My common see Catholic Brothers and click but then realized it is on Keith's channel. This feels like some kinda bonus. Talk about putting the rejoicing in Gaudete.
Very good discussion! Saint Francis de Sales wrote books that were written directly to the Protestants for their benefit. His writings are incredible! Another way in which God blessed the Church at that time was the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Blessed Juan Diego, which led to the conversion of a million Mexicans at the same time as the Reformation.
My wife and I were talking about this, and she compared the popular Protestant line of “Luther didn’t want to leave and start his own church, he was pushed out!” to a nephew who has been crashing at his aunt’s house complaining that he was kicked out by tyrants who kept “Sweating him.” He didn’t want to go and start his own thing sleeping in his van, he was “forced” to.
I like the Catholic Brothers, very interesting podcast. It’s true that I have taken for granted the amount of communication between the churches during Early Christianity, and the implication -> that is the desire for these people to be a community and also the have the truth from the source. And the change this brought, these exchanges that did not only concern military our politics, but the common people and their faith. I will ponder this… Thank you.
To the one Catholic brother-Martin Luther’s correct claim that there was an issue with the monetary selling of indulgences was a local issue (Germany) and this practice was not approved by Mother church. Many people get this point wrong when speaking of the Catholic Church in the 16th century.
Now in all my Catholic ife I never heard that the selling f indulgences was local. This couldv'e ended if Rome had stepped in and ended the practice instead of being intransigent and superior.
The strongest evidence that the reformation was inevitable is how quickly Europe fractured into Protestant and Catholic countries and regions. Luther's critique of the Church was valid but it was used (coopted even) as the catalyst for political instability that had been simmering for decades.
Problem is Luther was not given authority by God to start a new church. GOD never changed , HE always was faithful to His people just like He was in the Old Testament. God NEVER GAVE UP ON HIS PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH THEY KEPT SINNING against HIM.
As Calvin said with fervidity, “With this [universal/catholic] Church we deny that we have any disagreement. Nay, rather, as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom.” Calvin said to Sadoleto, We are more catholic than you. “Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours,” Calvin insisted. Therefore, Calvin clarified what the Reformation was about, namely, an attempt “to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterward flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction.”
I wished that Pope Leo X would not have excommunicated Martin Luther and instead hashed out Luther's points. There were obvious abuses by the Church in those days that Luther, who was a Biblical scholar, attempted to address. Since then, it feels that as Catholics, there is a need to defend our internal identity when, in fact, Christ saw His Church as an offensive movement that the gates of hell could not prevail against. We appear to the world as being less outwardly focused for the Gospel and, as a result, are less influential in places like Europe and the United States.
Luther may well have had valid, even legitimate, points. He could have argued his points by remaining in the church. But his obstinancy - call it pride - prevented him from staying in the church to argue his case.
Recanting would have removed the issues from consideration, Luther recanted nothing to see here, carry on. 🙄 Obviously the issues had to be addressed and Luther wasn’t going to pretend that he trusted a horribly corrupt church to reform itself without a ton of outside pressure which, unsurprisingly, did in fact happen. Trent and the surrounding reforms never would have happened without the threat of Lutheranism spreading even more. The RCC created Protestants both by the awful corruption of the church and the blindingly bad judgement and pride of pope Leo. The Catholic reaction to Luther and the reformers created the split, broke Christendom, and created nearly a billion Christians outside of the church.
@Qohelethful naw. Luther was deeply deeply personally, and spiritually, corrupt. You do know that Luther in his pride decided what books should, should not be contained in his "bible". Laughable pride and obstinancy. The really sad part of all of this, isn't Luther. Luther was a charlatan. No, the really sad part of this is that he is responsible for millions of souls being excluded from salvation. Protestantism has smashed itself in 30,000+ different sects, and counting. Splintering all the way. Each sect claims that it possesses the truth😁
@seamusweber8298 I'm a catholic through and through and I really struggle with the idea that the millions of true believing protestants are doomed. A kid grows up (let's say before the internet for the sake of this example). He's raised Baptist (obviously lol). He never once leaves the county he's born in, never even met a catholic let alone knows anything about Catholicism. He's a faithful Christian his whole life. He's doomed?
The Reformers were Catholics who, recognizing the corruption within the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, sought to restore the church's leadership to a model rooted in biblical, historical, and early church practices. They were not outsiders but devout Christians deeply immersed in Catholic doctrine and history. Their arguments for moving from a magisterial governance, dominated by bishops and centralized authority, to a ministerial governance, emphasizing service and collective leadership, were grounded in Scripture, historical church practices, and the writings of early Church Fathers. The Reformers turned to the New Testament to argue that early church leadership was based on shared ministry rather than hierarchical control: 1. Interchangeable Leadership Terms: In the New Testament, the roles of episkopos (bishop/overseer), presbyteros (elder), and poimen (shepherd/pastor) appear interchangeable, suggesting a unified, non-hierarchical leadership structure: Acts 20:17, 28: Paul addresses the elders (presbyteroi) of the Ephesian church and calls them overseers (episkopoi), instructing them to shepherd (poimaino) the flock. 1 Peter 5:1-2: Peter exhorts elders to act as overseers and shepherds, framing leadership as service rather than authority. Titus 1:5-7: Paul uses "elder" and "overseer" interchangeably, indicating no distinct magisterial office. 2. Plurality of Leadership: Early churches were governed by groups of elders rather than a single bishop: Acts 14:23: Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (presbyteroi) in every church, showing a distributed leadership model. Philippians 1:1: Paul greets "overseers" (episkopoi, plural) and deacons, reflecting a collective governance structure. 3. Authority Rooted in Scripture: The Reformers emphasized that authority lies in Scripture rather than a hierarchical office. For instance, the Bereans are commended for testing Paul's teachings against Scripture (Acts 17:11), underscoring the primacy of God's Word over individual leaders. Historical Support: The Didache (1st-2nd century), reflects a simpler leadership structure: The text emphasizes the roles of prophets, teachers, and deacons, without mentioning a centralized bishop in every community. Leadership is portrayed as local and ministerial, focused on spiritual guidance rather than institutional control. The Didache aligns with the Reformers' vision of church governance as collaborative and service-oriented. The Reformers, being well-versed in the writings of the Church Fathers, found support for their arguments in how early leaders described the role of bishops and elders: 1. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD): In his letter to the Corinthians, Clement emphasizes the collective role of elders (presbyteroi) and highlights the importance of unity and service over hierarchical control. 2. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD): While he advocates for bishops as symbols of unity, his writings reveal that some communities were still transitioning to having a single bishop, showing that monarchical episcopacy was not universal in the early church. 3. Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD): especially later in his life, criticized the growing authority of bishops and argued for a more spiritual, decentralized leadership model. He emphasized the role of all believers in maintaining doctrinal purity. 4. Origen (c. 184-253 AD) described bishops primarily as shepherds and teachers, emphasizing their ministerial role rather than their authority to govern or dictate doctrine. 5. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258 AD): defended the role of bishops, he acknowledged their dependence on the collective voice of the church. He argued that bishops should act as servants to their congregations, not as rulers. 6. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD): In his Apostolic Tradition, he highlights the pastoral and sacramental roles of bishops, showing their primary function was ministerial rather than magisterial. The Reformers sought to align the church more closely with the New Testament and early church practices, emphasizing: 1. Service over Authority: Leaders should shepherd and serve, not dominate or act as mediators between God and man. 2. Collective Leadership: Authority should reside in a group of elders, accountable to the congregation and Scripture. 3. Scripture as Supreme: Leadership must always be tested against and guided by the Word of God.
You forgot to add that the same reformers started adding to the Bible, while taking entire books out of the Bible too! Protestants need to convert to the Catholic Church.
The kingdom of God has always been monarchial. Jesus Christ is king. He is the king who sits upon the throne of David forever. That is biblical. The bible is also very clear that the kings who sat on David’s throne had an officer who they gave the keys of the kingdom to making that officer the “Asher Al Habayit” or the one who is over the house. 1 kings 4:6, Isaiah 22, Matt 16. So therefore, what kingdom do you believe Christians should belong to? Do you believe they should belong to a kingdom like the one that Martin Luther started on his own authority?
@@TheCoachsCoach933 The argument that the Kingdom of God must reflect a monarchical church structure, based on Old Testament parallels like the Asher Al Habayit (Isaiah 22) and the “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (Matthew 16), fundamentally fails to address the New Testament’s clear depiction of church governance and the realities of early church history. While the imagery of kingship is powerful, the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom, the apostolic church structure, and early church writings paint a very different picture-one that aligns far more closely with the model proposed by the Catholic Reformers. The New Testament itself contradicts the claim that centralized, monarchical leadership is a necessary reflection of Christ’s kingship. Instead, it presents a model of church governance based on shared, cooperative leadership, where terms such as episkopos (overseer), presbyteros (elder), and poimen (shepherd/pastor) are used interchangeably to describe the same leadership office, with no hierarchical distinctions. In Acts 20:17, 28, Paul calls the presbyteroi (elders) of the Ephesian church and refers to them as episkopoi (overseers), instructing them to poimaino (shepherd) the flock. Here, the roles of elder, overseer, and shepherd are unified in function, demonstrating that leadership was plural, cooperative, and pastoral in nature. Paul further reinforces this interchangeable use in Titus 1:5-7, where presbyteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) are used synonymously when outlining the qualifications for leaders. This plurality and cooperation are explicitly upheld by Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5:1-4, Peter, often cited as the first pope, identifies himself not as a supreme ruler but as a fellow elder (sympresbyteros), placing himself on equal footing with the other elders. He exhorts them to poimaino (shepherd) the flock, emphasizing leadership as a humble service under Christ, the "Chief Shepherd." Far from exercising or imposing singular authority, Peter’s self-identification as a fellow elder reveals his commitment to shared leadership-a vision of mutual accountability that counters any claim to hierarchical supremacy. Similarly, Philippians 1:1 reflects this plural governance model when Paul greets the church, addressing the episkopoi (overseers, plural) and diakonoi (deacons), highlighting a community led collectively rather than ruled by a single bishop. The early church confirms this decentralized and plural model. Leadership in the first and early second centuries was localized and shared, rooted in pastoral care and ministerial service rather than centralized control. The Didache-one of the earliest Christian writings-refers to bishops and deacons in the plural, without any mention of a singular bishop exercising overarching authority. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostles, served his community as a pastoral overseer but did not claim universal jurisdiction. Even Ignatius of Antioch, who advocated for a single bishop as a symbol of unity, was addressing specific challenges of his time-namely, heresy and schism-not establishing a permanent apostolic mandate for a monarchical episcopacy. His writings reflect a functional response to external pressures, not a divinely required hierarchical system. Later voices like Tertullian and Hippolytus directly criticized the increasing power of bishops and affirmed that bishops were fundamentally shepherds and teachers, not rulers. The Catholic Reformers understood this history well. They were not building their own “kingdom” or acting on personal authority, as is often claimed. Far from inventing a new church structure, figures like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli sought to restore the biblical and apostolic model of church governance. These Reformers were devout Catholics, trained in Catholic doctrine, and steeped in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Figures like Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, and Origen described bishops as servants and shepherds, dependent on the voice of the local congregation and accountable to Scripture. This earlier vision aligns perfectly with the Reformers' insistence on collective, ministerial leadership-a leadership where no man claims supremacy, and Christ alone rules as the head of the Church. Philosophically, the attempt to equate Christ’s kingship with an earthly monarchy fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Kingdom of God. Jesus Himself rejected human systems of hierarchical power when He said, “It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:42-45). Christ’s kingdom operates by a higher standard of humility, servanthood, and accountability, not earthly power dynamics. To impose a monarchical structure onto the Church risks reducing Christ’s spiritual rule to flawed, human governance. History confirms this danger, as the centralization of power in the medieval episcopacy led to widespread corruption, doctrinal distortions, and abuses. By contrast, the Protestant model of plural leadership, where authority is shared and accountable to Scripture, reflects Christ’s teachings and mitigates the risks of unchecked power. To answer the question directly, Christians belong to the Kingdom of God, where Christ alone is King, ruling directly through His Word and Spirit. This Kingdom is not an earthly monarchy but a spiritual reality, as Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The Catholic Reformers did not create a new kingdom; they called the church back to its original allegiance-to Christ alone. Martin Luther and the other Reformers acted not on their own authority but on the supreme authority of Scripture, rejecting any human institution that claimed divine supremacy. The Protestant vision of church leadership-where authority is shared, servant-hearted, and accountable-aligns with the New Testament and the practices of the earliest church.
@@obcane3072 sorry but truth is truth. No long winded bs can undo truth. Why do you suppose one of the Pope’s official titles is “Servant to the servants of God”?
The Faith of the Catholic Church is not on a Bishop or Pope but the Faith yhat was once delivered unto the Saints, Protestantism was never Christian , only in name Indulgences were never wide spread but in parts of the German Church & probably the Swiss
I see where you are coming from and I don't disagree with your primary thesis, but the one issue that you ignore is that the corrupt church excommunicated Luther and would have made him a martyr if others hadn't chosen to protect Luther and take his side. Perhaps Luther was wrong to continue to teach and preach, but he was following his conscience and he was a doctor of theology- an honor bestowed upon him by the Catholic Church. It is far too simple to say that Luther lead christians away from the church. He was a faithful Catholic and never wanted to be separated from the church. Other reformers may not have wanted to remain in the church, but Luther did. If there had been a council during Luther's life that included the reforms made at Trent, you can bet that Luther himself would have been happy in that church. Instead, Trent doubled diwn and made it nearly impossible forLuther's followers to be reconciled. "We were wrong" can be said on both sides of the reformation and would go a long way toward reconciling the church today. Instead we waste meaningless hours debating sola scriptura and how many books are in the canon. Start by acknowledging the roots of the reformation in the actual corruption of the church in Liuher's day and the church's own bad actions toward Luther before blaming the side that was concerned for the actual purity of the church and should be credited even for the reforms of Trent. Protestantism and its resulting issues, which you rightly name, are truly a tragedy and a stain on Christ's church, but don't be simplistic about its origins and get the log out of your own eye first so we can have a meaningful conversation about unifying the body of Christ.
May God bless you, my brothers. This has been an excellent discussion. As an ex-Muslim now in the Catholic Church, I have come to understand the truth of Protestantism. I encourage everyone to explore this further. Below is my video for those interested in learning more. We need more people like you! ua-cam.com/video/WRkKuHb7UY8/v-deo.htmlsi=k8EmjdjnLDc49iJ3
Luther was looking to make a name for himself, get funds diverted back to the Augustinians, and hoped the Pope would make him a cardinal. Starting a heresy wasn't his intention but the German princes saw his writings and grievances as a way to make a counter religion to Catholicism and call it Lutheranism.
He was fertile soil for the enemy who sows the seeds of division. Look into the Catholic counter-reformation, if you have not. They remained faithful. They fought for reform. They suffered. They are Saints.
po18guy-s4s. Look into the Catholic Reformation a little deeper. (Nobody calls it the Counter Reformation anymore.) I’m not so sure you should be championing those who torture and maim and kill. Many inside the Protestant Reformation were never allowed to reform “within the system” as Catherine of Siena was. Some of these should have been acknowledged as saints, but were burned, instead.
To me it seems Luther's relationship with his earthly father might have been projected onto God, to where he couldn't view Him as a loving Father, as his own dad was unable to be pleased. Even after becoming a monk, at his ordination celebration, his father accused him of leaving he and his poor mother to take care of themselves, and in regards to the vow Luther had made to St Anne to become a monk, his father basically replied "pray it wasnt made to the devil instead". Luther read what he "needed" into Paul's words, changing the meaning behind "faith, not by works" from all being able to come to Christ regardless of any works of the Law such as being circumsized (and from there walking in the path of good works planned for us), and turned it into our actions playing no part in salvation. Because He felt God had to do everything Himself, even if 1% of salvation depended on his part, he would fail. Reading about him, his scrupulous behavior has a very OCD like quality, living in constant fear of needing reassurance of being saved, and it resulted in this eisegesis of the Sacred Text that comforted him. Had he been more self-aware of this conflict, and confronted whatever truama he may have faced, He may have realized God's grace covers Him through such weakness. But he seemed short tempered, quick to react when things didnt go his way, and his words got him in trouble, namely attacking Papal authority itself. Next thing you know, despite many reaching out to him, he was excommunicated and had no choice but double down on his novel theology, and get a movement started. Its a shame, just reading about the man's inner struggles, and realizing that shakey ground is what Protestantism is founded upon.
@shadowledastray. So, you honestly believe that all 800 million Protestants who believe in Sola Fide have “daddy issues”? You’ve got to be smarter than that! And Luther’s scrupulosity? Pretty much every Catholic I know could learn from Luther how to be serious about sin.
Stop reading anti Catholic garbage. The Catholic Church has been the most significant force for good in human history - the foundation and success of western civilisation, scientific discoveries, the pinnacle of human art, universities, schools, charities, orphanages, social programs, the holiest people to have ever lived (saints), countless unexplained miracles and healings over 2,000 years, and the defence of Christianity against the spread of Islam. You would likely be praying to Allah if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church.
It is easy for everyone to claim that we are the true followers, but when I see what Catholics emphasizes as essentials, they are night and day's difference. E.g. Paul says, I wanted to know nothing else other than Christ and Him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:1-4 Those who received Him, gave He the Power to become children of God John 1:12 Romans1:16 Not ashamed of power of the gospel that saves through faith. Romans 1:16,17 Romans 10:9-12, believe, confess and you shall be saved. This is the gospel I have been preaching and people get converted through this gospel, but the Catholic emphasizes things that are way off this sample of verses that I have provided. Based in Joshua 24:15, it is proper and God honouring to dissociate yourself from people who are determined to pursue their idolatrous ways.
No, as bad a Pope or a Bishop could be, protestantism is just prideful rebellion, accusations, divisions upon divisions: the work of the Devil. We should be all in the same church and that one can only be the first, the Catholic Church.
so awesome you’re talking with the Catholic brothers. I love their channel. Great dialogue.
My common see Catholic Brothers and click but then realized it is on Keith's channel. This feels like some kinda bonus. Talk about putting the rejoicing in Gaudete.
Very good discussion! Saint Francis de Sales wrote books that were written directly to the Protestants for their benefit. His writings are incredible! Another way in which God blessed the Church at that time was the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Blessed Juan Diego, which led to the conversion of a million Mexicans at the same time as the Reformation.
BS. Mexicans were converted by the sword.
It wasn't a million, it was 9 million
My wife and I were talking about this, and she compared the popular Protestant line of “Luther didn’t want to leave and start his own church, he was pushed out!” to a nephew who has been crashing at his aunt’s house complaining that he was kicked out by tyrants who kept “Sweating him.” He didn’t want to go and start his own thing sleeping in his van, he was “forced” to.
I like the Catholic Brothers, very interesting podcast.
It’s true that I have taken for granted the amount of communication between the churches during Early Christianity, and the implication -> that is the desire for these people to be a community and also the have the truth from the source. And the change this brought, these exchanges that did not only concern military our politics, but the common people and their faith. I will ponder this… Thank you.
To the one Catholic brother-Martin Luther’s correct claim that there was an issue with the monetary selling of indulgences was a local issue (Germany) and this practice was not approved by Mother church. Many people get this point wrong when speaking of the Catholic Church in the 16th century.
Now in all my Catholic ife I never heard that the selling f indulgences was local. This couldv'e ended if Rome had stepped in and ended the practice instead of being intransigent and superior.
Yeah, right. Just like the 'scandal' was just a few bad apples until it turned out to be worldwide and decades old.
The strongest evidence that the reformation was inevitable is how quickly Europe fractured into Protestant and Catholic countries and regions.
Luther's critique of the Church was valid but it was used (coopted even) as the catalyst for political instability that had been simmering for decades.
Problem is Luther was not given authority by God to start a new church. GOD never changed , HE always was faithful to His people just like He was in the Old Testament. God NEVER GAVE UP ON HIS PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH THEY KEPT SINNING against HIM.
Guys…thx for the video!
Please read „The Devil‘s Bagpipe“…
I was hoping it was a 2nd appearance by the brothers 😢 Good clip though
As Calvin said with fervidity, “With this [universal/catholic] Church we deny that we have any disagreement. Nay, rather, as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom.” Calvin said to Sadoleto, We are more catholic than you. “Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours,” Calvin insisted. Therefore, Calvin clarified what the Reformation was about, namely, an attempt “to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterward flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction.”
Yeah...Calvin was wrong. Still is.
It’s almost like excommunicating the Reformers was a bad idea.
What the heck… only ten minutes?!
I see it’s the clip from the older episode
I wished that Pope Leo X would not have excommunicated Martin Luther and instead hashed out Luther's points. There were obvious abuses by the Church in those days that Luther, who was a Biblical scholar, attempted to address. Since then, it feels that as Catholics, there is a need to defend our internal identity when, in fact, Christ saw His Church as an offensive movement that the gates of hell could not prevail against. We appear to the world as being less outwardly focused for the Gospel and, as a result, are less influential in places like Europe and the United States.
I think the church is amazingly strong today and growing stronger. Perhaps Luther could have handled it differently.
Luther may well have had valid, even legitimate, points.
He could have argued his points by remaining in the church. But his obstinancy - call it pride - prevented him from staying in the church to argue his case.
Luther was ejected violently. He didn’t break with it.
@@Qohelethful Luther was offered the opportunity to recant
Luther refused that offer.
Recanting would have removed the issues from consideration, Luther recanted nothing to see here, carry on. 🙄 Obviously the issues had to be addressed and Luther wasn’t going to pretend that he trusted a horribly corrupt church to reform itself without a ton of outside pressure which, unsurprisingly, did in fact happen. Trent and the surrounding reforms never would have happened without the threat of Lutheranism spreading even more.
The RCC created Protestants both by the awful corruption of the church and the blindingly bad judgement and pride of pope Leo. The Catholic reaction to Luther and the reformers created the split, broke Christendom, and created nearly a billion Christians outside of the church.
@Qohelethful naw.
Luther was deeply deeply personally, and spiritually, corrupt.
You do know that Luther in his pride decided what books should, should not be contained in his "bible". Laughable pride and obstinancy.
The really sad part of all of this, isn't Luther. Luther was a charlatan.
No, the really sad part of this is that he is responsible for millions of souls being excluded from salvation.
Protestantism has smashed itself in 30,000+ different sects, and counting. Splintering all the way. Each sect claims that it possesses the truth😁
@seamusweber8298 I'm a catholic through and through and I really struggle with the idea that the millions of true believing protestants are doomed. A kid grows up (let's say before the internet for the sake of this example). He's raised Baptist (obviously lol). He never once leaves the county he's born in, never even met a catholic let alone knows anything about Catholicism. He's a faithful Christian his whole life. He's doomed?
The Reformers were Catholics who, recognizing the corruption within the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, sought to restore the church's leadership to a model rooted in biblical, historical, and early church practices. They were not outsiders but devout Christians deeply immersed in Catholic doctrine and history. Their arguments for moving from a magisterial governance, dominated by bishops and centralized authority, to a ministerial governance, emphasizing service and collective leadership, were grounded in Scripture, historical church practices, and the writings of early Church Fathers.
The Reformers turned to the New Testament to argue that early church leadership was based on shared ministry rather than hierarchical control:
1. Interchangeable Leadership Terms:
In the New Testament, the roles of episkopos (bishop/overseer), presbyteros (elder), and poimen (shepherd/pastor) appear interchangeable, suggesting a unified, non-hierarchical leadership structure:
Acts 20:17, 28: Paul addresses the elders (presbyteroi) of the Ephesian church and calls them overseers (episkopoi), instructing them to shepherd (poimaino) the flock.
1 Peter 5:1-2: Peter exhorts elders to act as overseers and shepherds, framing leadership as service rather than authority.
Titus 1:5-7: Paul uses "elder" and "overseer" interchangeably, indicating no distinct magisterial office.
2. Plurality of Leadership:
Early churches were governed by groups of elders rather than a single bishop:
Acts 14:23: Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (presbyteroi) in every church, showing a distributed leadership model.
Philippians 1:1: Paul greets "overseers" (episkopoi, plural) and deacons, reflecting a collective governance structure.
3. Authority Rooted in Scripture:
The Reformers emphasized that authority lies in Scripture rather than a hierarchical office. For instance, the Bereans are commended for testing Paul's teachings against Scripture (Acts 17:11), underscoring the primacy of God's Word over individual leaders.
Historical Support:
The Didache (1st-2nd century), reflects a simpler leadership structure:
The text emphasizes the roles of prophets, teachers, and deacons, without mentioning a centralized bishop in every community.
Leadership is portrayed as local and ministerial, focused on spiritual guidance rather than institutional control.
The Didache aligns with the Reformers' vision of church governance as collaborative and service-oriented.
The Reformers, being well-versed in the writings of the Church Fathers, found support for their arguments in how early leaders described the role of bishops and elders:
1. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD):
In his letter to the Corinthians, Clement emphasizes the collective role of elders (presbyteroi) and highlights the importance of unity and service over hierarchical control.
2. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD): While he advocates for bishops as symbols of unity, his writings reveal that some communities were still transitioning to having a single bishop, showing that monarchical episcopacy was not universal in the early church.
3. Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD): especially later in his life, criticized the growing authority of bishops and argued for a more spiritual, decentralized leadership model. He emphasized the role of all believers in maintaining doctrinal purity.
4. Origen (c. 184-253 AD) described bishops primarily as shepherds and teachers, emphasizing their ministerial role rather than their authority to govern or dictate doctrine.
5. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258 AD): defended the role of bishops, he acknowledged their dependence on the collective voice of the church. He argued that bishops should act as servants to their congregations, not as rulers.
6. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD):
In his Apostolic Tradition, he highlights the pastoral and sacramental roles of bishops, showing their primary function was ministerial rather than magisterial.
The Reformers sought to align the church more closely with the New Testament and early church practices, emphasizing:
1. Service over Authority: Leaders should shepherd and serve, not dominate or act as mediators between God and man.
2. Collective Leadership: Authority should reside in a group of elders, accountable to the congregation and Scripture.
3. Scripture as Supreme: Leadership must always be tested against and guided by the Word of God.
You forgot to add that the same reformers started adding to the Bible, while taking entire books out of the Bible too!
Protestants need to convert to the Catholic Church.
@obcane3072.
Very nice summary of the validity of the Reformation. I applaud you!
The kingdom of God has always been monarchial. Jesus Christ is king. He is the king who sits upon the throne of David forever. That is biblical. The bible is also very clear that the kings who sat on David’s throne had an officer who they gave the keys of the kingdom to making that officer the “Asher Al Habayit” or the one who is over the house. 1 kings 4:6, Isaiah 22, Matt 16. So therefore, what kingdom do you believe Christians should belong to? Do you believe they should belong to a kingdom like the one that Martin Luther started on his own authority?
@@TheCoachsCoach933 The argument that the Kingdom of God must reflect a monarchical church structure, based on Old Testament parallels like the Asher Al Habayit (Isaiah 22) and the “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (Matthew 16), fundamentally fails to address the New Testament’s clear depiction of church governance and the realities of early church history. While the imagery of kingship is powerful, the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom, the apostolic church structure, and early church writings paint a very different picture-one that aligns far more closely with the model proposed by the Catholic Reformers.
The New Testament itself contradicts the claim that centralized, monarchical leadership is a necessary reflection of Christ’s kingship. Instead, it presents a model of church governance based on shared, cooperative leadership, where terms such as episkopos (overseer), presbyteros (elder), and poimen (shepherd/pastor) are used interchangeably to describe the same leadership office, with no hierarchical distinctions. In Acts 20:17, 28, Paul calls the presbyteroi (elders) of the Ephesian church and refers to them as episkopoi (overseers), instructing them to poimaino (shepherd) the flock. Here, the roles of elder, overseer, and shepherd are unified in function, demonstrating that leadership was plural, cooperative, and pastoral in nature. Paul further reinforces this interchangeable use in Titus 1:5-7, where presbyteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) are used synonymously when outlining the qualifications for leaders.
This plurality and cooperation are explicitly upheld by Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5:1-4, Peter, often cited as the first pope, identifies himself not as a supreme ruler but as a fellow elder (sympresbyteros), placing himself on equal footing with the other elders. He exhorts them to poimaino (shepherd) the flock, emphasizing leadership as a humble service under Christ, the "Chief Shepherd." Far from exercising or imposing singular authority, Peter’s self-identification as a fellow elder reveals his commitment to shared leadership-a vision of mutual accountability that counters any claim to hierarchical supremacy. Similarly, Philippians 1:1 reflects this plural governance model when Paul greets the church, addressing the episkopoi (overseers, plural) and diakonoi (deacons), highlighting a community led collectively rather than ruled by a single bishop.
The early church confirms this decentralized and plural model. Leadership in the first and early second centuries was localized and shared, rooted in pastoral care and ministerial service rather than centralized control. The Didache-one of the earliest Christian writings-refers to bishops and deacons in the plural, without any mention of a singular bishop exercising overarching authority. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostles, served his community as a pastoral overseer but did not claim universal jurisdiction. Even Ignatius of Antioch, who advocated for a single bishop as a symbol of unity, was addressing specific challenges of his time-namely, heresy and schism-not establishing a permanent apostolic mandate for a monarchical episcopacy. His writings reflect a functional response to external pressures, not a divinely required hierarchical system. Later voices like Tertullian and Hippolytus directly criticized the increasing power of bishops and affirmed that bishops were fundamentally shepherds and teachers, not rulers.
The Catholic Reformers understood this history well. They were not building their own “kingdom” or acting on personal authority, as is often claimed. Far from inventing a new church structure, figures like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli sought to restore the biblical and apostolic model of church governance. These Reformers were devout Catholics, trained in Catholic doctrine, and steeped in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Figures like Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, and Origen described bishops as servants and shepherds, dependent on the voice of the local congregation and accountable to Scripture. This earlier vision aligns perfectly with the Reformers' insistence on collective, ministerial leadership-a leadership where no man claims supremacy, and Christ alone rules as the head of the Church.
Philosophically, the attempt to equate Christ’s kingship with an earthly monarchy fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Kingdom of God. Jesus Himself rejected human systems of hierarchical power when He said, “It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:42-45). Christ’s kingdom operates by a higher standard of humility, servanthood, and accountability, not earthly power dynamics. To impose a monarchical structure onto the Church risks reducing Christ’s spiritual rule to flawed, human governance. History confirms this danger, as the centralization of power in the medieval episcopacy led to widespread corruption, doctrinal distortions, and abuses. By contrast, the Protestant model of plural leadership, where authority is shared and accountable to Scripture, reflects Christ’s teachings and mitigates the risks of unchecked power.
To answer the question directly, Christians belong to the Kingdom of God, where Christ alone is King, ruling directly through His Word and Spirit. This Kingdom is not an earthly monarchy but a spiritual reality, as Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The Catholic Reformers did not create a new kingdom; they called the church back to its original allegiance-to Christ alone. Martin Luther and the other Reformers acted not on their own authority but on the supreme authority of Scripture, rejecting any human institution that claimed divine supremacy. The Protestant vision of church leadership-where authority is shared, servant-hearted, and accountable-aligns with the New Testament and the practices of the earliest church.
@@obcane3072 sorry but truth is truth. No long winded bs can undo truth. Why do you suppose one of the Pope’s official titles is “Servant to the servants of God”?
The Faith of the Catholic Church is not on a Bishop or Pope but the Faith yhat was once delivered unto the Saints,
Protestantism was never Christian , only in name
Indulgences were never wide spread but in parts of the German Church & probably the Swiss
I see where you are coming from and I don't disagree with your primary thesis, but the one issue that you ignore is that the corrupt church excommunicated Luther and would have made him a martyr if others hadn't chosen to protect Luther and take his side. Perhaps Luther was wrong to continue to teach and preach, but he was following his conscience and he was a doctor of theology- an honor bestowed upon him by the Catholic Church. It is far too simple to say that Luther lead christians away from the church. He was a faithful Catholic and never wanted to be separated from the church. Other reformers may not have wanted to remain in the church, but Luther did. If there had been a council during Luther's life that included the reforms made at Trent, you can bet that Luther himself would have been happy in that church. Instead, Trent doubled diwn and made it nearly impossible forLuther's followers to be reconciled. "We were wrong" can be said on both sides of the reformation and would go a long way toward reconciling the church today. Instead we waste meaningless hours debating sola scriptura and how many books are in the canon. Start by acknowledging the roots of the reformation in the actual corruption of the church in Liuher's day and the church's own bad actions toward Luther before blaming the side that was concerned for the actual purity of the church and should be credited even for the reforms of Trent. Protestantism and its resulting issues, which you rightly name, are truly a tragedy and a stain on Christ's church, but don't be simplistic about its origins and get the log out of your own eye first so we can have a meaningful conversation about unifying the body of Christ.
May God bless you, my brothers. This has been an excellent discussion. As an ex-Muslim now in the Catholic Church, I have come to understand the truth of Protestantism. I encourage everyone to explore this further. Below is my video for those interested in learning more. We need more people like you!
ua-cam.com/video/WRkKuHb7UY8/v-deo.htmlsi=k8EmjdjnLDc49iJ3
So can Protestants get into Heaven?
When pursuing the authors intent of the scriptures, you definitely have it wrong.
Luther was looking to make a name for himself, get funds diverted back to the Augustinians, and hoped the Pope would make him a cardinal. Starting a heresy wasn't his intention but the German princes saw his writings and grievances as a way to make a counter religion to Catholicism and call it Lutheranism.
He was fertile soil for the enemy who sows the seeds of division. Look into the Catholic counter-reformation, if you have not. They remained faithful. They fought for reform. They suffered. They are Saints.
Eso fue
po18guy-s4s. Look into the Catholic Reformation a little deeper. (Nobody calls it the Counter Reformation anymore.) I’m not so sure you should be championing those who torture and maim and kill.
Many inside the Protestant Reformation were never allowed to reform “within the system” as Catherine of Siena was. Some of these should have been acknowledged as saints, but were burned, instead.
To me it seems Luther's relationship with his earthly father might have been projected onto God, to where he couldn't view Him as a loving Father, as his own dad was unable to be pleased. Even after becoming a monk, at his ordination celebration, his father accused him of leaving he and his poor mother to take care of themselves, and in regards to the vow Luther had made to St Anne to become a monk, his father basically replied "pray it wasnt made to the devil instead".
Luther read what he "needed" into Paul's words, changing the meaning behind "faith, not by works" from all being able to come to Christ regardless of any works of the Law such as being circumsized (and from there walking in the path of good works planned for us), and turned it into our actions playing no part in salvation. Because He felt God had to do everything Himself, even if 1% of salvation depended on his part, he would fail.
Reading about him, his scrupulous behavior has a very OCD like quality, living in constant fear of needing reassurance of being saved, and it resulted in this eisegesis of the Sacred Text that comforted him. Had he been more self-aware of this conflict, and confronted whatever truama he may have faced, He may have realized God's grace covers Him through such weakness. But he seemed short tempered, quick to react when things didnt go his way, and his words got him in trouble, namely attacking Papal authority itself.
Next thing you know, despite many reaching out to him, he was excommunicated and had no choice but double down on his novel theology, and get a movement started. Its a shame, just reading about the man's inner struggles, and realizing that shakey ground is what Protestantism is founded upon.
@shadowledastray. So, you honestly believe that all 800 million Protestants who believe in Sola Fide have “daddy issues”? You’ve got to be smarter than that!
And Luther’s scrupulosity? Pretty much every Catholic I know could learn from Luther how to be serious about sin.
It was wrong, a tragedy, but Rome was rotten then and is rotten now.
Stop reading anti Catholic garbage. The Catholic Church has been the most significant force for good in human history - the foundation and success of western civilisation, scientific discoveries, the pinnacle of human art, universities, schools, charities, orphanages, social programs, the holiest people to have ever lived (saints), countless unexplained miracles and healings over 2,000 years, and the defence of Christianity against the spread of Islam. You would likely be praying to Allah if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church.
That's an exaggeration of the situation of both then and now
@@jakajakos well said
It is easy for everyone to claim that we are the true followers, but when I see what Catholics emphasizes as essentials, they are night and day's difference.
E.g. Paul says, I wanted to know nothing else other than Christ and Him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:1-4
Those who received Him, gave He the Power to become children of God John 1:12
Romans1:16 Not ashamed of power of the gospel that saves through faith. Romans 1:16,17
Romans 10:9-12, believe, confess and you shall be saved.
This is the gospel I have been preaching and people get converted through this gospel, but the Catholic emphasizes things that are way off this sample of verses that I have provided.
Based in Joshua 24:15, it is proper and God honouring to dissociate yourself from people who are determined to pursue their idolatrous ways.
No, as bad a Pope or a Bishop could be, protestantism is just prideful rebellion, accusations, divisions upon divisions: the work of the Devil. We should be all in the same church and that one can only be the first, the Catholic Church.