jesus and did not walk with Jesus but were accepted into the books of the bible.
Now let a Protestant know this and try to have just a tiny bit of understanding that it’s true that Jesus said when fulfilling the sacrificial Passover ritual and meal which was leading up to and being fulfilled in the Eucharist when Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD DO THIS IN COMMEMORATION OF ME,now did you get what Jesus just said which fulfills of what he said in the scriptures,and that is unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood YOU SHALL HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.Now what life and who’s life is Jesus talking about
Hello! The life that Christ speaks of is Eternal Life, that of our Theosis, that He may dwell in us and we in Him.
@@catholictruthreplies Truly Mr Mercier that’s exactly the point that Protestants can’t understand or except which makes me wonder about what Jesus told the Jews and said to them that beware that the light in you be not darkness for if that light be darkness how great shall that darkness be?🤔
He said the scriptures were written by fallible men, he didn't say the men who wrote the scriptures were infallible, he said they were written by fallible men who were lead by the Holy Spirit. You are totally misrepresenting what he said.
1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
There were originally four views of the Eucharist
1. Rememberance without presence. See last Supper.
2. Holy Spirit is the presence. John 6:63.
This was done by Jesus for non believing Jews
3. Mystical Jesus is present but we can not see it. ROMANISM. hardly anyone believed. Not biblical
4. Literal presence. Flesh and Blood presence of Jesus.
Romanism hardly anyone believed. Not biblical.
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
So no literal context. Cried of 5000 men.
Hi Kenneth, thank you for your reply.
1. Immediately this is thrown out, because even at the Last Supper Christ served Himself with His own hands, and in the earliest writings of the Church it was clear that it was a real presence that was beleived.
2. The Holy Spirit does bring about the Miracle during the Consecration, but the presence is not the Holy Spirit, rather it is Christ in His Real, True Presence.
3. This is not what we believe. Substantially present, not a mystical presence.
4. I don't think any early sect of Christendom beleived in the literal (meaning actual flesh and actual blood) of Jesus.
What scripture are you referencing? Where was the parable in John 6?
@@catholictruthreplies
3. The Mystical and 4. The
@@catholictruthreplies
Yes, 3. The Mystical and 4. The literal that were of Romanism were thrown out. No one hardly believed them and it was only in Rome that anyone did.
6. JESUS never spoke to crowds without it being in parables.
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[c
John 6 25:59 is the parable spoken to 5000 men that were Jews and unbelievabling.
59- 70 is the explanation of what it means given to the Apostles. And Peters comments at the end.
In 6:63 Jesus said that the Flesh was worthless and it was the Spirit in the Bread and Blood.
In 6:68 Peter said these words ( parable) gives Eternal Life. Meaning the Holy Spirit and Light of the Father.
In 69 Peter says we Apostles are already saved.
Jesus the Bread of Life
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
@@kennethprather9633 No, 1 is immediately thrown out. You know what I meant. Show me where it says the discourse in Capernaum is a parable. I read the entire passage and there is not one reference to it being a parable.
Jesus emphatically tells his first disciples that they must eat his body and drink his blood to attain eternal life (John 6:53-58). Here Jesus first reveals the preeminent sacrament, the Eucharist, because it makes present his one Sacrifice of Calvary that culminated in everlasting glory in the heavenly sanctuary, and which his disciples participate in and offer new at every Mass, and therein also partake of him as the New Covenant Passover Lamb in Holy Communion.
His disciples understand Jesus as speaking literally, not figuratively, and so they understandably say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60).
In response, Jesus doesn’t convey that they misunderstand him. Rather, he makes a further claim, that he is not simply the Messiah, but God himself, presenting himself as a glorious divine figure of which the prophet Daniel spoke: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:61-62; see Dan. 7). Jesus is conveying that the eternal-life-giving nature of the Eucharist is possible precisely because he is God.
In John 6:63, Jesus reaffirms this point: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63). Here Jesus implicitly reaffirms his teaching on the Eucharist, conveying that his human nature on its own could not provide eternal life, but united with his divine person-body, blood, soul and divinity-it can.
@@catholictruthreplies Jesus never spoke to a crowd without it being in a parable.
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[c]
Psalm 78:2 2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: 3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
So, because there were 5000 men. No count of women and children we know for a fact that it is a parable in John 25- 59 and that 60- 70 is the teaching on it and the last couple of verses are Peters reply.
So, Jesus said that the Flesh is worthless and it is the Spirit. In the Parable that he gave 25-59.
Peter said these words give Eternal life ( Holy Spirit and Light)
Then he said we the Apostles are already saved.
This was done to save the Unsaved Jews. As the Bread and wine is their history. And the Manna.
God Bless.
Bryan doesn't understand what the word of God is. It is not the product of inspired men . It is the expired or "God breathed word". The WORDS NOT THE MEN. Scripture is not just a record. It is the living, breathing word of God.
It is wrong to say that tradition is the equal of it.
Obviously the word of God it's not the product of inspired men. Who wouldn't know that? What you don't seem to realize along with other anti-Catholics is that tradition is the word of God as well. Tradition is the whole body of teaching that Jesus Christ gave us, and Jesus Christ is God, and so the words that he taught us in person or the word of God. Remember, he first taught us the gospel orally. He didn't write it down for us. He taught us the word of God orally, he didn't write it down for us. It was passed on orally also, and the church was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving and passing on the word of God long before scripture was even written down. Some of that tradition was written down in Scripture which is why Paul tells us to hold to the word of God whether oral or written. He does not say that it's only written. Even if it was, your personal man-made interpretation of it is not God breathed or infallible. Nor are the millions of other Protestant interpretations that all contradict each other on everything even basic theology.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thanks for trying to show me something new but I've been down that road before and it is not the way of faith. The word of God is living and powerful. Not so tradition
God's word is settled forever in heaven. Not so tradition.
Does the Bible endorse tradition? Here's what St Peter said...
2 Peter 1:17-19,21
[17]For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18]And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
[19]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[21]For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Peter here referred to his experience or tradition. He saw the transfiguration. He saw Moses and Elijah. He heard the audible voice of the Father! What tradition can compare? There is nothing even close yet what does he say? He says we have a MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY! That word is God's word, The Bible. The Bible is fully guaranteed by God. All it's promises are yea and amen.Tradition is not even close.
Psalms 1:1-3
[1]Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
[2]But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
[3]And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
Psalms 19:7-9
[7]The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
[8]The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
[9]The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Psalms 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
The Bible says of faith...
Romans 10:17
[17]So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
In this verse,the word for word is Rehma, not Logos. It is the word coming alive to you, not ink on a page.
Tradition will not inspire faith, at least not true faith.
Downgrading the Bible to the equal of tradition is losing the fear of God. It becomes a slippery slope. Only the Word is a solid foundation. Everything else will move. You will be subject to deception. Paul said to beware of false gospels
He said they must not accept anything but what they first received. That is the genuine, nothing else. No tradition.
The Bible is clear on this. Following tradition is setting yourself up for deception. And yes, for the great end-time deception
Jesus Christ founded a Church (Matthew 16:18). He did not command anyone to write a Gospel.
The Word of GOD is a person, and not a book (John 1:1,14). 😎😎
The Catholic Church is based on the Word of GOD alone and not on Scripture alone.
F
the Bible came from the Church, and that the Church did not come from the Bible. The Catholic Church is the Mother of the Bible, not the Daughter.
THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK.
@@bibleman8010
Friend, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus founded a church. You're simply making something up. Jesus really said "I will build My church" . Secondly you are making your own assumption that it must mean an institution. That is not what Jesus builds. He builds one believer (one rock) at a time starting with Peter. "Church" or Eclesia means "called out ones ", not an institution. The bride of Christ is not an institution. In a local church assembly, there are both wheat and tares. It is not so with the bride.
Now come on dude, everyone knows Jesus didn't say to write down anything. That was the job of the Holy Spirit. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide,instruct, lead, and encourage His church (called out ones).
You continue to contradict the word of God.
2 Peter 1:21
[21]For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
God's word is not the product of men. It has nothing to do with an institution, which didn't even exist during the time of Moses and the Prophets.
You are simply playing on words. Holy scripture is the LOGOS OF GOD. It is the only spiritual book in the world. Men could never produce such a thing.
Hebrews 4:12
[12]For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If you wrote the Bible, then why don't you believe it?
Acts 7:48
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Acts 17:24
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Catholics think they can have God in a box.
Wish you really were a Bibleman but you're traditionman. You speak the wisdom of men, not God.
1 Corinthians 2:4-5,7
[4]And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
[5]That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
[7]But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1 Corinthians 3:18
[18]Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
I would rather be a fool than wise in the tradition of men.
1 Corinthians 7:23
[23]Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
Continue to serve men if that makes you feel good.
@@jeromepopiel388 Promises to Peter When he first saw Simon,
“Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’” (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later,
after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: “And I tell you, you are Peter” (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules
. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense. Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city-an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost-meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). Finally, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, FPeter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives. Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled😊😊
Apostolic succession has nothing to do with the Pontifical infallibility. We orthodox also have full apostolic succession, even petrinian apostolic succession in the Patriarch of Antioch.
The infallibility was introduced in the 19th century because the Greeks were having an unexpected comeback after the Greek independence and Rome didn't want to reopen the filioque dispute. And since the addition of the filioque was non canonical they came out with the infallibility dogma.
Which backfires since it's quite obvious the different popes of Rome contradicted eachother on matters of faith. Also the presence of Christ in our lifes cannot be described in any other ways as a mystery.
Saying that infallibility was invented in the 19th century is like saying that the Eucharist was invented in the 13th century or the Trinity was invented in the fourth century just because it was defined then.
If you study the early church councils, people infallibility was taught even back then and accepted by the churches of the east. We will be having a short video on that coming out in the next week, but for now you can watch the whole long video if you're interested.
Catholic, not Orthodox: Part 1: ua-cam.com/video/NQpK79qISwA/v-deo.html
Catholic, not Orthodox: Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/RjAPNbTYwpM/v-deo.html
I can't remember if it's in part one or two here, but like I said, we will be having a short clip of that section coming out this week.
The filioque was also taught in an early Council that the Orthodox all accepted, the 6th ecumenical council, it's really sad that Orthodox don't even know their own church history anymore. We talk about that in those videos about as well if you're interested. Stephen Orthodox today except the filioque, and we're talking priests and scholars. Not just people who don't know what they're talking about.
You have a lot of personal interpretations of history specific to you. Have fun with that.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial that's false and I will not embarque in detailed narration of the events that ended by the proclamation of the Pontifical infallibility in the 19th century.
The most important point is that you mix two concepts : the pope successor of saint Peter, and we agree as orthodox about his primature and the Roman Pontiff or Pontifex Maximus who's the successor of Caesar as pope Leo IX explained in a letter to the Patriarch Michel of Constantinople in1053 when he claimed universal juridiction over the entire Church based on the Donation of Constantine.
Leo IX was the second German pope and that's very important. He was the count Bruno von Eguisheim-Dagsbourg, a descendants of Charlemagne. The Carolingian dynasty was already extinct by then and when he became pope in 1050 Bruno von Eguisheim-Dagsbourg claimed the imperial Insignia for himsel and constituted a Pontifical State, along with a senate made of the Cardinals, wearing the imperial scarlet and purple of the senators of Rome and astate Chancellor the infamous Humbert de Moyenmoutiers.
Then emperor-pontiff Leo IV invaded Sicily with his imperial army to fight the Normans.
Sicily was a Byzantine province. Leo IX told the local bishop to drop the Byzantine liturgy in favour of the Latin mass. The bishop asked the Patriarch and Michel told him to ignore Leo's demands.
That's what prompted Leo to write that letter.
Leo was defeated by the Normans and remained their hostage almost until his death that occurred just before the official trip of Humbert to Constantinople in 1054.
The reason behind that visit was to obtain official recognition of the Pontifical State by the emperor of the east. Humbert was ruling the state alone at that point. He delivered an insulting letter to Michel in which Leo IX accused the Patriarch to be a woman in drag. And an excommunication bull also allegedly signed by the dead pope accusing the Greeks of several absurd things among those the removal of the filioque from the Creed.
The overall picture is that since Charlemagne coronation, the Germans wanted a schism between Rome and the rest of the Church in order to rule the West without interference from the East. The transformation of the Church of Rome into a temporal State was explicitly depicted in Dictatus Papae in 1075 and further developed in the Gregorian Reformation.
It was a direct violation of what Jesus told us in Like 22:24+
And a realisation of the prophecy of the unfaithful bribe of Christ in Revelation 17&18
Lord have mercy on us all sinners.☦
@@pmlm1571 at least I have an interpretation of History. The Roman Catholic Church is muted when it comes to what happened before the schism of 1054. Most Roman Catholics are totally ignorant of what the Church looked like during the first millennium. And for a good reason : it was orthodox.
No Roman Pontiff
No Pontifical State
No filioque
No purgatory and no indulgences
Married men becoming priests
No Latin mass imposed to everyone
The people did the orthodox sign of the cross in the West as well,
A separation between the holy place in the churches and the crowd, as we still have in the orthodox Church (iconostasis),
And even greek duvine liturgies (Byzantine rite) and greek popes of Rome until the 8th century (until the middle ages in south Italy and Sicily)
All of the writters of the New Testiment did not write infallibly though. Paul has multiple errors in his writings, unless he was somehow a time traveler as he mentions multiple people in his writings that were not alive when Paul was alive. One of which was a ruler in the first century BC, before Paul was born, and the rest were from the second century AD, after Paul was already dead.
Paul also taught the exact opposite of what Yeshua and the 12 apostles taught. Yeshua and his apostles taught that the Torah had to be obeyed and the Sabbath has to be kept by his followers to show their love for God. Those two acts are what set his people apart from the rest of the world. Yet, the "church" completely ignored the teachings of Yeshua and the 12 apostles and built their entire new religion on Paul's errored teachings instead.
Hello, thank you so much for your reply! Would you be able to provide some examples of the errors?
Are you a Messianic Jew by any chance?
You seem like a nice enough guy, at least from this video, I haven't seen any others from you as of yet. But I can't really agree with your stance on Papal Infallibility. Because you say that it's a rare exercise of the pope. But if that's true, then why does everything he says and every document he signs end up being treated as infallible by the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church, if almost none of it is infallible? Why does the Pope alone make all the decisions, unless he chooses forgo the responsibility of making a certain decision, unilaterally? It's seems like the Roman Catholic Church wants to argue both things. It wants to argue that the Pope is infallible and therefore is qualified to change anything he wants at any given time; but then argue that his fallible, that way when he errors he can just say, 'oh that didn't count.' It has to be one or the other. It can't be both. Either his teachings are infallible or they're not.
That's called cognitive dissonance.
The Roman Catholics see with they own eyes the contradictions in the Roman Catholic history.
Here are a few examples:
No salvation outside the Roman Church was proclaimed on several occasions since Dictatus Papae (1075) but now the pope explained that the orthodox Church is 'the second lung' of the Church, and that there are truths in every other religion.
We orthodox say in the holy creed we believe in one saint catholic apostolic Church. One. Not two. So one of the two was wrong. We have no cognitive dissonance issues. We are not in communion with Rome because Rome left the chat in 1054. You can't have you cake and eat it.
Rome can't turn her back to what previous popes proclaimed without torpedoing her own ship
Conclusion: orthodoxy is relevant and coherent . Roman Catholicism is Everything Roman Catholic deeply feels that schizophrenia andlives in cognitive dissonance.
Lord have mercy on us all sinners.☦️
@@Hope_Boat yeah it's weird isn't it? The Roman Catholic Church views all religions as some form of expression of our God. But the Bible says very clearly that all pagan Gods are idols. So the Pope and the pope alone can override the Bible? But are they claiming he is or is not infallible while he's doing it? The truth is, Roman Catholics would probably argue both. Which is exactly why it makes no sense. No offense to the Catholics reading these comments. I have nothing against anyone. My point simply is, that it's a deification of the pope. And so clearly wrong that even the people who's faith it's part of don't even believe in it, unless it's a policy they like, 'then it's infallible'.
@@SolidSnake0 There is very specific language the pope will use when he teaches infallibly. Papal infallibility will only be invoked when there needs to be a settlement in the disagreement on dogma. The teaching authority Jesus gave the apostles at the end of Matthew 28 is called the magisterium (latin for ‘teaching’). This power is given not only to the pope but to all bishops for their own diocese. (The pope is the bishop of the Diocese of Rome.) So when the pope signs a document (or when a local bishop does so) the people under his authority follow the rule even if it doesn’t carry the infallibility. The pope doesn’t normally make decisions on his own but has committees and will even call ecumenical councils involving all the bishops worldwide.
It should be noted that the Catholic Church is not comprised of just the Latin church but also of 23 eastern churches who submit to the authority of the pope. All are called Catholic. The Latin church is the largest and most prominent in the US.
The Catholic Church does not “[view] all religions as some form of expression of our God.” That is false. Here is a summary from America Magazine of the pope’s speech on Abrahamic religions which gets misconstrued. (Speeches are not authoritative teaching). He was speaking in Morocco, a majority Muslim country, as a form of peace relations.
“ Pope Francis said people also may wonder why God allows there to be so many different religions in the world.
Some theologians say it is part of God's "permissive will," allowing "this reality of many religions. Some emerge from the culture, but they always look toward heaven and God," the pope said. "What God wants is fraternity among us," he said, which is why "we must not be frightened by difference. God has allowed this." But it is right to be worried when people are not working toward a more fraternal world, he added.”
It’s important to know why the pope has infallible teaching. It’s because Jesus established his church on Peter and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. (Matthew 16:18) Should the church ever teach what goes against His will or Scripture, it will be in direct contradiction to Jesus’ word. Thus an impossibility and why infallible teaching will only be invoked with guidance from the Holy Spirit.
@@edyflak thank you for the well thought out and respectful reply. However it's the same kind of confusing rhetoric I was referring to. If you look at how the early church worked, it was the bottom levels that had ecclesiastical authority with rare exception. So then why did the Roman Catholic Church change it if papal infallibility is so rare? Even kind of reading your response, I mean it'd be easier to translate Aquinas on the fly than to understand the teaching of papal infallibility. It's constantly contradicting itself. And that's probably why nobody can explain how to apply it. The man who made the video said, "only in matters of faith and morals and when it's for the good of all of Christianity." And you're saying in contrast, only when it's a matter of dogma. And yet a third would combine those two criteria and another. And a fourth would say there's no criteria. You can understand then how everyone who leaves the Roman Catholic Church has this complaint right? Because to everyone who hasn't sworn complete loyalty to the pope, papal infallibility is nonsensical. I hope you don't read this as being provactive. I have nothing against the Roman Catholics. My wife is Roman Catholic, my family is too. But I left and since I've left, no one has been able to answer what should be very straightforward questions, in a straightforward manner that isn't contradictory.
@@SolidSnake0 Is it the teaching of the Bible that every person has the right and authority to interpret the Sacred Scripture according to his personal understanding of it? What are the consequences of it? Its consequences are division, multiplication of denominations, fighting, chaos, every person is his own pope etc. This is the doing of protestants and others who rebel against the Catholic Church/Pope because they think the Church/Pope is wrong in their interpretation of Scriptures and they are the ones right. For them, even their fellow protestants or other non-catholics are wrong if their interpretation of scripture is different from theirs. They do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope because they say he is just a man and a sinner. But are these protestants infallible in their interpretation of scriptures? Are they not also sinners? See how hypocrite they are! How good these protestants at criticizing the teachings of the Catholic Church and accusing the CC of not following the Bible but it is also their doing! They also do not follow the teachings of the Bible exactly. Jesus prayed for unity but anticatholics keep bringing divisions into His Church. They tearing up the Body of Christ.
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." - John 17:20-23
That has got to be the goofiest interview and ingnorant rebuttal I have ever seen. The truth is that NOwhere in the Bible is there any direct or indirect mention of the RCC and its teachings about the Apostles, salvation by works, praying the Rosary, the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary and her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption, being a co-redemptrix and mediatrix, as well as petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the Church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture, to name a few, which the Bible warns about following those non-apostolic traditions.
What about the Trinity? That’s a Catholic teaching.
@@Ruudes1483 That's a Bible teaching not exclusive to the RCC
@@acsberean4092 The word “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in Scripture. Can you tell me where it came from and why you use it?
@@Ruudes1483 The word 'trinity' is not used in the Bible, but the doctrine of the tri-unity of God is clearly taught in the New Testament. The Old Testament does not explicitly teach the doctrine. Still, the concept of the Trinity is hinted at in certain places in the Hebrew concept of plurality in unity, which lays a foundation for the future revelation revealed in the New Testament of the Trinity.
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut 6:4 ESV)
The singular word "LORD" in Hebrew is 'Yahweh' and is coupled with the plural "our God" 'Elohim.' The Hebrew word translated as "one" is 'ehad,' which means 'one' or 'unity;' however, the word is also used in other contexts to suggest a plurality within unity. The Hebrew word 'ehad' also appears in Genesis 2:24, which considers two persons as one: "[A man] is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one [ehad]" (NLT). Clearly, the husband and wife are distinct persons, but they are called "one," showing there is diversity within the unity.
CONTINUED... 1. The word "one" means one in unity as well as one in number. It implies unity John 17:11,21-23, and yet these three Persons, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, are spoken of as one each in number and individuality in Scripture. There is one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:3-6). Thus, there are three separate Persons in divine individuality and divine plurality. The Father is called God (1 Cor 8:6), the Son is called God (Isa 9:6-7; Heb 1:8; John 1:1-2; 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4). As individual persons, each can be called God, and they can be spoken of as one God because of their perfect unity. The word "God" is used either as a singular or a plural word, like the word sheep.
Everything that could be spoken of God collectively applies equally to each member of the Godhead as an individual. Still, some things are said of each Person of the Deity as to position, office, and work that could not be spoken as of the other members of the Godhead. The Father is the head of Jesus (1 Cor. 11:3); the Son is the only begotten of the Father (2 John 1:3), and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 2:34).
2. Names of God prove plurality of persons. The Hebrew' אֱלהִים is the word for God in Gen 1:1 and over 2,700 other places in the Old Testament. It is a uni-plural noun meaning Gods and is so translated 239 times (ex: Gen 3:5; Ex 22:28; 1 Sam 4:8; Dan 2:11; 4:6-9; 5:11,14; etc.).
Sometimes, 'Elohiym' is used with plural verbs and pronouns, "the Gods they caused me to wander" (Gens 20:13), and "there the Gods they appeared unto him" (Gen 35:7).
3. Plural pronouns are used of God, proving plurality of persons (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; John 14:23; 17:11,22-23).
4. First, second, and third personal pronouns are used hundreds of times in Scripture, referring to one, two, and three persons of the Godhead in the same sense they are used for men. Sometimes, the different members of the Deity use them to and of one another in the same sense man uses them. In John alone, Jesus uses them 162 times when speaking to and of His Father (John 14:16-17,26,15:26,16:7-15).
Sometimes singular pronouns are used for the whole Godhead of three members as a unity (Ex 20:3; Isa 44:6,8; 45:5,21; 46:9; Hosea 13:4), just like the entire church as a unit is spoken of as a man and "he" (Eph 2:14-15; 4:13; 5:25-27; 2 Thess 2:7-8).
5. "Man is become as one of us" proves the plurality of persons (Genesis 3:22).
6. Two and three Persons called God have been seen by the same men at the same time and places as being separate persons (Dan 7:9-14; Matt 3:16-17; John 1:31-34; Acts 7:54-60; Rev. 6:16; 7:9-17; 21:22; 22:3).
7. Two Lords are mentioned in Genesis 19:24: one on Earth and one in Heaven.
8. Two Persons are referred to in the Old Testament. (See Ps 8:5-6 with Heb 2:5-
18; Ps 16:8-10 with Acts 2:25-36; Ps 22:1-22 with Matt 27:35,39-43,45-46; Heb 9:14; 10:5-12; Ps 40:6-10 with Heb 10:5-7; and Ps 45:6-7 with Heb 1:8-9.
9. Two Lords are mentioned sitting side by side (Ps 110:1,5; Matt 22:44; 26:64; Acts 2:33-34; 7:54-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb 1:3,13,8:1,10:12,12:2; 1 Peter 3:22; Rev 22:3).
10. Two Persons are mentioned and required in order to understand the plain language of Ps 2; 9:19; 132:17; 30:4; Isa 4:2; 10:16-17; 28:16; 49:1-10; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12; 62:11; Micah 5:1-5; Jer 23:4-8; 33:14-26; Zech. 3:8-10; 6:12-13. In these passages, one is anointed, becomes the Son of, is sent by, is taught by, and becomes the servant of the other, and both are called Lord.
11. Three self-acting Persons-the Lord God, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit-are referred to as blessing, anointing, sending, and doing things for one another in Isa 11:2; 42:1-7; 48:16; 59:21; 61:1-2; 63:1-14; Zech 12:10-13:2.
12. In Zech 1:7-21 the Lord of Hosts and the Angel of the Lord (also called Lord, Zech 1:19-20; 2:1-13) are talking together. One Lord says of the other Lord that He has sent Him to Israel (Zech. 2:8-13). One Lord refers to Himself as "Me" and to the Lord of Hosts as "His" and "He" (Zech 2:8-11). The conference continues throughout Zechariah until 13:6-7, during which both Lords are called fellows or associates.
13. Jesus is called the Son of Abraham, David, Mary, and of God (Matt 1:1; Mark 1:1; 6:3). He is as much a separate person from God as He is of these other persons.
14. Two Persons are referred to many times in the New Testament (Matt 11:27; Luke 23:46; John 1:1-2,18; 5:19-20; 14:1-9; 16:15; 17:3,10; Acts 2:38-39; 3:13-26; Phil 2:5-11; Eph 3:5; Col 1:5; 2 Thess 2:16-17; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:1-3; Rev. 20:6; 22:3).
15. Two and three Persons are mentioned in the introductions to New Testament books (Rom 1:1-4,7; 1 Cor 1:3; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-3; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 1:1-6; etc.).
16. The Father God is the head of Jesus and thus greater than He in position (1 Cor 3:23; 11:3; 1 Chron 29:11; John 14:28).
17. Jesus is the mediator between God and man, not between Himself and man (1 Tim 2:5).
18. Two and three Persons are referred to in every New Testament book (Matt 3:16-17; 12:31-32; 17:5; 22:43-45; 28:19; Mark 1:1-2,10; 13:32; Luke 1:32-35; 2:40,52; 3:22; 4:1,18; Luke 9:35; 23:46; 24:39 with John 4:24; 1:1-3,14,18; 5:17-25,31-38; 6:37,44-46,57; 7:16-18,28,37-39; 8:13-19,26-38,42,54; 10:15-18,24,29,36; 12:26-31,44,49-50; 14:1-26,28-30; 15:1-26; 16:1-33; 17:1-26; 18:11; 20:17,21; 18:11; 20:17,21; Acts 1:7-8; 2:24-36; 3:13-26; 4:10,26-31; 5:29-33; 7:37,55-56; 8:12-17; 9:17; 10:38-48; 17:31; Rom 1:3,7,9; 5:1-11; 8:1-13,26-39; 1 Cor. 1:3-9; 2:10; 3:23; 8:6; 11:3; 12:3; 15:57; 2 Cor. 1:2-3; 5:17-21; 13:14; Gal 1:1-3; Eph 1:2-3; 3:14; 4:3-6; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2:5-11; Col. 1:2-3,13-19; 3:1; 1 Thess 1:1-10; 3:13; 2 Thess 1:1-2; 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2:5; 5:21; 6:14-16; 2 Tim 1:2; 4:1; Titus 1:4; 2:13; Phil 1:3; see note, Rev. 5:13 for 30 last New Testament references).
In no conceivable way can a meaning of three persons be forced in one Person, three beings in one being, or three manifestations of only one Person in any of these or any other scripture.
19. Three distinct and separate witnesses bear witness of Jesus (1 John 5:5-11,13,20). Both God and man require this many personal and individual witnesses to confirm any point (Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). The water and blood of 1 John 5:8 could not be accepted as accredited personal witnesses to confirm any point (Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). The water and blood of 1 John 5:8 could not be accepted as accredited personal witness in themselves. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the only personal witnesses of this passage. If we consider these to be only one Person, then there are not the required number of witnesses to establish the truth of the Sonship of Jesus. No matter what textual critics say regarding 1 John 5:7-8, many Scriptures confirm these three witnesses. Therefore, we are forced by facts to admit all of what 1 John 5:7-8 says is TRUE and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate and personal witnesses instead of being only one Person or witness. Indeed, many Scriptures confirm these three witnesses:
(1) The Father (Jer 29:23; Mal 3:5; John 5:31-37; Rom 1:9; Heb 1:1-2; 2:3-4)
(2) The Son (Isa 55:4; John 18:37; 1 Tim 6:13; Rev 1:5)
(3) The Holy Spirit (Rom 8:16; John 15:26; Heb 10:15; 1 John 3:6)
If all three are witnesses, then they must be separate Persons. The water and the blood confirm the intelligent testimonies of the three Persons of the Godhead and give additional weight to the Sonship of Jesus.
20. The words through and by, are used for Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but not once of the Father, proving that God is a separate Person and the Head and Director of all things done by and through them (1 Cor 3:23; 11:3; John 10:29; 14:28; 14:16-17,26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 2:33-34):
(a) Through Jesus (Acts 4:2; Rom 1:8; 5:1,9,11; 6:23; 7:25; 15:17; 16:27; 1 Cor 15:57; 2 Cor 3:4; Gal 3:14; 4:7; 5:10; Eph 2:7,18; Phil 4:7,13; Titus 3:6; Heb 13:21; 1 Peter 1:22; 4:11; 1 John 4:9)
(b) By Jesus (John 1:3,10,17; 10:9; Acts 4:10; Acts 10:36; Rom 2:16; 3:22; 5:17,21; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:5; 3:9; Col 1:15-20; 3:17; Heb 1:1-3; 1 Peter 2:5; 5:10)
(c) Through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2; Acts 21:4; Rom 8:13; 15:13,19; Gal 5:5; Eph 2:22; Heb 9:14)
(d) By the Holy Spirit (Ez 11:24; Micah 3:8; Zech. 4:6; Matt 12:28; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 11:28; Rom 5:5; 15:19; 1 Cor 2:10; 6:11; 12:3,13)