@@josemadrigal2293 The Catholic Church is the only church founded by Christ. All other heretical sects have been founded by fallible, misled people. May all the lost sheep be shepherded home to the One True Faith, the Holy Mother Church!
I feel sad because I didn't know who Jesus was. Now that I'm older, I'm searching diligently to understand his teaching... feel honored to travel down this road..
Check out Orthodoxy. Something's wrong with catholicism. It's tangible. From cartels to the mafia to child molestation to having a "perfect and infallible" living leader, something got severely corrupted along the way.
We have something better than Jesus. John 16:7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
@@freshrockpapa-e7799 There is nothing better than Jesus who paid the price for our sins, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Jesus who is God. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. John 14:6 Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. There is only one God. 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
@@EugeneHolley-rc6ry Yes, that's what I'm saying, that the person doesn't have to feel sad for not knowing Jesus personally since he can have His spirit inside him, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Himself.
Thank you for your honest, historical teachings. As a Greek Orthodox, we hold that the early church place for the Bishop of Rome is one of honor and First Among Equals. The block to ending the schism involves the current status of the Bishop of Rome and infallibility.
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
@@mertonhirsch4734 the developments that took place are considered heretical because they are heretical. You will never been united with anyone but heretics until you give up heresy. Orthodoxy may split in schism one day, and the heretic "orthodox" may have communion with Rome, but you will remain heretics, prideful in your heresy...
I am Catholic and I agree with the understanding of first among the equals, however the Orthodox Church doesn't fully follow it too. Instead of a Pope it has lots of Patriarchs. And while I understand that Patriarch is a historial function, Pentarchy would be enough with all the bishops being able to consecrate own oils and decide for their diocese. For more important decisions we have synods and Councils. And if you need to assemble bishops from one country, just make a voluntary conference, not make them subordinates of one of them.
The Eastern and Western Churches can easily be reconciled. We Catholics will not impose any of the Papal dogmas that developed after the split and Orthodox Churches need to accept the reality of the Filioque. It is Biblical and the only reason they do not accept it is because of complicated politics relating to the first issue of Papal authority and primacy or lack thereof. I'd say the Orthodox try to overplay the difference between our Churches when in reality it was only a difference in hierarchy that made us go different ways. I think the way to go is to recognise our differences and have both Churches unite under a communion of beliefs, not authority.
@@manuelmartins1967 much more complicated than this. The immaculate conception and the councils by the west after the 7th will never be accepted by the east.
Joseph Millraney AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord. 2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth. 5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches. 6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him. 14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness. 15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things. 22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men. 23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him. 24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
@@erwinaquinde7211 Ours is a singular faith; this faith comes from Jesus, our Lord. He is our example. I strive to live like Him, albeit, I am imperfect at it. BUT He gives me the strength to persevere! To Him be glory now and ever, and unto ages of ages! Amen.
Joseph Millraney Can’t you not see it? After the romans murdered all the apostles, they created a religion - the roman catholic church. Letting you believe that the priesthood line went to the first pope after they crucify peter upside down. Somehow the church were successful in letting the majority of the people of the earth that this was so. Who murdered peter? The Romans Who crucified Christ? The Romans. After their deaths, what happened? Came the Roman Catholic Church. Simple to analyze.
jeffry gagnon No Antipope John Paul II did not do away with the idea of purgatory. The magisterium has only been used twice and both cases have nothing to do with purgatory, nor the name of The Holy Catholic Church, which is Christ’s Body.
jeffry gagnon limbo was never a “definite doctrine,” the occurrences after death of an unbaptized baby is still not definitively defined. Limbo was just a theory. Remember there’s a difference between doctrine the magisterium infallibility establishes, and propositions heads can make. He was given that title by sedevacantists and traditional Catholics.
@@medicorene Am waiting for PROOF that any church at the time of Christ was Catholic.Christ WAS NOT a Catholic-He wasJEW!!!! HE ABSOLUTELY FOLLOWED His Fathers Commandments-ALL OF THEM-INCLUDING THE Sabbath Commandment-To not follow it: Exodus 31:15--Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.-------That WAS the punisment for NOT obeying the Commandment!!!!------ ****EX 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Yeah, and here's the problem. The patriatch of Constantinopole wanted to be regarded as the 'second, right after the Pope', later the Pope wanted more power... And due to this greed from both sides the Church divided. In fact, there was no problem as long as all bishops were treated equal, just with having one that was 'first among the equal'. Saint Peter was one of the Apostoles, yet he never claimed to be better than the others. He didn't appoint them, it was Jesus who did. And now we land in the modern times, with both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church having a problem with this authority. In our western Church we have one Pope, so bishops can have a bit more power, but they are still appointed. In the eastern Orthodox Church there are autocephalous patriarchs and the bishops can't even consecrate the oils... I mean come on, the Orthodoxes claimed to defend their independence and the rule that the Pope is first among the equal... What we all forget about is that the Pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, all of them have received the same sacrament, the same orders. None of them received any higher ones than the others. And I know, there is a risk of heresy if we don't control everyone, but there is a pretty simple way to resolve it. If all bishops felt equal, then eastern and western bishops wouldn't have any problem with assembling on a Council together. And the Council could actually decide what's right and what's wrong. And from a practical point of view. The archbishop of my diocese originally worked in a diocese a few hundred of kilometers south to me. Then he was a bishop of the diocese a few hundred kilometers north to my diocese. So basically the Pope can appoint someone we have never heard about. Wish we could still participate in the decisions in a normal way...
I'm an inquirer into both the western Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Church. I do admit, I'm kind of at a crossroads; I can't quite decide which path to take. But this video is very helpful in understanding the role of the papacy, which is perhaps the biggest obstacle standing in my way.
Ask yourself why 22 Eastern Churches are Catholic and under Rome first. Check them out. It's hard to escape those "keys", that were always only given to the one who held the office.
www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html is a compilation of Eastern Father saying about Petrine Ministry. To be honest, Papacy in modern is unlike in the first century, different administration form. But our worship also unlike in the first century, but we hold it as the truest worship form. I suggest read a lot of books about papacy in the early church, how Rome intervene other diocese and patriarchate, synod and council.
The catholic church tries to replace my LORD JESUS CHRIST with the virgin Mary and this is Blasphemy and the catholics need to repent and ask GOD for forgiveness.
That was the best explanation that I have ever heard to explain the papacy. As a historian as well as a former Catholic, or fallen as my father puts it, I have never been able to reconcile the Pope with scripture even with the verse about Peter that you mentioned. You have done what the Jesuit Professors we’re unable to do, give me a good historical and biblical convergence. Thank you Father for these videos. You are helping to draw me closer to going back to the church than I have been in the past 35 years.
Crisarlin C. My life, heart and soul already belong to Jesus Christ. This is about how and where I choose to worship. For me, I had to get away from the dog,a of the Roman Catholic Church to find my way to my savior. Contrary to most Protestant dogma, Catholics are not Christians, this is incorrect: I know as many non-Christian Protestant as I do non-Christian Catholics. Just as the reverse is true. It is not about where you worship, it is about your relationship with the Savior Jesus Christ. I do understand your concern and appreciate your commitment.
@@lukewilliams448 all have sinned and fallen short. Their sin in this case would be a failure to see the relevancy in the statement by Jesus in scriptures that the only way to the father as through him, or that He is the way the truth and the life. Scripture says nothing about the only way to Christ us through the Roman Catholic Church. Only that you accept the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ the Savior.
@@lukewilliams448 remember the Petra in the proper wording of Greek S Boulder and stone. When Jesus addressed Peter calling him Petros that is the proper word for tiny or small stone part of a wall. Does this not make sense? Jesus will always be the unsellable strong solid foundation and cornerstone of the church. Peter is a weak vessel part of the Petros the small pebble of the wall that we all Christians are! Christianity is not a church Timothy 315 does not mean that the church is in charge of everything. What it means is that the church is following Christ properly the Petra The corner stone and foundation and pillar of truth which is Christ then the church should be followed. The church is anywhere any place where two or more are gathered in Jesus name. It is not Stainglass it is not sacraments it is not praying to Mary that is a whole Nother subject by the way. It is worshiping Christ in spirit and truth
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. -St Ignatius of Antioch (c.37-107) Love this catholic quote a lot 🔥
Ignatius also said that a single bishop and his flock constituted the fullness of the Church. This is in contrast to the concept that the Pope has direct universal jurisdiction.
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
YES ,also Polycarp was taught by St. john the Apostle , when Protestants convert they have read about the early Fathers and the one thing they say its very Catholic .
I just found this youtube channel today. And gotta say, this is one of the most wholesome and educational channel that I have ever seen. Definitely will subscribe!
@@jeffrygagnon5506 You're right, there is only 1 "first" and it's Eastern Orthodoxy. A quick look through each century of Christianity from the 1st century to the 21st will prove this.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 First off, there was an Eccumenical Council held 2 years before 327. Those were all Bishops of the Orthodox Church in succession of the Apostles defending the Faith handed down to them.
@@edwinotiatomarwa.6361 if you trace the history of all Protestant and Christian Churches it will lead up to Catholicism. Let God look upon you with his Mercy i will pray for you (I mean no offence).
"any hope of reunification one day...will require understanding and some tremendous work of the Holy Spirit". The unity of the Church is much on my mind lately. I'm Church of England myself and greatly appreciate your efforts towards increasing understanding between branches of the church. Let us pray for ongoing work by the Holy Spirit towards unity. Let us start with love of Christ, love for each other, and understanding, and grow from there
It is false peace and false unity.. Called Ecumenism .. A Satanic RCC leads the world into..The prophesied endtime deception and reign of Anti Christ ..under the Beast System which it is part of.. It's open Satan worship at the Vatican should tell you that it is Not the True Church.. It's building centre is designed as a Serpent 24/ 7 Satanism in practice.. while pretending to rooted in the Abrahamic covenant and bringing the other Counterfeits into Interfaith agreements.. while going against everything the Bible teaches.. Ephesians 4-5 One Lord One Faith One Baptism The Lord warns in his Word.. And Many have come out of the RCC .. It's a short time left to listen to God's Word and not Man... The Holy Spirit confirms His Word.. The Papacy is Not of God
Steve Doesn’t matter because the one, holy, apostolic, and Catholic Church is where the holy spirit resides. And you’re the one that compared it to the Devil. I’m sorry about what I said about your church, but it hurt when you compared the Catholic Church to the Devil.
@@keynote3316 when martin luther remove books in the bible and scramble the rest of the verses in some books ... the protestants now have 66 books left in their bible .... add another 6 ... it would be 66 .... 6 ... now that s the anti-Christ .... if only he left at least 67 or 65 or any number except 66. I guess he really fancies the 666 number and at the same time tarnished his chastity. .... in fairness ... there are really bad priest , even bishops in his time .. I guess tis one of the reason he quitted and protest ... but for him to gave up on the Church ... he is no better than those wolf-priests.
Thank you for your inspiring videos. They teach without being preachy; they are straight forward, factual and using language that is easy to understand. I have learned a lot from just this one video and hope to learn more from the other videos.Again, thank you and God bless you.
jeffry gagnon this issue is not immune to just Catholics. In the USA there were more child abuses perpetuated by Protestant churches than the Catholics and over 200, 000 child molestations done by public school teachers .
@@vincentinchoco5625 Well satan is everywhere. Trying to corrupt moral standards everywhere. Protestant preacher included. There are many ways to corrupt and lead you away from the bible.
The verse in Matthew quoted at the beginning shows Jesus saying of Himself, that He's the Rock. Not Peter. In the Greek text, ROCK in the verse refers translates to PETRA, whereas Peter's name is translated petros. PETRA is bigger than petros.
The Pope appoints bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, and he can discipline those who stray from church teaching. Even back in the day, the Pope didn't micromanage dioceses. Moreover when the bishops want to introduce new translations of the missal, they ultimately have to be approved by Rome. This presentation was overly simplistic as to the relationship between the pope and bishops even in today's post Vatican II world. For those who have little or no understand of these matters, this presentation is misleading.
William, I respect your opportunity to express yourself, but I have to disagree. Prior to Vatican II, the Pope was VERY micromanaging, requiring approval for most things and viewing the bishops are merely his middle management. I think your own comments betray you. You say that the pope can discipline the others and that new translations must go through Rome, and yet they aren't micromanaging. The fact of the matter is that neither of these two attributes were central to the pope in the first 1/2 of our history, and the Second Vatican Council has worked to move away from it. Even recently, Pope Francis has reminded the Church the the Bishops' conferences have the right to their own translations and that the Pope does not have to approve everything.
*Fabricated list of popes* Exodus From Rome Volume 1: A Biblical and Historical Critique of Roman Catholicism *Mercati’s research confirmed just how inaccurate it was. His results were the following: - Six Popes had to be dropped: one (Donus II) never existed; - two (the supposed third and fifth Popes Cletus and Anacletus) were the same man. - But three new Popes had been found: Boniface VI (for a few days in 896), and possibly, Discorus (for 22 days in 530) and Leo VIII (from 963 to 965). - In the case of no fewer than 74 Popes, changes had to be made in such matters as their names and dates. - Thirty-seven antiPopes are listed, the first of whom-Hippolytus of the 3rd century-is still considered a saint. From four legitimate pontiffs the designation of sainthood was removed. - Because of sketchy records and the questionable validity of some papal elections, Pius XII will probably never know whether he is the 256th successor to St. Peter or the 260th-or someone in between.* *90It is clear that the Vatican, over the course of centuries, has produced fabricated lists of Popes to support their illegitimate claim for an unbroken chain of papal successors from Peter to the current Pope, but in so doing have admittedly altered, removed, added, and in some cases, invented Popes to give this appearance of uninterrupted historical continuity.* *The Vatican has not produced such a list that has stood the test of time and therefore the claims of apostolic succession it makes for the papacy are historically invalidated, fraudulent, and partially fictional. Not only is this proven from the “historical” list that has repeatedly been amended and altered, but the method and manner by which some of these Popes were actually selected only reinforces the obvious truth that the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession is quite simply bogus.* *In the tenth century, Rome and the papacy had become so corrupted and rife with sexual immorality that this period of papal history has been graphically labeled by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cesare Baronius as “the Papal Pornocracy.”* *91 During that horrendous period, several Popes were actually elected by mistresses, prostitutes, and paramours of the Popes themselves! The most notorious was the whorish mother-daughter combination of Theodora and Marozia who were mistresses to the Popes. These two women alone were directly responsible for creating and appointing nine Popes (not counting anti-pope Christopher) covering a span of thirty-five years!* *92 Indeed, Pope John XI (931-935) was the illegitimate son of Marozia and Pope Sergius III (904-911)!* To believe that during this particular era that nine of Christ’s so-called appointed Vicars, Holy Fathers, and alleged direct successors of the Apostle Peter were legitimately chosen by adulterers and fornicators, who are excluded from the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Ephesians 5:5), is blasphemous to the highest degree. And these very same nine “Popes” elected by the nefarious duo of Theodora and Marozia still remain on the Vatican’s official list of legitimate Popes today! These Popes cannot possibly be genuine successors on this basis alone-there is certainly no biblical warrant here, and duly constituted authorities ordained by the Word of God did not elect them either.Another glaring hole in the chain of Rome’s apostolic succession occurred with the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) when there were three Popes at one time vying for the Chair of Saint Peter. The problem began when the Catholic Cardinals elected Pope Urban VI (1378-1389). Urban ruled with a heavy hand. His constant violent outbursts peppered with degrading insults of the Roman Curia quickly convinced the same body of Cardinals, who had elected him, to quickly depose him and elect Clement
It's been two years, so I don't know if you still look or read the comments here. I was just a little surprised that chapter one of Acts wasn't mentioned, where Matthias is elevated to the office that was vacated by the death of Judas Iscariot.
The fall of all four Eastern Orthodox patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem....which are now all Muslim) within 400 years after the Great Schism is an excellent argument for the Catholic church
Prabhas Ekka AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord. 2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth. 5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches. 6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him. 14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness. 15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things. 22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men. 23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him. 24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
@@Moe-bb3bm Augustine contributed the most to theology right next to Paul and Aquinas, so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also it's St Anthony of the Desert. idk where you got gnostic from. Maybe you're the one who needs to do research :)
@@andreslara2377 Augustine of Hippo came out from a gnostic type ideology called Manichean and he introduced heretical doctrine to Roman denomination. He was influenced by Plato's philosophies. Thomas Aquinas was a priest and continued with the Catholic false doctrines but threw in Aristotelian philosophy. Research it don't be in denial. I have not look more into him but him being a monk and priest pretty much discredits him anyways. I know some good speakers who do know but haven't bothered to. I doubt me Augustine was at the same caliber as Apostle Paul.
I appreciate that as a Catholic, you admit that the specifics of the Papacy we see today seem absent from early church history. You go on to say that these things took time to develop in the church. My challenge to you is, if they took time to develop, how is that to be distinguished from the church making them up? You also admit that the earliest shift in the papacy is in the 4th century (during Constantine’s reign and much political/religious change) If the dogmas and doctrines of the papacy took time to develop and are absent from the early church, and are also absent from scripture (for example, when Paul lays out the structure of the church, he never mentions the Bishop of Rome as a Pope or what that means as far as his role), then how do you justify the doctrines and dogmas of the Magisterium as being from Christ Himself, as opposed to created later on?
I like to respond with simplicity that Church was born on Pentecost Sunday. For the first Three hundred years of Catholic Christianity there were no bibles only the Torah and among the 4 Gospels that we have, according to historians there were 52 Gospels in circulation during those periods. Archbishop Graham, a convert to Catholicism , wrote a book "Who gave us the Bible" wrote that in 397 there was a Church Council of Hippo, through the influence of St Augustine included the 4 Gospels into Canon, the same time which the Holy Father commissioned St. Jerome a priest from Jerusalem to translate the Scriptures into the Latin vulgate
Stephen Byrnes Youre right that the Bible did take time to be compiled into one volume, but the scriptures we have today were already in existence, and the churches did reject countless false gospels. But we all have the same New Testament today, and no where in the text do we have any information about the Magisterium, as well as countless other Catholic doctrines and dogmas. None of the other early historical writings of “church fathers” have any detailed explanation of the Roman system. Such a system did not develop until the 4th century when Constantine made Christianity the national religion. This is when pagan practices began to creep into the Catholic Church, as Constantine made an effort to unify the people under a religion compatible with everyone to ease religious division and create some kind of peace. The issue is that the Church became a political figure over time, and thus, became very corrupt. My point is that if we don’t see evidence of any of these dogmas and doctrines in even the earliest Church writings (let alone the New Testament we all have now), how can we justify the belief that they are from Christ? Whenever I ask my Catholic friends why they believe they attend the “true Church”, they tell me that the early church was doing the same things they’re doing now, but I don’t see any evidence of that
Stephen Byrnes id also add that though the canon took time to be developed, we do have a lot of evidence suggesting that 2nd century Christians believed the writings of the apostles to be scripture (if you look at Polycarp, Justin Martyr etc.). That was one of the main reasons they made the canon, was because they were the teachings of the apostles themselves. If there were teachings about the Magisterium etc, wouldn’t they have made the canon? I’m frankly surprised there aren’t any New Testament additives that include such details for the sake of establishing the Catholic Church as a political authority. (Maybe this is why they kept the Bible in Latin later on, so that no one would know...)
Here something to think about and some facts I discovered in my own. Study and research first of all 4th century is around 400 but prior to that there was always a pope such as Linus, Cornelius and Clement I who wrote the letters to the Ephesians 5&6 Fact 2 Sts Peter and Paul brought Christianity to Rome there were Christians being martyred around 65 A.D. under Nero regardless how you look at it there is still one Church in which Jesus is the Corner Stone and Peter and the Apostles are the foundation by which Jesus built His Church on and it was born in the upper room at Pentecost in Jerusalem
Stephen Byrnes The 4th century was actually the 300s. This was when Constantine established “Christianity” as the religion of the Roman Empire. As far as the early church, there were many churches, hence the letters to Ephesus by Paul (and the people you mentioned), as well as Corinth, Rome, Galatia etc. Even in these first churches, false teachings arose. Paul warned against false teachers in his letters numerous times. Additionally, in Acts 20, he says “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (verse 30) Even in the first churches, there were people teaching false information. This idea that there was ever “one church” is just false. Of course, there is one ultimate Church, the body of believers. But clearly, false teaching was present even in the early days. This is why I don’t understand this narrative that there was this earthly Church instituted by Christ, this “True Church” that I keep hearing Catholics speak of. Rome was just like any other earthly body of believers in the early years of Christianity. By God’s grace, it started as a healthy Church, at least when Paul wrote to the Romans, but why do people insist that the “True Church” came from Rome?
@@jediv9910 but it's true God Saved us by sending his only son for our Salvation until we commit a grave sin and don't have ask God for forgiveness there is truth to that Statement
@@georgesmith364 *So where is grave sin in the BIBLE? Where is the list? Chapter verse? Pls enlighten me?* 1 2 3 YOU: but it's true God Saved us by sending his only son for our Salvation until we commit a grave sin and don't have ask God for forgiveness there is truth to that Statement
@@georgesmith364 *Roman cult contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways!* *RCC vs BIBLE 2* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say RCC clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. 11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity. Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a c--- disguising as Christianity deceiving many.
Br. Casey, what would you say to an Orthodox who wants to become Catholic? Would you advise that they should be received into the Catholic Church, or remain within their respective, separated community?
@@jeffrygagnon5506 i can answer that. The church is officially called the Catholic Church or the one holy and apostolic church. "Roman" Catholic is not it's name in other words.
@@Kitiwake It's actually called "Roman Catholic Church". The Supreme Pontiff will also tell you this. It's because the Church was established in Rome(Roman Empire) when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire(Don't confuse the "Roman Empire" with the "Holy Roman Empire" . Before that point in time there was no Unified Church. And since Christianity became the new official religion in the empire by Constantine's decree it necessitated the establishment of an official church, hence the Roman Catholic Church.
I am glad to see the church is finally producing "rebuttals" to the some of anti-catholic sentiments on some youtube videos. Too many masses are filled with lame sermons which fail "to feed" the people. Could you please handle the "pronoun translation" matters which some use to say Christ was not referring to Peter when He made the statement about making him head?
Hi. This is an exploration question... please do not take offence. I am struggling with how one makes a jump to Peter being a leader (and in fact he was one a key leader for some of the time, giving way to others) to the papacy and all that that entails. You see, the early church actually shunned the bishop of Rome's teachings... in fact, their own church councils didn't like at all what was happening. The main issue I have with the papacy is the historical picture of it... it's torrid and darn right awful. Very, very few of the popes have done anything which even remotely is Christian. From mass murder to utter pervesions. It's hideous. So, in my research into scripture and history, I am struck at how bad the papacy comes across. Then we have the current Vatican and the darn awfulness that's going on there. It's a travesty. So, I'm stuck looking at a church that through history has mudered over 50,000,000 people, went against the early church (the Reformation split was something that was happening from the year 90 AD and continued... in the end Roman Catholic Priests actually rebelled, enough was enough). So, its just a horrible mess. As for Jesus not referring to Peter... if one wishes to twist this teaching and create a papacy from this, then one is going directly against that which the Bible teaches... it's not just. matter of grammar.
Jesus renamed Simon as Peter ( It is derived from Greek Πέτρος, Petros (meaning "stone, rock", via Greek petra) ... and he serves as the foundation rock for the Church of Christ ... and said ...."You are peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church .... and the gates of hades shall never prevail against it. ... hades? the place were Jesus and Peter where at that time is a roman pagan place of worship and it is believed by the romans to be a gateway to hell (hades) ...
@@hartleyhare251 The problem with your narrative is Jesus Christ is quoting, nearly verbatim from Isaiah 22: 15-25 (specifically Isaiah 22: 22) at Matthew 16: 13-20 (specifically vs. 19). THAT wouldn't happen for NO reason. And when we LOOK at Isaiah 22: 15-25 to see what's going on there, in an attempt to figure out why He would be quoting it and applying it to St. Peter, IT TURNS OUT Isaiah 22: 15-25 is about EXACTLY what Father Mike said, in the kingdom of king David, there was an OFFICE, an office WITH SUCCESSION, an office WITH AUTHORITY (the king's OWN authority) to act in the king's name as the king's second in command, the "master of the palace" / "chief steward" / aka "prime minister". The papacy isn't "going directly against that which the Bible teaches....", IT IS WHAT the Bible teaches.
I love your well researched videos. They are not only important to us Cathiloic but to other religions also. GOD bless you n our Catholic religion. AMEN
Rosalind Kincannon AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord. 2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth. 5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches. 6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him. 14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness. 15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things. 22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men. 23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him. 24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 you aren't even criticizing the content, just attacking Father Casey. You're a coward for doing that, and in no way are you a good Christian. A beggar on the street would be a better example for young boys than you jeffry :)
@@jeffrygagnon5506 I do consider the Bible as a source of authority and truth. But I also know the Bible was not fully formed until the 4th Century and the first Christians depended on personal encounters with God, oral tradition and charismatic leaders (Acts 20:17-30) Now I'd like to believe that you are interested in a discussion, but seeing the rude remarks you gave to Fr. Casey, I'm not so certain you'd be respectful and humble in the discussion. I'll gladly have a discussion if you're willing to put away any pointless attacks and are open to listening and learning, as will I. God indeed created this planet as well as me and you so I wish you many blessings from the Lord.
As an Orthodox Christian I have to admit that this is the most objective and balanced presentation of this topic, I have ever heard from a Catholic apologetic. I believe that Vatican II realized that the power accumulated to the Bishop of Rome , administrative and spiritual, had become frightening for Catholics and appalling for non Catholics, and tried to return to a more balanced way of Church operation.
Tess Chavit AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord. 2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth. 5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches. 6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him. 14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness. 15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things. 22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men. 23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him. 24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
Thanks for your videos! I've spent the whole evening binge watching them - they're so informative. I love the ones of the individual friars talking about how they live out their vocation.
christopher jacob AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord. 2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth. 5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches. 6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him. 14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness. 15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things. 22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men. 23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him. 24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
Bobby Allen Pure Religion ------ 44 And then shall the words of the prophets be fulfilled when they wrote, saying: Pure religion that is undefiled before God, the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. 45 Behold, my brothers and sisters, this is not only the pure religion, but it is the only religion that hath been, and is, and shall ever be accepted by the Father, even that ye should love one another as ye would have them love you. 46 Behold, do not think that ye shall fall down before the Lord in the day of his power to worship him with your tears and your humility; for if ye do this before him, he shall command you to arise and depart from before him. 47 And he shall command you to go and do good to your neighbor and love your enemy and praise the Father for the wonderful blessings of life that He hath given to you. 48 For the Lord will not suffer his merciful smile to grace the eyes of a hypocrite, who in an effort to ease the pain and anguish of his misery, desireth a smile from the Lord.♥️
Yeah, Abraham is address as ‘Father’ simply because he is the ascendant of many nations. 60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. That was rebekkah’s blessing the wife of Isaac. Mathew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. While i am one of the spirit children of our father in heaven, i am also a son of my father and mother here on on earth. Other than that, he is not worth to be called my father.
• Part 1: Adam’s counsel to his children pertaining to our Eternal Parents 20 And now my beloved children, do ye suppose that if we were created in the image of the Gods-both male and female-that this image is only that of a man? Ye know well that there are females among us, and are not their bodies also created in the image of God? And I say unto you that they are also created in the image of God, and that God is not our Father alone, but that we also have an Eternal Mother, who is also a God. 21 And these things I have caused to be taught unto you by faith, knowing that ye have never seen the Father and the Mother of whom I speak. For they are the father and the mother of your spirits, which spirits ye also cannot see with your mortal eyes. Nevertheless, our Eternal Father and Mother are not made of spirit matter of which our spirits are made, but they have bodies of flesh and bone like unto ours. And our mortal bodies were created in the image of their eternal bodies, which are perfect. And our mortal bodies, which are imperfect, were made in the image of their bodies, but not in an exact likeness like unto our spirits. 22 For behold, our spirits are an exact likeness of our eternal parents in a similar way as your mortal bodies are a likeness of your mortal parents. And ye have beheld the body that I possess, and also the body that your mother Eve possesseth. And we were not born of mortal parents, therefore our bodies were not created in the likeness of imperfection, but were created after the pattern of the bodies of our Father and Mother in heaven. And for this reason ye have beheld that we have maintained our strength and our vitality even unto a very old age. And your mother Eve is like unto her daughters in every way, even that she hath lived many years past the deaths of many of her daughters, even those who have defiled their bodies and made them impure by those things which were forbidden unto them. 26 And Eve brought this knowledge back to my attention many times, but I would not listen to her because of my pride; yea, even the pride that a man doth feel because of the strength that he hath been given over a woman. Yet this strength that I have been given over Eve was not the strength of the spirit, which strength she hath in a greater abundance than I. And for this reason, my beloved sons, I would that ye should look unto your wives and your mothers; yea, in many instances, even unto your daughters for this spiritual strength that will keep you humble during the days of your probation here in mortality. 35 And now my beloved children, I would that ye should know that before we came to this earth, even to this part of this great universe, which expanse of space we can see with our mortal eyes; yea, even before we came to this planet upon which we now live and pass through the days of this probation, we lived on another planet with our Eternal Parents, who is the God that I have taught you to believe in all the days of my life. 36 And we were created from the materials from our Eternal Mother, having received the instructions for the creation of our spirits from our Eternal Father. And this process took place in a similar fashion like unto the conception of a child here in mortality. Nevertheless, this conception was perfect and refined according to the laws of the planet on which our Eternal Parents live. 42 And our Mothers who brought us forth from Their own bodies began to teach us these eternal laws of happiness. Yea, even from the day of our spiritual birth we were continually taught and raised by our Mothers to know this happiness. And by teaching us about this happiness, our Eternal Mothers received their own happiness. 43 And this is the work and the glory of an eternal woman who hath the power and the ability, which Her exalted body provideth, even to bring forth spiritual offspring, which are Her eternal children, which She shall know forever. 44 But the Father hath other works that He doeth, even according to the eternal laws of happiness that govern Him. For while our Eternal Mother is caring for our spirit and bringing other spirits into being, that our spirit might not be alone; yea, even as She is engaged in the desires of Her own happiness, so is our Father engaged in the performance of His labors, which labors shall provide for us the means by which we shall be able to know the happiness that our Mothers desire for us. 45 Behold, our Eternal Mothers perform the labors that are necessary for our first estate, which estate is the state in which we find ourselves as spirits in the kingdom of our Eternal Parents. But our Eternal Father performeth the labors that are necessary for our second estate, which estate is the state of the days of our probation, or the days of our mortality. 46 And because our Mothers are busy with their labors in our first estate, They do not concern Themselves with the cares and labors of our second estate. And our Father doth not concern himself with the affairs of our first estate, in which estate the labors of our Mothers are performed. For what purpose would we need a mother if it was that our father could provide for all of our needs? And again, what purpose would we need a father, if our mother could provide us with all that we need? 47 For this reason the Gods are male and female; nevertheless, they are equal in all things, having the same glory and the same power.♥️♥️♥️ Me: You know nothing about this people because you all are living on doctrines created by men. Hence the bible saying, “the blind leadeth the blind.”
I'll leave this comment as a response to this video for those who still doubt about the origins of the papacy in the hopes that you will find your own correct answer as opposed to taking his or my word as the truth. Leaving aside the rise of the papacy and the Roman Catholic church as we know it today, ask yourself the following. How does the papacy and the church reflect in history? is this church truly still the one true church of God? Are we taking Peters message about the false prophets into consideration? Are we not naïve to take the church word for everything without questioning it? Digging up on the Papacy' history we can clearly see numerous occasions when they did things that does not sound like anything Jesus would do or what God has propagated before in the Torah. For example the part where you could buy indulgence for you sins. And how the pope was used a political figure to gain strategic advantages such as his power to excommunicate central figures for the the advantage for another. I won't list everything. It's up to you to decide if they are in the wrong or not. Better yet. Do more research on the Protestant Reformation. Not that I am trying to push you to convert in that direction either. Simply for enlightenment. There is a reason why the pope is called the pope. You would be pleasantly surprised what the full term of that name means and even more about it's origins. But I'll leave you to that. I think I have left you with sufficient leads to open up on your own.
@@jzak5723, I agree. The Bible says both. Therefore, both must be true. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads the Church and works through us. However, my point is that it was James that took the lead out of the humans present, not Peter as the argument is presented.
@@preternaturalartist5766 The Book of Acts chapter 15 only quotes two people who gave addresses. Peter spoke first and James followed, but if you read closely verses 14-19, it appears that James' response was based on what Peter had said, (and that the prophets agreed with Peter) that James was simply agreeing with Peter. So, to continue to say that James took the lead at the Council, presided over the Council, made the final decision at the Council, is reading more into the Scripture than what is there. But that's fine, you certainly are entitled to your opinion.
@@jzak5723, I understand where you are coming from, but James ends with saying "it is my judgement." For this line of argumentation, the best case scenario is that James is just putting his opinion in the mix and Peter is not the only authority. The worst case scenario is that James is taking the leadership position. Either way, this isn't a compelling argument for a Pope. Finally, I would just posit that the only reason I made the original comment, is because I felt that this fellow seemed to be leaving out some very important details when making his case. It seemed dishonest, and I just wanted to add the part he left out.
Such a blessing cannot be forced on someone. If he wants to be a priest then Godspeed to him, but if not, and it is forced, he will forever look upon the Church odiously.
The Archbishop of Alexandria was first called Pope (father) by his Presbyters in AD 90; the Archbishop if Rome in AD120; the Archbishop of Antioch for some reason never was.
The Roman Catholic Church 1. The Church is one. 2. The Church is Visible 3. The Church is Forever 4. The Church is Truth 5. The Church is messy. 6. The Church is a Kingdom 7. The Church is teacher 8. The Church is mystery 9. The Church is hierarchal 10. The Church is Holy 11. The Church is Apostolic 12. The Church is sacramental 13. The Church is Catholic 14. The Church is dynastic 15. The Church is mother 16. The Church is real. 17. The Church is authoritative 18. The Church is the bride of Christ. 19 The Church is the mystical body of Christ. 20. The Church is unchangeable
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Read the bible in context. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the Life. He didn't say Peter was. Peter was never a pope, that is a fallacy to think he was.
Geroniel Decano AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord. 2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth. 5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches. 6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him. 14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness. 15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things. 22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men. 23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him. 24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
Geroniel Decano Yeah, Abraham is address as ‘Father’ simply because he is the ascendant of many nations. 60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. That was rebekkah’s blessing the wife of Isaac. Mathew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. While i am one of the spirit children of our father in heaven, i am also a son of my father and mother here on on earth. Other than that, he is not worth to be called my father.
Another thing about the papacy and the orthodox church is that in 1050 when from one church become two, papacy and orthodoxy, the curse each other and they split up into two groups: papacy and orthodoxy. When our Lord prayed for His fallowers in John chapter 17, He asked to His Father to make them one in Them. But satan was prepared to distroy this unity of the Church and make them to hate each other.
Inasmuch as l would like to see Roman Catholics and Orthodox unite, there will be no unity without agreement on non-negotiable dogmas. In the meantime l think we should all strive for doctrinal clarity, integrity, and understanding. Forget the possibility of agreement, for now.
The major difference between Peter and the Pope is that Peter understood that he was not equal to Jesus and that Jesus was his Lord and the only way to get to heaven. Jesus said no man comes to the Father except by me and he wasn't talking about a priest. We have One Father and that is our Heavenly Father. Peter was not a Catholic with all their Pomp and Circumstance he was a follower of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church is derived by the same type of people who killed Jesus on the cross.
It is based on a rewrite of history under Emperor Constantine. He was trying to centralize power around himself and Rome. Eusibius did a lot of the work for him.
The Rosary is not biblical, nor is it the central prayer of the Church. The official prayer of the Church is the Liturgy of the Hours, which all priests and religious are required to pray. The Rosary is a nice devotion that came about in the 13th century.
@@BreakingInTheHabit *So you are admitting roman church practice of Rosary is unbiblical. So why is it still in roman doctrines and Catechism? So in fact you are admitting to: Roman church is unbiblical. Good one here! Thanks for being honest.* YOU: The Rosary is not biblical
I pray that the One Holy Catholic and apostolic church can reunite in one communion as before 1054, Yes I love the bishop of Rome. I asked myself if the schism and excommunications of 1054 were reversed in 1965, why are we not in full communion with the roman church. Because the Eastern Orthodox church do not have a Bishop with this authority, if the Bishop of Rome says the schism is healed, then the roman church will follow, if the patriarch of Constantinople says the schism is healed, the other Orthodox bishops will split with him. what am I saying, I am saying that we need the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. I am saying that Powerful Men and nations need to humble them self and ask for forgiveness.
@@hinata9265 At Isaiah 22: 15-25 The LORD God is informing King David's Prime Minister, Shebna, the "master of the palace", that He is displeased that he has been using his office as Prime Minister to selfishly aggrandize / benefit himself, building monuments to himself, that God is deposing him from his office as king David's Prime Minister, and is replacing him with God's own man, Eliakim, and the symbol of the office, "the keys of the kingdom" are to be transferred to him, the keys being a sign of the ability of "the master of the palace" to "bind" and "loose" matters that pertain to king David's kingdom in the king's name with the king's own deputed authority. Jesus quotes Isaiah 22: 22 at Matthew 16: 19 regarding the "keys of the kingdom" and tells Peter that he is giving the keys to Peter. For anyone who knows anything about biblical exegesis, and the use of 'types' / archetypes from salvation history as interpretive keys it is clear Jesus is applying Isaiah 22: 15-25 to what He is doing at Matthew 16: 13-20 with St. Peter. He is appointing Simon Peter / Cephas as His personally chosen "master of the palace" / Prime Minister with full power, by virtue of being the keeper of "the keys" to "bind" and "loose" not merely things with regards to the nation of Israel in the first century AD as a vassal state to the pagan Roman empire, but rather whatever the holder of the office of St. Peter "binds on earth, shall be bound in HEAVEN", and whatever he "looses on earth, shall be loosed in HEAVEN". That is a staggering amount of authority, which the Church has traditionally understood as regarding theological teachings on the faith and morality, considering the Church teaches Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine.
the question you posed was NOT answered, where did the papacy come from, you mention a verse concerning peter, you never exapanded on the word pope or who gave the authority to institut ethe first papacy, does it have anything to do with constantine and the councils of nicea?
This is one of the worst parts of the RCC, the fact that they think they need a Pope. The Lord Jesus Christ is the mediator, and one does NOT need another mediator to meet with Him.
@@BrotherTris It has everything to do with the Pope, my friend. At Matthew 16: 15-19 (specifically, Matthew 16: 19) Jesus quotes verbatim from a passage at Isaiah 22: 15-25 (specifically Isaiah 22: 22), so it would be important to know the context of Isaiah 22: 15-25 in order to understand why he would be quoting it at Matthew 16: 19. And when you look at the passage of Isaiah 22, the context becomes remarkably enlightening. Isaiah 22 has the LORD God letting king David's prime minister, the "master of the palace, being replaced and God's ordained choice to be placed in his stead. It is important to note that the prime minister is an office in the People of God of ancient Israel, an office with succession, imbued with the king's authority, the symbol of which is the "keys to the kingdom" with full authority to "bind" and "loose" in the king's name. The parallels are striking. When Jesus was to become incarnate, the archangel Gabriel told her he would inherit the throne of his forefather David of the house of Judah. At Matthew 16 Jesus is appointing Peter as His "master of the palace", His prime minister and specifically quotes Isaiah 22: 22 in reference to the sign of the office of St. Peter being the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" with full authority to "bind" things on earth that "shall be bound in HEAVEN" and "loose" things on earth, that "shall be loosed in HEAVEN". Father Casey is exactly correct in quoting Matthew 16: 18 for that is the verse which records Jesus instituting that office and claiming St. Peter is the 'rock' / office upon which He would build His church.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Hello, thanks for your reply. Are you saying every Pope has come in the spirit of Eliakim? Nothing you have said has contradicted the fact that we do not need any other mediator except the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Why does this passage make it any different, in your eyes? I know the Lord personally and have no need for your Pope in the process. Therefore, why even have this middle man?
"The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house." Saint Augustine Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus Chapter 4 / # 5
Thats what Rome tells you. Its not important what the bishops tell you. Read the bible yourself. There is no Mary woreship at all. Its all pagan imported from the east.
quote---Traditions-NO SCRIPTURE------Who cares about the Traditions of Man????? ***** though all heretics wish to be called Catholics unquote-------LOL--ROFL-----A TOTAL LIE!!!!!
There was a leader in the 1st Century Church. James "the Just" - the real life, flesh and blood brother of Jesus took over leadership of the Jerusalem Church in the first three decades following the crucifixion. Jesus led the movement for 3 years; James led it for 30 years. Also, the Church in Rome traces their Apostolic roots back to Peter. However there was already a church in Rome before Peter travelled to Rome.
@@jlb1397 that's what church tradition says and it's wrong. The tradition is wrong and doesn't match the biblical accounts (as usual). Every NT scholar knows that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible says so. The Bible even says that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Mary didn't remain a virgin - one more area where Church tradition doesn't match biblical sources.
@@jflaugher can you give me the Bible verses that will support your claim. Hence there is no equivalent word for cousin in Hebrew that's why we often see the term brother in the bible and the word cousin is no where to be found at
@@jlb1397 - The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Mark (3:31-32) tells about Jesus' mother and brothers looking for Jesus. And it doesn't matter whether the word for cousin exists in Hebrew or not - because the gospels were written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic not Hebrew.
I recently finished reading the Apostolic Fathers, and I cannot say I completely agree with the understanding you bring forward in this video. In the Bible, it seems to me that Paul exerted authority much more frequently and, well, authoritatively then Peter, as you said. In the Apostolic Fathers, too, I see a similar situation. While it is obvious that Clement is writing to the Corinthians to settle a matter, perhaps after being asked to do so, so does Polycarp of Smyrna. He writes to the Philippians, clearly after he has been asked to do so, in order to settle a matter. As I read the Apostolic Fathers I discovered just how "proto-orthodox" they were (apostolic succession, of example, is clearly invoked by Clement). But Roman supremacy is not something I found.
It's not that I think that they have the same authority as God's word. But these texts reveal what was the consensus. Some of these may well have been written earlier than some Bible books, and even the most conservative datings still mean they were all written from 100 to 160 CE. So by people who personally knew the apostles, in some cases.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Since the writings of the men who canonized the New Testament are not in the New Testament, why should we trust them for doctrine about what should constitute the New Testament?
@@mertonhirsch4734 No "men" decided what should constitute any part of the Judeo-Christian Bible. You either perceive it to be the Word of God, or you don't. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away" (Luke 21:33) (NKJV).
Hi Friar Casey, your videos are great. Just a question, I was researching the early church, like the 4-700s, and there was a mention of “pentarchy”. There were 5 holy cities: Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria. Any thoughts
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
I dont believe scripture teaches that Peter is the Pope or had any more authority than the other Apostles, I appreciate the Intelectual honesty of this channel.
There's also no real evidence that the Catholic church was founded by Peter either. The whole thing has always been people in power making up storiee to legitimize that power
Matthew 23:9 And call no man father upon the earth for one is your father, which is in heaven. Read The book of Daniel, and then your know who this pope is, prophecy as to pass, and many will be lost, by being lead astray.
How dare you shed light on something so trivial that could cause the Papacy to collapse. Does thee not know that only the one true church can interpret scripture? Also the pope is infallible so don't question him!
Jonathan Kolawole does Christ prayer have value??? Lk 22:31- notice Christ says satin has permission to temp All of you but I have prayed that your faith will not fall... Christ did not pray for the other 11 Deciples ONLY for Peter.....now Peter is a sinner Matt 16:21-23.... That why the Church has Bishops and Cardinals to tell The Pope what they believe is right or wrong ... and that does exist in the Catholic Church of Christ... Peters Job is to keep his brothers faith stong!!! And for 2000 years it’s been working... and thanks to Pope Saint Damus he choose what 27 books to put in the New Testament and made the Bible !!! If he would not have done that we would only have 1 Cannon Testament...
Jonathan Kolawole also let God’s word Correct all who teach what you said about Paul and Peter!!!!!!!!you are only preaching Gal 2:11-14 that Paul reminds Peter that he was give the gift of Prophesy .. but you don’t preach Gal 2:1-10 that show Peter was the head of the Church... in these verses it shows that Paul wanted to make sure they did not preach in vain!!!!!! So Paul went to the Head of the Church Peter .. if Peter was not the head then why did Paul have to go tell Peter anything??????? So did Paul leave the Church and go start teaching what he wanted like all the other Churches that are not Christians Catholic? NO ! then who gives other people permission to teach what they want??? The other Churches ,religions will never have the true teaching only the Christian Catholic will have the true teaching... God wanted 1 Church 1 Teaching and it has been that way for 2000 years and any other teaching are not Approved
Jonathan Kolawole read Acts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ,10,11,12,13,14,15 all about Peter taking charge of the Church... Jn 21:15 Peter was asked 3 times do you love me and to take care of Christ sheep ... Matt 16:18- Christ builds his Church on Peter !!!Lk 12:31- Christ prays only for Peter and not the other 11 apostles even if they are right next to Peter !!!
jeffry gagnon it’s simple Gods sends spirts of error so the can believe what is false!!!! The bottom line is that no person in the Bible took it upon them self to be elders in the Church and to teach what ever they want ... the Catholic Church is the only Church with the right doctrine
Not a Catholic, but it's very refreshing to see a Catholic response that actually accepts that the Papacy (as we know it today) was by no means in place in the time of Acts or in the first couple centuries after. I'm not so bold as to claim the Papacy is untrue; but I do have enough basic history to say that there was no "Papacy" in Rome in 100 AD. Regardless, great video. God bless.
That's also not what Ignatius of Antioch said in his epistles who was bishop in the time of Acts was written. He said very clearly Peter in Paul were laying the foundation in the church. Also mentioned Peter to Clement of Rome. The clearest piece of evidence is Irenaeus lists the first 12 bishops of Rome and wrote Jesus through Peter gave them authority over every church. "Against the heresies" book III, Chapter 3 written in 180 AD. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle.
@@JJ-cw3nf I'm glad you recently replied to this. This helps to see where I've changed and grown in the past year. Since then, I've aligned ever more to the Catholic faith. The more digging I do, the more Catholic I become. God bless, friend.
@@scygnius Similar to myself and many others. Plus the oral tradition of the Catholic Church was proven correct and strong when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. It proved the oldest bible about 900 AD was exactly the writing of scripture around 200 BC. And books of the old testament had been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls which are still in the Catholic bible today, which were books that Martin Luther and the successor protestant churches took out of the bible calling it not scriptural.
Blind leading the blind? The history of the Church is not something to be proud of if souls are lost along the way. The most important things the Church forgot are the saving of souls and how important it is for everyone to read and meditate on God's Word in the whole Bible daily, and not just a few verses. God spoke from Genesis to Revelations which most Catholics are not familiar with, because they were not encouraged to own one. We cannot ignore the content of the rest of the Bible and base our faith from only a few verses. That would be a willful disobedience to God's Commandments and His plans for all mankinds. Jesus had already fulfilled the law. We should now worship Him in truth and in Spirit. 🤔
What are the keys of heaven. What is the meaning ok kingdom. Jesus always spoke of kingdom of heaven. Did Jesus come to form a religion. Was the sacrifice of Jesus complete.
No, no, no don't question these teachings. Only the one and true church( i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) are allowed to interpret the Scripture. At least that is what they claim Jesus have bestowed onto them and probably why the kept the new volumes in the bible in Latin in order to prevent people from realizing the truth.
The Council of Damasus in Rome in 382 under Pope St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent. And thus ''the bible was born''. There had to be a Church and a religion before a bible. That's the only way they could know which writings belonged with that which had been handed down.
Your belief is wrong. Christ is the rock the church is founded. Peter was preacher to the Jews and Paul was the preacher to the Gentiles. Read the bible. If Peter was to the gentiles, why didnt he stand in with Paul at trial? He eas not there.
Remember what Jesus said to Peter...you are the rock and I will give you the key of heaven. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you lose on earth will be lost in heaven. With this claimed of Peter, it will be the initial beginning of the catholic church and we are to trust Peter and his successors to head and lead the church. This does not mean, it is up to Peter and his successors to create anything outside the teaching of Jesus. Jesus is still very much the centre of worship in the Roman Catholic Church!
*Historians and scholars say most of Ignatius writings were forgeries. Some said all his writings were forgeries. So you are taking doctrines from forgeries? Nice try Casey!*
@@achienglilian6395 *Roman cult contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways!* *RCC vs BIBLE 2* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say RCC clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. 11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity. Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a c--- disguising as Christianity deceiving many.
Greetings Fr Casey, good video but I'm a tad puzzled when you said in the early Church there wasn't a central authority and that the bishops of Rome didn't use the titles associated with the Pope today. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Church Fathers like Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, St Jerome and St Augustine affirm primacy of the bishop of Rome? Like it seemed that they didn't see the Pope is first among equals, emphasizing unity with the see of Rome. Although the Popes didn't use the associated titles like Vicar of Christ back then, didn't they already have significant spiritual authority bestowed upon them by the Keys of the Kingdom entrusted to St Peter? From what I understand it's only moving into the middle/medieval ages the Popes acquired political and temporal powers.
The Church of Rome is in the Bible (the Letter to the Romans), and it was led by a presbyter that we call priests and Bishops today. Presbyter means "elder," that we Catholics translate as "Bishop." We get the word "priest" from Presbyter as well. So, logically there was a Christian community in Rome whom Paul was writing to led by a "presbyter" that is now called "priest" and "Bishop." The Presbyter or "Bishop" of the Christian Community in Rome today is the successor in that office to the one Paul was writing to in the first century. That is where the Bishop of Rome is in Scripture.
I'm not sure that I did... While, yes, this video makes a strong argument for the historical precedent of collegiality, it also makes a strong argument in favor of having a pope. That's not an Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, but a reformed and refined Catholic ecclesiology.
Pope Pius IX said: I alone despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ; I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barque of Peter; I am the way, the Truth and the life. ….Really!,
James was the final decision maker in the Jerusalem council. If an infallible papacy was to be established why is scripture so vague about it? The rock upon which the church is built is Jesus and the testimony peter gave about Him.
Councils and Papacy infallibility have always co-existed. In some situations councils are more appropriate. Scripture is not vague about it. Jesus moduled the structure of the priesthood from the old testament.
@@coryalbright9798 Yes he did. Isaiah chapter 22 the next in line of authority wore the Kingdom of Keys. Jesus knew the structure of the old testament and moduled the structure of the High Priest from the old testament. Many ways this is shown. And in Matthew chapter 16 Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. And there's a lot more that show this in the bible. It's factually incorrect to say there's nothing in the bible of pope infallibility. You just reject the evidence presented by matter of your opinion from what you've been told. No proof Catholics are wrong. God never came out and told anyone Catholics are wrong. But God has shown us proven miracles, I can guess you know nothing about, that back Catholics which no other religion has. The teachings of the Catholic church of 2,000 years matches early Christianity exactly. Your logic is that it took some white men from Europe and America over 1,500 years later to get Christianity correct, because no one for the first 1,500 years was smart enough. That's your logic? And which one of the thousands of protestant denominations is correct?
@@JJ-cw3nf *Stop spinning roman cultist. You clearly do not read the BIBLE. Which part of the BIBLE says "Jesus moduled the structure of the priesthood from the old testament."? Or "Councils and Papacy infallibility have always co-existed". In the first place BIBLE says clergy priesthood was already obsolete in NT and BIBLE says nothing of pope or papal infallibility or other NS man made doctrines of roman cult.* YOU: Councils and Papacy infallibility have always co-existed. In some situations councils are more appropriate. Scripture is not vague about it. Jesus moduled the structure of the priesthood from the old testament.
@@JJ-cw3nf *Stop spinning roman cultist. Which part says that was the keys to kingdom of heaven>? Or peter was pope? You are just proof texting.* YOU: Yes he did. Isaiah chapter 22 the next in line of authority wore the Kingdom of Keys.
Apostle Paul said .......Let no man deceive you.......... and The Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition ; Who opposeth and exalted above all that is called God ,or that is worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God , showing himself that he is God.(2Thes 2:3,4)
@@daverichardson7994 if he were we would have been told in the bible, and he would have been called Pope peter, what do you think? Where did this title papacy come from? Study carefully the Bible, Catholics are teaching error mingled with truth, and this equals to ERROR.
If Rome would check its ego and stop acting as if it has some kind of divine authority to set precedent in every other church, then reunification would be easy.
@@delbert372 Yes and the Rock is definitely not Peter It is Jesus Christ/God Ephesians 2:20 King James Version 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Peter himself calls Jesus the ROCK the chief cornerstone 1 Peter 2:6-7 King James Version 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
Matt: 16 13-19 is often misunderstood. Jesus clearly asks the disciples "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? to which, after many answers, Simon Peter replies "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God". Jesus confirms that it was "his father in heaven that gave Peter this revelation. The statement "upon this rock I will build my church", reflects more on the answer given from Peter and not referring to Peter himself. Many found it hard to believe that Jesus was the son of God. Jesus is the Rock on which the church is built, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The Church - no matter what she goes through will remain triumphant. The Keys of the kingdom of heaven are not for Peter alone, but for everyone who believes in Jesus, the Son of God.
@ Queen Majesty The problem with this misinterpretation, and the issue I see no fundamentalist ever address, is that Jesus DIRECTLY QUOTES Isaiah 22: 22 at Matthew 16: 18, 19. Would it not then be important to look at the passage at Isaiah 22: 15-25 to see what is going on there, in order to understand why Jesus Christ quotes Isaiah 22: 22 out of it? And when you look at the passage Isaiah 22: 15-25, which is the context for Isaiah 22: 22 (which Jesus directly quotes), it turns out it is NOT about a statement that is being made regarding the nature of God. The context that Isaiah 22: 15-25 provides CLEARLY shows the LORD God is addressing king David's PRIME MINISTER (the "master of the palace"; cf. Isaiah 22: 15, 19) an OFFICE within the Davidic kingdom - king David's, second in command). It is an office WITH SUCCESSION (Shebna is being deposed, Eliakim is to succeed him; cf. Isaiah 22: 15, 19, 20), It is an office WITH AUTHORITY (cf. Isaiah 22: 21b), the office holder was to be known to the people both by wearing a unique vestment (cf. Isaiah 22: 21a) and by being the sole holder of the "key to the house of David" (cf. Isaiah 22: 22) with full authority to "bind" and "loose" matters pertaining to the Davidic king in the king's name and with the king's deputed authority (cf. Isaiah 22: 22). It was an office WITH HONOR AND DIGNITY (cf. Isaiah 22: 23b) and ALL ISRAEL, including the ruling elite, were to consider him as a "FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (cf. Isaiah 22: 21c). Jesus is DIRECTLY QUOTING Isaiah 22: 22 out of the immediate context of Isaiah 22: 15-25, a passage about the LORD God appointing a successor to the office of the prime minister to the Davidic king (the "master of the palace") and APPLYING IT TO SAINT PETER and you are attempting to argue that the PRIMARY THRUST of what is going on is NOT THAT APPOINTMENT, but what St. Peter says? Catholics AGREE that the Father's divine revelation to St. Peter and his subsequent confession as to the identity of Jesus Christ IS IMPORTANT and is the occasion for Jesus Christ, as the heir to the Davidic kingdom (humanly speaking), appointing St. Peter as HIS "master of the palace", His PRIME MINISTER.
@John The entire conversation was pertaining to Jesus - whom do men say that I the son of man am? Yes, Peter was renamed, but he was not the rock upon which the church was to be built; however, he was promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
@JohnJesus is the builder & he is the Rock. You sound as though you are talking about the physical building of the church. Very important that you read the bible for yourself. If you do so "prayerfully" you will understand. Don't forget Psalm 118: 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Hi friends, I speak with all due respect when I say Math16:18 has been terribly misinterpreted here if am wrong correct me with scripture, for the church was not built on Peter, making him the foundation of the church, no. The church was built on Christ "for 'other foundation' can 'no man' lay than that is laid, which is 'Jesus Christ'." "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ being the 'chief cornerstone'." 1Cor3:11,Eph2:20. Further more, the final decision at the council at Jerusalem was decided by James and not Peter according to Acts15:13-21. Peter one of three of Christ's closest friends and and held I high esteem in the early church according to Gal2:8,9 but was at no point in the Bible given the authority the Papacy claims to have. Authority to forgive sins (only God can forgive sins Mark2:7), authority to be called vicar(substantiate) of Christ, to take up all the names of God almighty and to be referred to as God on earth. All this is not biblical but blasphemous.
@@milambomusakuzi9270 which sentence do you not understand, that Jesus built His Church on Peter? "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" @jeffry the problem arises when the original gospel Matthew was written in Aramaic, which no differ "You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my church", And Petra Petros was written simply because of the grammatical rule of Greek Language. For more information, just read Church Father about that passage. And Council of Chalcedon session 3. Explicitly said "Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church," if you read typology, Peter is like Eliakim in the old testament, he is Prime Minister of Israel Kingdom
@@jefflokanata hi friend, I also had that same view, but other portions of scripture seemed not to be in accord. Peter can't be the rock our church is built on, take for instance, we have no other verse reference in Old or New Testament to prove that the Rock in Math16:18 is Peter( for the word Cephas simply means a stone John1:42). Math16:16 "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." 👈This is what Jesus seemed to be referring to as the Rock to build his church on, he himself was the rock. The Rock from old to new Testament was always Jesus👉 Psm18:31- is there any other rock apart from our God?/ 1Cor10:4- that spiritual rock was Christ. This is why I believe the church we Got it wrong there.
@@milambomusakuzi9270 We can see parallelism in Isaiah 22:22 "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open." We believe Jesus is King in the house of David, and he gave the key of the house David to his Prime Minister. As in the Old Testament, King Hezekiah gave the keys to Eliakim, Prime Minister.
Benedict XVI in his wisdom tried to separate the roll of the Pope as representing Jesus as our Shepherd and The Administration of the Church as Bishop of Rome but his idea was not followed and in my opinion was "forced" to Resign.
I am born again and I have issues with all of this religion, from popes to priests to bishops and everything in between... First of all I'm not supose to call anyone "father" according Matthew 23:9 so why do we, or is "papa"-cy okay now? And how about baptism, if I'm correct John never baptised infants, according to scripture you have to make a choice to follow the Lord. Babies that get "sprinkled' can't make that choice. As for the sprinkling, another thing. John dunked people under, you have to be washed, cleaned, born again clean from the mothers womb (woomb being the river), including Jesus... I don't think John ever sprinkled or splashed as baptism... We lost our way... The worship on sunday, sure go ahead and worship the sun...The paypacy, priests, bishops, cardinals... they have been making it all up as we go along. Really...No priest/ ordinary man, can absolve you of your sins, no hail Mary will do it, and on the hail Mary, who made that one up? Anyone please tell me where I can find the hail Mary in my bible... Here is the thing..., no man, in whatever robe he wears (I think Peter just wore regular clothing) should be standing in between you and the Lord, you have a direct link to him Through Jesus Christ. John 14:6, Jesus did not say:"Through the pope to the father", or: "through the priest to the father". I would really love to know who made all this crap up.... there were 12 diciples. When the last one died it was THE END. The Pope is not Jesus, nor is he one of His diciples, nor is he related to Peter since pope's get elected by voting and not by a Man that said "follow me..."cause if they felt called they would leave their riches behind... And do you know how much the pope is worth? About 2.5 million... . Jesus was a Jew... when he said to Peter: "you are my rock on you I build my church", He meant people turning to the faith through Peter, He did not say, "On you I will build my 2.5 million dollar wealth in a vatican city that will be it's own country with it's own walls surrounding it." Yeah, pretty sure Jesus never said that... Papacy is a farce... I know what Jesus did say though about folks who are worth 2.5 million... "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle...." Matthew 19:24. PS: There is also no purgatory in case you still also believe that fairy tale...
If we think about our Catholic Church, I hope the First one that Comes from our mind is Jesus our savior.
Unfortunately, it is Mary.
@@daisysummer1575 no it's not, since when?
@@daisysummer1575 unfortunately for protestants it's the founders of their church, their pastor or themselves.
@@josemadrigal2293 The Catholic Church is the only church founded by Christ. All other heretical sects have been founded by fallible, misled people. May all the lost sheep be shepherded home to the One True Faith, the Holy Mother Church!
@@thebay3080 👍
I feel sad because I didn't know who Jesus was. Now that I'm older, I'm searching diligently to understand his teaching... feel honored to travel down this road..
Check out Orthodoxy. Something's wrong with catholicism. It's tangible. From cartels to the mafia to child molestation to having a "perfect and infallible" living leader, something got severely corrupted along the way.
May God bless you and guide you to truth and relationship with Him🙏🏽✝️
We have something better than Jesus.
John 16:7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
@@freshrockpapa-e7799 There is nothing better than Jesus who paid the price for our sins, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Jesus who is God. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. John 14:6 Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. There is only one God. 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
@@EugeneHolley-rc6ry Yes, that's what I'm saying, that the person doesn't have to feel sad for not knowing Jesus personally since he can have His spirit inside him, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Himself.
Thank you for your honest, historical teachings. As a Greek Orthodox, we hold that the early church place for the Bishop of Rome is one of honor and First Among Equals. The block to ending the schism involves the current status of the Bishop of Rome and infallibility.
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that
development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
@@mertonhirsch4734 the developments that took place are considered heretical because they are heretical. You will never been united with anyone but heretics until you give up heresy. Orthodoxy may split in schism one day, and the heretic "orthodox" may have communion with Rome, but you will remain heretics, prideful in your heresy...
I am Catholic and I agree with the understanding of first among the equals, however the Orthodox Church doesn't fully follow it too. Instead of a Pope it has lots of Patriarchs. And while I understand that Patriarch is a historial function, Pentarchy would be enough with all the bishops being able to consecrate own oils and decide for their diocese. For more important decisions we have synods and Councils. And if you need to assemble bishops from one country, just make a voluntary conference, not make them subordinates of one of them.
The Eastern and Western Churches can easily be reconciled. We Catholics will not impose any of the Papal dogmas that developed after the split and Orthodox Churches need to accept the reality of the Filioque. It is Biblical and the only reason they do not accept it is because of complicated politics relating to the first issue of Papal authority and primacy or lack thereof. I'd say the Orthodox try to overplay the difference between our Churches when in reality it was only a difference in hierarchy that made us go different ways. I think the way to go is to recognise our differences and have both Churches unite under a communion of beliefs, not authority.
@@manuelmartins1967 much more complicated than this. The immaculate conception and the councils by the west after the 7th will never be accepted by the east.
Of course, Father, we Orthodox see things differently. May the Holy Spirit bring us together one day 🙏🙏 🙏
Joseph Millraney
AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord.
2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth.
5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches.
6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him.
14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness.
15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things.
22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men.
23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him.
24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
@@erwinaquinde7211 Ours is a singular faith; this faith comes from Jesus, our Lord. He is our example. I strive to live like Him, albeit, I am imperfect at it. BUT He gives me the strength to persevere! To Him be glory now and ever, and unto ages of ages! Amen.
Joseph Millraney
Can’t you not see it? After the romans murdered all the apostles, they created a religion - the roman catholic church. Letting you believe that the priesthood line went to the first pope after they crucify peter upside down. Somehow the church were successful in letting the majority of the people of the earth that this was so.
Who murdered peter? The Romans
Who crucified Christ? The Romans.
After their deaths, what happened? Came the Roman Catholic Church.
Simple to analyze.
@@erwinaquinde7211 I know this is an old comment but where did you copy and paste this from? Or is there a link
Elisha Autrey
People asked me where i got this from. But when i told them, i got scorned.
Hello brother, i'm a mexican dominican friar, thanks for the video, God bless you
You're welcome! Great to hear from a Dominican!
yeah. see you in purgatory.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 oh..only catholics hahahha
jeffry gagnon No Antipope John Paul II did not do away with the idea of purgatory. The magisterium has only been used twice and both cases have nothing to do with purgatory, nor the name of The Holy Catholic Church, which is Christ’s Body.
jeffry gagnon limbo was never a “definite doctrine,” the occurrences after death of an unbaptized baby is still not definitively defined. Limbo was just a theory. Remember there’s a difference between doctrine the magisterium infallibility establishes, and propositions heads can make.
He was given that title by sedevacantists and traditional Catholics.
As a United Methodist minister, you filled some gaps in my understanding. Thanks for the videos
Thank you for you civility, i hope you get closer to the church founded by christ and his apostles.
@@medicorene Am waiting for PROOF that any church at the time of Christ was Catholic.Christ WAS NOT a Catholic-He wasJEW!!!! HE ABSOLUTELY FOLLOWED His Fathers Commandments-ALL OF THEM-INCLUDING THE Sabbath Commandment-To not follow it: Exodus 31:15--Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.-------That WAS the punisment for NOT obeying the Commandment!!!!------
****EX 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
@@medicorene Which church? Catholic or Criistianity---????
Yeah, and here's the problem. The patriatch of Constantinopole wanted to be regarded as the 'second, right after the Pope', later the Pope wanted more power... And due to this greed from both sides the Church divided. In fact, there was no problem as long as all bishops were treated equal, just with having one that was 'first among the equal'. Saint Peter was one of the Apostoles, yet he never claimed to be better than the others. He didn't appoint them, it was Jesus who did. And now we land in the modern times, with both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church having a problem with this authority. In our western Church we have one Pope, so bishops can have a bit more power, but they are still appointed. In the eastern Orthodox Church there are autocephalous patriarchs and the bishops can't even consecrate the oils... I mean come on, the Orthodoxes claimed to defend their independence and the rule that the Pope is first among the equal... What we all forget about is that the Pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, all of them have received the same sacrament, the same orders. None of them received any higher ones than the others. And I know, there is a risk of heresy if we don't control everyone, but there is a pretty simple way to resolve it. If all bishops felt equal, then eastern and western bishops wouldn't have any problem with assembling on a Council together. And the Council could actually decide what's right and what's wrong.
And from a practical point of view. The archbishop of my diocese originally worked in a diocese a few hundred of kilometers south to me. Then he was a bishop of the diocese a few hundred kilometers north to my diocese. So basically the Pope can appoint someone we have never heard about. Wish we could still participate in the decisions in a normal way...
I'm an inquirer into both the western Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Church. I do admit, I'm kind of at a crossroads; I can't quite decide which path to take. But this video is very helpful in understanding the role of the papacy, which is perhaps the biggest obstacle standing in my way.
Matthew LaTorre Thanks, and good luck in your discernment!
Ask yourself why 22 Eastern Churches are Catholic and under Rome first. Check them out. It's hard to escape those "keys", that were always only given to the one who held the office.
Me too.
We have to embrace truth.
www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html is a compilation of Eastern Father saying about Petrine Ministry.
To be honest, Papacy in modern is unlike in the first century, different administration form. But our worship also unlike in the first century, but we hold it as the truest worship form. I suggest read a lot of books about papacy in the early church, how Rome intervene other diocese and patriarchate, synod and council.
The catholic church tries to replace my LORD JESUS CHRIST with the virgin Mary and this is Blasphemy and the catholics need to repent and ask GOD for forgiveness.
That was the best explanation that I have ever heard to explain the papacy. As a historian as well as a former Catholic, or fallen as my father puts it, I have never been able to reconcile the Pope with scripture even with the verse about Peter that you mentioned. You have done what the Jesuit Professors we’re unable to do, give me a good historical and biblical convergence. Thank you Father for these videos. You are helping to draw me closer to going back to the church than I have been in the past 35 years.
Give your life to christ his salvation and not the church.
Crisarlin C. My life, heart and soul already belong to Jesus Christ. This is about how and where I choose to worship. For me, I had to get away from the dog,a of the Roman Catholic Church to find my way to my savior. Contrary to most Protestant dogma, Catholics are not Christians, this is incorrect: I know as many non-Christian Protestant as I do non-Christian Catholics. Just as the reverse is true. It is not about where you worship, it is about your relationship with the Savior Jesus Christ. I do understand your concern and appreciate your commitment.
@@Redraven2967 What about the Church Fathers who question the Christianity of those who are not in agreement with the Church of Rome?
@@lukewilliams448 all have sinned and fallen short. Their sin in this case would be a failure to see the relevancy in the statement by Jesus in scriptures that the only way to the father as through him, or that He is the way the truth and the life. Scripture says nothing about the only way to Christ us through the Roman Catholic Church. Only that you accept the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ the Savior.
@@lukewilliams448 remember the Petra in the proper wording of Greek S Boulder and stone. When Jesus addressed Peter calling him Petros that is the proper word for tiny or small stone part of a wall. Does this not make sense? Jesus will always be the unsellable strong solid foundation and cornerstone of the church. Peter is a weak vessel part of the Petros the small pebble of the wall that we all Christians are! Christianity is not a church Timothy 315 does not mean that the church is in charge of everything. What it means is that the church is following Christ properly the Petra The corner stone and foundation and pillar of truth which is Christ then the church should be followed. The church is anywhere any place where two or more are gathered in Jesus name. It is not Stainglass it is not sacraments it is not praying to Mary that is a whole Nother subject by the way. It is worshiping Christ in spirit and truth
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
-St Ignatius of Antioch (c.37-107)
Love this catholic quote a lot 🔥
Ignatius also said that a single bishop and his flock constituted the fullness of the Church. This is in contrast to the concept that the Pope has direct universal jurisdiction.
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that
development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
Jesus is the truth and only way
No one else is
no one denys this lol@@kimosabehmar1671
YES ,also Polycarp was taught by St. john the Apostle , when Protestants convert they have read about the early Fathers and the one thing they say its very Catholic .
I just found this youtube channel today. And gotta say, this is one of the most wholesome and educational channel that I have ever seen. Definitely will subscribe!
No brother. Don't be deceived by him. SDA is the only true church.
@@edwinotiatomarwa.6361 SDA's weren't founded until 1844. Nice try.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 You're right, there is only 1 "first" and it's Eastern Orthodoxy. A quick look through each century of Christianity from the 1st century to the 21st will prove this.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 First off, there was an Eccumenical Council held 2 years before 327. Those were all Bishops of the Orthodox Church in succession of the Apostles defending the Faith handed down to them.
@@edwinotiatomarwa.6361 if you trace the history of all Protestant and Christian Churches it will lead up to Catholicism. Let God look upon you with his Mercy i will pray for you (I mean no offence).
"any hope of reunification one day...will require understanding and some tremendous work of the Holy Spirit". The unity of the Church is much on my mind lately. I'm Church of England myself and greatly appreciate your efforts towards increasing understanding between branches of the church. Let us pray for ongoing work by the Holy Spirit towards unity. Let us start with love of Christ, love for each other, and understanding, and grow from there
It is false peace and false unity.. Called Ecumenism .. A Satanic RCC leads the world into..The prophesied endtime deception and reign of Anti Christ ..under the Beast System which it is part of.. It's open Satan worship at the Vatican should tell you that it is Not the True Church..
It's building centre is designed as a Serpent 24/ 7 Satanism in practice.. while pretending to rooted in the Abrahamic covenant and bringing the other Counterfeits into Interfaith agreements.. while going against everything the Bible teaches.. Ephesians 4-5 One Lord One Faith One Baptism
The Lord warns in his Word.. And Many have come out of the RCC ..
It's a short time left to listen to God's Word and not Man... The Holy Spirit confirms His Word.. The Papacy is Not of God
Cathy Miller Revelation was about Nero
Steve Oh, don’t be so hard on yourselves 😏.
Steve The implication of my statement was that The American Evangelical Church is the actual devil.
Steve Doesn’t matter because the one, holy, apostolic, and Catholic Church is where the holy spirit resides.
And you’re the one that compared it to the Devil.
I’m sorry about what I said about your church, but it hurt when you compared the Catholic Church to the Devil.
Thank u. From the philippines.
Don't get too caught up with the papacy, God is very much the head of catholicism and he is so great, and mighty, and powerful.
Correct.
When the papacy beholds the Antichrist
@@neidamartinez9007 can you prove this?
Then why are so many preists child molesters?
@@keynote3316 when martin luther remove books in the bible and scramble the rest of the verses in some books ... the protestants now have 66 books left in their bible .... add another 6 ... it would be 66 .... 6 ... now that s the anti-Christ .... if only he left at least 67 or 65 or any number except 66. I guess he really fancies the 666 number and at the same time tarnished his chastity. .... in fairness ... there are really bad priest , even bishops in his time .. I guess tis one of the reason he quitted and protest ... but for him to gave up on the Church ... he is no better than those wolf-priests.
As an Orthodox Christian it is heartening to see those in Roman Catholicism begin to drift toward the Orthodox position in terms of ecclesiology.
Thank you for your inspiring videos. They teach without being preachy; they are straight forward, factual and using language that is easy to understand. I have learned a lot from just this one video and hope to learn more from the other videos.Again, thank you and God bless you.
Thanks! Glad they're helpful!
@Bobby Allen Not only is what you said laughable, but all those practices still predate sola Scriptura and sola fide by centuries.
@Bobby Allen where is necromancy in asking help to pray with the saints who are alive? (John 11,25)
jeffry gagnon this issue is not immune to just Catholics. In the USA there were more child abuses perpetuated by Protestant churches than the Catholics and over 200, 000 child molestations done by public school teachers .
@@vincentinchoco5625
Well satan is everywhere. Trying to corrupt moral standards everywhere. Protestant preacher included. There are many ways to corrupt and lead you away from the bible.
You have an amazing gift of teaching. Please keep going and keep up the good work. Please keep me in your prayers.
Me too please
Moira
Catholic: I've learned there are unknown Pope's succeded the church and Gregory lX initiated the papal Inquisition.
Peter: hold my beer
Im a Methodist from Philipines ,But we believe in Catholic church.
The verse in Matthew quoted at the beginning shows Jesus saying of Himself, that He's the Rock. Not Peter. In the Greek text, ROCK in the verse refers translates to PETRA, whereas Peter's name is translated petros. PETRA is bigger than petros.
Upon YOU I will do x y and z
Are you saying you know better than St Peter and the Apostles.
The Pope appoints bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, and he can discipline those who stray from church teaching. Even back in the day, the Pope didn't micromanage dioceses. Moreover when the bishops want to introduce new translations of the missal, they ultimately have to be approved by Rome. This presentation was overly simplistic as to the relationship between the pope and bishops even in today's post Vatican II world. For those who have little or no understand of these matters, this presentation is misleading.
William, I respect your opportunity to express yourself, but I have to disagree. Prior to Vatican II, the Pope was VERY micromanaging, requiring approval for most things and viewing the bishops are merely his middle management. I think your own comments betray you. You say that the pope can discipline the others and that new translations must go through Rome, and yet they aren't micromanaging. The fact of the matter is that neither of these two attributes were central to the pope in the first 1/2 of our history, and the Second Vatican Council has worked to move away from it. Even recently, Pope Francis has reminded the Church the the Bishops' conferences have the right to their own translations and that the Pope does not have to approve everything.
*Fabricated list of popes*
Exodus From Rome Volume 1: A Biblical and Historical Critique of Roman Catholicism
*Mercati’s research confirmed just how inaccurate it was. His results were the following:
- Six Popes had to be dropped: one (Donus II) never existed;
- two (the supposed third and fifth Popes Cletus and Anacletus) were the same man.
- But three new Popes had been found: Boniface VI (for a few days in 896), and possibly, Discorus (for 22 days in 530) and Leo VIII (from 963 to 965).
- In the case of no fewer than 74 Popes, changes had to be made in such matters as their names and dates.
- Thirty-seven antiPopes are listed, the first of whom-Hippolytus of the 3rd century-is still considered a saint. From four legitimate pontiffs the designation of sainthood was removed.
- Because of sketchy records and the questionable validity of some papal elections, Pius XII will probably never know whether he is the 256th successor to St. Peter or the 260th-or someone in between.*
*90It is clear that the Vatican, over the course of centuries, has produced fabricated lists of Popes to support their illegitimate claim for an unbroken chain of papal successors from Peter to the current Pope, but in so doing have admittedly altered, removed, added, and in some cases, invented Popes to give this appearance of uninterrupted historical continuity.*
*The Vatican has not produced such a list that has stood the test of time and therefore the claims of apostolic succession it makes for the papacy are historically invalidated, fraudulent, and partially fictional. Not only is this proven from the “historical” list that has repeatedly been amended and altered, but the method and manner by which some of these Popes were actually selected only reinforces the obvious truth that the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession is quite simply bogus.*
*In the tenth century, Rome and the papacy had become so corrupted and rife with sexual immorality that this period of papal history has been graphically labeled by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cesare Baronius as “the Papal Pornocracy.”*
*91 During that horrendous period, several Popes were actually elected by mistresses, prostitutes, and paramours of the Popes themselves! The most notorious was the whorish mother-daughter combination of Theodora and Marozia who were mistresses to the Popes. These two women alone were directly responsible for creating and appointing nine Popes (not counting anti-pope Christopher) covering a span of thirty-five years!*
*92 Indeed, Pope John XI (931-935) was the illegitimate son of Marozia and Pope Sergius III (904-911)!*
To believe that during this particular era that nine of Christ’s so-called appointed Vicars, Holy Fathers, and alleged direct successors of the Apostle Peter were legitimately chosen by adulterers and fornicators, who are excluded from the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Ephesians 5:5), is blasphemous to the highest degree. And these very same nine “Popes” elected by the nefarious duo of Theodora and Marozia still remain on the Vatican’s official list of legitimate Popes today! These Popes cannot possibly be genuine successors on this basis alone-there is certainly no biblical warrant here, and duly constituted authorities ordained by the Word of God did not elect them either.Another glaring hole in the chain of Rome’s apostolic succession occurred with the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) when there were three Popes at one time vying for the Chair of Saint Peter. The problem began when the Catholic Cardinals elected Pope Urban VI (1378-1389). Urban ruled with a heavy hand. His constant violent outbursts peppered with degrading insults of the Roman Curia quickly convinced the same body of Cardinals, who had elected him, to quickly depose him and elect Clement
Rabbit hole
@@koppite9600 *You meant you just fell into the hole that leads to hell?*
Leo was the first not peter! Add that spurious claim.
Very good research!
Well researched and totally true
It's been two years, so I don't know if you still look or read the comments here. I was just a little surprised that chapter one of Acts wasn't mentioned, where Matthias is elevated to the office that was vacated by the death of Judas Iscariot.
This video is an excellent argument for Eastern Orthodoxy.
The fall of all four Eastern Orthodox patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem....which are now all Muslim) within 400 years after the Great Schism is an excellent argument for the Catholic church
Very clear explanation about the office of papacy. Thanks
Prabhas Ekka
AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord.
2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth.
5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches.
6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him.
14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness.
15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things.
22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men.
23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him.
24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
There is no such thing as office of papacy in the bible. It's a pagan priest idea, research it if you dont believe
@@jeffrygagnon5506
Agustin of Hippo , and people like st Anothny of the Gnostic desert did alot of damage theologically
@@Moe-bb3bm Augustine contributed the most to theology right next to Paul and Aquinas, so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also it's St Anthony of the Desert. idk where you got gnostic from. Maybe you're the one who needs to do research :)
@@andreslara2377
Augustine of Hippo came out from a gnostic type ideology called Manichean and he introduced heretical doctrine to Roman denomination. He was influenced by Plato's philosophies. Thomas Aquinas was a priest and continued with the Catholic false doctrines but threw in Aristotelian philosophy. Research it don't be in denial. I have not look more into him but him being a monk and priest pretty much discredits him anyways. I know some good speakers who do know but haven't bothered to. I doubt me Augustine was at the same caliber as Apostle Paul.
I appreciate that as a Catholic, you admit that the specifics of the Papacy we see today seem absent from early church history. You go on to say that these things took time to develop in the church. My challenge to you is, if they took time to develop, how is that to be distinguished from the church making them up?
You also admit that the earliest shift in the papacy is in the 4th century (during Constantine’s reign and much political/religious change)
If the dogmas and doctrines of the papacy took time to develop and are absent from the early church, and are also absent from scripture (for example, when Paul lays out the structure of the church, he never mentions the Bishop of Rome as a Pope or what that means as far as his role), then how do you justify the doctrines and dogmas of the Magisterium as being from Christ Himself, as opposed to created later on?
I like to respond with simplicity that Church was born on Pentecost Sunday. For the first Three hundred years of Catholic Christianity there were no bibles only the Torah and among the 4 Gospels that we have, according to historians there were 52 Gospels in circulation during those periods. Archbishop Graham, a convert to Catholicism , wrote a book "Who gave us the Bible" wrote that in 397 there was a Church Council of Hippo, through the influence of St Augustine included the 4 Gospels into Canon, the same time which the Holy Father commissioned St. Jerome a priest from Jerusalem to translate the Scriptures into the Latin vulgate
Stephen Byrnes Youre right that the Bible did take time to be compiled into one volume, but the scriptures we have today were already in existence, and the churches did reject countless false gospels. But we all have the same New Testament today, and no where in the text do we have any information about the Magisterium, as well as countless other Catholic doctrines and dogmas.
None of the other early historical writings of “church fathers” have any detailed explanation of the Roman system. Such a system did not develop until the 4th century when Constantine made Christianity the national religion. This is when pagan practices began to creep into the Catholic Church, as Constantine made an effort to unify the people under a religion compatible with everyone to ease religious division and create some kind of peace. The issue is that the Church became a political figure over time, and thus, became very corrupt.
My point is that if we don’t see evidence of any of these dogmas and doctrines in even the earliest Church writings (let alone the New Testament we all have now), how can we justify the belief that they are from Christ? Whenever I ask my Catholic friends why they believe they attend the “true Church”, they tell me that the early church was doing the same things they’re doing now, but I don’t see any evidence of that
Stephen Byrnes id also add that though the canon took time to be developed, we do have a lot of evidence suggesting that 2nd century Christians believed the writings of the apostles to be scripture (if you look at Polycarp, Justin Martyr etc.). That was one of the main reasons they made the canon, was because they were the teachings of the apostles themselves. If there were teachings about the Magisterium etc, wouldn’t they have made the canon? I’m frankly surprised there aren’t any New Testament additives that include such details for the sake of establishing the Catholic Church as a political authority. (Maybe this is why they kept the Bible in Latin later on, so that no one would know...)
Here something to think about and some facts I discovered in my own. Study and research first of all 4th century is around 400 but prior to that there was always a pope such as Linus, Cornelius and Clement I who wrote the letters to the Ephesians 5&6 Fact 2 Sts Peter and Paul brought Christianity to Rome there were Christians being martyred around 65 A.D. under Nero regardless how you look at it there is still one Church in which Jesus is the Corner Stone and Peter and the Apostles are the foundation by which Jesus built His Church on and it was born in the upper room at Pentecost in Jerusalem
Stephen Byrnes The 4th century was actually the 300s. This was when Constantine established “Christianity” as the religion of the Roman Empire. As far as the early church, there were many churches, hence the letters to Ephesus by Paul (and the people you mentioned), as well as Corinth, Rome, Galatia etc. Even in these first churches, false teachings arose.
Paul warned against false teachers in his letters numerous times. Additionally, in Acts 20, he says “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (verse 30) Even in the first churches, there were people teaching false information.
This idea that there was ever “one church” is just false. Of course, there is one ultimate Church, the body of believers. But clearly, false teaching was present even in the early days. This is why I don’t understand this narrative that there was this earthly Church instituted by Christ, this “True Church” that I keep hearing Catholics speak of. Rome was just like any other earthly body of believers in the early years of Christianity. By God’s grace, it started as a healthy Church, at least when Paul wrote to the Romans, but why do people insist that the “True Church” came from Rome?
Do not trust in princes, Or in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
We are all have a chance at Heaven until we don't
@@georgesmith364 *False statement.*
YOU:
We are all have a chance at Heaven until we don't
@@jediv9910 but it's true God Saved us by sending his only son for our Salvation until we commit a grave sin and don't have ask God for forgiveness there is truth to that Statement
@@georgesmith364 *So where is grave sin in the BIBLE? Where is the list? Chapter verse? Pls enlighten me?*
1
2
3
YOU:
but it's true God Saved us by sending his only son for our Salvation until we commit a grave sin and don't have ask God for forgiveness there is truth to that Statement
@@georgesmith364 *Roman cult contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways!*
*RCC vs BIBLE 2*
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say RCC clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it.
11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a c--- disguising as Christianity deceiving many.
Better question is why is the papacy so corrupt
Amen, evil, worship demonic queen!
Shuffle priests
Peter was dead at time papacy began! So why did they use him?! To make a Man made religion
Nice history
Dr.tyrone of Chester PA 😊
Br. Casey, what would you say to an Orthodox who wants to become Catholic? Would you advise that they should be received into the Catholic Church, or remain within their respective, separated community?
Well if they want to become Catholic, then sure, become Catholic. I think that's great!
@@jeffrygagnon5506 i can answer that.
The church is officially called the Catholic Church or the one holy and apostolic church.
"Roman" Catholic is not it's name in other words.
@@Kitiwake It's actually called "Roman Catholic Church". The Supreme Pontiff will also tell you this. It's because the Church was established in Rome(Roman Empire) when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire(Don't confuse the "Roman Empire" with the "Holy Roman Empire" . Before that point in time there was no Unified Church. And since Christianity became the new official religion in the empire by Constantine's decree it necessitated the establishment of an official church, hence the Roman Catholic Church.
Thank you this what I needed
Great!
I am glad to see the church is finally producing "rebuttals" to the some of anti-catholic sentiments on some youtube videos. Too many masses are filled with lame sermons which fail "to feed" the people.
Could you please handle the "pronoun translation" matters which some use to say Christ was not referring to Peter when He made the statement about making him head?
Hi. This is an exploration question... please do not take offence.
I am struggling with how one makes a jump to Peter being a leader (and in fact he was one a key leader for some of the time, giving way to others) to the papacy and all that that entails. You see, the early church actually shunned the bishop of Rome's teachings... in fact, their own church councils didn't like at all what was happening.
The main issue I have with the papacy is the historical picture of it... it's torrid and darn right awful. Very, very few of the popes have done anything which even remotely is Christian. From mass murder to utter pervesions. It's hideous.
So, in my research into scripture and history, I am struck at how bad the papacy comes across. Then we have the current Vatican and the darn awfulness that's going on there. It's a travesty.
So, I'm stuck looking at a church that through history has mudered over 50,000,000 people, went against the early church (the Reformation split was something that was happening from the year 90 AD and continued... in the end Roman Catholic Priests actually rebelled, enough was enough).
So, its just a horrible mess. As for Jesus not referring to Peter... if one wishes to twist this teaching and create a papacy from this, then one is going directly against that which the Bible teaches... it's not just. matter of grammar.
Jesus renamed Simon as Peter ( It is derived from Greek Πέτρος, Petros (meaning "stone, rock", via Greek petra) ... and he serves as the foundation rock for the Church of Christ ... and said ...."You are peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church .... and the gates of hades shall never prevail against it. ... hades? the place were Jesus and Peter where at that time is a roman pagan place of worship and it is believed by the romans to be a gateway to hell (hades) ...
@@hartleyhare251 The problem with your narrative is Jesus Christ is quoting, nearly verbatim from Isaiah 22: 15-25 (specifically Isaiah 22: 22) at Matthew 16: 13-20 (specifically vs. 19). THAT wouldn't happen for NO reason. And when we LOOK at Isaiah 22: 15-25 to see what's going on there, in an attempt to figure out why He would be quoting it and applying it to St. Peter, IT TURNS OUT Isaiah 22: 15-25 is about EXACTLY what Father Mike said, in the kingdom of king David, there was an OFFICE, an office WITH SUCCESSION, an office WITH AUTHORITY (the king's OWN authority) to act in the king's name as the king's second in command, the "master of the palace" / "chief steward" / aka "prime minister". The papacy isn't "going directly against that which the Bible teaches....", IT IS WHAT the Bible teaches.
@@QuisutDeusmpc yes! spot on the El Bayith is an office, this is where the source of this sacred tradition originates.
I love your well researched videos. They are not only important to us Cathiloic but to other religions also. GOD bless you n our Catholic religion. AMEN
Rosalind Kincannon
AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord.
2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth.
5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches.
6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him.
14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness.
15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things.
22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men.
23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him.
24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Maybe he doesn't own a car? Is that a bad thing? If you get pissed off that easily I suggest you don't watch.
@Bobby Allen Judaism was institutional religion genius
@@jeffrygagnon5506 you aren't even criticizing the content, just attacking Father Casey. You're a coward for doing that, and in no way are you a good Christian. A beggar on the street would be a better example for young boys than you jeffry :)
@@jeffrygagnon5506 I do consider the Bible as a source of authority and truth. But I also know the Bible was not fully formed until the 4th Century and the first Christians depended on personal encounters with God, oral tradition and charismatic leaders (Acts 20:17-30)
Now I'd like to believe that you are interested in a discussion, but seeing the rude remarks you gave to Fr. Casey, I'm not so certain you'd be respectful and humble in the discussion.
I'll gladly have a discussion if you're willing to put away any pointless attacks and are open to listening and learning, as will I.
God indeed created this planet as well as me and you so I wish you many blessings from the Lord.
As an Orthodox Christian I have to admit that this is the most objective and balanced presentation of this topic, I have ever heard from a Catholic apologetic.
I believe that Vatican II realized that the power accumulated to the Bishop of Rome , administrative and spiritual, had become frightening for Catholics and appalling for non Catholics, and tried to return to a more balanced way of Church operation.
HOPE THERE ARE MORE CATHOLICS TO SUPPORT AND SUBSCRIBES THE CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS GROUPS SUCH AS LIKE THIS.
Tess Chavit
AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord.
2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth.
5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches.
6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him.
14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness.
15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things.
22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men.
23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him.
24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
Dont be decieved Catholism is a counterfeit religion just like its pope
Thanks for your videos! I've spent the whole evening binge watching them - they're so informative. I love the ones of the individual friars talking about how they live out their vocation.
Great to hear!
Thank you Fr for the useful information...Long live the Catholic church ...I am proud to be a Roman Catholic
christopher jacob
AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord.
2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth.
5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches.
6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him.
14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness.
15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things.
22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men.
23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him.
24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
Bobby Allen
Pure Religion
------
44 And then shall the words of the prophets be fulfilled when they wrote, saying: Pure religion that is undefiled before God, the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
45 Behold, my brothers and sisters, this is not only the pure religion, but it is the only religion that hath been, and is, and shall ever be accepted by the Father, even that ye should love one another as ye would have them love you.
46 Behold, do not think that ye shall fall down before the Lord in the day of his power to worship him with your tears and your humility; for if ye do this before him, he shall command you to arise and depart from before him.
47 And he shall command you to go and do good to your neighbor and love your enemy and praise the Father for the wonderful blessings of life that He hath given to you.
48 For the Lord will not suffer his merciful smile to grace the eyes of a hypocrite, who in an effort to ease the pain and anguish of his misery, desireth a smile from the Lord.♥️
@@erwinaquinde7211 Get some new and factual material.
Yeah, Abraham is address as ‘Father’ simply because he is the ascendant of many nations.
60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
That was rebekkah’s blessing the wife of Isaac.
Mathew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
While i am one of the spirit children of our father in heaven, i am also a son of my father and mother here on on earth. Other than that, he is not worth to be called my father.
• Part 1: Adam’s counsel to his children pertaining to our Eternal Parents
20 And now my beloved children, do ye suppose that if we were created in the image of the Gods-both male and female-that this image is only that of a man? Ye know well that there are females among us, and are not their bodies also created in the image of God? And I say unto you that they are also created in the image of God, and that God is not our Father alone, but that we also have an Eternal Mother, who is also a God.
21 And these things I have caused to be taught unto you by faith, knowing that ye have never seen the Father and the Mother of whom I speak. For they are the father and the mother of your spirits, which spirits ye also cannot see with your mortal eyes. Nevertheless, our Eternal Father and Mother are not made of spirit matter of which our spirits are made, but they have bodies of flesh and bone like unto ours. And our mortal bodies were created in the image of their eternal bodies, which are perfect. And our mortal bodies, which are imperfect, were made in the image of their bodies, but not in an exact likeness like unto our spirits.
22 For behold, our spirits are an exact likeness of our eternal parents in a similar way as your mortal bodies are a likeness of your mortal parents. And ye have beheld the body that I possess, and also the body that your mother Eve possesseth. And we were not born of mortal parents, therefore our bodies were not created in the likeness of imperfection, but were created after the pattern of the bodies of our Father and Mother in heaven.
And for this reason ye have beheld that we have maintained our strength and our vitality even unto a very old age. And your mother Eve is like unto her daughters in every way, even that she hath lived many years past the deaths of many of her daughters, even those who have defiled their bodies and made them impure by those things which were forbidden unto them.
26 And Eve brought this knowledge back to my attention many times, but I would not listen to her because of my pride; yea, even the pride that a man doth feel because of the strength that he hath been given over a woman. Yet this strength that I have been given over Eve was not the strength of the spirit, which strength she hath in a greater abundance than I. And for this reason, my beloved sons, I would that ye should look unto your wives and your mothers; yea, in many instances, even unto your daughters for this spiritual strength that will keep you humble during the days of your probation here in mortality.
35 And now my beloved children, I would that ye should know that before we came to this earth, even to this part of this great universe, which expanse of space we can see with our mortal eyes; yea, even before we came to this planet upon which we now live and pass through the days of this probation, we lived on another planet with our Eternal Parents, who is the God that I have taught you to believe in all the days of my life.
36 And we were created from the materials from our Eternal Mother, having received the instructions for the creation of our spirits from our Eternal Father. And this process took place in a similar fashion like unto the conception of a child here in mortality. Nevertheless, this conception was perfect and refined according to the laws of the planet on which our Eternal Parents live.
42 And our Mothers who brought us forth from Their own bodies began to teach us these eternal laws of happiness. Yea, even from the day of our spiritual birth we were continually taught and raised by our Mothers to know this happiness. And by teaching us about this happiness, our Eternal Mothers received their own happiness.
43 And this is the work and the glory of an eternal woman who hath the power and the ability, which Her exalted body provideth, even to bring forth spiritual offspring, which are Her eternal children, which She shall know forever.
44 But the Father hath other works that He doeth, even according to the eternal laws of happiness that govern Him. For while our Eternal Mother is caring for our spirit and bringing other spirits into being, that our spirit might not be alone; yea, even as She is engaged in the desires of Her own happiness, so is our Father engaged in the performance of His labors, which labors shall provide for us the means by which we shall be able to know the happiness that our Mothers desire for us.
45 Behold, our Eternal Mothers perform the labors that are necessary for our first estate, which estate is the state in which we find ourselves as spirits in the kingdom of our Eternal Parents. But our Eternal Father performeth the labors that are necessary for our second estate, which estate is the state of the days of our probation, or the days of our mortality.
46 And because our Mothers are busy with their labors in our first estate, They do not concern Themselves with the cares and labors of our second estate. And our Father doth not concern himself with the affairs of our first estate, in which estate the labors of our Mothers are performed. For what purpose would we need a mother if it was that our father could provide for all of our needs? And again, what purpose would we need a father, if our mother could provide us with all that we need?
47 For this reason the Gods are male and female; nevertheless, they are equal in all things, having the same glory and the same power.♥️♥️♥️
Me:
You know nothing about this people because you all are living on doctrines created by men. Hence the bible saying, “the blind leadeth the blind.”
I'll leave this comment as a response to this video for those who still doubt about the origins of the papacy in the hopes that you will find your own correct answer as opposed to taking his or my word as the truth.
Leaving aside the rise of the papacy and the Roman Catholic church as we know it today, ask yourself the following. How does the papacy and the church reflect in history? is this church truly still the one true church of God? Are we taking Peters message about the false prophets into consideration? Are we not naïve to take the church word for everything without questioning it?
Digging up on the Papacy' history we can clearly see numerous occasions when they did things that does not sound like anything Jesus would do or what God has propagated before in the Torah.
For example the part where you could buy indulgence for you sins. And how the pope was used a political figure to gain strategic advantages such as his power to excommunicate central figures for the the advantage for another. I won't list everything. It's up to you to decide if they are in the wrong or not. Better yet. Do more research on the Protestant Reformation. Not that I am trying to push you to convert in that direction either. Simply for enlightenment. There is a reason why the pope is called the pope. You would be pleasantly surprised what the full term of that name means and even more about it's origins. But I'll leave you to that. I think I have left you with sufficient leads to open up on your own.
It was James who made the decision at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:13-21
THANK YOU.
The Bible says that the whole Church came to agreement with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. No one person made the decision by themselves.
@@jzak5723, I agree. The Bible says both. Therefore, both must be true. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads the Church and works through us. However, my point is that it was James that took the lead out of the humans present, not Peter as the argument is presented.
@@preternaturalartist5766
The Book of Acts chapter 15 only quotes two people who gave addresses. Peter spoke first and James followed, but if you read closely verses 14-19, it appears that James' response was based on what Peter had said, (and that the prophets agreed with Peter) that James was simply agreeing with Peter. So, to continue to say that James took the lead at the Council, presided over the Council, made the final decision at the Council, is reading more into the Scripture than what is there. But that's fine, you certainly are entitled to your opinion.
@@jzak5723, I understand where you are coming from, but James ends with saying "it is my judgement." For this line of argumentation, the best case scenario is that James is just putting his opinion in the mix and Peter is not the only authority. The worst case scenario is that James is taking the leadership position. Either way, this isn't a compelling argument for a Pope. Finally, I would just posit that the only reason I made the original comment, is because I felt that this fellow seemed to be leaving out some very important details when making his case. It seemed dishonest, and I just wanted to add the part he left out.
Fr, Casey, am a single mother, willing to send my only son to become a priest, pray for me and son!!
Pray for discernment and that God may help him discover by himself what his true vocation will be.
Such a blessing cannot be forced on someone. If he wants to be a priest then Godspeed to him, but if not, and it is forced, he will forever look upon the Church odiously.
Thanks for this video :), this is one of many points that I didn't have very cleary about the story of Catholicism.
The Archbishop of Alexandria was first called Pope (father) by his Presbyters in AD 90; the Archbishop if Rome in AD120; the Archbishop of Antioch for some reason never was.
Would you be so kind as to recommend some books on Church history? And on the history of Papacy
“Upon This Rock.”
Steven Ray
“TRIUMPH”
HW Crocker
@@PInk77W1 Thank you
Kirill Germanen no problem.
There are many many more.
“The Faith of Millions”
by Fr O’brien
“Catholic Controversies”
by St Francis de Sales
Read the Great controversy by EG. White
jeffry gagnon Catholics been doing that for 2000yrs
The Roman Catholic Church
1. The Church is one.
2. The Church is Visible
3. The Church is Forever
4. The Church is Truth
5. The Church is messy.
6. The Church is a Kingdom
7. The Church is teacher
8. The Church is mystery
9. The Church is hierarchal
10. The Church is Holy
11. The Church is Apostolic
12. The Church is sacramental
13. The Church is Catholic
14. The Church is dynastic
15. The Church is mother
16. The Church is real.
17. The Church is authoritative
18. The Church is the bride of Christ.
19 The Church is the mystical body of Christ.
20. The Church is unchangeable
People would do well to read verses before and after those referred to. Peter said You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
Jeffery where do you get your false information from?? Do you actually look for the truth?
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Read the bible in context. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the Life. He didn't say Peter was. Peter was never a pope, that is a fallacy to think he was.
Very nice video , thank you 🤗
Matthew 23:9
"And call no man your father upon the earth:for One is your Father,which is in heaven."
Geroniel Decano
AND now, I would that ye should understand that after the apostles of the Lord had been killed, and the Gentiles had set up many different churches among them; and many of them claiming to be the true church of Christ; yea, even after these things had been done, those that were the true saints of God were cast out of the churches of the rich, even by those men who were rich and powerful and who had set themselves up as leaders of the people who had the authority of God, which they believed that their leaders had received by the laying on of hands from the direct line of Priesthood which was given unto Peter, James, and John by the Lord.
2 And the true saints of God, who were His elect, were persecuted and slain by the hands of the Romans and by the consent of those leaders of the Christian faith who had made alliances with the Romans and the other governments of the earth.
5 But the churches began to become corrupt and follow not the gospel of Christ, but follow the counsels of men, who had set themselves up above the people as the mouthpieces of God, even those who were the bishops and evangelists, and the elders of the churches.
6 For these men thought that they were given special authority over the children of men to counsel with them and give unto them the revelations of God as they received them from Him.
14 Nevertheless, the people began to listen more to the words of their leaders, who had been ordained to the Priesthood of God, but who had been denied the power thereof because of their wickedness.
15 And their wickedness was in their examples; for they taught the words of Christ, yet they sought for the things of the world and the honor and praise of men, thus offending the Spirit of God, who would give the power to act in the name of God unto them, if they were like unto Christ in all things.
22 But as the church corrupted itself, these leaders began to cast out all those who questioned their authority, or who committed a sin according to their own commandments, which were the commandments and precepts of men.
23 And it came to pass that because the church began to embrace the world and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, Satan began to reward the church and its leaders and give unto them the prosperity and power that he giveth unto all those who follow him.
24 And in not too many years, the church became rich and powerful. And when Satan saw that he now had complete control over the church, he left the governments of men that he had set up to control the hearts and desires of the children of men, and gave his power and attention to the church, which became great and powerful, even a world-wide church, which being interpreted is Catholic.
+Geroniel Decano:
Then why was Abraham referred to as father by St. Stephen in Acts 7?
Geroniel Decano
Yeah, Abraham is address as ‘Father’ simply because he is the ascendant of many nations.
60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
That was rebekkah’s blessing the wife of Isaac.
Mathew 23: 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
While i am one of the spirit children of our father in heaven, i am also a son of my father and mother here on on earth. Other than that, he is not worth to be called my father.
Can you call your biological father? So we cannot call you daddy father?
Our church is alive and well...thanks
Another thing about the papacy and the orthodox church is that in 1050 when from one church become two, papacy and orthodoxy, the curse each other and they split up into two groups: papacy and orthodoxy.
When our Lord prayed for His fallowers in John chapter 17, He asked to His Father to make them one in Them.
But satan was prepared to distroy this unity of the Church and make them to hate each other.
MY GRANDFATHER RETURNED FROM THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. REST IN PEACE MY FATHER 💗
GO NAVY AGE 16❤❤❤
RN CCRN...
Inasmuch as l would like to see Roman Catholics and Orthodox unite, there will be no unity without agreement on non-negotiable dogmas. In the meantime l think we should all strive for doctrinal clarity, integrity, and understanding. Forget the possibility of agreement, for now.
The polls taken in 2017 showed increase in Orthodox who want to unite with Roman Catholics. it was about 35% in this favor
The major difference between Peter and the Pope is that Peter understood that he was not equal to Jesus and that Jesus was his Lord and the only way to get to heaven. Jesus said no man comes to the Father except by me and he wasn't talking about a priest. We have One Father and that is our Heavenly Father. Peter was not a Catholic with all their Pomp and Circumstance he was a follower of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church is derived by the same type of people who killed Jesus on the cross.
St. Irenaeus wrote the names of the Popes up until his time in his great work: "Against Heresies". Only he didn't call them Popes.
We still call 'Popes' the 'Bishops of Rome'
It is based on a rewrite of history under Emperor Constantine. He was trying to centralize power around himself and Rome. Eusibius did a lot of the work for him.
How did Rosary become the Centred -figure of prayer in the Bible, did Jesus give us?
The Rosary is not biblical, nor is it the central prayer of the Church. The official prayer of the Church is the Liturgy of the Hours, which all priests and religious are required to pray. The Rosary is a nice devotion that came about in the 13th century.
@@BreakingInTheHabit who was the mother of Jehovah the God who created the universe and it's contents?
@@BreakingInTheHabit *So you are admitting roman church practice of Rosary is unbiblical. So why is it still in roman doctrines and Catechism? So in fact you are admitting to: Roman church is unbiblical. Good one here! Thanks for being honest.*
YOU:
The Rosary is not biblical
I pray that the One Holy Catholic and apostolic church can reunite in one communion as before 1054, Yes I love the bishop of Rome. I asked myself if the schism and excommunications of 1054 were reversed in 1965, why are we not in full communion with the roman church. Because the Eastern Orthodox church do not have a Bishop with this authority, if the Bishop of Rome says the schism is healed, then the roman church will follow, if the patriarch of Constantinople says the schism is healed, the other Orthodox bishops will split with him. what am I saying, I am saying that we need the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. I am saying that Powerful Men and nations need to humble them self and ask for forgiveness.
What about the connection to David's kingdom? This important point is missing in the video
Isaiah 22: 15-25, specifically vs. 22 that Jesus quotes verbatim at Matthew 16: 19. Excellent point!
@@QuisutDeusmpc exactly
@@hinata9265 At Isaiah 22: 15-25 The LORD God is informing King David's Prime Minister, Shebna, the "master of the palace", that He is displeased that he has been using his office as Prime Minister to selfishly aggrandize / benefit himself, building monuments to himself, that God is deposing him from his office as king David's Prime Minister, and is replacing him with God's own man, Eliakim, and the symbol of the office, "the keys of the kingdom" are to be transferred to him, the keys being a sign of the ability of "the master of the palace" to "bind" and "loose" matters that pertain to king David's kingdom in the king's name with the king's own deputed authority.
Jesus quotes Isaiah 22: 22 at Matthew 16: 19 regarding the "keys of the kingdom" and tells Peter that he is giving the keys to Peter. For anyone who knows anything about biblical exegesis, and the use of 'types' / archetypes from salvation history as interpretive keys it is clear Jesus is applying Isaiah 22: 15-25 to what He is doing at Matthew 16: 13-20 with St. Peter. He is appointing Simon Peter / Cephas as His personally chosen "master of the palace" / Prime Minister with full power, by virtue of being the keeper of "the keys" to "bind" and "loose" not merely things with regards to the nation of Israel in the first century AD as a vassal state to the pagan Roman empire, but rather whatever the holder of the office of St. Peter "binds on earth, shall be bound in HEAVEN", and whatever he "looses on earth, shall be loosed in HEAVEN". That is a staggering amount of authority, which the Church has traditionally understood as regarding theological teachings on the faith and morality, considering the Church teaches Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine.
the question you posed was NOT answered, where did the papacy come from, you mention a verse concerning peter, you never exapanded on the word pope or who gave the authority to institut ethe first papacy, does it have anything to do with constantine and the councils of nicea?
Why would it make a difference if Peter was the first pope or not? I'm a James man.
This is one of the worst parts of the RCC, the fact that they think they need a Pope. The Lord Jesus Christ is the mediator, and one does NOT need another mediator to meet with Him.
Matthew 16:18
@@BreakingInTheHabit that has nothing to do with the Pope, my friend.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Do you know the Lord Jesus Christ personally? Or do you have to ask the Pope to meet with Him?
@@BrotherTris It has everything to do with the Pope, my friend. At Matthew 16: 15-19 (specifically, Matthew 16: 19) Jesus quotes verbatim from a passage at Isaiah 22: 15-25 (specifically Isaiah 22: 22), so it would be important to know the context of Isaiah 22: 15-25 in order to understand why he would be quoting it at Matthew 16: 19.
And when you look at the passage of Isaiah 22, the context becomes remarkably enlightening. Isaiah 22 has the LORD God letting king David's prime minister, the "master of the palace, being replaced and God's ordained choice to be placed in his stead. It is important to note that the prime minister is an office in the People of God of ancient Israel, an office with succession, imbued with the king's authority, the symbol of which is the "keys to the kingdom" with full authority to "bind" and "loose" in the king's name.
The parallels are striking. When Jesus was to become incarnate, the archangel Gabriel told her he would inherit the throne of his forefather David of the house of Judah. At Matthew 16 Jesus is appointing Peter as His "master of the palace", His prime minister and specifically quotes Isaiah 22: 22 in reference to the sign of the office of St. Peter being the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" with full authority to "bind" things on earth that "shall be bound in HEAVEN" and "loose" things on earth, that "shall be loosed in HEAVEN".
Father Casey is exactly correct in quoting Matthew 16: 18 for that is the verse which records Jesus instituting that office and claiming St. Peter is the 'rock' / office upon which He would build His church.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Hello, thanks for your reply. Are you saying every Pope has come in the spirit of Eliakim? Nothing you have said has contradicted the fact that we do not need any other mediator except the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Why does this passage make it any different, in your eyes? I know the Lord personally and have no need for your Pope in the process. Therefore, why even have this middle man?
"The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."
Saint Augustine
Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus
Chapter 4 / # 5
The Apostle Peter was never a pope.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Peter was not the first pope.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Your argument is based upon fallacious reasoning visa vie, No True Scotsman Falllace.
Thats what Rome tells you. Its not important what the bishops tell you. Read the bible yourself. There is no Mary woreship at all. Its all pagan imported from the east.
quote---Traditions-NO SCRIPTURE------Who cares about the Traditions of Man?????
***** though all heretics wish to be called Catholics unquote-------LOL--ROFL-----A TOTAL LIE!!!!!
There was a leader in the 1st Century Church. James "the Just" - the real life, flesh and blood brother of Jesus took over leadership of the Jerusalem Church in the first three decades following the crucifixion. Jesus led the movement for 3 years; James led it for 30 years.
Also, the Church in Rome traces their Apostolic roots back to Peter. However there was already a church in Rome before Peter travelled to Rome.
Jesus doesn't have a brother from Virgin Mary
@@jlb1397 that's what church tradition says and it's wrong. The tradition is wrong and doesn't match the biblical accounts (as usual). Every NT scholar knows that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible says so. The Bible even says that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Mary didn't remain a virgin - one more area where Church tradition doesn't match biblical sources.
@@jflaugher can you give me the Bible verses that will support your claim. Hence there is no equivalent word for cousin in Hebrew that's why we often see the term brother in the bible and the word cousin is no where to be found at
@@jlb1397 - The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Mark (3:31-32) tells about Jesus' mother and brothers looking for Jesus.
And it doesn't matter whether the word for cousin exists in Hebrew or not - because the gospels were written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic not Hebrew.
@@jlb1397 and there is a word for cousin in Hebrew - יחיד
I recently finished reading the Apostolic Fathers, and I cannot say I completely agree with the understanding you bring forward in this video.
In the Bible, it seems to me that Paul exerted authority much more frequently and, well, authoritatively then Peter, as you said.
In the Apostolic Fathers, too, I see a similar situation. While it is obvious that Clement is writing to the Corinthians to settle a matter, perhaps after being asked to do so, so does Polycarp of Smyrna. He writes to the Philippians, clearly after he has been asked to do so, in order to settle a matter.
As I read the Apostolic Fathers I discovered just how "proto-orthodox" they were (apostolic succession, of example, is clearly invoked by Clement). But Roman supremacy is not something I found.
It's not that I think that they have the same authority as God's word. But these texts reveal what was the consensus.
Some of these may well have been written earlier than some Bible books, and even the most conservative datings still mean they were all written from 100 to 160 CE. So by people who personally knew the apostles, in some cases.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 Since the writings of the men who canonized the New Testament are not in the New Testament, why should we trust them for doctrine about what should constitute the New Testament?
@@mertonhirsch4734 No "men" decided what should constitute any part of the Judeo-Christian Bible. You either perceive it to be the Word of God, or you don't.
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away" (Luke 21:33) (NKJV).
Hi Friar Casey, your videos are great. Just a question, I was researching the early church, like the 4-700s, and there was a mention of “pentarchy”. There were 5 holy cities: Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria. Any thoughts
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that
development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
I dont believe scripture teaches that Peter is the Pope or had any more authority than the other Apostles, I appreciate the Intelectual honesty of this channel.
There's also no real evidence that the Catholic church was founded by Peter either. The whole thing has always been people in power making up storiee to legitimize that power
Matthew 23:9 And call no man father upon the earth for one is your father, which is in heaven.
Read The book of Daniel, and then your know who this pope is, prophecy as to pass, and many will be lost, by being lead astray.
How dare you shed light on something so trivial that could cause the Papacy to collapse. Does thee not know that only the one true church can interpret scripture? Also the pope is infallible so don't question him!
MATT 16:18- Christ builds his Church on Peter ... Christ did this just like Isaiah 22:20- Father , Pope, Papa all same meaning
I doubt if Peter was infallible. He was even publicly rebuked by Apostle Paul.
Jonathan Kolawole does Christ prayer have value??? Lk 22:31- notice Christ says satin has permission to temp All of you but I have prayed that your faith will not fall... Christ did not pray for the other 11 Deciples ONLY for Peter.....now Peter is a sinner Matt 16:21-23.... That why the Church has Bishops and Cardinals to tell The Pope what they believe is right or wrong ... and that does exist in the Catholic Church of Christ... Peters Job is to keep his brothers faith stong!!! And for 2000 years it’s been working... and thanks to Pope Saint Damus he choose what 27 books to put in the New Testament and made the Bible !!! If he would not have done that we would only have 1 Cannon Testament...
Jonathan Kolawole also let God’s word Correct all who teach what you said about Paul and Peter!!!!!!!!you are only preaching Gal 2:11-14 that Paul reminds Peter that he was give the gift of Prophesy .. but you don’t preach Gal 2:1-10 that show Peter was the head of the Church... in these verses it shows that Paul wanted to make sure they did not preach in vain!!!!!! So Paul went to the Head of the Church Peter .. if Peter was not the head then why did Paul have to go tell Peter anything??????? So did Paul leave the Church and go start teaching what he wanted like all the other Churches that are not Christians Catholic? NO ! then who gives other people permission to teach what they want??? The other Churches ,religions will never have the true teaching only the Christian Catholic will have the true teaching... God wanted 1 Church 1 Teaching and it has been that way for 2000 years and any other teaching are not Approved
Jonathan Kolawole read Acts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ,10,11,12,13,14,15 all about Peter taking charge of the Church... Jn 21:15 Peter was asked 3 times do you love me and to take care of Christ sheep ... Matt 16:18- Christ builds his Church on Peter !!!Lk 12:31- Christ prays only for Peter and not the other 11 apostles even if they are right next to Peter !!!
jeffry gagnon it’s simple Gods sends spirts of error so the can believe what is false!!!! The bottom line is that no person in the Bible took it upon them self to be elders in the Church and to teach what ever they want ... the Catholic Church is the only Church with the right doctrine
Not a Catholic, but it's very refreshing to see a Catholic response that actually accepts that the Papacy (as we know it today) was by no means in place in the time of Acts or in the first couple centuries after. I'm not so bold as to claim the Papacy is untrue; but I do have enough basic history to say that there was no "Papacy" in Rome in 100 AD.
Regardless, great video. God bless.
That's also not what Ignatius of Antioch said in his epistles who was bishop in the time of Acts was written. He said very clearly Peter in Paul were laying the foundation in the church. Also mentioned Peter to Clement of Rome. The clearest piece of evidence is Irenaeus lists the first 12 bishops of Rome and wrote Jesus through Peter gave them authority over every church. "Against the heresies" book III, Chapter 3 written in 180 AD. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle.
@@JJ-cw3nf I'm glad you recently replied to this. This helps to see where I've changed and grown in the past year. Since then, I've aligned ever more to the Catholic faith. The more digging I do, the more Catholic I become. God bless, friend.
@@scygnius Similar to myself and many others. Plus the oral tradition of the Catholic Church was proven correct and strong when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. It proved the oldest bible about 900 AD was exactly the writing of scripture around 200 BC. And books of the old testament had been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls which are still in the Catholic bible today, which were books that Martin Luther and the successor protestant churches took out of the bible calling it not scriptural.
Thank you for this Info as an Evangalical Catholic.
Blind leading the blind? The history of the Church is not something to be proud of if souls are lost along the way. The most important things the Church forgot are the saving of souls and how important it is for everyone to read and meditate on God's Word in the whole Bible daily, and not just a few verses. God spoke from Genesis to Revelations which most Catholics are not familiar with, because they were not encouraged to own one. We cannot ignore the content of the rest of the Bible and base our faith from only a few verses. That would be a willful disobedience to God's Commandments and His plans for all mankinds. Jesus had already fulfilled the law. We should now worship Him in truth and in Spirit. 🤔
What are the keys of heaven. What is the meaning ok kingdom. Jesus always spoke of kingdom of heaven. Did Jesus come to form a religion. Was the sacrifice of Jesus complete.
No, no, no don't question these teachings. Only the one and true church( i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) are allowed to interpret the Scripture. At least that is what they claim Jesus have bestowed onto them and probably why the kept the new volumes in the bible in Latin in order to prevent people from realizing the truth.
Even as an atheist i found this quite interesting. Thanks.
Thank you. This is very informative.
The Council of Damasus in Rome in 382 under Pope St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.
And thus ''the bible was born''. There had to be a Church and a religion before a bible.
That's the only way they could know which writings belonged with that which had been handed down.
The papacy come from hell and the devil in it.
Lol heretic protestant.
Just as Islam fails to understand the trinity, so heresy cannot understand Catholicism.
@@huguesdepayens409 that same Islam you joining and calling them your brother lol ……keep kissing the Quran and dancing with the heretics!
@@jesusfaith2232 Luther heretic cuihhh
@@jesusfaith2232 Protestantism is the pinnacle of heresy since the Council of Nicaea
Thanks dear...thats very nice..good to know..God bless you.
Your belief is wrong. Christ is the rock the church is founded. Peter was preacher to the Jews and Paul was the preacher to the Gentiles. Read the bible. If Peter was to the gentiles, why didnt he stand in with Paul at trial? He eas not there.
Agree...
Remember what Jesus said to Peter...you are the rock and I will give you the key of heaven. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you lose on earth will be lost in heaven. With this claimed of Peter, it will be the initial beginning of the catholic church and we are to trust Peter and his successors to head and lead the church. This does not mean, it is up to Peter and his successors to create anything outside the teaching of Jesus. Jesus is still very much the centre of worship in the Roman Catholic Church!
I saw “pope” word in one manhwa and now here I am.
*Historians and scholars say most of Ignatius writings were forgeries. Some said all his writings were forgeries. So you are taking doctrines from forgeries? Nice try Casey!*
Protestant
@@achienglilian6395 *Yes why?*
@@achienglilian6395 *Roman cult contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways!*
*RCC vs BIBLE 2*
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say RCC clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it.
11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a c--- disguising as Christianity deceiving many.
@@browncony3897 I love the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is my mom. I am Catholic and may the Lord bless you 😌🙏
@@achienglilian6395 *Which part of the BIBLE says Mary is your momma?*
Greetings Fr Casey, good video but I'm a tad puzzled when you said in the early Church there wasn't a central authority and that the bishops of Rome didn't use the titles associated with the Pope today.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Church Fathers like Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, St Jerome and St Augustine affirm primacy of the bishop of Rome? Like it seemed that they didn't see the Pope is first among equals, emphasizing unity with the see of Rome.
Although the Popes didn't use the associated titles like Vicar of Christ back then, didn't they already have significant spiritual authority bestowed upon them by the Keys of the Kingdom entrusted to St Peter? From what I understand it's only moving into the middle/medieval ages the Popes acquired political and temporal powers.
Pope cannot be found in the bible? Why?
I don’t know how to answer his question. That is what this entire video answers.
@@BreakingInTheHabit *I am sure after the whole video, pope is still not in the BIBLE.*
@@jediv9910 LOL hi brother
@@jesusfaith2232 *Lol*
The Church of Rome is in the Bible (the Letter to the Romans), and it was led by a presbyter that we call priests and Bishops today. Presbyter means "elder," that we Catholics translate as "Bishop." We get the word "priest" from Presbyter as well. So, logically there was a Christian community in Rome whom Paul was writing to led by a "presbyter" that is now called "priest" and "Bishop." The Presbyter or "Bishop" of the Christian Community in Rome today is the successor in that office to the one Paul was writing to in the first century. That is where the Bishop of Rome is in Scripture.
You just made the best argument for why Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is correct
I'm not sure that I did... While, yes, this video makes a strong argument for the historical precedent of collegiality, it also makes a strong argument in favor of having a pope. That's not an Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, but a reformed and refined Catholic ecclesiology.
there is plenty of early history of deference to the Bishop of Rome - your opening statement is disappointing
Pastor John MacArthur has a series of sermons on the gospel of John. I highly recommend this wonderful man of God.
Really good series. I also recommend Mike Winger’s videos on the subject.
Pope Pius IX said: I alone despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ; I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barque of Peter; I am the way, the Truth and the life. ….Really!,
Source??
ThankYou for educating
No primacy without collegiality, no collegiality without primacy.
I appreciate the honesty concerning the early papacy.
James was the final decision maker in the Jerusalem council. If an infallible papacy was to be established why is scripture so vague about it? The rock upon which the church is built is Jesus and the testimony peter gave about Him.
Councils and Papacy infallibility have always co-existed. In some situations councils are more appropriate. Scripture is not vague about it. Jesus moduled the structure of the priesthood from the old testament.
@@JJ-cw3nf Jesus said nothing of an infallible pope. The teachings of the catholic church have almost nothing in common with early Christianity.
@@coryalbright9798 Yes he did. Isaiah chapter 22 the next in line of authority wore the Kingdom of Keys. Jesus knew the structure of the old testament and moduled the structure of the High Priest from the old testament. Many ways this is shown. And in Matthew chapter 16 Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. And there's a lot more that show this in the bible. It's factually incorrect to say there's nothing in the bible of pope infallibility. You just reject the evidence presented by matter of your opinion from what you've been told. No proof Catholics are wrong. God never came out and told anyone Catholics are wrong. But God has shown us proven miracles, I can guess you know nothing about, that back Catholics which no other religion has. The teachings of the Catholic church of 2,000 years matches early Christianity exactly. Your logic is that it took some white men from Europe and America over 1,500 years later to get Christianity correct, because no one for the first 1,500 years was smart enough. That's your logic? And which one of the thousands of protestant denominations is correct?
@@JJ-cw3nf *Stop spinning roman cultist. You clearly do not read the BIBLE. Which part of the BIBLE says "Jesus moduled the structure of the priesthood from the old testament."? Or "Councils and Papacy infallibility have always co-existed". In the first place BIBLE says clergy priesthood was already obsolete in NT and BIBLE says nothing of pope or papal infallibility or other NS man made doctrines of roman cult.*
YOU:
Councils and Papacy infallibility have always co-existed. In some situations councils are more appropriate. Scripture is not vague about it. Jesus moduled the structure of the priesthood from the old testament.
@@JJ-cw3nf *Stop spinning roman cultist. Which part says that was the keys to kingdom of heaven>? Or peter was pope? You are just proof texting.*
YOU:
Yes he did. Isaiah chapter 22 the next in line of authority wore the Kingdom of Keys.
Apostle Paul said .......Let no man deceive you..........
and The Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition ;
Who opposeth and exalted above all that is called God ,or that is worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God , showing himself that he is God.(2Thes 2:3,4)
The Antichrist
Pape the man of sin, the Antichrist... Peter was not the first Pope....
@@emilyabonyo8615 what u mean Peter wasnt the first Pope?
@@daverichardson7994 if he were we would have been told in the bible, and he would have been called Pope peter, what do you think? Where did this title papacy come from?
Study carefully the Bible, Catholics are teaching error mingled
with truth, and this
equals to ERROR.
If Rome would check its ego and stop acting as if it has some kind of divine authority to set precedent in every other church, then reunification would be easy.
Reunification with whom?
Jesus founded one church in the early first century, so whence "every other church"? The Catholic church alone literally has divine authority.
Thanks for all your video's from Malta Europe
What's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear "Catholic priest"?
The Eucharist. You?
This confirms the RCC doesn’t follow the scriptures but man made ideas
Pretty sure Matthew 16:18,19 is in the sculptures. Sola Scriptura, however, couldn't work throughout most of church history.
@@delbert372 Yes and the Rock is definitely not Peter
It is Jesus Christ/God
Ephesians 2:20
King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Peter himself calls Jesus the ROCK the chief cornerstone
1 Peter 2:6-7
King James Version
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
@@kM-ij2ly Why was Simon’s name changed to Peter (literally “rock”)
Matt: 16 13-19 is often misunderstood. Jesus clearly asks the disciples "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? to which, after many answers, Simon Peter replies "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God". Jesus confirms that it was "his father in heaven that gave Peter this revelation.
The statement "upon this rock I will build my church", reflects more on the answer given from Peter and not referring to Peter himself. Many found it hard to believe that Jesus was the son of God. Jesus is the Rock on which the church is built, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The Church - no matter what she goes through will remain triumphant.
The Keys of the kingdom of heaven are not for Peter alone, but for everyone who believes in Jesus, the Son of God.
True Queen Jesus is the rocc not peter
@ Queen Majesty The problem with this misinterpretation, and the issue I see no fundamentalist ever address, is that Jesus DIRECTLY QUOTES Isaiah 22: 22 at Matthew 16: 18, 19. Would it not then be important to look at the passage at Isaiah 22: 15-25 to see what is going on there, in order to understand why Jesus Christ quotes Isaiah 22: 22 out of it? And when you look at the passage Isaiah 22: 15-25, which is the context for Isaiah 22: 22 (which Jesus directly quotes), it turns out it is NOT about a statement that is being made regarding the nature of God. The context that Isaiah 22: 15-25 provides CLEARLY shows the LORD God is addressing king David's PRIME MINISTER (the "master of the palace"; cf. Isaiah 22: 15, 19) an OFFICE within the Davidic kingdom - king David's, second in command). It is an office WITH SUCCESSION (Shebna is being deposed, Eliakim is to succeed him; cf. Isaiah 22: 15, 19, 20), It is an office WITH AUTHORITY (cf. Isaiah 22: 21b), the office holder was to be known to the people both by wearing a unique vestment (cf. Isaiah 22: 21a) and by being the sole holder of the "key to the house of David" (cf. Isaiah 22: 22) with full authority to "bind" and "loose" matters pertaining to the Davidic king in the king's name and with the king's deputed authority (cf. Isaiah 22: 22). It was an office WITH HONOR AND DIGNITY (cf. Isaiah 22: 23b) and ALL ISRAEL, including the ruling elite, were to consider him as a "FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (cf. Isaiah 22: 21c).
Jesus is DIRECTLY QUOTING Isaiah 22: 22 out of the immediate context of Isaiah 22: 15-25, a passage about the LORD God appointing a successor to the office of the prime minister to the Davidic king (the "master of the palace") and APPLYING IT TO SAINT PETER and you are attempting to argue that the PRIMARY THRUST of what is going on is NOT THAT APPOINTMENT, but what St. Peter says? Catholics AGREE that the Father's divine revelation to St. Peter and his subsequent confession as to the identity of Jesus Christ IS IMPORTANT and is the occasion for Jesus Christ, as the heir to the Davidic kingdom (humanly speaking), appointing St. Peter as HIS "master of the palace", His PRIME MINISTER.
@John The entire conversation was pertaining to Jesus - whom do men say that I the son of man am? Yes, Peter was renamed, but he was not the rock upon which the church was to be built; however, he was promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
@JohnJesus is the builder & he is the Rock. You sound as though you are talking about the physical building of the church. Very important that you read the bible for yourself. If you do so "prayerfully" you will understand. Don't forget Psalm 118: 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Sad people putting Peter above Jesus as the fundamnetal of the church
Hi friends, I speak with all due respect when I say Math16:18 has been terribly misinterpreted here if am wrong correct me with scripture, for the church was not built on Peter, making him the foundation of the church, no. The church was built on Christ "for 'other foundation' can 'no man' lay than that is laid, which is 'Jesus Christ'." "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ being the 'chief cornerstone'." 1Cor3:11,Eph2:20. Further more, the final decision at the council at Jerusalem was decided by James and not Peter according to Acts15:13-21.
Peter one of three of Christ's closest friends and and held I high esteem in the early church according to Gal2:8,9 but was at no point in the Bible given the authority the Papacy claims to have. Authority to forgive sins (only God can forgive sins Mark2:7), authority to be called vicar(substantiate) of Christ, to take up all the names of God almighty and to be referred to as God on earth. All this is not biblical but blasphemous.
@@jeffrygagnon5506 true my friend
@@milambomusakuzi9270 which sentence do you not understand, that Jesus built His Church on Peter?
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"
@jeffry the problem arises when the original gospel Matthew was written in Aramaic, which no differ "You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my church", And Petra Petros was written simply because of the grammatical rule of Greek Language.
For more information, just read Church Father about that passage. And Council of Chalcedon session 3. Explicitly said "Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church,"
if you read typology, Peter is like Eliakim in the old testament, he is Prime Minister of Israel Kingdom
@@jefflokanata hi friend, I also had that same view, but other portions of scripture seemed not to be in accord. Peter can't be the rock our church is built on, take for instance, we have no other verse reference in Old or New Testament to prove that the Rock in Math16:18 is Peter( for the word Cephas simply means a stone John1:42).
Math16:16 "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." 👈This is what Jesus seemed to be referring to as the Rock to build his church on, he himself was the rock. The Rock from old to new Testament was always Jesus👉 Psm18:31- is there any other rock apart from our God?/ 1Cor10:4- that spiritual rock was Christ.
This is why I believe the church we Got it wrong there.
@@milambomusakuzi9270 We can see parallelism in Isaiah 22:22
"And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."
We believe Jesus is King in the house of David, and he gave the key of the house David to his Prime Minister. As in the Old Testament, King Hezekiah gave the keys to Eliakim, Prime Minister.
and If Lord say to Simon , he is rock , who am I to deny?
Benedict XVI in his wisdom tried to separate the roll of the Pope as representing Jesus as our Shepherd and The Administration of the Church as Bishop of Rome but his idea was not followed and in my opinion was "forced" to Resign.
I am born again and I have issues with all of this religion, from popes to priests to bishops and everything in between... First of all I'm not supose to call anyone "father" according Matthew 23:9 so why do we, or is "papa"-cy okay now? And how about baptism, if I'm correct John never baptised infants, according to scripture you have to make a choice to follow the Lord. Babies that get "sprinkled' can't make that choice. As for the sprinkling, another thing. John dunked people under, you have to be washed, cleaned, born again clean from the mothers womb (woomb being the river), including Jesus... I don't think John ever sprinkled or splashed as baptism... We lost our way... The worship on sunday, sure go ahead and worship the sun...The paypacy, priests, bishops, cardinals... they have been making it all up as we go along. Really...No priest/ ordinary man, can absolve you of your sins, no hail Mary will do it, and on the hail Mary, who made that one up? Anyone please tell me where I can find the hail Mary in my bible... Here is the thing..., no man, in whatever robe he wears (I think Peter just wore regular clothing) should be standing in between you and the Lord, you have a direct link to him Through Jesus Christ. John 14:6, Jesus did not say:"Through the pope to the father", or: "through the priest to the father". I would really love to know who made all this crap up.... there were 12 diciples. When the last one died it was THE END. The Pope is not Jesus, nor is he one of His diciples, nor is he related to Peter since pope's get elected by voting and not by a Man that said "follow me..."cause if they felt called they would leave their riches behind... And do you know how much the pope is worth? About 2.5 million... . Jesus was a Jew... when he said to Peter: "you are my rock on you I build my church", He meant people turning to the faith through Peter, He did not say, "On you I will build my 2.5 million dollar wealth in a vatican city that will be it's own country with it's own walls surrounding it." Yeah, pretty sure Jesus never said that... Papacy is a farce... I know what Jesus did say though about folks who are worth 2.5 million... "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle...." Matthew 19:24. PS: There is also no purgatory in case you still also believe that fairy tale...