To my Protestant viewers (honest question here), why do you accept the 4th century Church's Canon of the New Testament but not her teachings on infant baptism or the Eucharist? 🤔🤔🤔
It’s hard to know what they are thinking inside their hearts as you are asking here. However from what I see and have experienced it’s pride and blind obedience to what they have been taught poorly about the Catholic Church falsely believing that the whole world needs to be re evangelized and have the Word in the Scriptures be the main focus not understanding that Jesus is the Word made Flesh as the only begotten Son of God with his humanity begotten from Mary. Jesus is almost like a secondary, distanced, and abstract concept to be explained and believed after the Scriptures as this suggests to me Protestants often don’t under the Hypostatic Union, how it’s possible, and why it makes sense.
The NT was finished in the 1st century, and was already being read in the Churches. Yet the same scriptures that the 4th century Church later formally agreed were canon do not support infant baptism or the Roman view of the Eucharist. Ultimately, I believe flawed men preserved the scriptures through the providence of God, but that did not prevent them from erring while doing so. The book of the Law lay forgotten in the Temple for centuries until it was found in the 18th year of the reign of King Josiah; without the law Israel had done great evil and sinned continually against the Lord. Yet, by the providence of God, it was rediscovered and scripture preserved. Israel had not observed a passover since the time of the judges. Compared to this, the church going astray on infant baptism or the exact function of the Eucharist is rather minor.
@@xaelath7771So you are saying Apostle John lied about the crowd failing away after Jesus told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood granting them eternal life after showing them how he will do it through the consecrating of bread and wine. You are saying you were right there in the time of Jesus instead of the apostles and know better than them? I believe the one who wrote the Gospels that tells us God spoke and inspired them to write “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have eternal life” have more validity than you and me.
@@Justyouraverageguy172 John also records Jesus saying: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." No matter how many times I mention this part of John 6, no Catholic has ever explained what Jesus means by it, or how it relates to their understanding of the Eucharist. So I ask you, what does this mean?
ST. BERNARD (1090-1153) to Pope Eugenius: “What profit does the flock derive from magnificent pageants, with you, the supreme shepherd of the flock advancing majestically in gilded clothing? Do you think that Saint Peter loved to surround himself with this pomp and display, or Saint Paul? No. In all things that belong to earthly magnificence, you have succeeded not Peter, but the Emperor Constantine!”
I am a protestant and I recognize that there are truly believers among genuine catholics the same way I believe that there are many cultural protestants that can not be counted as believers. The thing with catholicism that I find impossible to swallow is all the Mariology you guys developed and the place she has in the actual regular practice of catholicism. The images and statues which was a controversial issue among Eastern and Western Christianity. The doctrine of the purgatory and all the "spiritual bureaucracy" the catholic church set up in order for a man to be saved. That's why it is impossible for me to embrace catholicism.
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Faith is not the simple intellectual approval by man of truths concerning God. It is an act in which I freely entrust myself to a God who is Father and who loves me... Having faith is above all about having a relationship with a God whose love is indestructible and who understands people’s problems. Christian faith entails giving up control and placing one’s life in God’s hands. It’s this liberating and reassuring certainly of faith that helps people live without fear, proclaiming and living out the Gospel message with courage.”
Pope Francis- “All Religions are pathways to reach God”. Jesus- “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me”. (John 14:6)
You just want to protest. All religions, even protestantism has as kernel of truth in them. Unfortunately most people stop there and never find the fullness of truth Jesus gave to the Catholic Church.
of course I want to protest what Francis said, it's heresy that leads people to destruction. it's not just Pope Francis however, lots of Popes have said and done crazy things. There is a reason why the reformation happened mate.
Jesus gave us a Church, the Church gave us a Bible. You say you read the Bible but ignore it tells us to follow Christs Church. Where does the Bible tell us what books are to be IN the Bible? Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine of man. It’s why you guys interpret it differently from the last new “denomination”. You are like the blind leading the blind. Praying you see how foolish your argument is.
As a Christian I can give you a couple more examples. the book of Tobit, an angel teaches sorcery, God doesn't like sorcerers, Revelation 22:15. Besides, you cannot see sorcerers in the side of God and His Son in the whole old testament, but in not biblical book of Tobit. Purgatory, comes from Platonism and Maccabees union. You cannot see purgatory in Jesus' or any apostles' or the half brothers' of Jesus writings. Catholics need Maccabees for a false doctrine of purgatory in the church, a teaching of Platon. You neither will find any teaching of a purgatory in the rest of the old testament. Money money money. The same comes with perpetual virginity of the impostor virgin Mary goddess. They need a protogospel of James for that false teaching, never mentioned by any other as could be Paul's and Peter's writings, or Mary sons' with Joseph, James and Judas, half brothers of Jesus. And on and on.
@johneyre9493 The last time someone spoke to a saint who had already passed away, his name was King Saul and God cursed him and his family to death for the outrage!
Excellent video Cameron Richter. You nailed it. It’s all about faith. You either have faith or you don’t. I may not fully understand a Church teaching but to be a Catholic Christian I accept everything because the Catholic Church by Jesus knows what’s best for me.
So basically it boils down to which denomination has the real successors to the apostles. It sounds like the Catholic view is that this is more or less an administrative issue, where for Protestants it's based on consistency of teaching. Rather than blindly trusting someone who says they know the truth or has some claim of administrative succession, we compare everything to the original Church teachings, the foundation, the rock on which the Church is built. In many places in the Bible, we are told to compare new ideas against existing scripture. "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed".
Not an administrative issue. The argument is actually about who has the authentic teaching authority passed down from Jesus to the Apostles. If you lack that teaching authority, you can't have the consistency and the wholeness of Truth. Jesus didn't give us a library (i.e. a collection of books); He gave us teachers. Using the example in the video, imagine after the teaching on the Bread of life in John 6, that Peter responded by saying something like, "I don't think I understand what you're saying, therefore I quit", it would show he didn't have faith in the first place. Rather, because he already knew that Jesus is the Son of the living God, he knew he had to trust Jesus, not his own understanding. In the same vein, we need to know what the Church is first, only then can we choose to accept everything she teaches or reject anything she teaches.
May God bless you for this work of winning souls back to the church. Many left blindly, not even understanding where they are going! Come back home, brothers and sister.
Hi, Protestant here. I gave you a fair chance, but I was not convinced. Why? Several reasons: 1. Because there is no way you can convince me that the apostles would have revoked Deuteronomy 4:16, which teaches that we should NOT have statues in the likeness of males and females. "..Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female.." And, yet, the Roman Catholic church is teeming with male and female statues of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, just like the two right behind you. 2. Anyone can claim to be a successor of the apostles, but that doesn't make it so. As a matter of fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 speaks of one such person (office) that would set himself up, exalting himself as though he were God on earth. Well, that's exactly what the Popes of Rome have done since the 6th century. They have claimed headship over God's universal visible church with titles such as: a. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church b. Vicar (replacement) of Jesus Christ 3. Anyone who claims to be a successor of the apostles and then denies Jesus' words, is surely a wolf in sheep's clothing. For example, Jesus, specifically, tells us how to pray in Matthew 6. He gives two specific commands: One: pray to God the Heavenly Father, and Two: Don't use "vain repetitions," where the original Greek word, battalogeō, means to "stammer or to repeat the same things over and over." And what do Roman Catholics do? They deny Jesus' Words and choose the traditions of men over the commandment of God and pray to Mary and the saints, while repeating themselves over and over again; the complete opposite of Jesus told us to do. Then they have the nerve to say Jesus used vain repetition in Matthew 26:44 and Mark 14:39. Talk about heretical doctrine! To justify their repetitive praying (denying of Jesus' words), they also claim that psalms (which are songs that have repeatable lyrics) give them license to disobey Jesus. Prayers are not songs. 4. The Bible says that we don't need "man" to teach us. "But the anointing (Holy Spirit) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. The Holy Spirit is the reason I know to avoid the false Roman Catholic church which leads billions to hell. 5. True Christians don't rape, torture, kidnap, or murder ANYONE for ANY reason. Yet, the Roman Catholic church committed ALL of those heinous acts upon 50+ million "heretics" (a.k.a. true Christians) all in the name of their false Jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:4 for over 1200 years. The fact that you are a member of that harlot church demonstrates your approval of their unchrist-like, wicked ways. I pray this response reaches the eyes and ears of the lost sheep that may be stuck in your false church for the sake of eternal salvation for their souls. I pray this response would even have an impact on you to the saving of your soul.
Oh and if you don't want to trust the Catholic Church then trust the Eastern or Oriental Churches, as they too repeatedly declared what you believe to be heresy.
@@kisstune Are you joking? Hitler was a baptized Catholic. He basically worked for Pope Pius XII, as all world leaders today work for the man of sin in Rome. True Christians don't murder people. Catholics on the other hand are not Christians, which is why they're okay with murder, especially if the targets are "heretics."
@@ByTheBook777 The lies about Pope Pius the XII where made by the Communists in Russia. The Church saved many through the faking of Baptism which under law in Germany at that time meant they weren't Jews. Many protestant Germans went along with the crazy corporals plans.
Satan attempted to tempt Jesus by quoting the scriptures, but each time, Jesus' quoted other scriptures that exposed Satan lies. The better we know the scriputres, the harder it is for false teachers to twist them. "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed" Acts 17:10-12 The Jews of Berea didn't just take Paul's word for it, but rather they examined the Scriptures daily to see if his teaching were true - and because they were true, the Scriptures confirmed what Paul was teaching, and so many of them believed. This was considered a noble attitude, and not a sign of unbelief. "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." Acts 20:29-30 We know that many false teachers will arise, claiming to be the true sucessors of the Apostles, and that some of these will arise among the leadership of the church, as Paul warned the elders/overseers of Ephesus. While we should submit to the authority of the true church, we cannot take for granted that any individual or group is that church simply because they say so; if a bishop tells us to worship Ba'al in addition to Christ, we should not listen simply because he is a bishop. If you need all three, Jesus, Scripture and Church, to have a true faith, a group that has only the church but rejects scripture and Jesus cannot be the true faith either. The protestant objection to Rome is that it's teaching no longer conforms to the scriptures, and so no longer conforms to Christ. Whatever remains is no longer the universal church.
I see. That’s honestly the best articulation of Protestants but then since they descend from Rome because of Luther being the founding father of Protestants then that also nullifies Protestantism making it a deviation and falsehood as well
@@Justyouraverageguy172 King Josiah was a descendent of Rehoboam, and many other Kings who had lost their way. But when the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the Temple in the 18th year of his reign, there was a revival in Israel, and the high places were destroyed, turning the nation back to God, atleast for a time. Was that revival false, because Josiah descended from wayward Kings? Or was it a return to the true faith, because the true scriptures had been found? Luther may have played a role in kickstarting the reformation, but the reformation was much bigger than Luther. My faith isn't based on anything Luther said, but rather what Jesus, the prophets and apostles said, as recorded in the Scriptures.
I have three reasons not to become Roman Catholic: -All "infallible" statements still require private interpretation, which is not infallible. At best, this puts claims to infallibility on the same level as protestant "private" interpretation. -There is no "infallible" list of infallible statements. Sometimes a Papal Bull contains *some* infallible statements and some not. There is no infallible way to distinguish. -Admitted infallible statements have demonstrably contradicted other prior infallible statements. Catholic answers on these are deficient.
Can you explain HOW this passage from 2 Peter 19-21 "destroys" sola Scriptura? Here's that passage: "We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
The Bible doesn’t mention sola scriptura. It gave no authority to New Testament, Jesus gave Authority ONLY TO THE APOSTLES. If He meant to give authority only to a book, then where in scripture are we told what should be canon in scripture? Where does it tell us when we have a disagreement over scripture, how we tell who is right? The scripture tells us go to the Church! The Protestant “church” wasn’t around, there was only one then. Scripture without Christ’s Church is like looking at hieroglyphs without a Rosetta Stone. This is why you move further and further from the truth delivered to the Apostles. Repent following the doctrines of men (Luther, Calvin etc)
@@CommonSenseChrist We're told by Catholic apologists that we got the bible from the Catholic Church. This can't be reasonable because CC apologists continally disparage the written word by saying exactly what you're saying. We're supposed to believe that we got the bible from the same "church" that wants to mock sola scriptura so that we can place our trust in the authority of Rome! Then you say that, "The Bible doesn’t mention sola scriptura". Question: have you ever heard of the Bereans in the bible?
@@jettoth3 We gave the canon of Scripture. The Bible didn't just fall from the sky. Trinity isn't in the Bible neither is consubstantial yet a vast majority of protestants believe in those dogmas.
@@kisstune The canonical writings didn't "become canon" by the decree or judgement of men. The canon consists of all of the God-breathed writings. Scripture is that which is God-breathed, and this isn't decided by Rome, or by any religious authority on earth. At best, a religious authority may recognize an ancient writing as God-breathed, but canon can only be determined by God.
@@jettoth3 It was and God gave that canon to the Catholic Church through discernment. It is protestants that deny the God given canon by removing books.
If Jesus is speaking in John metaporically, the other disciples would not have left, or Jesus would have stopped them from leaving. Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically and even tripled down on what He said.
...or, he was speaking metaporically and allowed the unbelievers who were only interested in a free-meal to misunderstand on purpose, so as to sort the wheat from the chaff? "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled" They wanted phyiscal bread, because they didn't comprehend that the true bread of life, that comes down from heaven, is spiritual bread. You don't eat it with your mouth and digest it with your stomach, nor is it eliminated. "The spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and are life." - if he were trippling down on a litteral intreptation, why did he say the flesh profits nothing?
@@xaelath7771 let me put it to you this way. What gives you the authority to tell God what he said and meant in His Word is wrong when he meant it literally and as such recorded it?
@@Justyouraverageguy172 You are assuming he did mean it litterally, and assuming I am calling God wrong. I am not calling God wrong, rather I disagree with *you* that what he said was litteral, and I am relying on what Jesus said to make my argument. "The flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" - given that the words he refers to are those concerning eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and we are told those words are not flesh, but spirit, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that we are to interept eating and drinking his flesh and blood spiritually, not litterally. Given that at the last supper, Jesus gave them bread and wine, and did not give them his litteral flesh or his blood, showing that he did not mean what the crowds thought he meant, it's clear that we are not to interpret John 6 the way the crowds did. So what gives you the authority to say that *your* interpretation is *Gods* , in spite of evidence to the contrary?
It doesn't matter what you are if you fallow Jesus is all that matters in the end. If Catholics and prodestins would just stop fighting and work together we could get more done.
If Catholics understood that they are trusting a religion/church as their saviour instead of the Saviour (who is NOT a religion/church/self-identity, but a Person: 1 Timothy 2:5) as their Saviour, then they could truly call themselves Christians (ie, saved, children of God, saints, where the Holy Ghost lives).
People can be any faith that they want. But, there are great benefits to being Catholic. We can receive Jesus’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity every Sunday in the Holy Eucharist. That gives us tremendous graces. We can confess our sins to a priest, as James 5:16, asks us to do. The priest has the power to forgive the sins, as John 20:23 gave him the power to do. So, we get to hear a priest say out loud that our sins are forgiven for all eternity! That is such a tremendous relief!
At 19:34 the verse is translated differently in most Protestant Bible. According to a forum online: “2 Peter 1:20 says, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the PROPHET’s own interpretation of things.” Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, not who has the right to interpret the Bible today. Some Bible versions do not make this clear. The NAS, for example, says that prophecy is not “a matter of one’s own interpretation,” and the KJV says Scripture is not “of any private interpretation.” However, Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word; he was writing about how God gave us His Word in the first place. In order to persuade his readers to pay attention to the gospel, Peter affirmed that his words were God’s words-just as much as the Old Testament prophecies were.” So which translation is correct in meaning, and why?
Matthew 16. If you are not in union with the successor of Peter you are not part of the Church instituted by Christ. There is a lot more to be said about that but that’s basically it
"If there's not a way to transmit that teaching across the centuries" ... what? What does that mean? Catholics preserved and provided the world a reliable Bible. Why do Catholics in light of this disregard their own historic work of doing so? It's the apostolic word to the church from Christ, from God. There are a few things that require more study to understand, and we know how the holy men of the early church-the Catholic church-did their study to identify the proper texts. It is duplicatable. It puts you in union with the apostles. God, teaching through the apostles, into the body, the church.
Cameron do we have a complete list of successors of the Apostles, just like we have a complete list of the successors of Peter? If the Orthodox church doesn't have this, how and why do they deny the supremacy of Rome or Peter?
The truth is Jesus Christ build only one church through His Apostle Simon Peter only with THE AUTHORITY OF HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, NOT EVEN THROUGH 11 APOSTLES BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH and Simon Peter died there in Rome and his tomb is there in Rome and the popes are the successors which they preach continually the Kingdom of God right from Apostle Simon Peter only. Because only CHRIST the son of GOD can build the church and THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, HE IS A LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN IN THE HOLY BLESSED SACRAMENT TO FEED OUR SOUL WHO BELIEVE AND RECEIVE HIM WITH OUR HUMBLE HEART. JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY THE TRUTH AND LIFE. THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BUILDINGS THAT ANY MEN CAN BUILD THEIR OWN CHURCHES. But there are thousand of protestants churches they build their own church and with their own authorities they search the scriptures from the words of God itself and they REJECT AND PROTEST AGAINST THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. John 5:39-40 - Jesus Christ said "you search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life and it is they that bear witness to Me; yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life" John 5:42-43 - Jesus said "but I know that you have not the love of God within you". 43] "I have come in My Father's name and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive". 44] "how can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?". John 6:64-65 - Jesus said "but there are some of you that do not believe. For Jesus knew from the first who those were that not believe and who it was that betray HIM". 65] and He said "this is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father". John 10:25-26 - Jesus said "I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness to Me; but you do not believe BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP". Luke 22:31-32- Jesus prayed for our Catholic Church which He build only one church through His Apostle Simon Peter only with the authority of His heavenly Father "SIMON, SIMON, BEHOLD, SATAN DEMANDED TO HAVE YOU THAT HE MIGHT SIFT YOU LIKE WHEAT, BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU THAT YOUR FAITH MAY NOT FAIL AND WHEN YOU HAVE TURNED AGAIN STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN". Mark 4:11-12 - Jesus said to His 12 Apostles "to you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn again and be forgiven". Mark 13:5-6 -Jesus warned us "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray". Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "FALSE CHRISTS AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO LEAD ASTRAY, IF POSIBBLE, THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND". MARK 13:31- Jesus said "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY".
If the ROMAN part of the catholic Church accepts the canonical value of the Koine Greek scriptures, why do they extend Peter's commission to include all Bishops of Rome, and from where do they derive 'apostolic succession'? 'Sola scriptorum' does not work for the justification of the ROMAN catholic Church.
They got it from the lips of Jesus. One of the first things the apostles did after the resurrection was to replace the OFFICE of Judas (Acts 2). Jesus promised that he would sent the spirit of truth to be with the apostles forever. (John 14) That implies a succession of leadership. We don't rely on the NY Scripture as authority since the church was in operation with its doctrines in finished or seed form decades before the first NT writer started writing.
@@bridgefin you're not taking the scriptures at face value as the Catholics claim they do. You're interpreting it that way, to mean succession of leadership, because it is not clearly stated. Turns out, interpretation also has to exist in the Catholic Church.
@@Letmec0mmentplz Scriptures plus tradition leads to truth. Throw in a bit of history in the mix and you also get more clarity to confirm what was actually believed.
I hope everyone will reject being Protestants and also reject being Roman Catholic, and at last be Christians only, as they were in the New Testament. We don’t need denominational manuals, confessions, statements of faith, and catechisms. We need the Holy Bible, the inspired word of God, which tells us “all that pertains to life and Godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Reject man made religion and “abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). Greetings from the church mentioned in Romans 16:16.
@CameronRiecker Yeah but the Church has nothing to do with denominations or the names of certain buildings. It all has to do with those who Christ adds to His church.
Regarding Cameron’s pinned comment. How can you know the Old Testament canon compiled by the Jewish people was correct when they had no infallible magisterium? Also the councils of Rome, Carthage and Synod of Hippo were all local councils and weren’t infallible. Without an infallible list of what councils were and weren’t infallible you can’t definitively establish those councils to be infallible and it becomes an infinite regression. There was no purported infallible declaration of the canon until the Council of Trent 1500 years later. Just as the prophets who heard Gods word didn’t need an infallible interpreter to establish it was Gods word, so the early church also accepted scripture collectively with contention on some books. The scriptures were accepted by the early church as a bottom up process not top down and the writings of the apostles, as attested to in Peter and Timothy were considered scripture. Also please stop conflating evangelical Protestants with classical Protestants arising from the reformation (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) which all affirm infant baptism and the real presence. While you can say “oh but those denominations don’t believe in transubstantiation” neither did the church until post schism hence the eastern churches don’t probe the real presence with scholasticism but leave it as a mystery (as the word sacrament literally comes from the Greek word mysterion) but affirm it as truly being his body and blood, as do classical Protestants.
Saint John the apostle died around 90 AD. Twenty years after his death, his student, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, used the term "Catholic Church" to refer to the church in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 AD. They did understand the concepts of the Catholic Church because they taught them to their students, who were the Early Church Fathers and who wrote about them. If you read the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Irenaeus and other Early Church Fathers, you will find that they are full of Catholic teachings.
@RitaGatton the evidence of the death of apostle John is well genuine. The Greek word for church is called out one's . and no such buildings as cathedral or churches as we tend to think. The Jews gathered in each other dwellings , and synagogues were used after the destruction of the temple. You forget the Jewishness of the apostles,. and you did not address my full question especially Roman Catholic.
@@frederickanderson1860so why did Protestants for the majority build buildings and large street signs accompanying those nice mega and non mega buildings, use the same structures that were once Catholic and not remain in homes like the early Christians if the structural component is an issue? I understand there are home churches and now with the cyber church (internet) we don’t even need to gather in those. We can forsake a physical assembly for a spiritual one since that’s the true church anyways right?
@kevinmc62 evolution means change in any forms be it in architecture or art or theological assumptions. We can't think of a creator who does not change, when we observe it in nature in historical ages. Again you did not reply inmy full question regarding the apostles of Israel considered as Roman Catholic
@ so you have no problem with change? Apostles of Israel changed into Christians. Catholic Christians. Roman because Rome is the seat of the Catholic Church. Christians are a part of Christ’s body. A change happens to all of us. If you don’t recognize Catholicism as the true church and yet you’re part of the body by way of your baptism then you are saved in spite of your beliefs and joined to the Pope and me and all of us who are a part of the Church established by Christ.
I want to convert to Catholicism but I’m struggling with how the catechism teaches Muslims adore the same God as us even though they reject him if I can get past this I’ll convert i feel like I need an explanation on how you can reject Jesus and still claim to worship the same God
I actually wish that the claims exclusive to the catholic denomination were true. It would certainly simplify certain things and set me on a bit of an easy mode. Unfortunately Rome is not defensable from church history and at it's base is circular logic. If you're Catholic, no need to stop being catholic if you have Christ, though, that's what matters.
Seeing as the jewish scriptures already existed at the time of jesus that is part of what others would have used to judge the claims of the apostles and jesus so there most definitely was room for individual judgment .
to put a few objections: in the scripture you yourself cited the apostles only look for one of the disciples who knew Jesus, and as their successors did not personally know Jesus, they hold not the same infallibility. we do not reject a magisterial office of the apostles, we reject the infallibility of that office, and attribute infallibility to the apostles and to statements which can be proven by scripture, for st athanasius said Scripture is sufficient for all things and “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17) also your point that people looked to the apostles to see if they had the right faith is protestant, we look to the Apostles and the Church Fathers in order to know the roman church has errored on matters of faith and doctrine.
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” John 6:37-39 KJV “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44 KJV The Father is who gives us Faith to Believe in the Gospel of His son Jesus Christ! The Father gives us everything and Jesus Christ says He will never lose Believers in Him! Why do Roman Catholics try to act so authoritative as if they are the ones that controls man’s destiny with God?
I'm a Protestant who believes in infant baptism and true and real feasting on Christ in the Eucharist (like Luther and Calvin), and i believe there is an infallible transmitter of the Scriptures: the Holy Spirit. Sure, no one is an infallible interpreter of the Holy Spirit today, but is there anyone in the Roman system worthy of being an infallible interpreter of the papacy? A lot of these radical relavitism arguments can be fired back at Rome.
The amount of idolatry and extra biblical man made doctrine in Catholicism is insane. Let me rephrase… Catholicism IS idolatry and extra biblical man made doctrine. How can people be so blind?! Follow Jesus and the Bible and nothing else!
@@CameronRiecker I love all my Catholic brothers and sisters dearly. I also don’t believe you’re going to hell because of the extra mountain of added doctrine. But so many of the man made teachings are obvious deceptions. And don’t even get me started on the Pope and the Catholic Church / Vatican as a political org… blatantly evil…. All that being said there is one thing I greatly respect about my Catholic brothers and sisters. Generally there is a greater reverence of God’s holiness as opposed to many Protestants who have gone to far the other direction. On the other hand! The faith filled Protestants I know take purity and the holy spirt way more seriously opposed to Catholics who just make sure to check the religious boxes regularly. Generally I see adult Catholics as more likely to simply be “Cultural Catholics” while adults Protestants have a living faith and are in tune with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I’ll be honest it feels like a total waste to argue against my Catholic brothers and sisters. I literally never do it. I have so many other missions to pour into. Pray to Jesus not to Mary. God bless you.
@@kgeo2686 You would be better to ignore behavior of people and focus on the acts of Jesus. Jesus established one church and it is thus 2000 years old. Even the Reformers said that was the Catholic Church. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church and he promised that the spirit of truth would be with it forever. You have no such promise of protection or truth where you are and you have zero authority to declare true doctrine. And that's why it would be frustrating to argue against a well informed Catholic.
@ Did you seriously just say Jesus established the Catholic Church? This is the type of delusion that is shocking to me… Jesus would have called out all Catholics for idolatry and communing with the dead. Plain and simple. Nobody comes to the father except through him. Not through Mary, not through saints, and definitely not through beads. Oh and then there’s the Popes who think themselves above Jesus, and the Vatican marketplace.
Indeed faith is not an easy thing to have in you,for a person to have faith must learn first of the many things that Jesus Christ taught himself to his Apostles and find understanding of those many things that Jesus taught and do those things that Jesus was warning those who were calling him lord lord and Jesus told them why do you call me lord and NOT DO THE THINGS THAT I TELL YOU?🤔,excellent video presentation my catholic brother yeah amen 🙏 🐑🕊️✨🔥
I don't know about self righteousness but it is defo a sign of pride to think that you do not need any authority to interpret the scriptures but somehow the Holy Spirit gives YOU the correct understanding (as opposed to those other pesky protestants who don't believe the way you do).
This is such an interesting comment. Protestantism is ALL ABOUT the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us on the basis of faith (Php 3:9). Catholicism teaches that we make ourselves righteous by meriting the graces necessary for righteousness, and therefore salvation. CCC 2027 ..."we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty the catechism says its through the holy spirit we merit grace it doesn't say by works You are adding words to the catechism further proof Protestantism is about self righteousness
Very many problems with your arguments here - I can't get into all of them because I have to get going from my office here (was listening while at work). I'll name just a couple: 1) Even the Catholic Church admits that EO, OO, etc... have valid apostolic succession. So simply appealing to apostolic succession is not enough to get you to Catholicism. You seem to forget that you have much more work to do beyond that. 2) We do not "have to be certain" that we have the correct transmission, interpretation, etc. In fact, you can't be certain in principle about questions like this. We have certainty about an incredibly small subset of our beliefs... and the truth of RC is certainly not one of those beliefs you could possibly be certain of. That's all I've got time for. These arguments are specious at best, but I appreciate your effort. I can tell you put a lot of effort into these videos, and I like the new camera set-up. God bless you.
When quoting acts you inserted your own words "the first pope". That sir is adding to the scriptures. We have all that Jesus taught the apostles in the bible. Nothing added, nothing taken away. No middle man made traditions needed brah. I do love these click bait titles though, so keep it up.
A Catholic is trying to make the argument that protestants do not hold to scripture alone? When they don't believe that scripture is inerrant, and that their church fathers and history are just as authoritative as Christ's own teaching??? Make it make sense lol. This guy keeps guaranteeing that people will convert to Catholicism, but I've watched a lot of his videos and I've never been more sure of the reformed Faith. The guy is a walking contradiction
Respectfully, please don't misrepresent the Catholic position in your response. We believe Sacred Scripture is inerrant (materially sufficient); we don't believe it is infallible (formally sufficient). There is no book anywhere that is infallible. The reason is that fallibility and infallibility requires an active agent, a human decision/understanding/interpretation. The Bible does not interpret itself and perspicuity of Scripture is proven to be demonstrably false. We believe that Sacred Scripture is inerrant and the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You may disagree with that and that is fine, but please don't say we don't believe the Bible is inerrant
@@wm6134 you literally told me that you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then proceeded to tell me that you didn't. Or are you unaware that inerrancy and infallibility are interchangeable and have the same meaning? "Incapable of error, certain, accurate, perfect, flawless, faultless, unimpeachable, authoritative" are all words you will find in the thesaurus related to them. So you cannot say you believe the Bible to be inerrant, but not infallible. It's a contradiction, regardless of what the Catholic Church would like the definitions to be.
@Letmec0mmentplz They are absolutely not the same thing and that's your issue. Inerrancy means the material is not in error: Materially sufficient. Infallibility means the interpretation is not in error: Formal sufficient. They are NOT interchangeable words and aren't used that way. To extract meaning from a text (fallible/infallible) requires agency, active agent. The Bible is not a Ouija board. It doesn't tell you the meaning. Take Holy Communion for example. People interpret it (fallibly and infallibly), but the material itself is not in error.
@@Letmec0mmentplz There are hundreds of Protestant denominations, many professing different beliefs on core doctrines. Those core doctrines are mutually exclusive. Example some believe in baptismal regeneration and some believe in symbolic believer's baptism. If the Bible is infallible, both can't be right. Same with eternal security and losing your salvation, transubstantiation and symbolic communion, etc. You can't attribute that every protestant denomination that believes something different is maliciously twisting Scripture. Yet they can't all be right. The Bible is not in error but one's interpretation can be. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant, but not infallible because fallibility and infallibility require agency. It's not difficult.
The Roman Catholic Church isn't mention in the Bible. The RCC traditions isn't mention in the Bible. The pope that rule over one church isn't mention in the Bible. If Peter gospel was perfect when he spread God word while he was living, it should be perfect now. The RCC keeps on adding to Peter, Apostles, and Jesus teachings. Just think if they follow Christ teaching as the Roman Catholic Church say they do , the Church should sell all the Vatican, gold, silver, old photos, and etc. then the church can almost end world hungry, spread the RIGHT gospel to every country, and give homes to homeless. The teaching of Christ is to spread God word of his Son who died on the cross and the resurrection of his Son. God never intended a church should build a country with wealth, power, and etc. Sell the Vatican to help human kind!!!
You: ... isn't mention in the Bible... isn't mention in the Bible. Me: Also missing from the bible is any requirement that you find all doctrines and practices mentioned in the BIble. You: the Church should sell all the Vatican, gold, silver, old photos, and etc. then the church can almost end world hungry, Me: Wrong. Jesus said that the poor would be with us always. Those were donated for the spiritual enhancement and to bring man closer to God. That is better than feeding stomachs. You: Sell the Vatican to help human kind!!! Me: The church already feeds more people on the planet than any other organization on the planet. Come walk with us in this mission.
@@bridgefin So I am assuming you don't what to give up billions of dollars from the Vatican to help the poor and homeless. Yes, the Catholic does a lot for people but why stop there, go all the way. After the Vatican is sold and the gold is given to help the world and guess what you will still have the poor. So, please sell it. The Roman Catholic Church says it was built by Peter as the first pope. Why then add to Peter gospel? Peter said silver and gold have i none but in the name a Jesus he healed a man. The Roman Catholic Church can't say that. They have silver, gold, portraits, building and land. God never intended that a church should have its country and SIT upon wealth for it glory. I did visit the Vatican and it was very nice but a little expensive to enter in.
@@matthewbrown8056 Exactly. So that is not a solution to anything. The Vatican is beautiful and dedicated to God. It leads people to him and thus serves its purpose.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
@@CameronRiecker We all agree the ministry must go on and we need successors even the apostles. Yes the pharisees sat in the seat of Moses but they were still wrong they were refuted by the Scriptures. So it isn't a convincing argument that Protestants "Don't get it". Nonetheless it's good to study scripture and continue to consider facts I just.
@@MobBossPenguinNo the Pharisees didn’t get it either even with God telling them and wanting to invite them in just to be rejected out of pride envy and more
I would recommend this video to teach logical fallacy. Circular reasoning, genetic fallacy, all-or-nothing deduction, red herrings, half-truths, it's all here. Any Greek Orthodox or Patristics reader would be able to debunk the historical fallacies in this video wthin 2 minutes of hearing it. I guess this is apologetic because it would only convince a nominal catholic to think that the claims here are passable. John 6 - to equate the words of Jesus with the Roman denomination is laughable and sad because it's idolatry. Jesus words are not Rome's. History - Rome is the youngest see of the 7. There are 6 older sees that can claim primacy over Rome. Petrine history - The words of Peter are remarkably quiet in the NT. But we have a lot of Paul and John. I don't see anything in 1 or 2 Peter that would make me convert to Rome. Western bias - a lot of this fluffery comes from thinking the Latin tradition somehow predates the Greek church, which is patently incorrect. I am not Eastern Orthodox, but as an outsider, I would recommend old catholic authors like Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, John Chrysostom, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr among many others. These old catholics are more informed and less bias toward Rome. These old catholics were writing from the 6 older sees and their environs. Rome is a petulent child, the youngest of the 7. They scream and cry and the other 6 say there there, it will be ok. The church of Jesus is so much bigger than any building or roman religion. Read the Bible, read the church fathers, read Augustine even, but especially, learn about logical fallacies. Roman logic is done at the level of a 5 year old child, they open up John 6 and where it says Jesus they think that means the old bros in Rome. I give the Romans some props, they do some things really well, but when it comes to logic and history, keep in mind that the church in Jerusalem is oldest. Then Antioch and Alexandria and Istanbul (Constantinople), Ephesus, all those places you see in the book of Revelation the first 3 chapters are older.
The end days are coming where the seven bowls will pour out onto the world. Jesus is lord not a teacher. He is the high preist. No other. Jesus revealed gods will through his life. The lesson of the crucification and the advancment of the kingdom of heaven on earth. His duty was not to simply teach it was to save humanity through his suffering. Jesus said. If you do not understand the parable of the wheat and the chaff you can understand no other for they all are about this one. They day is coming when robes, popes, preist, and buildings will not matter. It will all be destroyed to make way for the new world. Praise be to the holiest one. The cross is lucky to have had our lord crucified upon it. It is just wood and rosaries are just necklaces. Ment to keep you further and further from the one who hung upon it. Saints themselves are not holy they are only men and women who shared in the love and devotion to the one true lord of the universe. They are not even fit to untie his sandles.
He was protestant. xD But in a way you are correct. Though even protestants don't know what they protest. There is really one thing that protestants unite: the rejection of the Church. The rest is up for grabs, don't you agree?
And you of course know !! 😄 But St John the Apostle got a quite clear answer for you here: 1 John 4:1-2 1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
@@remainhumble6432 Are you sure you got i meant to say ? Then how about this verse ? Luke 10:16 16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Doesn't Jesus here mention the teaching of his apostles impliying their authority binded with the Holy Spirit?
@@paulericn.mouafo6610 I understand what the verse says. Not sure what you mean. If the Catholic Church could explain what the Pope is up to perhaps you would understand about false teachers and testing the spirits.
If Catholics understood this one argument, they'd want to convert to Protestantism... If Christians understood this one argument, they'd want to convert to Hinduism... If (fill in the blank), they'd want to convert to (fill in a different blank). A meaningless argument. There will always be a go-to argument for any belief different from your own. The argument is made even further irrelevant in that 90% of any believers don't question their beliefs but stick to what they were raised with. Pose arguments that challenge your own faith How about: According to Paul's epistles, we are supposed to be in-filled with the Holy Spirit as manifested in the gifts. There is no priest in-between. The gathered believers are supposed to be more or less equal. Read John 14
Read the Acts of the Apostles to see how the apostles led the early Church. The apostles were the early bishops of the Church. They ordained priests and other bishops. This has continued from the first century up until today for more than two thousand years in the Catholic Church. Jesus established the Catholic Church with a hierarchy when he founded it in Matthew 16:18-19.
@@RitaGatton Paul's AUTHENTIC letters are Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and in virtually every instance where their timeline and that of Acts can be compared, their are discrepancies. Especially relevant is how Paul is quite emphatic in the epistle to the Galatians that after he had his vision of Jesus and came to believe in him, he did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles (1:15-18) Mark was written after Paul died and the author of Luke and Acts wrote after Mark. Colossus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy are judged to have been written even further away from Paul's lifetime Even if those inauthentic books are used to support the case for bishops, it is made clear that they and the deacons are to be judged by how well their families behave. They are supposed to be married and have children
@@RitaGatton In Hebrews, the term "priest" is used to refer to Jesus in a theological way. In Revelations, the term "priests to God" refers to the Christian community. In 1 Peter 2:5-9: This passage refers to a universal priesthood, and is based on Exodus 19:6, which says, "And you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation". A priest as an ordination is not sanctioned by the New Testament and is an insult to Jesus, Who is supposed to be the final sacrifice. Any sacrifice is supposed to be giving up your old life and aiming at letting Christ be in you through the Holy Spirit (John 14). "Sin" originally meant and still means "missing the mark"
the catholic church did not create the canon, God did, and one day it was unanimously accepted as complete. because the apostles had no successors, the canon is closed. if the scriptures taught infant baptism it would be accepted as per the scriptures. he who believes and is baptized will be saved. repent and be baptized... those who gladly received his message were baptized....what prevents me from being baptized? if you believe with all your heart, you may. i believe that jesus christ is the son of God.... as for the eucharist, i see it this way. isaiah 55:1-3 eating food and drinking as metaphors. how about: taste and see that the lord is good. and, i am the bread of life, whoever comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. there is a spiritual hunger and thirst that only jesus satisfies. jesus said; doing his father's will is food to him. saving faith is an abiding appetite for the lord and a glad consumption of his word. we are called to feed on the milk and meat of the word. when we come to the table of God's word we are called to eat. solid food is for the mature. these things are all throughout scripture. feeding on the lord. if anyone thirsts, come to me and drink. living water. etc. at the beginning of jesus dissertation in john 6 he chided the people who followed him just to fill their bellies. but rather, feed on this, feed on me, my flesh broken for you, my blood spilled for you, fill up on these spiritual truths, quit thinking on earthly things. i am the true bread from heaven. get a clue. when he was alone with his disciples, the twelve, he explained all things to them. but when he told them to beware of the leaven of the pharisees they took him seriously, and he chided them for it.
And yet you claim to have the same Divine authority to bind and forgive sins as the Scriptures describes for the apostles and their successors? Truly I say to you that if the Scriptures had everything we needed then they would include abortion, euthanasia, birth control, AI, IVF, cloning, etc
The Catholic Church selected the books of the canon in 392 AD at the Council of Rome. They sent the word out to the existing church all over the Mediterranean world and the existing church accepted it. The apostles had successors who were men whom they had ordained as bishops. Those bishops ordained other bishops (and priests). They have continued to do so continuously up to the current day in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
When i red this first sintence " the catholic church did not create the canon, God did, and one day it was unanimously accepted as complete. ..." i just stoped there and didn't go forward on reading... don't make yourself fool by your ignorance even your "teachers" would agree the Bible (as it is nowaday) was canonized by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself upon Saint Peter... it's a historic fact not an opinion. it's profitable for you to first study some history of your faith before diving in to the bible and deceive yourself.
Try harder next time sir. You have misrepresented protestants and have conflated God's teaching (scripture) and the RCC. One must believe in God and His teaching which He preserved in scripture. When you added in that one must believe the Church you were adding your tradition to the requirement of salvation.
To my Protestant viewers (honest question here), why do you accept the 4th century Church's Canon of the New Testament but not her teachings on infant baptism or the Eucharist? 🤔🤔🤔
It’s hard to know what they are thinking inside their hearts as you are asking here.
However from what I see and have experienced it’s pride and blind obedience to what they have been taught poorly about the Catholic Church falsely believing that the whole world needs to be re evangelized and have the Word in the Scriptures be the main focus not understanding that Jesus is the Word made Flesh as the only begotten Son of God with his humanity begotten from Mary. Jesus is almost like a secondary, distanced, and abstract concept to be explained and believed after the Scriptures as this suggests to me Protestants often don’t under the Hypostatic Union, how it’s possible, and why it makes sense.
Pray for spiritual blind, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, we love you, save souls. 🙏🏻👂🏻👀
The NT was finished in the 1st century, and was already being read in the Churches. Yet the same scriptures that the 4th century Church later formally agreed were canon do not support infant baptism or the Roman view of the Eucharist.
Ultimately, I believe flawed men preserved the scriptures through the providence of God, but that did not prevent them from erring while doing so. The book of the Law lay forgotten in the Temple for centuries until it was found in the 18th year of the reign of King Josiah; without the law Israel had done great evil and sinned continually against the Lord. Yet, by the providence of God, it was rediscovered and scripture preserved. Israel had not observed a passover since the time of the judges. Compared to this, the church going astray on infant baptism or the exact function of the Eucharist is rather minor.
@@xaelath7771So you are saying Apostle John lied about the crowd failing away after Jesus told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood granting them eternal life after showing them how he will do it through the consecrating of bread and wine. You are saying you were right there in the time of Jesus instead of the apostles and know better than them? I believe the one who wrote the Gospels that tells us God spoke and inspired them to write “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have eternal life” have more validity than you and me.
@@Justyouraverageguy172 John also records Jesus saying:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
No matter how many times I mention this part of John 6, no Catholic has ever explained what Jesus means by it, or how it relates to their understanding of the Eucharist. So I ask you, what does this mean?
ST. BERNARD (1090-1153) to Pope Eugenius:
“What profit does the flock derive from magnificent pageants, with you, the supreme shepherd of the flock advancing majestically in gilded clothing? Do you think that Saint Peter loved to surround himself with this pomp and display, or Saint Paul? No. In all things that belong to earthly magnificence, you have succeeded not Peter, but the Emperor Constantine!”
After 2 minutes I yet wasn't sure whether this is a parody video or not. Is it just me? xD
He's either really dishonest or an idiot.
I am a protestant and I recognize that there are truly believers among genuine catholics the same way I believe that there are many cultural protestants that can not be counted as believers.
The thing with catholicism that I find impossible to swallow is all the Mariology you guys developed and the place she has in the actual regular practice of catholicism. The images and statues which was a controversial issue among Eastern and Western Christianity. The doctrine of the purgatory and all the "spiritual bureaucracy" the catholic church set up in order for a man to be saved.
That's why it is impossible for me to embrace catholicism.
Do you think that Luther was correct in his assessment of the Church?
@BeholdAndLo-f4v Why then rejct catholic mariology and veneration of icons, if Luther believed these things to be true and good?
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “Faith is not the simple intellectual approval by man of truths concerning God. It is an act in which I freely entrust myself to a God who is Father and who loves me... Having faith is above all about having a relationship with a God whose love is indestructible and who understands people’s problems.
Christian faith entails giving up control and placing one’s life in God’s hands. It’s this liberating and reassuring certainly of faith that helps people live without fear, proclaiming and living out the Gospel message with courage.”
Pope Francis- “All Religions are pathways to reach God”.
Jesus- “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me”. (John 14:6)
You just want to protest. All religions, even protestantism has as kernel of truth in them. Unfortunately most people stop there and never find the fullness of truth Jesus gave to the Catholic Church.
of course I want to protest what Francis said, it's heresy that leads people to destruction.
it's not just Pope Francis however, lots of Popes have said and done crazy things. There is a reason why the reformation happened mate.
Jesus gave us a Church, the Church gave us a Bible. You say you read the Bible but ignore it tells us to follow Christs Church. Where does the Bible tell us what books are to be IN the Bible? Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine of man. It’s why you guys interpret it differently from the last new “denomination”. You are like the blind leading the blind. Praying you see how foolish your argument is.
As a Christian I can give you a couple more examples.
the book of Tobit, an angel teaches sorcery, God doesn't like sorcerers, Revelation 22:15. Besides, you cannot see sorcerers in the side of God and His Son in the whole old testament, but in not biblical book of Tobit.
Purgatory, comes from Platonism and Maccabees union. You cannot see purgatory in Jesus' or any apostles' or the half brothers' of Jesus writings. Catholics need Maccabees for a false doctrine of purgatory in the church, a teaching of Platon. You neither will find any teaching of a purgatory in the rest of the old testament. Money money money.
The same comes with perpetual virginity of the impostor virgin Mary goddess. They need a protogospel of James for that false teaching, never mentioned by any other as could be Paul's and Peter's writings, or Mary sons' with Joseph, James and Judas, half brothers of Jesus.
And on and on.
@johneyre9493 The last time someone spoke to a saint who had already passed away, his name was King Saul and God cursed him and his family to death for the outrage!
Excellent video Cameron Richter. You nailed it. It’s all about faith. You either have faith or you don’t. I may not fully understand a Church teaching but to be a Catholic Christian I accept everything because the Catholic Church by Jesus knows what’s best for me.
Amen!
So basically it boils down to which denomination has the real successors to the apostles. It sounds like the Catholic view is that this is more or less an administrative issue, where for Protestants it's based on consistency of teaching. Rather than blindly trusting someone who says they know the truth or has some claim of administrative succession, we compare everything to the original Church teachings, the foundation, the rock on which the Church is built. In many places in the Bible, we are told to compare new ideas against existing scripture. "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed".
Not an administrative issue.
The argument is actually about who has the authentic teaching authority passed down from Jesus to the Apostles. If you lack that teaching authority, you can't have the consistency and the wholeness of Truth.
Jesus didn't give us a library (i.e. a collection of books); He gave us teachers.
Using the example in the video, imagine after the teaching on the Bread of life in John 6, that Peter responded by saying something like, "I don't think I understand what you're saying, therefore I quit", it would show he didn't have faith in the first place.
Rather, because he already knew that Jesus is the Son of the living God, he knew he had to trust Jesus, not his own understanding.
In the same vein, we need to know what the Church is first, only then can we choose to accept everything she teaches or reject anything she teaches.
May God bless you for this work of winning souls back to the church. Many left blindly, not even understanding where they are going! Come back home, brothers and sister.
Hi, Protestant here. I gave you a fair chance, but I was not convinced. Why? Several reasons:
1. Because there is no way you can convince me that the apostles would have revoked Deuteronomy 4:16, which teaches that we should NOT have statues in the likeness of males and females. "..Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female.." And, yet, the Roman Catholic church is teeming with male and female statues of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, just like the two right behind you.
2. Anyone can claim to be a successor of the apostles, but that doesn't make it so. As a matter of fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 speaks of one such person (office) that would set himself up, exalting himself as though he were God on earth. Well, that's exactly what the Popes of Rome have done since the 6th century. They have claimed headship over God's universal visible church with titles such as:
a. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
b. Vicar (replacement) of Jesus Christ
3. Anyone who claims to be a successor of the apostles and then denies Jesus' words, is surely a wolf in sheep's clothing. For example, Jesus, specifically, tells us how to pray in Matthew 6. He gives two specific commands:
One: pray to God the Heavenly Father, and
Two: Don't use "vain repetitions," where the original Greek word, battalogeō, means to "stammer or to repeat the same things over and over."
And what do Roman Catholics do? They deny Jesus' Words and choose the traditions of men over the commandment of God and pray to Mary and the saints, while repeating themselves over and
over again; the complete opposite of Jesus told us to do. Then they have the nerve to say Jesus used vain repetition in Matthew 26:44 and Mark 14:39. Talk about heretical doctrine!
To justify their repetitive praying (denying of Jesus' words), they also claim that psalms (which are songs that have repeatable lyrics) give them license to disobey Jesus. Prayers are not songs.
4. The Bible says that we don't need "man" to teach us. "But the anointing (Holy Spirit) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The Holy Spirit is the reason I know to avoid the false Roman Catholic church which leads billions to hell.
5. True Christians don't rape, torture, kidnap, or murder ANYONE for ANY reason. Yet, the Roman Catholic church committed ALL of those heinous acts upon 50+ million "heretics" (a.k.a. true Christians) all in the name of their false Jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:4 for over 1200 years. The fact that you are a member of that harlot church demonstrates your approval of their unchrist-like, wicked ways.
I pray this response reaches the eyes and ears of the lost sheep that may be stuck in your false church for the sake of eternal salvation for their souls. I pray this response would even have an impact on you to the saving of your soul.
Oh boy you forgot protestant Germany and the 1930's and how they followed a crazy corporal.
Oh and if you don't want to trust the Catholic Church then trust the Eastern or Oriental Churches, as they too repeatedly declared what you believe to be heresy.
@@kisstune Are you joking? Hitler was a baptized Catholic. He basically worked for Pope Pius XII, as all world leaders today work for the man of sin in Rome. True Christians don't murder people. Catholics on the other hand are not Christians, which is why they're okay with murder, especially if the targets are "heretics."
@@ByTheBook777 The lies about Pope Pius the XII where made by the Communists in Russia. The Church saved many through the faking of Baptism which under law in Germany at that time meant they weren't Jews. Many protestant Germans went along with the crazy corporals plans.
Cradle Teenage Catholic here, love the videos
Satan attempted to tempt Jesus by quoting the scriptures, but each time, Jesus' quoted other scriptures that exposed Satan lies. The better we know the scriputres, the harder it is for false teachers to twist them.
"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed" Acts 17:10-12
The Jews of Berea didn't just take Paul's word for it, but rather they examined the Scriptures daily to see if his teaching were true - and because they were true, the Scriptures confirmed what Paul was teaching, and so many of them believed. This was considered a noble attitude, and not a sign of unbelief.
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." Acts 20:29-30
We know that many false teachers will arise, claiming to be the true sucessors of the Apostles, and that some of these will arise among the leadership of the church, as Paul warned the elders/overseers of Ephesus. While we should submit to the authority of the true church, we cannot take for granted that any individual or group is that church simply because they say so; if a bishop tells us to worship Ba'al in addition to Christ, we should not listen simply because he is a bishop. If you need all three, Jesus, Scripture and Church, to have a true faith, a group that has only the church but rejects scripture and Jesus cannot be the true faith either.
The protestant objection to Rome is that it's teaching no longer conforms to the scriptures, and so no longer conforms to Christ. Whatever remains is no longer the universal church.
I see. That’s honestly the best articulation of Protestants but then since they descend from Rome because of Luther being the founding father of Protestants then that also nullifies Protestantism making it a deviation and falsehood as well
@@Justyouraverageguy172 King Josiah was a descendent of Rehoboam, and many other Kings who had lost their way. But when the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the Temple in the 18th year of his reign, there was a revival in Israel, and the high places were destroyed, turning the nation back to God, atleast for a time. Was that revival false, because Josiah descended from wayward Kings? Or was it a return to the true faith, because the true scriptures had been found?
Luther may have played a role in kickstarting the reformation, but the reformation was much bigger than Luther. My faith isn't based on anything Luther said, but rather what Jesus, the prophets and apostles said, as recorded in the Scriptures.
Succinctly stated. Thank you.
I have three reasons not to become Roman Catholic:
-All "infallible" statements still require private interpretation, which is not infallible. At best, this puts claims to infallibility on the same level as protestant "private" interpretation.
-There is no "infallible" list of infallible statements. Sometimes a Papal Bull contains *some* infallible statements and some not. There is no infallible way to distinguish.
-Admitted infallible statements have demonstrably contradicted other prior infallible statements. Catholic answers on these are deficient.
Can you explain HOW this passage from 2 Peter 19-21 "destroys" sola Scriptura? Here's that passage:
"We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
The Bible doesn’t mention sola scriptura. It gave no authority to New Testament, Jesus gave Authority ONLY TO THE APOSTLES. If He meant to give authority only to a book, then where in scripture are we told what should be canon in scripture? Where does it tell us when we have a disagreement over scripture, how we tell who is right? The scripture tells us go to the Church! The Protestant “church” wasn’t around, there was only one then. Scripture without Christ’s Church is like looking at hieroglyphs without a Rosetta Stone. This is why you move further and further from the truth delivered to the Apostles. Repent following the doctrines of men (Luther, Calvin etc)
@@CommonSenseChrist We're told by Catholic apologists that we got the bible from the Catholic Church. This can't be reasonable because CC apologists continally disparage the written word by saying exactly what you're saying. We're supposed to believe that we got the bible from the same "church" that wants to mock sola scriptura so that we can place our trust in the authority of Rome! Then you say that, "The Bible doesn’t mention sola scriptura". Question: have you ever heard of the Bereans in the bible?
@@jettoth3 We gave the canon of Scripture. The Bible didn't just fall from the sky. Trinity isn't in the Bible neither is consubstantial yet a vast majority of protestants believe in those dogmas.
@@kisstune The canonical writings didn't "become canon" by the decree or judgement of men. The canon consists of all of the God-breathed writings. Scripture is that which is God-breathed, and this isn't decided by Rome, or by any religious authority on earth. At best, a religious authority may recognize an ancient writing as God-breathed, but canon can only be determined by God.
@@jettoth3 It was and God gave that canon to the Catholic Church through discernment. It is protestants that deny the God given canon by removing books.
This definitely helps when I talk to my non-catholic friends and family. Gotta get them into the one Holy Catholic and APOSTOLIC Church.
no. clickbait.
If Jesus is speaking in John metaporically, the other disciples would not have left, or Jesus would have stopped them from leaving. Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically and even tripled down on what He said.
...or, he was speaking metaporically and allowed the unbelievers who were only interested in a free-meal to misunderstand on purpose, so as to sort the wheat from the chaff?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled"
They wanted phyiscal bread, because they didn't comprehend that the true bread of life, that comes down from heaven, is spiritual bread. You don't eat it with your mouth and digest it with your stomach, nor is it eliminated. "The spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and are life." - if he were trippling down on a litteral intreptation, why did he say the flesh profits nothing?
@xaelath7771 or not.
@@xaelath7771 let me put it to you this way. What gives you the authority to tell God what he said and meant in His Word is wrong when he meant it literally and as such recorded it?
@@Justyouraverageguy172 Yes protestants have no authority/reason to believe that any of their (private) interpretations of scripture are correct.
@@Justyouraverageguy172 You are assuming he did mean it litterally, and assuming I am calling God wrong. I am not calling God wrong, rather I disagree with *you* that what he said was litteral, and I am relying on what Jesus said to make my argument.
"The flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" - given that the words he refers to are those concerning eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and we are told those words are not flesh, but spirit, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that we are to interept eating and drinking his flesh and blood spiritually, not litterally.
Given that at the last supper, Jesus gave them bread and wine, and did not give them his litteral flesh or his blood, showing that he did not mean what the crowds thought he meant, it's clear that we are not to interpret John 6 the way the crowds did.
So what gives you the authority to say that *your* interpretation is *Gods* , in spite of evidence to the contrary?
It doesn't matter what you are if you fallow Jesus is all that matters in the end. If Catholics and prodestins would just stop fighting and work together we could get more done.
If Catholics understood that they are trusting a religion/church as their saviour instead of the Saviour (who is NOT a religion/church/self-identity, but a Person: 1 Timothy 2:5) as their Saviour, then they could truly call themselves Christians (ie, saved, children of God, saints, where the Holy Ghost lives).
Why can't you let people be of the faith they want you be..???
I'm not sure what you mean! :)
They dont get the benefit of the full truth in the lives and a better chance of salvation after death.
No one is forcing anything. It was simply a suggestion. They don't have to follow along with it
@@Kitiwake???
People can be any faith that they want. But, there are great benefits to being Catholic. We can receive Jesus’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity every Sunday in the Holy Eucharist. That gives us tremendous graces. We can confess our sins to a priest, as James 5:16, asks us to do. The priest has the power to forgive the sins, as John 20:23 gave him the power to do. So, we get to hear a priest say out loud that our sins are forgiven for all eternity! That is such a tremendous relief!
Great video, very informative. 🙏🏻🙌🏻🕊
At 19:34 the verse is translated differently in most Protestant Bible. According to a forum online:
“2 Peter 1:20 says, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the PROPHET’s own interpretation of things.” Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, not who has the right to interpret the Bible today.
Some Bible versions do not make this clear. The NAS, for example, says that prophecy is not “a matter of one’s own interpretation,” and the KJV says Scripture is not “of any private interpretation.” However, Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word; he was writing about how God gave us His Word in the first place. In order to persuade his readers to pay attention to the gospel, Peter affirmed that his words were God’s words-just as much as the Old Testament prophecies were.”
So which translation is correct in meaning, and why?
Thank you.
God Bless you.
Cameron, what points made you decide Catholic over Orthodox Catholic?
Matthew 16.
If you are not in union with the successor of Peter you are not part of the Church instituted by Christ.
There is a lot more to be said about that but that’s basically it
@@CameronRiecker thank you for taking the time. Day after this question I saw your dedicated Orthodox videos
"If there's not a way to transmit that teaching across the centuries" ... what? What does that mean? Catholics preserved and provided the world a reliable Bible. Why do Catholics in light of this disregard their own historic work of doing so? It's the apostolic word to the church from Christ, from God. There are a few things that require more study to understand, and we know how the holy men of the early church-the Catholic church-did their study to identify the proper texts. It is duplicatable. It puts you in union with the apostles. God, teaching through the apostles, into the body, the church.
Cameron do we have a complete list of successors of the Apostles, just like we have a complete list of the successors of Peter? If the Orthodox church doesn't have this, how and why do they deny the supremacy of Rome or Peter?
The truth is Jesus Christ build only one church through His Apostle Simon Peter only with THE AUTHORITY OF HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, NOT EVEN THROUGH 11 APOSTLES BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH and Simon Peter died there in Rome and his tomb is there in Rome and the popes are the successors which they preach continually the Kingdom of God right from Apostle Simon Peter only. Because only CHRIST the son of GOD can build the church and THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, HE IS A LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN IN THE HOLY BLESSED SACRAMENT TO FEED OUR SOUL WHO BELIEVE AND RECEIVE HIM WITH OUR HUMBLE HEART. JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY THE TRUTH AND LIFE.
THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BUILDINGS THAT ANY MEN CAN BUILD THEIR OWN CHURCHES. But there are thousand of protestants churches they build their own church and with their own authorities they search the scriptures from the words of God itself and they REJECT AND PROTEST AGAINST THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
John 5:39-40 - Jesus Christ said "you search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life and it is they that bear witness to Me; yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life"
John 5:42-43 - Jesus said "but I know that you have not the love of God within you". 43] "I have come in My Father's name and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive". 44] "how can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?".
John 6:64-65 - Jesus said "but there are some of you that do not believe. For Jesus knew from the first who those were that not believe and who it was that betray HIM". 65] and He said "this is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father".
John 10:25-26 - Jesus said "I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness to Me; but you do not believe BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP".
Luke 22:31-32- Jesus prayed for our Catholic Church which He build only one church through His Apostle Simon Peter only with the authority of His heavenly Father "SIMON, SIMON, BEHOLD, SATAN DEMANDED TO HAVE YOU THAT HE MIGHT SIFT YOU LIKE WHEAT, BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU THAT YOUR FAITH MAY NOT FAIL AND WHEN YOU HAVE TURNED AGAIN STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN".
Mark 4:11-12 - Jesus said to His 12 Apostles "to you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn again and be forgiven".
Mark 13:5-6 -Jesus warned us "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray".
Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "FALSE CHRISTS AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO LEAD ASTRAY, IF POSIBBLE, THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND".
MARK 13:31- Jesus said "HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY".
The Vatican keep amazing records on all of that!
The Orthodox have Apostolic succession as well, but they deny the authority of Peter’s successor.
Just as satan used scripture to test Jesus in the desert, Protestants also use scripture to test Christ's church.
And Jesus responded with scripture, not an infallible magisterium teaching.
If the ROMAN part of the catholic Church accepts the canonical value of the Koine Greek scriptures, why do they extend Peter's commission to include all Bishops of Rome, and from where do they derive 'apostolic succession'? 'Sola scriptorum' does not work for the justification of the ROMAN catholic Church.
They got it from the lips of Jesus. One of the first things the apostles did after the resurrection was to replace the OFFICE of Judas (Acts 2). Jesus promised that he would sent the spirit of truth to be with the apostles forever. (John 14) That implies a succession of leadership. We don't rely on the NY Scripture as authority since the church was in operation with its doctrines in finished or seed form decades before the first NT writer started writing.
Facts
@@bridgefin you're not taking the scriptures at face value as the Catholics claim they do. You're interpreting it that way, to mean succession of leadership, because it is not clearly stated. Turns out, interpretation also has to exist in the Catholic Church.
Sola Scriptura is not a biblical teaching. It’s a man made one. Not through spiritual guidance of the Holy Spirit.
@@Letmec0mmentplz
Scriptures plus tradition leads to truth. Throw in a bit of history in the mix and you also get more clarity to confirm what was actually believed.
I hope everyone will reject being Protestants and also reject being Roman Catholic, and at last be Christians only, as they were in the New Testament.
We don’t need denominational manuals, confessions, statements of faith, and catechisms. We need the Holy Bible, the inspired word of God, which tells us “all that pertains to life and Godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Reject man made religion and “abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9).
Greetings from the church mentioned in Romans 16:16.
But the bible tells us that Jesus founded a Church.
@CameronRiecker Yeah but the Church has nothing to do with denominations or the names of certain buildings. It all has to do with those who Christ adds to His church.
Regarding Cameron’s pinned comment. How can you know the Old Testament canon compiled by the Jewish people was correct when they had no infallible magisterium? Also the councils of Rome, Carthage and Synod of Hippo were all local councils and weren’t infallible. Without an infallible list of what councils were and weren’t infallible you can’t definitively establish those councils to be infallible and it becomes an infinite regression. There was no purported infallible declaration of the canon until the Council of Trent 1500 years later. Just as the prophets who heard Gods word didn’t need an infallible interpreter to establish it was Gods word, so the early church also accepted scripture collectively with contention on some books. The scriptures were
accepted by the early church as a bottom up process not top down and the writings of the apostles, as attested to in Peter and Timothy were considered scripture. Also please stop conflating evangelical Protestants with classical Protestants arising from the reformation (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) which all affirm infant baptism and the real presence. While you can say “oh but those denominations don’t believe in transubstantiation” neither did the church until post schism hence the eastern churches don’t probe the real presence with scholasticism but leave it as a mystery (as the word sacrament literally comes from the Greek word mysterion) but affirm it as truly being his body and blood, as do classical Protestants.
The original apostles never would have considered themselves as catholic especially Roman Catholic. They never would have known such concepts.
Saint John the apostle died around 90 AD. Twenty years after his death, his student, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, used the term "Catholic Church" to refer to the church in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 AD. They did understand the concepts of the Catholic Church because they taught them to their students, who were the Early Church Fathers and who wrote about them. If you read the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Irenaeus and other Early Church Fathers, you will find that they are full of Catholic teachings.
@RitaGatton the evidence of the death of apostle John is well genuine. The Greek word for church is called out one's . and no such buildings as cathedral or churches as we tend to think. The Jews gathered in each other dwellings , and synagogues were used after the destruction of the temple. You forget the Jewishness of the apostles,. and you did not address my full question especially Roman Catholic.
@@frederickanderson1860so why did Protestants for the majority build buildings and large street signs accompanying those nice mega and non mega buildings, use the same structures that were once Catholic and not remain in homes like the early Christians if the structural component is an issue? I understand there are home churches and now with the cyber church (internet) we don’t even need to gather in those. We can forsake a physical assembly for a spiritual one since that’s the true church anyways right?
@kevinmc62 evolution means change in any forms be it in architecture or art or theological assumptions. We can't think of a creator who does not change, when we observe it in nature in historical ages. Again you did not reply inmy full question regarding the apostles of Israel considered as Roman Catholic
@ so you have no problem with change? Apostles of Israel changed into Christians. Catholic Christians. Roman because Rome is the seat of the Catholic Church. Christians are a part of Christ’s body. A change happens to all of us. If you don’t recognize Catholicism as the true church and yet you’re part of the body by way of your baptism then you are saved in spite of your beliefs and joined to the Pope and me and all of us who are a part of the Church established by Christ.
I want to convert to Catholicism but I’m struggling with how the catechism teaches Muslims adore the same God as us even though they reject him if I can get past this I’ll convert i feel like I need an explanation on how you can reject Jesus and still claim to worship the same God
I actually wish that the claims exclusive to the catholic denomination were true. It would certainly simplify certain things and set me on a bit of an easy mode. Unfortunately Rome is not defensable from church history and at it's base is circular logic.
If you're Catholic, no need to stop being catholic if you have Christ, though, that's what matters.
God bless you bro.for sharing the catholic faith ,more videos and more power to you
Seeing as the jewish scriptures already existed at the time of jesus that is part of what others would have used to judge the claims of the apostles and jesus so there most definitely was room for individual judgment .
to put a few objections:
in the scripture you yourself cited the apostles only look for one of the disciples who knew Jesus, and as their successors did not personally know Jesus, they hold not the same infallibility.
we do not reject a magisterial office of the apostles, we reject the infallibility of that office, and attribute infallibility to the apostles and to statements which can be proven by scripture, for st athanasius said Scripture is sufficient for all things and “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17)
also your point that people looked to the apostles to see if they had the right faith is protestant, we look to the Apostles and the Church Fathers in order to know the roman church has errored on matters of faith and doctrine.
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”
John 6:37-39 KJV
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
John 6:44 KJV
The Father is who gives us Faith to Believe in the Gospel of His son Jesus Christ! The Father gives us everything and Jesus Christ says He will never lose Believers in Him!
Why do Roman Catholics try to act so authoritative as if they are the ones that controls man’s destiny with God?
Judas undermines your whole premise.
I'm a Protestant who believes in infant baptism and true and real feasting on Christ in the Eucharist (like Luther and Calvin), and i believe there is an infallible transmitter of the Scriptures: the Holy Spirit. Sure, no one is an infallible interpreter of the Holy Spirit today, but is there anyone in the Roman system worthy of being an infallible interpreter of the papacy? A lot of these radical relavitism arguments can be fired back at Rome.
Yes, the infallible interpreter is the magisterium of the church which is the bishops of the church in union with the pope.
The amount of idolatry and extra biblical man made doctrine in Catholicism is insane.
Let me rephrase… Catholicism IS idolatry and extra biblical man made doctrine.
How can people be so blind?!
Follow Jesus and the Bible and nothing else!
If you can show me where Jesus teaches Sola Scriptura, I’ll believe it.
@@CameronRiecker I love all my Catholic brothers and sisters dearly. I also don’t believe you’re going to hell because of the extra mountain of added doctrine. But so many of the man made teachings are obvious deceptions.
And don’t even get me started on the Pope and the Catholic Church / Vatican as a political org… blatantly evil….
All that being said there is one thing I greatly respect about my Catholic brothers and sisters. Generally there is a greater reverence of God’s holiness as opposed to many Protestants who have gone to far the other direction.
On the other hand! The faith filled Protestants I know take purity and the holy spirt way more seriously opposed to Catholics who just make sure to check the religious boxes regularly.
Generally I see adult Catholics as more likely to simply be “Cultural Catholics” while adults Protestants have a living faith and are in tune with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
I’ll be honest it feels like a total waste to argue against my Catholic brothers and sisters. I literally never do it. I have so many other missions to pour into.
Pray to Jesus not to Mary. God bless you.
@@kgeo2686What specifically do you disagree with in the video? Please bracket with time stamps.
@@kgeo2686
You would be better to ignore behavior of people and focus on the acts of Jesus. Jesus established one church and it is thus 2000 years old. Even the Reformers said that was the Catholic Church. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church and he promised that the spirit of truth would be with it forever. You have no such promise of protection or truth where you are and you have zero authority to declare true doctrine. And that's why it would be frustrating to argue against a well informed Catholic.
@ Did you seriously just say Jesus established the Catholic Church? This is the type of delusion that is shocking to me…
Jesus would have called out all Catholics for idolatry and communing with the dead. Plain and simple.
Nobody comes to the father except through him.
Not through Mary, not through saints, and definitely not through beads.
Oh and then there’s the Popes who think themselves above Jesus, and the Vatican marketplace.
I wish you would try to convert non-believers to Christianity rather than believers to your views.
Jesus care about what believers believe. He wants us all to be Catholic.
@@CameronRiecker Jesus wants us to have a relationship with him.
Aren’t these a bit clickbait
Maybe lol
Nice theory. Totally disconnected to history.
Thanks for the comment 😁
I’d recommend reading John Henry Newman’s Development of Doctrine.
Indeed faith is not an easy thing to have in you,for a person to have faith must learn first of the many things that Jesus Christ taught himself to his Apostles and find understanding of those many things that Jesus taught and do those things that Jesus was warning those who were calling him lord lord and Jesus told them why do you call me lord and NOT DO THE THINGS THAT I TELL YOU?🤔,excellent video presentation my catholic brother yeah amen 🙏 🐑🕊️✨🔥
Protestantism is just about self righteousness
I don't know about self righteousness but it is defo a sign of pride to think that you do not need any authority to interpret the scriptures but somehow the Holy Spirit gives YOU the correct understanding (as opposed to those other pesky protestants who don't believe the way you do).
That’s Catholicism. Man wanted the power back and therefore made up all extra biblical doctrine.
@@kgeo2686 Sola scripture is why I left Protestantism it's self contradictory
This is such an interesting comment. Protestantism is ALL ABOUT the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us on the basis of faith (Php 3:9).
Catholicism teaches that we make ourselves righteous by meriting the graces necessary for righteousness, and therefore salvation.
CCC 2027 ..."we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty the catechism says its through the holy spirit we merit grace it doesn't say by works
You are adding words to the catechism further proof Protestantism is about self righteousness
Very many problems with your arguments here - I can't get into all of them because I have to get going from my office here (was listening while at work).
I'll name just a couple:
1) Even the Catholic Church admits that EO, OO, etc... have valid apostolic succession. So simply appealing to apostolic succession is not enough to get you to Catholicism. You seem to forget that you have much more work to do beyond that.
2) We do not "have to be certain" that we have the correct transmission, interpretation, etc. In fact, you can't be certain in principle about questions like this. We have certainty about an incredibly small subset of our beliefs... and the truth of RC is certainly not one of those beliefs you could possibly be certain of.
That's all I've got time for. These arguments are specious at best, but I appreciate your effort. I can tell you put a lot of effort into these videos, and I like the new camera set-up. God bless you.
When quoting acts you inserted your own words "the first pope". That sir is adding to the scriptures. We have all that Jesus taught the apostles in the bible. Nothing added, nothing taken away. No middle man made traditions needed brah. I do love these click bait titles though, so keep it up.
That interpolation was of course my own addition as I hope was made obvious by the fact that I included the Scripture text on the screen 😄
A Catholic is trying to make the argument that protestants do not hold to scripture alone? When they don't believe that scripture is inerrant, and that their church fathers and history are just as authoritative as Christ's own teaching??? Make it make sense lol.
This guy keeps guaranteeing that people will convert to Catholicism, but I've watched a lot of his videos and I've never been more sure of the reformed Faith. The guy is a walking contradiction
Respectfully, please don't misrepresent the Catholic position in your response. We believe Sacred Scripture is inerrant (materially sufficient); we don't believe it is infallible (formally sufficient). There is no book anywhere that is infallible. The reason is that fallibility and infallibility requires an active agent, a human decision/understanding/interpretation. The Bible does not interpret itself and perspicuity of Scripture is proven to be demonstrably false. We believe that Sacred Scripture is inerrant and the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You may disagree with that and that is fine, but please don't say we don't believe the Bible is inerrant
How can you hold to a religion that didn't exist for 1500 years after Christ?
@@wm6134 you literally told me that you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then proceeded to tell me that you didn't. Or are you unaware that inerrancy and infallibility are interchangeable and have the same meaning? "Incapable of error, certain, accurate, perfect, flawless, faultless, unimpeachable, authoritative" are all words you will find in the thesaurus related to them. So you cannot say you believe the Bible to be inerrant, but not infallible. It's a contradiction, regardless of what the Catholic Church would like the definitions to be.
@Letmec0mmentplz They are absolutely not the same thing and that's your issue. Inerrancy means the material is not in error: Materially sufficient. Infallibility means the interpretation is not in error: Formal sufficient. They are NOT interchangeable words and aren't used that way. To extract meaning from a text (fallible/infallible) requires agency, active agent. The Bible is not a Ouija board. It doesn't tell you the meaning. Take Holy Communion for example. People interpret it (fallibly and infallibly), but the material itself is not in error.
@@Letmec0mmentplz There are hundreds of Protestant denominations, many professing different beliefs on core doctrines. Those core doctrines are mutually exclusive. Example some believe in baptismal regeneration and some believe in symbolic believer's baptism. If the Bible is infallible, both can't be right. Same with eternal security and losing your salvation, transubstantiation and symbolic communion, etc. You can't attribute that every protestant denomination that believes something different is maliciously twisting Scripture. Yet they can't all be right. The Bible is not in error but one's interpretation can be. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant, but not infallible because fallibility and infallibility require agency. It's not difficult.
The Roman Catholic Church isn't mention in the Bible. The RCC traditions isn't mention in the Bible. The pope that rule over one church isn't mention in the Bible. If Peter gospel was perfect when he spread God word while he was living, it should be perfect now. The RCC keeps on adding to Peter, Apostles, and Jesus teachings. Just think if they follow Christ teaching as the Roman Catholic Church say they do , the Church should sell all the Vatican, gold, silver, old photos, and etc. then the church can almost end world hungry, spread the RIGHT gospel to every country, and give homes to homeless. The teaching of Christ is to spread God word of his Son who died on the cross and the resurrection of his Son. God never intended a church should build a country with wealth, power, and etc. Sell the Vatican to help human kind!!!
You: ... isn't mention in the Bible... isn't mention in the Bible.
Me: Also missing from the bible is any requirement that you find all doctrines and practices mentioned in the BIble.
You: the Church should sell all the Vatican, gold, silver, old photos, and etc. then the church can almost end world hungry,
Me: Wrong. Jesus said that the poor would be with us always. Those were donated for the spiritual enhancement and to bring man closer to God. That is better than feeding stomachs.
You: Sell the Vatican to help human kind!!!
Me: The church already feeds more people on the planet than any other organization on the planet. Come walk with us in this mission.
@@bridgefin So I am assuming you don't what to give up billions of dollars from the Vatican to help the poor and homeless. Yes, the Catholic does a lot for people but why stop there, go all the way. After the Vatican is sold and the gold is given to help the world and guess what you will still have the poor. So, please sell it. The Roman Catholic Church says it was built by Peter as the first pope. Why then add to Peter gospel? Peter said silver and gold have i none but in the name a Jesus he healed a man. The Roman Catholic Church can't say that. They have silver, gold, portraits, building and land. God never intended that a church should have its country and SIT upon wealth for it glory. I did visit the Vatican and it was very nice but a little expensive to enter in.
@@bridgefinAfter selling the Vatican, you will still have the poor
@@matthewbrown8056
Exactly. So that is not a solution to anything. The Vatican is beautiful and dedicated to God. It leads people to him and thus serves its purpose.
I mean , there is a lot of teaching that seem's too political. Like the infallible Pope, not to mention any other
so many fallacious arguments in this video. False dichotomy after false dichotomy.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
just a few overlooked scriptures. funny how that happens. or are those too hard to interpret? go figure.
Oh, dear....oh dear!🙄
Weak argument who are tou trying to convince
-_-
Whoever needs to hear it will hear :)
@@CameronRiecker We all agree the ministry must go on and we need successors even the apostles.
Yes the pharisees sat in the seat of Moses but they were still wrong they were refuted by the Scriptures. So it isn't a convincing argument that Protestants "Don't get it".
Nonetheless it's good to study scripture and continue to consider facts I just.
@@MobBossPenguinNo the Pharisees didn’t get it either even with God telling them and wanting to invite them in just to be rejected out of pride envy and more
I would recommend this video to teach logical fallacy. Circular reasoning, genetic fallacy, all-or-nothing deduction, red herrings, half-truths, it's all here. Any Greek Orthodox or Patristics reader would be able to debunk the historical fallacies in this video wthin 2 minutes of hearing it. I guess this is apologetic because it would only convince a nominal catholic to think that the claims here are passable.
John 6 - to equate the words of Jesus with the Roman denomination is laughable and sad because it's idolatry. Jesus words are not Rome's.
History - Rome is the youngest see of the 7. There are 6 older sees that can claim primacy over Rome.
Petrine history - The words of Peter are remarkably quiet in the NT. But we have a lot of Paul and John. I don't see anything in 1 or 2 Peter that would make me convert to Rome.
Western bias - a lot of this fluffery comes from thinking the Latin tradition somehow predates the Greek church, which is patently incorrect. I am not Eastern Orthodox, but as an outsider, I would recommend old catholic authors like Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, John Chrysostom, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr among many others. These old catholics are more informed and less bias toward Rome. These old catholics were writing from the 6 older sees and their environs. Rome is a petulent child, the youngest of the 7. They scream and cry and the other 6 say there there, it will be ok. The church of Jesus is so much bigger than any building or roman religion. Read the Bible, read the church fathers, read Augustine even, but especially, learn about logical fallacies. Roman logic is done at the level of a 5 year old child, they open up John 6 and where it says Jesus they think that means the old bros in Rome. I give the Romans some props, they do some things really well, but when it comes to logic and history, keep in mind that the church in Jerusalem is oldest. Then Antioch and Alexandria and Istanbul (Constantinople), Ephesus, all those places you see in the book of Revelation the first 3 chapters are older.
The end days are coming where the seven bowls will pour out onto the world. Jesus is lord not a teacher. He is the high preist. No other. Jesus revealed gods will through his life. The lesson of the crucification and the advancment of the kingdom of heaven on earth. His duty was not to simply teach it was to save humanity through his suffering. Jesus said. If you do not understand the parable of the wheat and the chaff you can understand no other for they all are about this one. They day is coming when robes, popes, preist, and buildings will not matter. It will all be destroyed to make way for the new world. Praise be to the holiest one. The cross is lucky to have had our lord crucified upon it. It is just wood and rosaries are just necklaces. Ment to keep you further and further from the one who hung upon it. Saints themselves are not holy they are only men and women who shared in the love and devotion to the one true lord of the universe. They are not even fit to untie his sandles.
I listened. I'm still not Catholic.
Brother in Christ, with all due respect, and I know you speak out of a place of goodness, but you don’t seem to understand what Protestantism is…
He was protestant. xD But in a way you are correct. Though even protestants don't know what they protest. There is really one thing that protestants unite: the rejection of the Church. The rest is up for grabs, don't you agree?
You mean well but you know nothing on how the Spirit leads men.
And you of course know !! 😄 But St John the Apostle got a quite clear answer for you here:
1 John 4:1-2
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
@paulericn.mouafo6610 Good to see you agree.
@@remainhumble6432 Are you sure you got i meant to say ? Then how about this verse ?
Luke 10:16
16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Doesn't Jesus here mention the teaching of his apostles impliying their authority binded with the Holy Spirit?
@@paulericn.mouafo6610 I understand what the verse says. Not sure what you mean. If the Catholic Church could explain what the Pope is up to perhaps you would understand about false teachers and testing the spirits.
The papacy is a gift from God
If Catholics understood this one argument, they'd want to convert to Protestantism... If Christians understood this one argument, they'd want to convert to Hinduism... If (fill in the blank), they'd want to convert to (fill in a different blank). A meaningless argument. There will always be a go-to argument for any belief different from your own. The argument is made even further irrelevant in that 90% of any believers don't question their beliefs but stick to what they were raised with. Pose arguments that challenge your own faith
How about: According to Paul's epistles, we are supposed to be in-filled with the Holy Spirit as manifested in the gifts. There is no priest in-between. The gathered believers are supposed to be more or less equal. Read John 14
Read the Acts of the Apostles to see how the apostles led the early Church. The apostles were the early bishops of the Church. They ordained priests and other bishops. This has continued from the first century up until today for more than two thousand years in the Catholic Church. Jesus established the Catholic Church with a hierarchy when he founded it in Matthew 16:18-19.
@@RitaGatton Paul's AUTHENTIC letters are Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and in virtually every instance where their timeline and that of Acts can be compared, their are discrepancies. Especially relevant is how Paul is quite emphatic in the epistle to the Galatians that after he had his vision of Jesus and came to believe in him, he did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles (1:15-18)
Mark was written after Paul died and the author of Luke and Acts wrote after Mark. Colossus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy are judged to have been written even further away from Paul's lifetime
Even if those inauthentic books are used to support the case for bishops, it is made clear that they and the deacons are to be judged by how well their families behave. They are supposed to be married and have children
@@RitaGatton In Hebrews, the term "priest" is used to refer to Jesus in a theological way. In Revelations, the term "priests to God" refers to the Christian community. In 1 Peter 2:5-9: This passage refers to a universal priesthood, and is based on Exodus 19:6, which says, "And you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation".
A priest as an ordination is not sanctioned by the New Testament and is an insult to Jesus, Who is supposed to be the final sacrifice. Any sacrifice is supposed to be giving up your old life and aiming at letting Christ be in you through the Holy Spirit (John 14). "Sin" originally meant and still means "missing the mark"
the catholic church did not create the canon, God did, and one day it was unanimously accepted as complete. because the apostles had no successors, the canon is closed.
if the scriptures taught infant baptism it would be accepted as per the scriptures.
he who believes and is baptized will be saved. repent and be baptized... those who gladly received his message were baptized....what prevents me from being baptized? if you believe with all your heart, you may. i believe that jesus christ is the son of God....
as for the eucharist, i see it this way. isaiah 55:1-3 eating food and drinking as metaphors.
how about: taste and see that the lord is good. and, i am the bread of life, whoever comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. there is a spiritual hunger and thirst that only jesus satisfies. jesus said; doing his father's will is food to him.
saving faith is an abiding appetite for the lord and a glad consumption of his word.
we are called to feed on the milk and meat of the word. when we come to the table of God's word we are called to eat. solid food is for the mature. these things are all throughout scripture. feeding on the lord. if anyone thirsts, come to me and drink. living water. etc.
at the beginning of jesus dissertation in john 6 he chided the people who followed him just to fill their bellies. but rather, feed on this, feed on me, my flesh broken for you, my blood spilled for you, fill up on these spiritual truths, quit thinking on earthly things. i am the true bread from heaven. get a clue. when he was alone with his disciples, the twelve, he explained all things to them. but when he told them to beware of the leaven of the pharisees they took him seriously, and he chided them for it.
And yet you claim to have the same Divine authority to bind and forgive sins as the Scriptures describes for the apostles and their successors? Truly I say to you that if the Scriptures had everything we needed then they would include abortion, euthanasia, birth control, AI, IVF, cloning, etc
The Catholic Church selected the books of the canon in 392 AD at the Council of Rome. They sent the word out to the existing church all over the Mediterranean world and the existing church accepted it. The apostles had successors who were men whom they had ordained as bishops. Those bishops ordained other bishops (and priests). They have continued to do so continuously up to the current day in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
When i red this first sintence " the catholic church did not create the canon, God did, and one day it was unanimously accepted as complete. ..."
i just stoped there and didn't go forward on reading... don't make yourself fool by your ignorance even your "teachers" would agree the Bible (as it is nowaday) was canonized by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself upon Saint Peter... it's a historic fact not an opinion. it's profitable for you to first study some history of your faith before diving in to the bible and deceive yourself.
The people who wrote the new testament were Catholics
Try harder next time sir. You have misrepresented protestants and have conflated God's teaching (scripture) and the RCC. One must believe in God and His teaching which He preserved in scripture. When you added in that one must believe the Church you were adding your tradition to the requirement of salvation.